Battleground: Environment 2 volumes (Battleground Series)

BATTLEGROUND ENVIRONMENT

i

BATTLEGROUND ENVIRONMENT Robert William Collin

GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut • London

iii

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Collin, Robert W., 1957– Battleground : environment / by Robert William Collin. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978–0–313–33865–6 (set : alk. paper) 978–0–313–33866–3 (v. 1 : alk. paper) 978–0–313–33867–0 (v. 2 : alk. paper) 1. Environmental sciences. 2. Environmental policy. 3. Environmental degradation. 4. Human beings—Effect of environment on. I. Title. II. Title: Environment. GE105.C65 2008 363.7—dc22 2008002114 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2008 by Robert William Collin All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2008002114 ISBN: 978–0–313–33865–6 (set) ISBN: 978–0–313–33866–3 (vol. 1) ISBN: 978–0–313–33867–0 (vol. 2) First published in 2008 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.greenwood.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

iv

These books are dedicated to the spirit and vision of the late Damu Smith, founder of the National Black Environmental Justice Network, and former Greenpeace community organizer in Louisiana and Texas. He recognized and taught that the environmental context of Truth can bring us together to face the environmental controversies in our midst. Battleground: Environment is also dedicated to my two faithful canine research companions, Ambar and Max.

v

CONTENTS Guide to Related Topics

xi

Preface

xv

Introduction

xix

Entries Acid Rain

1

Air Pollution

13

Animals Used for Testing and Research

19

Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling

28

Automobile Energy Efficiencies

36

Avalanches

46

Big-Box Retail Development

49

Brownfields Development

60

Cancer from Electromagnetic Radiation

69

Carbon Offsets

72

Carbon Taxes

75

Cell Phones and Electromagnetic Radiation

79

Childhood Asthma and the Environment

85

vii

viii

| Contents

Children and Cancer

90

Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions

95

Climate Change

102

Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making

109

Community-Based Environmental Planning

115

Community-Based Science

124

Community Right-to-Know Laws

129

Conservation in the World

132

Cultural vs. Animal Rights: The Makah Tribe and Whaling

137

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks

141

Different Standards of Enforcement of Environmental Law

149

Drought

151

Ecological Risk Management Decisions at Superfund Sites

157

Ecosystem Risk Assessment

162

Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity

167

Endangered Species

171

Environment and War

176

Environmental Audits and Environmental Audit Privileges

182

Environmental Impact Statements: International

185

Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal

190

Environmental Impact Statements: United States

194

Environmental Justice

198

Environmental Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

210

Environmental Regulation and Housing Affordability

214

Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas

218

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters

222

Farmworkers and Environmental Justice

231

Federal Environmental Land Use

237

Fire

240

Floods

247

Genetically Modified Food

253

Geothermal Energy Supply

257

Contents | ix

Global Warming

260

Good Neighbor Agreements

265

Hemp

269

Hormone Disruptors: Endocrine Disruptors

271

Human Health Risk Assessment

277

Hurricanes

281

Ice

287

Incineration and Resource Recovery

289

Indigenous People and the Environment

294

Industrial Agricultural Practices and the Environment

298

Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals

302

Land Pollution

309

Land-Use Planning in the United States

314

Landslides and Mudslides

318

Lead Exposure

329

Litigation of Environmental Disputes

333

Logging

339

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

344

Mining of Natural Resources

351

Mountain Rescues

354

Multicultural Environmental Education

357

Nanotechnology

363

National Parks and Concessions

366

Nuclear Energy Supply

369

Organic Farming

375

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air

381

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water

388

Persistent Organic Pollutants

394

Pesticides

398

Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading

407

Poverty and Environment in the United States

413

Precautionary Principle

417

x

| Contents

Preservation: Predator Management in Oregon

423

Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions

426

Rain Forests

433

Sacred Sites

437

Ski Resort Development and Expansion

440

Solar Energy Supply

448

Sprawl

452

State Environmental Land Use

457

Stock Grazing and the Environment

460

Supplemental Environmental Projects

462

Sustainability

469

“Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution

475

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water

481

Toxic Waste and Race

485

Toxics Release Inventory

491

Transportation and the Environment

494

Trichloroethylene (TCE) in Water Supplies

500

True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics

502

Tsunami Preparation

508

Water Energy Supply

513

Water Pollution

520

Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation

524

Wild Animal Reintroduction

529

Wind Energy Supply

532

Appendices A. Environmental Database Programs, Applications, and Portal Web Sites

537

B. Index Chemicals

543

C. Glossary of Environmental Terms

547

General Bibliography

553

About the Author and Contributors

557

Index

559

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS agriculture and environmental controversies Genetically Modified Food Hemp Industrial Agricultural Practices and the Environment Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals Organic Farming

animals and environmental controversies Animals Used for Testing and Research Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling Cultural vs. Animal Rights: The Makah Tribe and Whaling Endangered Species Preservation: Predator Management in Oregon Wild Animal Reintroduction

children and environmental controversies Cancer from Electromagnetic Radiation Cell Phones and Electromagnetic Radiation Childhood Asthma and the Environment Children and Cancer

citizen environmental controversies Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making

xi

xii

| Guide to Related Topics

Community-Based Environmental Planning Community-Based Science Community Right-to-Know Laws

emerging environmental controversies Multicultural Environmental Education Sustainability True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics

energy Automobile Energy Efficiencies Geothermal Energy Supply Nuclear Energy Supply Solar Energy Supply Water Energy Supply Wind Energy Supply

environmental decision making Environmental Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Litigation of Environmental Disputes Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions Supplemental Environmental Projects

fairness and environmental controversies Environmental Audits and Environmental Audit Privileges Environmental Justice Different Standards of Enforcement of Environmental Law Farmworkers and Environmental Justice Indigenous People and the Environment Sacred Sites Toxic Waste and Race

global environmental controversies Acid Rain Air Pollution Climate Change Conservation in the World Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity Environment and War Global Warming Precautionary Principle Rain Forests

Guide to Related Topics | xiii

human environments Brownfields Development Environmental Regulation and Housing Affordability Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas Poverty and Environment in the United States Transportation and the Environment

impact assessment Environmental Impact Statements: International Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal Environmental Impact Statements: United States

industry practices and environmental controversies Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water Persistent Organic Pollutants Pesticides

land use and environmental controversies Big-Box Retail Development Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters Federal Environmental Land Use Good Neighbor Agreements Land-Use Planning in the United States Ski Resort Development and Expansion Sprawl State Environmental Land Use “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation

natural disasters Avalanches Drought Floods Hurricanes Ice Landslides and Mudslides Mountain Rescues Tsunami Preparation

natural resources Logging Mining of Natural Resources

xiv

| Guide to Related Topics

National Parks and Concessions Stock Grazing and the Environment

pollution Incineration and Resource Recovery Land Pollution Lead Exposure Low-Level Radioactive Waste Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water Toxics Release Inventory Trichloroethylene (TCE) in Water Supplies Water Pollution

risks from the environment Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks Ecological Risk Management Decisions at Superfund Sites Ecosystem Risk Assessment Hormone Disruptors: Endocrine Disruptors Human Health Risk Assessment

PREFACE Controversies around environmental issues abound. Human impacts on the environment are larger than ever and expected to grow. Issues of global warming and its human impacts increasingly fill the news. The scientific community is powerful but often feels compromised by politics in environmental conflicts. More laws are passed and court cases litigated. Air and water quality are still eroding in many areas. As human populations swell, conflicts over water quantity and quality will increase. Wars around the globe leave environmental devastation along with land mines. Vulnerability to natural disasters, like hurricanes Katrina and Rita, will increase in coastal communities and significantly impact inland communities in the United States. All these modern social dynamics raise the profile of environmental controversy to a new level that stresses environmental literacy, accurate science, and preventative public policies. This in turn expands the popular mental construct of environment to include public health and urban areas for the first time. In this process old controversies of race and class are revived, and new controversies about cumulative impacts and sustainability begin. The discussion of environmental controversies here includes both old and new environmental controversies. Communities, scientists, government agencies, health care professionals, and industry are all engaged in these conflicts. Teachers, librarians, professors, researchers, parents, and engaged citizens seek to learn more about these environmental issues to keep up with the rapidly expanding environmental literacy of their students and children. Media accounts of these conflicts focus on the adversarial nature of the conflict and overlook other aspects of the conflict, many of which remain unresolved. Judicial decisions alone also suffer from this narrow

xv

xvi

| Preface

vision of environmental problem resolution, although these decisions are powerful outposts of policy. The nuances of many environmental controversies lie in the positions and participation of many stakeholders. Each entry identifies the issue involved, various points of view or positions, and approximately where and when the conflict occurred, and explains some of the cultural, social, and political context and dimensions of the conflict. Public policies are described where appropriate. Each entry concludes with a description of the potential for future controversy. Discussions of environmental threat or impairment to future efforts for sustainability are included where relevant. Each entry is followed by a list of cross-references, Web resources, and a short, relevant bibliography suitable for student research. The individual controversies were chosen based upon their actual and potential environmental impact. Some controversies are smaller parts of bigger controversies. The range of most environmental controversies can be global or local. Controversy can explode around environmental issues at flash points, when powerful stakeholders and values clash over a given environmental decision. Research resources, media coverage, and public documents help document these types of controversies as well as capture the student’s imagination. Politics, uncertain science, and public distrust all help push a given issue into the realm of controversy. Environmental issues with serious environmental impacts remain controversial despite politics, science, or trust. They may not go away and may increase exposures for our future generations. Some of these impacts may bioaccumulate or skip generations. Some of these impacts may be perfectly safe and perform socially beneficial and desired functions. There is more than one point of view in every controversy, and they are included. The environmental controversies selected defy easy or quick resolution and have great or potentially great environmental impacts. They are unsettling controversies, with very dynamic information changes. They evoke hard questions, and the entries give a description of the controversy from current stakeholder positions. In describing these complex issues the approach focuses on multiple stakeholders and is factually descriptive and as straightforward and neutral as possible. This compilation of environmental controversies is written to advance the development of environmental literacy and increase the capacity of the public to understand the overarching nature of environmental and ecological controversies. It is specifically written to be understandable to high school students and all members of the public. Technical, scientific, and legal jargon is reduced as much as possible. However, the Web resources and bibliography will take the interested student into these areas if their interest is stimulated. Each entry has one or two sidebars. These are short descriptions of aspects of the environmental controversy designed to spark interest. They often touch upon especially sensitive parts of a given environmental controversy. I would like to express my gratitude for all those who helped with this book. Willamette University–College of Law, President Lee Pelton, and the Center for Community Sustainability provided foundational support that greatly facilitated my work. I am also grateful to my editor at Greenwood Press, Kevin Downing, for his support and timely assistance. Contributing entry authors

Preface

(Robin Morris Collin on sacred sites and on sustainability, Steven Bonnoris’s about supplemental environmental projects, and Cathy Koehn about predator management controversies in Oregon) all made valuable contributions on timely environmental controversies within their expertise and experience. Elizabeth Eames provided timely research assistance for which I am grateful. My spouse, Robin Morris Collin, provided needed moral and intellectual support during the long hours of research and writing. She tirelessly read all the entries and sidebars and constantly acquired new research almost daily. To her I am most appreciative. I would like to thank all my students from Auckland University, New Zealand; Department of Land Economy, Cambridge University; Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, University of Virginia; Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Jackson State MS; Environmental Studies, University of Oregon; and Willamette and Lewis and Clark Law Schools. Many of the environmental controversies discussed in this book were discussed in my courses. Students’ energy and demand for environmental knowledge is a continuing inspiration. So too is the ardent need for environmental information by community groups. Recent advancements in information access have greatly empowered citizen groups. Many of these controversies come from my experience advising the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under both Clinton and Bush administrations. I am grateful to community groups, such as the Environmental Justice Advisory group in Portland, Oregon, and to federal agencies for their persistent engagement with many environmental controversies. The environmental controversies that persist are here. The stakeholders in each controversy change in number and power over time. Political platforms that win elections may be popular, changeable, and unreliable. But these outcomes are not always environmentally sound. Economic regimes that view all nature as a tangible commodity for sale and profit may create an artificial view of human control superseding nature. Social and cultural norms of behavior may value conspicuous consumption as a measure of status and increase environmental impacts. Political, economic, and social reasons gird the current ideas about environmental controversies. There are always powerful stakeholders that benefit from the status quo, from keeping things the way they are right now, and from keeping financial and community expectations safe. All-powerful stakeholders seek to control the battleground by containing the environmental controversy to their own choice of venue or forum. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a very powerful stakeholder representing the government. They control the administrative hearings process for most environmental permits to cities and industries. In fact, one must exhaust all administrative remedies for these types of environmental controversies before a federal court will even hear the substance of it. Through all this, human population increases, human environmental impacts increase faster, and our environmental consciousness and scientific knowledge increase slowly. By increasing the environmental literacy of all stakeholders a common language of the environment can emerge. This is slowly starting

|

xvii

xviii

|

Preface

to happen at international and domestic levels. As this occurs a new way of thinking about the environment also emerges. This paradigm brings with it new controversies like sustainability and the precautionary principle. Environmental controversies will persist and are signs of a healthy and growing environmental consciousness, and hopefully they are those that future generations will face with much greater knowledge.

INTRODUCTION Writing about environmental problems is inherently controversial, and most scholars approach these topics cautiously if at all. This partially explains the lack of scholarship and the increasing coverage of environmental controversies in the media. Scholarship and writing about environmental controversies tend to be divided into narrow disciplinary approaches such as economics, law, business, biology, chemistry, and so forth. While these disciplines are narrow in their approach, they can differ widely from one another. The lack of consistent interdisciplinary approaches to environmental studies has also suppressed research and writing on environmental controversies. Environmental studies curriculum is relatively new and also faces definitional challenges in the political economy of disciplines in higher education. Even though there is increasing media coverage and public policy coverage of environmental controversies, academic writing about multidimensional environmental and ecological controversies is sparse. Interdisciplinary writing, research, teaching, and public service are risky in higher education because of the rigidness and narrowness of disciplinary boundaries. Some environmental education scholars have suggested that environmental studies are really a metadiscipline. Cross-cultural differences abound in approaches to environmental education. In the early 1990s, all seven New Zealand universities required an environmental studies course, generally part of the philosophy program. All 32 Australian universities had an environmental studies course requirement, generally placed in the engineering program. The contrasting approach to environment is reflected in the curriculum of the universities. Most of the entries here span several disciplines and professions. Nanotechnology, for example, is an emerging technology with applications to environmental

xix

xx

|

Introduction

cleanup, computers, war, and medicine. Some have suggested that in the future, nanotechnology could be developed to be self-replicating. It spans the professions and disciplines of engineering, physics, materials science, medicine, and production technology research. The difficulties of higher education with environmental controversy have not stopped the tremendous increase in environmental literacy in communities and in secondary education. Communities and young people are naturally curious about the environment around them. Controversial issues attract their interest and concern. No other single compilation exists of the most controversial environmental issues facing society today. As these controversies have increased so has the need for a comprehensive reference book. These chosen environmental controversies are contextualized for present and future use. Each controversy discusses environmental threats or impairment to future efforts for sustainability. Each entry also discusses in a nontechnical way the potential for future conflict. These features together with the large number of controversies presented are unique characteristics of this reference set. This type of information is essential for emerging U.S. civic environmentalism, growing environmental education programs, and ultimately sustainability. These controversies can emerge in different venues and forums. These are the battlegrounds of controversy. These venues and forums generally include some combination of court cases, legislation, agency administrative hearings, political controversies, and community activism. They can be driven by natural disasters, cumulative impacts, population growth, and the rapidly expanding knowledge base on ecological systems. Environmental injustices that cause public health threats can create controversy and remain as powerful grassroots environmental issues. Environmentalists pushing for sustainability on an ecosystem basis often find exploited environments in communities of exploited people. Issues of racism, cancer clusters, and high childhood exposures to toxins exist in degraded landscapes. These conflicts within society at large will shape policy around the world. As the United States unavoidably embarks on a cleanup policy under federal, state, local, and private auspices, communities will seek ways to involve themselves in the environmental decisions of government and industry. Brownfields redevelopment projects, waste siting, and industrial permits are typical environmental decisions that concern residents of a community. There has also been an increasing distrust of government in that communities suspect that it always hides environmental information to protect industry. Environmental controversies are increasing their political profile and saliene in elective processes. While the congressional Black Caucus has always had one of the strongest environmental voting records in the U.S. Congress, other caucuses are now more aware of environmental controversies such as environmental justice and sustainability. The rise of this civic environmentalism is fueled by the growth, development, and implementation of federal, state, and local right-toknow laws. Continued growth of population, waste, and environmental literacy will increase social concern for the role of the community in environmental decision making. These dynamics unavoidably confront long-held traditional beliefs about private property, an ethos of continued growth, and the role of

Introduction

government. The rise of environmental controversies is directly related to the increase in environmental literacy, resulting in challenges to traditionally held values. Governmental agencies that help protect our environment, like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), can seem inaccessible because of their complexity. Environmental agencies are recent additions to U.S. government, and their regulatory systems are new, ever-changing, and evolving in ad hoc ways. As environmental results become obvious and inescapable, people become environmentally literate and self-educated. Often they become politically mobilized and seek redress from government. This increased political engagement in environmental issues often leads to conflict that inevitably engages an environmental agency of the government. The battleground for many of these controversies with agencies is often the courtroom. These battlegrounds are described in nontechnical terms where relevant. The environmental controversies selected are interrelated by 17 or 18 themes. These themes are interrelated with an ecological perspective on the environment. The controversial aspects have pulled them into one battleground or another. For example, the theme of agricultural issues includes topics such as genetically modified food, industrial-feeding operations for animals, and organic farming. The theme of animals and environmental controversies includes entries on animal testing and research, endangered species, and wolf reintroduction. Children and environmental controversies may focus on cancer and asthma in children. Citizen environmental controversies engage the range of controversies around the environment from science, planning, and decision-making perspectives. Emerging environmental controversies include sustainability, multicultural environmental education, and true cost pricing in environmental economics. Professor of Law Robin Morris Collin succinctly describes the core environmental controversies around sustainability in her entry here. The entries on energy provide a range of perspectives on energy supply and its environmental controversies. Entries on environmental decision making discuss the controversies around current methods of environmental decision making—litigation, mediation and alternative dispute resolution, and public participation/involvement. Here, Steven Bonnoris has written a fascinating entry on supplemental environmental projects that can be done in lieu of a fine. Fairness and environmental controversy describes issues of race, class, and environmental benefit/burden. Global environmental controversies discuss acid rain, ecotourism, global warming, rain forests, and the “precautionary principle,” among others. Environmental impact assessment is discussed in three areas of environmental controversy— United States, international, and tribal. There are many points of view on any given environmental controversy. One powerful stakeholder is industry. Industrial permitting processes, pesticides, and persistent organic compounds are some of the entries on this theme. Land use and environmental controversies are an area in which many citizens first engage in an environmental controversy. Big-box retail development, evacuation planning for natural disasters, sprawl, and landuse planning in general are described. Natural resources generate their own set of environmental controversies. Logging, mining, and grazing are covered here.

| xxi

xxii

|

Introduction

Natural disasters also generate a unique set of environmental controversies: Mountain rescues, avalanches, landslides, and tsunami preparation are described, among others. Pollution entries cover lead exposure, low-level radioactive waste, emissions trading, and the “toxics release inventory.” Last, risks from the environment cover ecosystem and human risk assessment, hormone disruptors, and cumulative impacts. All environmental controversies are dynamic. Web resources are provided with each entry to update the reader as to the current status of a given issue. There are some environmental controversies that did not make the final list this time. This compilation is not exhaustive, and new controversies around environmental issues are increasing daily. New information, new technologies such as nanotechnology, and increasing environmental literacy all create new controversies, and new battlegrounds for old controversies. Most U.S. environmental policy has emerged from public controversies. In the late 1960s the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, caught fire twice because of pollution. There were oil spills on the coast of California. One was at San Clemente, home of President Richard Nixon. President Nixon signed the early laws that helped form the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. Early controversies like acid rain merge into new controversies like climate change. It is the context of expanding human awareness of environmental impacts that creates new paradigms, or ways of thinking, about environmental controversies like sustainability. This relationship is inextricably involved with science. Western science has grown in its understanding of our environment and ecology. As such it is inextricably bound with environmental controversies in their discovery, debate, remediation, and resolution. These days science seems remote and removed from everyday life for most people, but the environment and especially risks from environmental sources command the public’s attention. As environmentalism and civic environmentalism rise so will the role of science in everyday life. Science can present some politically inconvenient truths that can cost scientists and others their careers. It can challenge whole economic systems as unsustainable. Private property patterns may have to change to be sustainable. The pursuit of environmental truths in these battlegrounds can be bruising, and they are increasingly unavoidable. The generational transfer of environmental knowledge is especially important for the effective pursuit of sustainable practices. The transfer of knowledge is one of the functions of education in a civil society, which is especially necessary for the leaders of tomorrow. As the role of science increases under civic environmentalism the need for education also increases. In an address called “The Relation of Science to Human Life” Professor Adam Sedgwick discussed the nature of this role. Remember the wise, for they have labored and you are entering into their labors. Every lesson which you learned in school, all knowledge . . . has been made possible to you by the wise. Every doctrine of theology, every maxim of morals, every rule of grammar, every process of mathematics, every law of physical science, every fact of history or geography,

Introduction

which you are taught, is a voice from beyond the tomb. Either the knowledge itself, or other knowledge which led to it, is an heirloom to you from men whose bodies are now moldering in the dust, but whose spirits live forever and whose works follow them, going on, generation after generation, upon the path which they trod while they were on the earth. . . . They are the aristocracy of God, into which not [emphasis added] many nobles, not many rich, not many mighty are called. Most of them were poor; many all but unknown in their own time; many died and saw no fruit of their labors; some were persecuted, some were slain as heretics, innovators, and corruptors of youth. (Vlahakis et al. 2006, 327) The environment provides the most honest witness possible regarding humans and our environmental impacts. Scientists, communities, and environmentalists unfolding the mysteries of nature inevitably fall into battlegrounds of environmental controversy. These battlegrounds push research, law, and public policy to evolve further. The men and women who have engaged these controversies are the “the wise” discussed by Professor Sedgwick. By engaging in these controversies it is hoped that future wise men and women can learn about the environmental issues of the past, quickly enough to prevent further environmental degradation. REFERENCE Vlahakis, George N., Isabel Maria Malaquais, Nathan M. Brooks, François Regourd, Feza Gunergun, and David Wright. 2006. Imperialism and Science: Social Impact and Interaction. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

| xxiii

A ACID RAIN When pollution enters the atmosphere it can form rain, which can increase the acidity of precipitation, with environmental consequences. Environmentalists and affected communities and countries challenged industry over the environmental consequences in this early battleground. BACKGROUND Science, environmentalists, and industry clashed in this important environmental controversy. Issues focused on whether the wind could carry these chemicals that far, and whether they had any significant environmental impact. For a variety of reasons, certain areas and species were affected first and became persuasive environmental examples of the need for a national policy. Fundamental issues of governmental intervention at the federal level to regulate industrial growth in the name of unproven science and environmental advocacy were reflected in Congress and the Clean Air Act of 1970, amended in 1990. Now there is consensus that environmental pollutants can be carried long distances by wind and other media. In the early years of governmental regulation of pollution there was a battle about how far pollution would go in a region. There is also general agreement that the Clean Air Act did reduce some chemical emissions, and needs to do the same with other regulated chemicals. The acceptance of national governmental intervention and some success with an early policy paved the way to bigger battlegrounds of global warming and climate change.

1

2

| Acid Rain

ACID RAIN DYNAMICS Moisture in the atmosphere forms small droplets of rain that gradually become larger and heavier and sink to the ground as rain. These droplets can form around dust, particulate matter, and each other. There are many sources for the pollution that forms the acid in rain. There is consensus that it is primarily industrial air emissions that contribute to acid rain. Large coal-fired power plants and factories add to this problem. The prevailing air currents carry these emissions all across the United States and the rest of the world. Airborne emissions from other industrialized and newly industrialized nations also travel long distances to other countries. This is the reason the direction of the prevailing winds can determine the deposition of acid onto architecture and statuary. Once the acidic gases have been emitted into the atmosphere, they follow prevailing wind circulation patterns. Most industrialized areas of the world are located within the midlatitude westerly belt, and their emissions are carried eastward before being deposited. Acid rain is possible anywhere precipitation occurs. Early scientific controversies were about the number of tree species affected and its longterm ecological impacts. Current controversies are about whether the problem has been solved. It has a greater environmental impact than predicted by early studies. Although sulfur emissions have decreased, other emissions have increased. Some contend that mercury deposition has increased, and others consider the scope of environmental regulation inadequate. DOES AIR POLLUTION CAUSE ACID RAIN? Historical weather data come from precipitation records, ice cores, and tree borings. They show an increase in acid rain starting in the late 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. This was also the same approximate time as a large industrial expansion in the United States, and before the implementation of clean air policy in the early 1970s. Many U.S. cities used coal and natural gas in their everyday activities depending on the dominant industry. Acidity causes metals, such as aluminum or lead, to become soluble in water. Once in the water acid affects plants and fish and is considered toxic to both. Acid deposition is directly damaging to human health. Its ability to corrode metals, from lead and copper pipes, for example, can be toxic to humans. The sewer and water infrastructures of many older U.S. cities have lead pipes. Increased concentrations of sulfur dioxide and other oxides of nitrogen in the air, common industrial emissions, have been causally related to increased hospital admissions for respiratory illness. In areas that have a large concentration of these airborne industrial emissions, there is an increase in chest colds, asthma, allergies, and coughs in children and in other vulnerable populations. When communities learn that there is acid in the rain that is caused by the polluted air they also breathe, concern increases. There is a strong public health concern with these industrial emissions besides acid rain. Acid deposition refers to the process of moving acids to the land part of a given ecology. The acids then move through the top surface of the earth, through the soil, vegetation, and surface waters. As metals, such as mercury, aluminum,

Acid Rain | 3

and lead, are set free from the increased acidity from the rain, they can have adverse ecological effects. There is also concern that some of the metals may bioaccumulate and intensify as they move up the food chain. The sustainability of an ecosystem depends on how long it takes for the system to recover, in this case from acid in the rain. The ability of some ecosystems to neutralize acid has decreased due to the cumulative impacts of acid rain over time. This slows the recovery of other parts of the ecosystem. This is why environmentalists contend that recent decreases in some industrial emissions are not likely to bring about full ecosystem recovery. The cumulative impacts in spite of partial environmental regulation of acid rain pollutants have damaged sensitive areas of the Northeast, such as the Adirondack State Park, by impairing their ability to recover from acid shock events. HOW DOES ACID RAIN AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT? Acid rain has a range of effects on plant life. Sensitive species go first. Part of the battleground of the acid rain controversy is which species are affected and the scope of the problem. Acid rain goes anywhere it rains or snows. Crops used for food or other purposes can be negatively affected. Acid rain effects on plants depend on the type of soil, the ability of the plant to tolerate acidity, and the actual chemicals in the precipitation. Soils vary greatly from one location to another. Soils with lime are better capable of buffering or neutralizing acids than those that are sandier or weathered acidic bedrock. In other soils increasing acidity causes the leaching of plant nutrients. The heavy metal aluminum causes damage to roots. This can interfere with the plants’ ability to absorb nutrients such as calcium and potassium. The loss of these nutrients affects the plants’ ability to grow at normal and productive rates, and the intake of metals increases their potential toxicity. For example, acid deposition has increased the concentration of aluminum in soil and water. Aluminum has an adverse ecological effect because it can slow the water uptake by tree roots. This can leave the tree more vulnerable to freezing and disease. ACID RAIN AND DIRECT GOVERNMENT ACTION On September 13, 2007, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol. It was signed in Canada, a country highly motivated to solve air pollution problems because of acid rain. This landmark environmental treaty required the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals and compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. There is scientific consensus that these compounds erode the stratospheric ozone layer. Ozone protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. This radiation can cause cancer, among other environmental impacts. To date 191 countries have signed the protocal. The United States implemented many parts of it more quickly and at less cost than expected. The thinning of the ozone layer mostly stopped in 1988 and 1989, almost immediately after treaty reductions began to take effect. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 6.3 million U.S. lives will be saved as a direct result of worldwide efforts to implement the Montreal Protocol requirements.

4

| Acid Rain

The early successes of the Montreal Protocol laid the groundwork for a national approach to acid rain in the United States. The 1990 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) mandated report to Congress concluded that acid deposition had not caused the decline of trees other than red spruce growing at high elevations. This was a large scientific controversy because it had policy implications for the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Some contended that 20 years of the Clean Air Act was enough and that air pollution was no longer a severe problem. Others strongly disagreed. Recent research shows that acid deposition has contributed to the decline of red spruce trees and other important trees throughout the eastern United States. Other species such as black flies increase under acid rain conditions. Indicator species and mammals at the high end of the food chain show high levels of some of the pollutants in acid rain, which indicates how pervasive the chemical exposure is in the environment. For example, sugar maple trees in central and western Pennsylvania are also now declining. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 included specific provisions about acid rain. LAKES, RIVERS, AND STREAMS Acid rain falls to the Earth and gradually drains to the oceans via rivers, lakes, and streams. Acid deposition erodes the water quality of lakes and streams. It causes lakes to prematurely age, speeding up a natural process of eutrophication. It does this in part by reducing the species diversity and aquatic life. Fish are considered an indicator species of ecological health. However, ecosystems are made up of food webs, and fish are just one part of that. Entire food webs are often negatively affected and weakened. Environmentalists and those interested in sustainability are very concerned about ecosystem effects and are very involved in acid rain discussions. THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND ACID RAIN Early concerns about acid rain provided a strong impetus to early Clean Air Act legislation. The Clean Air Act was strong, groundbreaking environmental policy. It was never complete in its coverage, nor strong in its enforcement. Legislative and legal exceptions have developed. Emissions and acid deposition remain high compared to background conditions. The Clean Air Act did decrease sulfur dioxide emissions, yet these emissions remain high. Enforcement on nitrogen oxides and ammonia is sporadic. Emissions of these compounds are high and have remained unchanged in recent years. There are other emissions, such as mercury, that have only recently been regulated. The holes in environmental policy often appear as environmental impacts. Is the Clean Air Act enough? This is still a large controversy, going far beyond the debate about acid rain. Some research shows that the Clean Air Act is not sufficient to achieve ecosystem recovery. As the battlefield has moved from acid rain, to clean air environmental policy, to global warming and climate change, this important policy question is certain to be revisited many times.

Acid Rain | 5 THE ADIRONDACK PARK AND ACID RAIN The Adirondack Mountains represent one of the first observable impacts of acid rain in the United States. It was an early battleground, pitting environmental conservationists against Midwestern industrial interests. Scientists also had many controversies here, primarily in the area of environmental impact assessment. The Adirondack Mountains are located in the Adirondack Park, in upstate New York. New York State was an early center for industry and commerce. Many wealthy families recreated in the Adirondack Mountains. It was considered one of the major sources of water for New York City and other growing metropolitan areas along the Hudson River. The Adirondack Park is one of the largest state parks in the United States. The park is a group of public and private lands protected under state law. About 2.6 million acres within the park are owned and managed by New York State. About 3.5 million acres are owned by private property owners. In general they work in cooperation, but conflicts can arise. Usually private property owners want to develop their land and the Adirondack Park refuses to allow it. The Adirondack Park was established by the New York State Legislature in 1892. New York State gave it more protection in 1894, when these words were added to the New York State Constitution: The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. The term forever wild resonated with environmentalists of the day and helped organize a national preservationist movement. This movement was an important part of the national parks movement later. New York State has kept its pledge, although some question if it is still forever wild. Throughout the Adirondack Forest Preserve, New York State now maintains over 2,000 miles of marked trails. The state operates about 42 campgrounds of differing types. There are also many private cabins and campgrounds. The Adirondack Park contains 54 species of mammals and about 200 species of birds. Many of them are in the 17 wilderness areas with a total area of about one million acres. About 1.3 million acres of Forest Preserve land are classified as wild forest. There are about 30,000 miles of rivers and streams and 2,800 lakes and ponds. Many people canoe and kayak these lakes and streams. Wildlife preservation and high levels of human usage make the effects of acid rain all the more observable. One new emerging battleground is the development of a permit system for recreational users. Many private property owners in the park would object to this if it prevented their use of the property, but otherwise support it. Environmental groups are concerned that it may restrict access unevenly but recognize that human overuse is environmentally degrading areas already weakened by acid rain. The Adirondack Park suffered intensive damage from acid rain. It was literally the bellwether for the political controversy about acid rain that helped open up the first major era of environmental regulation in the United States. Coal-fired energy plants in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and western New York emit large amounts of sulfur and nitrogen and other chemicals. These emissions are carried Northeast via the jet stream and prevailing

6

| Acid Rain

wind patterns. The first set of mountains they hit are the Adirondack Mountains. They can form acidic clouds. The clouds are laden with heavy amounts of nitric and sulfuric acid that falls as rain onto the Adirondack Mountains. This precipitation can be more acidic than natural rain, with a pH of 3.3 or less. Now, about 18 percent of the lakes and ponds in the Adirondack Park are too acidic to support plants and aquatic wildlife. This does not include lakes and ponds outside the park’s boundaries. The Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation determined that 27 percent of all 2,800 lakes and ponds in the park remain at a pH of less than 5.0 all year. This is considered too low in this context. Few species can live in a pH lower than 5.5, including rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, fathead minnow, clam, snail, and mayfly. Each spring, as the previous winter’s snow melts, the pH drops to 5.0 causing an acid shock. Acid shock can also occur when the precipitation takes the form of fog or snow. The EPA estimates that 43 percent of the park’s lakes and ponds will be irreparably damaged by the year 2040 if there are no greater controls on air pollution. This is the subject of intense controversy. EPA scientists say that reduction of both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to a level 70 to 75 percent below 1990 levels is necessary to prevent this.

Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Now Mercury The Adirondacks are located downwind of numerous coal-burning power plants. Their emission of mercury contributes significantly to mercury pollution here. The largest single source of mercury emissions in the United States is coal-fired electric utilities. In the last five years there has been an expansion of coal-fired power plants in some regions. In 1997, the EPA found that 60 percent of the total mercury deposited in the United States came from human, or anthropogenic, air emission sources. Humans have an even greater ecological footprint and impact in certain regions, called hot spots. Atmospheric deposition, or acid rain, is the major contributor to the formation of biological mercury hot spots. Ninety-six percent of the lakes in the Adirondack region exceed the recommended EPA action level for methylmercury in fish. New York has posted 32 mercury health warnings covering 59,228 acres of lakes. More than 50 New York State lakes, rivers, and reservoirs are said to contain fish that are unsafe to eat due to high mercury levels. Children and fetuses exposed to mercury can suffer from a cluster of behavior problems. Impacts include poor attention span, impaired language development, impaired memory and vision, problems with processing information, and impaired fine motor coordination. Some research indicates that 1 in 12 women of childbearing age has an unsafe blood level of mercury. Three hundred thousand at-risk children are born each year with increased risk for neurological problems and developmental disorders because of mercury exposure. It is estimated that fish in the Northeast had mercury levels 10 times higher than considered acceptable by the EPA human health criteria. This has occurred in areas of the Great Lakes, and other lakes, rivers, and streams near air pollution sources.

How Does Mercury Get into the Air? When mercury is emitted from a site, it enters the atmosphere. Atmospheric mercury can travel over long distances before it is deposited back on Earth. Bacteria in soils, water, and

Acid Rain | 7 sediments convert this mercury to methylmercury. In this form, it is consumed by plants and animals. Fish that eat these plants and animals accumulate methylmercury in their bodies, sometimes in the fatty tissues and sometimes in the nervous systems. Cultures that eat fish caught from dangerous sites and eat them whole face greater risk. One of the early battlegrounds was the fish studies and difference, by ethnicity of the angler, in risk from fish consumption. Store bought fish is often only the fillets, which can have lower concentrations of toxic chemicals depending on the fish. Cultures that consume the whole fish are much more exposed to metals that bioaccumulate in the fat or nervous systems of the fish. As fish higher up the food chain eat smaller fish, the methylmercury is concentrated further. This process is called bioaccumulation. As atmospheric mercury enters the soil, biological and chemical processes transform elemental mercury into methylmercury. Methylmercury is the most toxic form of mercury and does not degrade or disappear, similar to other persistent organic pollutants. Bioaccumulation of methylmercury increases as it goes up the food chain. As a result of bioaccumulation, smallmouth bass and common loons can reach methylmercury levels 100 times greater than the levels found in insects. Ultimately humans eat fish with high levels of methylmercury, and it enters the bloodstream, causing severe health effects in our bodies. One of the most studied species with regard to mercury contamination is the common loon. Mercury is present in two-thirds of Adirondack loons at levels that negatively impact their reproductive capacity. This is a significant risk to their survival. Study of the loon is significant because the common loon is an indicator species of the Northeast’s ecology. Loons have high levels of mercury in their bloodstream because they are higher up the food chain. A recent study found that 17 percent of the loons tested in New York State were at risk for harmful effects from mercury contamination. Loons considered to be at highest risk were found in acidic lakes in the Adirondack Park. High levels of mercury are correlated with behavioral changes in common loons. These lead to decreased productivity, decreased survival rates for loons, and possibly increased susceptibility to disease. Twenty-five percent of loons found in the central Adirondacks (New York) have elevated levels of mercury in their blood. Acid rain issues continue to influence New York environmental policy. The Clean Air Act creates tradable permits for some of the pollutants that cause acid rain. New York State recently passed a law requiring any New York utility that sells its sulfur allowances to an upwind state to pay the state a fee equal to the price of the allowance. This law is currently being challenged in court by the utility companies.

Many important life-forms cannot survive in soils below a pH of about 6.0. The loss of these life-forms slows down normal rates of decomposition, essentially making the soil sterile. When the acid rain is nitrogen based it can have a strong impact on plants. High concentrations of nitric acid can increase the nitrogen load on the plant and displace other nutrients. This condition is called nitrogen saturation. Acid precipitation can cause direct damage to plants’ foliage in some instances. Precipitation in the form of fog or cloud vapor is more acidic than rainfall. Other factors such as soil composition, the chemicals in the precipitation, and the plant’s tolerance also affect survival. Sensitive ecosystems

8

| Acid Rain

such as mountain ranges may experience acidic fog and clouds before acid rain forms. WHAT CAUSES THE RAIN TO BE ACID? A low pH measure is considered acidic. It is an easy, direct measure of a primary effect of some primary pollutants, and pH is also a standard measure of environmental conditions. Acid rain is caused when gases are emitted into the air by the burning of sulfur and nitrate compounds found in ores or coal. In the United States, a large number of power plants burn coal and are the source of pollutants found in acid rain. Lung ailments such as asthma and emphysema can result from exposure to these airborne pollutants. Pollutant abatement and control technology does exist to remove some of these chemicals. Recycling former waste products into productive products is part of many business concepts of sustainability. There are pollution-control processes available that would clean coal and other ores before they undergo combustion, as they combust, and after combustion. The extraction processes are expensive according to industry. They also yield hazardous waste products in terms of ash that must be considered. Extraction processes are not done voluntarily by most industry. Requiring known but expensive technologies such as scrubbers is a controversial area of environmental policy around the issue of acid rain, as well as climate change and global warming. ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS TO ACID RAIN One common concern of industry is that they must meet new and expensive environmental compliance requirements. It is one thing to pass a law, they point out, but more difficult to actually implement it at the point of emission. Pollution and abatement engineering firms faced early challenges with aspects of the Clean Air Act because of the concerns raised about acid rain. The enactment of new rules and regulations for emission controls, such as best available control technologies, have required pollution and abatement control engineers to develop new ways to limit the amounts of sulfur and nitrogen in order to comply with their new permit requirements. How do chemical engineers reduce emissions and abate pollution from sulfur dioxide and nitric oxides? Here are some of the basic methods to date.

Pollution-Control Methods for SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) GAS ABSORPTION AND CHEMICAL STRIPPING: This is the standard chemical method for removing a substance from a gas stream. It requires a liquid solvent in which the gaseous component is more soluble than the other parts of the sulfur dioxide gas stream. The sulfur dioxide gas enters the absorber where it then flows up and the liquid stream flows down. Once the gas has been chemically stripped of the sulfur dioxide, it is released into the atmosphere. The toxic ash that remains is shipped to a hazardous waste landfill. LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBERS: Coal-or oil-burning sources that produce pollutants such as sulfur dioxide use this method. First, the solid ash particulates are removed from the

Acid Rain | 9 waste stream. They are shipped to a hazardous waste landfill. Then, the remaining sulfuric gas goes to a tower where it travels through a scrubbing slurry. This slurry is made of water and limestone particles that react with the sulfuric acid to neutralize it, producing carbon dioxide and a powdery ash. The legal destination for the final waste stream is a hazardous waste landfill. DRY SYSTEMS: Some pollution abatement and control approaches are called dry because they do not use a wet slurry. When handling sulfur-based emissions dry systems inject dry alkaline particles into the sulfuric acid gas stream. They neutralize the acid into an ash. The particles are then collected in the particle collection device. Dry systems avoid problems with disposal of wet sludge from wet scrubbers. They increase the amount of dry solids to be disposed of, usually in the form of fly ash. The final destination is again a landfill. WET/DRY SYSTEMS: These systems are a combination of the wet and dry systems that remove some pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, from the waste stream. The sulfur-based emissions are essentially watered down and reduced to a powdery ash. Then final destination for this ash is the hazardous waste landfill.

Pollution Abatement and Control Techniques for Nitrogen Emissions Reducing nitrogen emissions is more challenging in implementation. Basically, there are two ways to reduce NOx emissions: • Modifying combustion processes to prevent NOx formation in the first place, or • Treating combustion gases after flame to convert NOx to N2. Both methods incur costs and sometimes liabilities for industry. Pollution abatement and control engineers remain in high demand to assist industrial compliance with environmental laws. The next battleground and challenge with acid rain will be removing atmospheric mercury.

CANADA AND THE U.S. ACID RAIN CONTROVERSY One intrinsic political problem highlighted by acid rain, and part of all air pollution, is that air and water currents do not follow political boundaries. If one country’s air pollution goes directly to the neighboring country, little can be done. Canadian concern about the damage from acid rain predates U.S. concern. Canada examines all possible sources for the acid rain problem, including its own contribution. Acid rain resulting from air pollution is severely affecting lakes and damaging forests. Eastern Canada is particularly hard hit because of the prevailing winds. There is the continuing controversy about actual sitespecific impacts. Some studies indicate no significant changes in some measures of acid rain. Others find that impacts for a given species are significant. This type of dispute is typical for this controversy. They tend to be ongoing in nature. U.S. and Canadian relations have overcome some of the initial strain over the issue of acid rain. The U.S. government did not make much progress until U.S. land was at risk. Those efforts, exemplified by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, put into policy proven measures that could reduce emissions of

10

| Acid Rain

pollutants that cause acid rain. Since then there have been a number of cooperative environmental programs. ACID RAIN AND ART, ARCHITECTURE, AND ANTIQUITIES Acid rain occurs all over the world. It is most common in areas of human habitation with a history of industrialization. It has impacts on both the natural environment and the urban environment. The impact of acid rain to antiquity all across the planet is difficult to know. Other parts of the world still burn brown coal, that is, coal containing many impurities such as sulfur. Large industrial processes fueled by coal churn large emissions into the atmosphere with little environmental regard or regulation. Scrubbing the coal is currently expensive but offers a way to remove the sulfur within the coal. Acid rain has a negative effect on architectural buildings and works of art depending on their materials. Its effects are far ranging, especially over time. Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia; Milan, Italy; Bern, Switzerland; and many other cities feel acid rain impacts. In terms of traditional Western classical works of art Italy may have the highest risk of damage from acid rain. In Italy, many works of art are constructed of calcium carbonate in the form of marble. Similar to most choices of building stone, marble was selected because it was locally available. Calcium carbonate reacts upon contact with acid rain. The marble structures are dissolved. Italy has a severe acid rain problem due to geography, prevailing winds, and their dependence on coal burning as a source of energy. Many classic ancient marble structures and statutes are at risk of being corroded by acid rain in many cities in Italy. Northern Italy has the worst air quality in western Europe. Some of the smaller sculptures have been encased in transparent cases, which are then filled with a preserving atmosphere. Others have continued to corrode. This is one example of the effects of acid rain. There are more. In the United States limestone is the second most used building stone. It was widely used before Portland cement became available. Limestone was preferred because of its uniform color and texture and because it could be easily carved. Limestone from local sources was commonly used before 1900. Nationwide, marble is used much less often than the other stone types. Granite is primarily composed of silicate minerals that are resistant to acid rain. Sandstone is also composed of silica and is resistant to most types of acid rain. Limestone and marble are primarily composed of calcium carbonate, which dissolves in weak acid. Depending on the building materials, many older U.S. cities suffer acid rain damage. HOW MUCH ACID IS THERE IN RAIN? The term acid deposition is used to encompass the dry deposition of acidic compounds as well as the wet deposition of acidic compounds in acid precipitation. The most recent term used in place of acid rain is atmospheric deposition,

Acid Rain | 11

which includes acidic compounds as well as other airborne pollutants. Atmospheric deposition recognizes that air pollution involves the complex interaction of many compounds in a chemical concoction in the atmosphere. Unpolluted rain is normally slightly acidic, with a pH of 5.6. Carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere dissolves to form carbonic acid, which is why normal rain is slightly acidic. When acidic pollutants combine with the rain the acidity increases greatly. The acidity of rainfall over parts of the United States, Canada, and Europe has increased over the past forty years. This is primarily due to the increased emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides that accompany increased industrialization. The sulfur and nitrogen oxides are the common pollutants from coal-burning activities such as power generation. Many, if not most, of these emissions are legal in that they are within the terms of their permit from the EPA or state environmental agency. Legal or not, these are oxidized in the atmosphere as they are converted to sulfuric and nitric acids. These acids are then absorbed by clouds laden with raindrops. As they become heavier they fall to the earth. This process is called acid deposition. Acidic fog, snow, hail, and dust particles also occur. The acidity of these different forms of precipitation can vary greatly. SOURCES OF ACID RAIN Part of the controversy about sources of acid rain revolved around the question of whether environmental policy could really affect the acidity in rain. Scientific debate about natural, human, and industrial causes engulfed much of the political battleground. Although the policy question was answered in that, yes, environmental policy can make the air cleaner, the debate about sources continues. All forms of precipitation are naturally acidic due to naturally occurring carbon dioxide (CO2); human activities tend to add to the acidity. Nonpolluted rain is assumed to have a pH value of 5.6. This is the pH of distilled water. Natural sources of these environmentally regulated chemicals may be significant. Manmade emissions tend to be concentrated near historic industrial sites and older population centers. The presence of other naturally occurring substances can produce values ranging from pH 4.9 to 6.5. This scientific dynamic has kept other debates alive regarding whether government has an effective role in environmental policy if the sources are natural. pH factors are one of many measures that are monitored. The relationship between pollutant emission sources and the acidity of precipitation at affected areas has not yet been determined. More research on tracing the release of pollutants and measuring their deposition rates to evaluate the effects on the environment is under way. This is an area of much scientific and legal controversy. If it were possible to show that a given emission definitely came from a given plant, then government would be able to assign liability to the polluter. Governments would also be able to locate sources of acid rain that comes from other countries.

12

| Acid Rain

AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPPING In determining emission sources, some sources are easier to find than others. Oceangoing shipping has been easy to locate. They are allowed large industrial emissions. The European Union limits the sulfur emissions in cars to 15 parts per million but allows ships 45,000 parts per million. Shipping is estimated to account for about 10 percent of world sulfur emissions, and a large amount of nitrous oxide and soot. Shipping makes up about 3 percent of the world greenhouse gas emissions. While shipping vessels are easy to locate, they are difficult to prosecute under environmental laws. They are often flagged, or incorporated, in another nation, and jurisdictional disputes are international and generally avoided. It is very expensive to keep an oceangoing vessel moored at harbor, but often that is what a minimal environmental inspection requires. Other environmental controversies such as deep-ocean waste dumping and oceangoing incinerators may increase the environmental impact of shipping. As energy costs of land and air transport increase, water-based transport is receiving stricter environmental scrutiny. In 2005, California forbade cruise ships from dumping their bilges (waste) into the waters around the coastline. Most ports in most of the world currently see very little environmental protection or regulation. Numerous small petrochemical spills over time, illegal dumping, and a terminus for all that the rivers have carried off the land characterize most commercial ports. As a global industry, shipping is enticed into the market for emissions trading. They are interested in buying and selling their pollution credits. Ocean transport is still a very efficient way to move goods as opposed to the energy costs of land and air transportation. It is estimated that shifting the fuel of oceangoing vessels to a lighter grade would reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions by 60 percent. This fuel may cost more. Some have criticized this plan saying the higher distillation costs and refining offset the greenhouse gases saved from the ships. Currently, shipping firms may have emissions credits to give, which has subjected them to more regulatory scrutiny from governments. The shipping industry is an important stakeholder in environmental policy implementation. They can serve as monitors of changing ocean conditions. They have a large impact on the environment and remain on the edge of enforceable environmental regulation. Citizen monitoring of environmental conditions, through organizations such as Riverkeepers, has increased public attention to the role of ports and waterways in all areas, including cities. Many ports are so polluted that they need to be dredged of the toxic sludge at the bottom. Large, unknown cleanup costs, rising ocean levels, and expanding dead zones around major ports are environmental concerns of shipping firms. One problem with acid rain is that the sources of emissions are so diffuse. It is not possible to assign individual liability for a given environmental impact and emission. With industries such as shipping the emissions may be easier to monitor, facilitating environmental policy implementation.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Acid rain as a U.S. controversy has been subsumed by controversies around global warming and climate change. Many of the debates are the same, especially

Air Pollution |

in terms of science and legal issues. Scientific disputes mark the continuing evolution of ways to measure the actual environmental impacts. The controversy around acid rain was an early one, historically documented as a symptom of a larger problem. It is an important historic controversy because it promoted significant, successful policies. It is also a modern controversy because it continues to provide evidence of humans’ impact on the environment. See also Air Pollution; Climate Change; Global Warming; Sustainability; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution Web Resources Acid Rain, Atmospheric Deposition, and Precipitation Chemistry. U.S. Geologic Survey. Available at bqs.usgs.gov/acidrain/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Buildings with Acid Rain Damage. Washington, DC. Available at pubs.usgs.gov/gip/acidrain/ fieldguide.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Alm, Leslie R. 2000. Crossing Borders, Crossing Boundaries: The Role of Scientists in the U.S. Acid Rain Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger; Lehr, J. 1992. Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Schmandt, Jurgen, Judith Clarkson, and Hillard Roderick. 1988. Acid Rain and Friendly Neighbors: The Policy Dispute between Canada and the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; Wilkening, Kenneth E. 2004. Acid Rain Science and Politics in Japan: A History of Knowledge and Action toward Sustainability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

AIR POLLUTION Smog, acid rain, methane, and other forms of outdoor air pollution, as well as air pollution inside homes and other buildings, can all affect the environment. Cars, trucks, coal-burning energy plants, and incinerators all make controllable contributions to air pollution. New environmental air pollution regulations continue to decrease emissions but with industry resistance. AIR Air quality has been a driving force for U.S. and global air pollution control. It can be quite different from region to region and over time. Geological features such as deep mountain valleys may facilitate dangerous atmospheric conditions when on the downwind side of industrial emissions, heavy car and truck traffic, and wood and coal stoves. Battlegrounds for air quality are scientific monitoring of air quality conditions, debate over what chemicals to regulate as pollution, and environmentalists’ concerns over weak and incomplete enforcement. Each one of these is a controversy itself. PUBLIC HEALTH One of the primary criteria for an airborne chemical to be a pollutant is its effect on public health. One of the first areas of public concern about air pollution is breathing.

13

14

| Air Pollution

WHAT OZONE DOES TO LUNGS The usual regulatory approach to environmental air pollution policy is the application of cost-benefit analysis to human health and environmental conditions. While value neutral, this approach can overlook the actual pain and suffering experienced by people in communities. Many communities experience many contaminant flows and exposures, some over long periods of time. The application of cost-benefit analysis in the development of air pollution policy generally permits a certain risk of death from cancer per population. There are many other risks and costs, many of a currently unknown nature, short of cancer. They can affect both individual health and the health of a community. Particulate matter is associated with early and unnecessary deaths, aggravation of heart and lung diseases, reduction in the ability to breathe, and increases in respiratory illnesses. This in turn can lead to increased school and work absences. Cancer itself can have many causes other than air pollution. Nonetheless, it is known that air pollution can have long-term health effects depending on the type of pollution and the age of the exposed person. The exposure of young people to ozone is particularly controversial because, unless they die from cancer, they do not enter into the cost-benefit analysis. However, by ignoring this cost, society may face even greater costs later. Ozone causes chronic, pathologic lung damage. Human lungs are like filters, cleaning the air of whatever contaminants are encountered. What they do not remove can enter the bloodstream. At the levels experienced in most U.S. urban areas, ozone irritates cell walls in lungs and airways. This can cause tissues to be inflamed. This cellular fluid seeps into the lungs. Over time, especially if that time includes early childhood, the elasticity of the lungs decreases. Excessive exposure to high levels of air pollution in childhood can impair lung development for life. Susceptibility to bacterial infections can increase. Scars and lesions can develop in the airways of children chronically exposed to ozone. Ozone effects are not limited to vulnerable populations. At ozone levels in most warm-weather U.S. cities, average, healthy, nonsmoking young males who exercise can experience ozone impacts. Ozone exposure can shorten a life and cause difficult breathing. Hospital admissions and emergency admissions increase as ozone levels increase. School and work absences increase. The level of human concern, from mother to child, increases as concern for our own and our loved ones’ health rises. The intangible psychological factors of dread and fear weigh heavily on those who breathe polluted air. Ozone exposure is one of many.

Asthma is becoming more common. This is true even though some air pollutant concentrations have decreased. The increase in asthma is concentrated in people of color and low-income people. The incidence of acute asthma attacks in children doubled in the last 13 years even as very effective medicines were developed. About five million child hospitalizations were children who had asthma attacks. It is the most frequent cause of childhood hospitalization. Deaths of children with asthma rose 78 percent from 1980 to 1993. It is concentrated in high-population urban areas. This one environmental effect of air pollution can spread to inner-ring suburbs then to air regions over time. Asthma is described

Air Pollution |

as breathing through a straw. The serious public health issues around air pollution underscore the intensity of this battleground in air pollution controversy. Air pollution can have short- and long-term health effects. Asthma from air pollution can have short- and long-term effects. Short-term effects of asthma are irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat. Long-term reactions to air pollution can include upper respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Other symptoms of exposure to air pollution are headaches, nausea, and allergic reactions. Short-term air pollution can aggravate underlying medical conditions of individuals with asthma and emphysema. Long-term health effects are more controversial. Depending on the type of air pollution, there is general consensus that exposure can cause chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the brain, nerves, liver, or kidneys. Continual exposure to most kinds of air pollution affects the lungs of growing children by scarring them at early stages of development. Recent studies suggest that the closer one is raised to a freeway in southern California, a notoriously low-quality air region overall, the greater the chance of having one of the listed long-term effects. Cumulative exposure to polluted air does aggravate or complicate medical conditions in the elderly. Some air pollution risk is involuntarily assumed. However, people die prematurely every year in the United States because of smoking cigarettes and voluntarily increasing other risk factors. Members of these communities label this type of risk assessment as blaming the victim. The involuntary assumption of health risks is something most communities strongly object to. With the advent of the Toxics Release Inventory many communities can track airborne industrial emissions. Citizen monitoring of environmental decisions has increased, especially around air quality issues. STATE OF AIR POLLUTION The air becomes polluted in different ways. How the air becomes polluted determines the types of problems it causes. Different sources of emissions contain different chemicals. These may interact with other airborne chemicals in unknown ways. As the chemicals mix with moisture in the air they can become rain. The rain can move the chemicals through the ecosystem, including crops and livestock. Mercury, lead, and aluminium all move in this way, with adverse ecological effects. There may be other chemicals with adverse ecological effects that do not last as long as metals do and may therefore be hard to detect while present. Air pollution can expose populations to more than just airborne pollution. WHAT IS POLLUTION? The term pollution has important legal and environmental meanings. Legally, it means that a person or business is not complying with environmental laws. Many environmentalists do not think this is extensive enough and believe that large environmental impacts can be considered pollution even if they are legal. Many permits do not in fact decrease emissions but permit more emissions.

15

16

| Air Pollution

Many permits have numerous exceptions to emissions. The petrochemical industry is allowed de minimus, fugitive, and emergency emissions beyond the permit, and that industry is leaking a valuable commodity. Industry argues that if it complies with all the environmental laws, then its emissions are not pollution because they are part of the permit issued by the EPA via the respective state environmental regulatory agency. While state and federal environmental agencies argue with the regulated industries, communities, and environmentalists, the actual environmental impact has worsened. While many environmental decisions are made behind closed doors, more and more communities are monitoring the environment themselves. One type of air pollution is particulate matter. The particles are pieces of matter (usually carbon) measuring about 2.5 microns or about .0001 inches. Sources of particulate matter are the exhaust from burning fuels in automobiles, trucks, airplanes, homes, and industries. This type of air pollution can clog and scar young developing lungs. Some of these particles can contain harmful metals. Another type of air pollution is dangerous gases such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and other chemical vapors. Once in the atmosphere they follow the prevailing winds until they condense and fall to the ground as precipitation. This type of pollution can participate in more chemical reactions in the atmosphere, some of which form smog and acid rain. Other atmospheric chemical reactions are the subject of intense scientific controversy and are part of the debates of global warming and climate change. Most air pollution comes from burning fossil fuels for industrial processes, transportation, and energy use in homes and commercial buildings. Natural processes can emit regulated chemicals at times. It is a subject of continuing scientific debate, both generally and specifically, how much of a given chemical is naturally emitted versus how much of the emission is from human actions. The Natural Resources Defense Council closely tracks the air emissions of the biggest polluters. They call it their benchmarking project. They are a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization that believes in keeping track of environmental conditions to establish a baseline. Their research is based on publicly available environmental information, much of it available in the Toxics Release Inventory. Key findings of the benchmarking project’s 2004 report include: • Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides have decreased by 36 percent and 44 percent, respectively, since the stricter pollution-control standards of the 1990 Clean Air Act went into effect. • Carbon dioxide emissions increased 27 percent over the same period. • Carbon dioxide emissions are expected to spike in coming years due to a large number of proposed new coal plants. • Wide disparities in pollution rates persist throughout the electricity industry with a small number of companies producing a relatively large amount of emissions. • Few power plants use currently available, state-of-the-art emissions control technologies.

Air Pollution |

17

• The electric power industry remains a major source of mercury emissions in the United States. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s benchmarking project uses public data to compare the emissions performance of the 100 largest power producers in the United States. They account for 88 percent of reported electricity generation and 89 percent of the industry’s reported emissions. Emissions performance is examined with respect to four primary power plant pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide. These pollutants cause or contribute to global warming and to environmental and health problems including acid rain, smog, particulate pollution, and mercury deposition. THE MOST POLLUTED TOWN IN THE UNITED STATES The town with the most bad air days per year is Arvin, California. It has averaged about 73 bad air days a year since 1974. It is a small town with very little industry or traffic. It is on the valley floor between the Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains in southern California. Air pollution is coming from the east with the prevailing winds. The air pollution comes from the large industrialized California communities of Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, and the San Francisco Bay area. The air pollution problem has been getting worse for this predominantly Hispanic community. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, where Arvin is located, recently passed a controversial cleanup plan. Part of the plan is to encourage cleaner-running vehicles in Arvin and in Fresno. City buses and public vehicle fleets can reduce emissions, but not soon enough for everyone. They have also considered various legal actions, primarily based on issues of environmental justice and unequal enforcement of environmental laws. Whole communities feel as though their public health is threatened. Once this mass of polluted air does move out of the valley, it will continue to have environmental impacts. One of the prominent national parks, Sequoia National Park, feels the impact of this waste stream of air pollution. It has among the highest number of bad air days in the country.

INDOOR AIR POLLUTION The air inside of buildings can be as polluted as outside air. Indoor air can accumulate gases and other chemicals more quickly than outside air. Cooking, heating, smoking, painting, new carpeting and glue, and heavy electronic equipment usage can all affect indoor air quality. Large numbers of books without adequate ventilation can cause carbon dioxide to build up. As most people spend most of their time indoors, the exposure to this air is much greater. Vulnerable populations, such as the very young and very old, spend even more time inside. Depending on the pollutants, indoor air pollution can lead to mold and fire hazards. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The controversies around air pollution show no signs of abating. Points of concentrated air pollution are getting more attention and becoming battlegrounds.

18

| Air Pollution

Ports are the latest example of this. On September 5, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began a research project to test equipment that measures air emissions by equipment used in ports to move goods around docks and on and off cargo ships, trucks, and trains. Most of this equipment burns diesel fuel. The EPA wants to test new equipment that can recapture the energy of hydraulic brakes and thereby use less polluting fuel. They are predicting fuel savings of 1,000 gallons per vehicle per year, with decreased maintenance costs for the fleet. The EPA is working with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Kalmar Industries, Parker Hannifin Corporation, and the Port of Rotterdam. Port authorities are very powerful independent legal entities that can neither tax nor be taxed. They issue bonds. Interest on bonds is not income for federal tax purposes, nor for state tax purposes if issued in that state. Wealthy individuals can reduce their tax liability and invest in the country’s infrastructure. Historically, this was done in the West with railroad bonds. Authorities are creatures of state law, but very little is required in the way of public participation or environmental planning. Port authorities are able to resist many environmental requirements, especially if they involve several different states. The environment and ecology of ports are often toxic and unappealing. Ports are places where many ships empty their bilges of waste, often illegally. Some states have passed legislation to prevent cruise ships from dumping their wastes in their ports, such as California. Ports have also been the site of land-based waste-dumping practices. Along tidal areas many communities did this with the idea that the tide would take it away. Wastes from fishing and fish processing can also add to the mix. Ports are also the terminus of many rivers that have collected agricultural runoff, municipal sewage, industrial water discharges, and other types of waste. Ports are among the most environmentally challenging ecosystem reconstruction projects in the United States. In early 2000 many port authorities began to incorporate principles of sustainability into their long-range strategic corporate planning. The cumulative effects of waste, the increasing liability for clean up costs and its accounting as a contingent liability, and increasing urban environmental activism all undercut achieving anything sustainable in an environmental, business, or social sense. Port authorities now partner with the EPA around air pollution, expressly motivated by a concern about sustainability. New battlegrounds will also emerge from these new policies, such as how clean is necessary. The environmental policies and laws do have the intended effect of reducing the emissions of some chemicals emitted by most industries. However, asthma rates increase and so too does community concern. It is likely that the costs of further decreasing emissions from industry, from municipalities, and from all of us will be more expensive. The current context of global warming and rapid climate change drives many air pollution controversies to center stage. See also Acid Rain; Climate Change; Global Warming Web Resources Air pollution in Chesapeake Bay. www.chesapeakebay.net/air_pollution.htm. Accessed March 2, 2008.

Animals Used for Testing and Research Air pollution control costs in Texas. www.texasep.org/html/air/air_2std_brdrair.html. Accessed March 2, 2008. Natural Resources Defense Council: Clean Air and Clean Energy. www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/ default.asp. Accessed March 2, 2008. Further Reading: Bas, Ed. 2004. Indoor Air Quality. GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc.; Harrap, D. 2002. Air Quality Assessment and Management. London: Spon Press; Lipfert, Frederick W. 1994. Air Pollution and Community Health. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Moussiopoulos, Nicolas, ed. 2003. Air Quality in Cities. New York: Springer; Simioni, Daniela. 2004. Air Pollution and Citizen Awareness. New York: United Nations Publications.

ANIMALS USED FOR TESTING AND RESEARCH The use of animals for research and testing has been part of science since its inception. The lives of research animals of all kinds were often short and painful. In contrast, animal rights activists contend that the lives of animals should be protected as if they were human. They strongly oppose the pain and suffering and killing of animals. ANIMALS USED IN TESTING AND RESEARCH Animals are used extensively for food and clothing. They are also used in testing and research. Many researchers are most interested in the impact on human of a given chemical in the air or water. Other researchers are working on vaccines and other public health research. Some animals are used in medical diagnosis, such as seeing if a rabbit died after injected with the blood of a pregnant woman. Human subject testing is often illegal and considered unethical. Animals are used extensively and successfully in research and testing. Seventy million animals are used in this manner in the United States each year. Organizations using animals include private research institutions, household chemical product and cosmetics companies, government agencies, colleges and universities, and medical centers. Household goods and cosmetics such as lipstick, eye shadow, soap, waxes, and oven cleaner may be tested on animals. Many of these products now advertise that they do not use animals to test their products. These tests on animals are mainly used to test the degree of harmfulness of the ingredients. Animals are generally exposed to the ingredient until about half die in a certain time period. Animals that survive testing may also have to be euthanized. The primary objections to animal testing are: • It is cruel in that it causes unnecessary pain and suffering • It is outdated; there are more humane modern methods • It is not required by law Manufacturers justify the use of animal testing to make sure none of the ingredients in their products can pose human risks. By using mammals for their tests, manufacturers are using some of the best tests available. They also claim that the law and regulation almost require them to use animal testing. This is a point of controversy. According to the law, the Food and Drug Administration

| 19

20

| Animals Used for Testing and Research

(FDA) requires only that each ingredient in a cosmetics product be “adequately substantiated for safety” prior to marketing. If it cannot be substantiated for safety then the product must have some type of warning. Furthermore, • The FDA does not have the authority to require any particular product test • Testing methods are determined by the cosmetics and household product manufacturers • The test results are mainly used to defend these companies against consumer lawsuits Part of this controversy is the issue of humane alternatives, alternatives that do not use animals for testing or research. Animal rights advocates contend that humane alternatives are more reliable and less expensive than animal tests. Computer modeling and use of animal parts instead of live animals are the main humane alternatives. One controversial test uses the eyes of rabbits. The eyes of rabbits are very sensitive to their surroundings. Some Flemish hares (rabbits) were used in the storage silos of Umatilla’s biochemical weapon storage facility. If nerve gas was escaping, the eyes of the Flemish hares would dilate. One test involving rabbits’ eyes could be replaced by a nonanimal test. The Draize Eye test uses live rabbits to measure how much a chemical irritates the eye. Instead of using live rabbits for this test, eye banks or computer models can be used to accurately test the irritancy level of a given chemical. However, researchers contest the reliability and cost of these alternatives. Other alternatives to using animals for research and testing include: • • • • • •

Chemical assay tests Tissue culture systems Cell and organ cultures Cloned human skin cells Human skin patches Computer and mathematical models

ANIMAL TESTING PROPONENTS Today, scientists are using animal research to: • Study factors that affect transmission of avian flu between birds as well as the genetic and molecular adaptation from wild birds to domestic poultry; • Evaluate whether ducks in Asia are infection reservoirs sustaining the existence of the H5N1 virus; • Develop new and evaluate existing techniques to predict which mild forms of the avian flu virus might transform into more deadly forms; • Develop improved vaccines against avian flu for birds, and evaluate vaccines for human use. Heightened animal research is necessary to combat avian flu and other new and emerging animal-borne diseases such as mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]), SARS, and West Nile virus. Scientists point out that

Animals Used for Testing and Research

| 21

about three-quarters of animal diseases can infect humans. Some call for more collaboration between animal health and public health organizations. Animal research and testing will be required for this collaboration. NUMBER OF ANIMALS USED Information from regulated research facilities does establish some type of baseline data about the kinds and numbers of animals used in testing and research. Statistics from the Animal Research Database show how animals are used for testing and research. • There are approximately 56 –100 million cats and 54 million dogs in the United States. • It is estimated that every hour 2,000 cats and 3,500 dogs are born. • Between 10.1 and 16. 7 million dogs and cats are put to death in pounds and shelters annually. • Approximately 17–22 million animals are used in research each year. • Approximately 5 billion are consumed for food annually. • Approximately 1.1 percent of dogs and cats from pounds and shelters that would otherwise be euthanized are used in research. • Fewer than one dog or cat is used for research for every 50 destroyed by animal pounds. • Rats, mice, and other rodents make up 85–90 percent of all research animals. • Only 1 to 1.5 percent of research animals are dogs and cats. • Only 0.5 percent are nonhuman primates. • There has been a 40 percent decrease in the numbers of animals used in biomedical research and testing in the United States since 1968. Other federal agencies have studied standards of animal care when used in testing and research. One of them is the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). According to the USDA, approximately: • 61 percent of animals used suffer no pain • 31 percent have pain relieved with anesthesia • 6 percent experience pain because alleviation would compromise the validity of the data. Much of this work is directed at an understanding of pain. These figures apply only to those animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act, which currently excludes rats, mice, farm animals, and cold-blooded animals. Some of these are animals that are used extensively in animal research. There are continuing concerns that this reporting undercounts the mortality and suffering.

RESEARCH AND TESTING OF ANIMALS TO ACHIEVE PUBLIC HEALTH VICTORIES Major advances in U.S. public health that have increased longevity and the quality of human life were based on research using animals. The decline in U.S. death rates from cardiovascular diseases, infections, and most kinds of cancer

22

| Animals Used for Testing and Research

since the 1960s is the result of new methods of treatment based on research requiring animals. Researchers claim that others do not understand the longterm results of such research and how it is conducted. Researchers also claim that others do not recognize important differences between using animals for product testing and for biomedical research. Biomedical research is more justified because of the public health benefits to society, while product testing is to increase the product safety to the consumer and profit of a manufacturer. All researchers and research facilities are not the same. Some research sponsors are also concerned about the use of animals in testing and research. There are ways to encourage whenever possible the use of alternatives to live animal testing. The American Heart Association (AHA) sponsors important heartrelated research. They have specific guidelines about how research animals are to be used and treated. First, the researcher must demonstrate that the animals are needed, and that there are no viable substitutes for the animal. Second, when animals are needed for association-funded experiments, the animals must be handled responsibly and humanely. Before being approved for Association support, the researchers must show that: • they have looked at alternative methods to using animals; • their research cannot be successfully conducted without the use of animals; and • their experiments are designed to produce needed results and information. Together with other responsible and committed research-sponsoring organizations, the AHA hopes to ensure that the use of animals for testing and research will occur more carefully. Many universities have developed ethical guidelines for the use of animals in their research programs. Not all animal testing occurs in these types of organizations. It is still much more expensive to develop new and untested alternatives than to treat some animals as expendable. A given method of drug testing may be more humane to the animals but less effective as a predictor of the drug’s impact on humans. THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT OF 1966 (AWA) The main law is the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. As such it has been a flash point of controversy for animal rights activists. The Animal Welfare Act is the minimum acceptable standard in most U.S. animal rights legislation. Its original intent was to regulate the care and use of animals, mainly dogs, cats, and primates, in the laboratory to prevent abuse. Now it is the only federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. In 1992 a law was passed to protect animal breeders from ecoterrorists. Other laws may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use. Some state and cities have some laws that could be argued to protect against animals’ use in research and testing, primarily animal abuse laws. They usually require a cooperative district attorney to file and pursue criminal charges. Because there are so many other types of animal abuse crimes than testing and research the prosecutorial discretion to investigate and

Animals Used for Testing and Research

enforce abuse laws puts testing and research animal abuse as a low priority. The Animal Welfare Act is enforced through a federal agency with the usual enforcement powers of investigation, searches, and fines or penalties. The Animal Welfare Act is enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and Animal Care (AC). There is an extensive set of rules and regulations in place. The regulations are divided into four sections: definitions, regulations, standards, and rules of practice. The definitions section describes exactly what is meant by terms used in the Animal Welfare Act. This section is very important as the legal definition of animal is different than its generally understood meaning. For example, the term animal in the act specifically excludes rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus as well as birds used in research. There are many such exemptions in the Animal Welfare Act. These exemptions are controversial among animal rights activists because they consider the exemptions as contrary to the intent of the act. The regulations section of the Animal Welfare Act is quite specific. As noted on its Web site (http://warp.nalusda.gov/awic/legislat/regsqa.htm) the regulations methodically list subparts for licensing, registration, research facilities, attending veterinarians and adequate veterinary care, stolen animals, records, compliance with standards and holding periods, and other topics such as confiscation and destruction of animals and access to and inspection of records and property. Monitoring these records from large research facilities, both those in compliance and those out of compliance, allowed the USDA to collect large amounts of information. The actual standards for treatment of animals by species are in the next section. Most of the subchapter is the third section that provides standards for specific species or groups of species. Included are sections for cats and dogs, guinea pigs and hamsters, rabbits, nonhuman primates, marine mammals, and the general category of “other warm-blooded animals.” Standards include those for facilities and operations, health and husbandry systems, and transportation. This section is the one animal rights advocates most often seek to have enforced, and therefore it is a battleground in this controversy. If the animal rights advocates seek legal redress, they must first exhaust their administrative remedies before a court will accept jurisdiction. Their first step in seeking legal redress, generally for the enforcement of the above conditions, is the focal point of the final section of the act. The final section lists the rules of practice applicable to adjudicating administrative proceedings under the Animal Welfare Act. After exhausting administrative remedies under the act, animals rights activists can then go to court. One problem with the administrative agency battleground is that it is very time consuming. The administrative agency, a potential defendant, controls the process and hearings format. Many public interest groups feel this is an unfair requirement because it drains the resources of the nonprofit organization before the issue can be resolved. ANIMAL CARE: WHAT IS HUMANE? While there may be agreement that inhumane treatment to animals should be regulated, there is more controversy about what specifically is humane

| 23

24

| Animals Used for Testing and Research

treatment. It is generally tied to the activity around the animal. Again, according to their Web site (http://warp.nalusda.gov/awic/legislat/regsqa.htm), the Animal Welfare Act requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. People who operate facilities in these categories must provide their animals with adequate care and treatment in the areas of housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection from extreme weather and temperatures. Although these federal requirements do establish a floor of acceptable standards, there is controversy about whether they go far enough. There is also controversy about how well enforced the existing law is under the present circumstances. Regulated businesses are encouraged to exceed the specified minimum standards under AWA. Some animals are bought and sold from unregulated sources for testing and research, and this remains a concern. EXEMPTIONS The AWA regulates the care and treatment of warm-blooded animals with some major exceptions, also known as exemptions. As older legislation from the 1960s, such as the AWA, passes through subsequent Congresses, exemptions or categorical exclusions are legislatively added to accommodate powerful interests and changes in public policy. Farm animals used for food, clothing, or other farm purposes are exempt. This is a large exemption representing powerful industrial agricultural interests. If they were included, argue these interest groups, the costs of production would increase the cost of food and clothing. Cold-blooded animals are exempt from coverage under the act, but some advocates are seeking to have them covered. The use of frogs for science courses is traditional. Many cold-blooded animals are used for training, testing, and research. Retail pet shops are another major exemption if they sell a regular pet to a private citizen. They are covered if they sell exotic or zoo animals or sell animals to regulated businesses. Animal shelters and pounds are regulated if they sell dogs or cats to dealers, but not if they sell them to anyone else. The last big exemption is pets owned by members of the public. However, no one is exempt from criminal prosecutions for animal abuse under state and local laws. PET PROTECTION FROM ANIMAL TESTING AND RESEARCH Selling stolen or lost pets for research and testing is another aspect of this controversy. To help prevent trade in lost or stolen animals, regulated businesses are required to keep accurate records of their commercial transactions. Animal dealers must hold the animals that they buy for 5 to 10 days. This is to verify their origin and allow pet owners an opportunity to locate a missing pet. This also helps suppress the illegal trade in stolen animals for testing and research. Many pets are lost when a natural disaster occurs. Floods, storms, hurricanes, emergency vehicles, and threatening interruptions of food and shelter cause many pets to get lost. Some pets now have a computer chip implanted in them

Animals Used for Testing and Research

for tracking purposes. Critics point out that many commercial transactions about animals used in testing and research do not always happen with regulated businesses. The legal definition of regulated research facilities specifically includes hospitals, colleges and universities, diagnostic laboratories, and cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. Animal dealers complain about the cost of holding animals that long and the other costs of verifying ownership. Many animal shelters operate on a small budget and must euthanize animals to make room for new arrivals faster than the holding period allows. Rigorous enforcement against these groups could put them out of operation, with the net result of no shelter provision or adoption site for animals. STANDARDS OF HUMANITY IN RESEARCH FACILITIES Much of the regulation of animal use in testing and research occurs in research facilities. The standards are slightly higher for dogs and primates. All warmblooded animals, with some major exemptions, get some veterinary care and animal husbandry. This means that a licensed veterinarian examines the health of the animal, and the animal is kept in a clean, sanitary, and comfortable condition. Some animals require a higher standard of care by law. Regulated research facilities must provide dogs with the opportunity for exercise and promote the psychological well-being of primates used in laboratories. According to their Web site (http://warp.nalusda.gov/awic/legislat/regsqa.htm) researchers must also give regulated animals anesthesia or pain-relieving medication to minimize the pain or distress caused by research if the experiment allows. Regulated entities do express some concern about the cost of these additional procedures. The AWA also prohibits the unnecessary repetition of a specific experiment using regulated animals. The regulated entity itself determines how much repetition is unnecessary. One tenet of science is the ability to repeat a given chain of events, such as corneal exposure to a chemical, and get the same result, such as death or blindness. By prohibiting the repetition of the animal-based tests, some of the results may be weaker. The public protection from a chemical may be weaker, and the industry may be exposed to a large class-action negligence suit. Therefore, research procedures or experimentation are exempt from interference when designated as such. This is a large exemption in an area where animals are thought to suffer pain, and where substitutes or alternatives to animals are not used frequently. This is a continuing battleground in this controversy. AWA has strict monitoring and record-keeping requirements. The lack of records has been a controversy in the past. By keeping records, information about animals used in testing and research can be gathered. The problem was how to require the regulated entity to comply with the AWA and produce necessary records. The solution in this case was to require a committee at the regulated entity and mandate its membership. The law requires research facilities to form an “institutional animal care and use committee.” The purpose of this committee is to establish some place of organizational accountability for the condition of animals at a given research institution. They are primarily responsible for managing aspects of the AWA, especially in regard to the use of animals

| 25

26

| Animals Used for Testing and Research

in experiments. This committee is the point of contact responsible for ensuring that the facility remains in compliance with the AWA and for providing documentation of all areas of animal care. By law, the committee must be composed of at least three members, including one veterinarian and one person who is not associated with the facility in any way. ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP CONVICTED OF INCITING VIOLENCE AND STALKING Those opposed to animal testing have sometimes used violence to convey their point, which further inflames this controversy. Criminal prosecution is also a part of this controversy, especially with focused legislation. This in turn makes courts one of the battlegrounds. On March 9, 2006, members of an animal rights group were convicted of two sets of criminal acts. The first was conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and the second was interstate stalking. It was a long and controversial federal jury trial in Trenton, New Jersey. The group itself was also convicted. The jury found the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and six of its members guilty of inciting violence against people and institutions who did business with Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), a British-based research firm that runs an animal testing laboratory in East Millstone, New Jersey. SHAC targeted HLS, as well as other companies doing business with HLS, because it uses animals to test the safety of drugs and chemicals. SHAC has claimed responsibility for several bombings and dozens of acts of vandalism and harassment in both the United States and Europe to protest the use of animals in research and testing. Its campaign against HLS has become an international cause among animal rights activists since the late 1990s. The six defendants—former SHAC spokesperson Kevin Kjonaas; Lauren Gazzola, whom the indictment identified as SHAC’s campaign coordinator; Andrew Stepanian, a longtime activist with SHAC and the Animal Defense League; Joshua Harper a self-described anarchist and SHAC activist; and SHAC members Jacob Conroy and Darius Fullmer—were all found guilty of conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Kjonaas, Gazzola, and Conroy were also found guilty of multiple counts of interstate stalking and conspiracy to engage in interstate stalking. In addition, Kjonaas, Gazzola, and Harper were found guilty of conspiracy to violate a telephone harassment act. The defendants were arrested in May 2004 by federal agents in New York, New Jersey, California, and Washington. They face three to seven years in prison and fines of up to $250,000. They may also face judgments in civil trials from victims. The defendants were convicted of conducting a very personal, no-holds-barred campaign of terror against HLS employees and their children. During the three-week trial, prosecutors showed how SHAC’s campaign against HLS involved posting personal information on the Internet about its employees and about employees of firms that do business with HLS. The information posted on the Internet included phone numbers, home addresses, and, in some cases, information on where employees’ children attended school. Many of those targeted had their cars and homes physically vandalized and received threats against them or their families, according to court testimony.

Animals Used for Testing and Research

| 27

According to law enforcement officials, one female employee was sent an e-mail from SHAC threatening to “cut open her seven-year-old son and fill him with poison.” The Animal Enterprise Protection Act, signed into law by the first president Bush in 1992, provided animal research facilities with federal protection against violent acts by so-called animal rights extremists. The act gave prosecutors greater powers to prosecute extremists, whose attacks create damages or research losses totaling at least $10,000. Animal enterprise terrorism is defined in the act in part as “physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of any property (including animals or records).” Some critics charged that prosecutors rarely used the Animal Enterprise Protection Act because the penalties were too mild and it was difficult to prove damages of more than $10,000. An antiterrorism bill signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002 substantially increased the penalties for such actions. Prior to the SHAC trial, there appears to have been only a single successful prosecution under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. In 1998, a federal grand jury in Wisconsin indicted Peter Daniel Young and Justin Clayton Samuel under its provisions for breaking into several Wisconsin fur farms in 1997 and releasing thousands of animals. Samuel was apprehended in Belgium in 1999 and quickly extradited to the United States. In 2000, Samuel pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay over $360,000 in restitution. Young was a fugitive until arrested in March 2005 in San Jose for shoplifting. He was later sentenced to two years in prison. While there are controversial questions about the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, there is little question about the rigorousness of enforcement against those who commit terrorist acts of protest to free animals used for fur, testing, and research.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The controversy around the use of animals for testing will continue because animals will continue to be used for testing. Animal rights groups assert that enforcement of a weak law riddled with exemptions is inadequate and that animals are being abused. One environmental impact of a poorly regulated animal trade is the importation of endangered species under conditions of high mortality. Testing on animals, unlike dogfighting, is done at large institutions often receiving federal research grants. Many of these are universities. When human health considerations are thrown into the equation, animal testing is often justified by researchers despite animal mortality. See also Endangered Species Web Resources Animal Concerns. Animal rights against testing. Available at www.animalconcerns.org. Accessed January 20, 2008. Animal Welfare Act. Available at www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awicregs.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008.

28

| Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling National Anti-Vivisection Society. Available at www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename= index. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Botzler, Richard George. 2003. The Animal Ethics Reader. London: Routledge; Carbone, Larry. 2004. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. New York: Oxford University Press; Garner, Robert. 2004. Animals, Politics, and Morality. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press; Gluck, John P., Tony DiPasquale, and Barbara F. Orlans. 2002. Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation and Laboratory Applications. Ames, IA: Purdue University Press; Regan, Tom. 2001. Defending Animal Rights. Chicago: University of Illinois Press; Rudacille, Deborah. 2001. The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Protection. Berkeley: University of California Press.

ARCTIC WILDLIFE REFUGE AND OIL DRILLING The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a vast, protected wildlife habitat in Alaska where oil and natural gas have been found. Because of this, environmentalists representing the interests of pristine wilderness and endangered species are pitted against oil and gas corporations. Federal, state, tribal, and community interests are heavily involved. There have been many contentious legislative sessions in Alaska and in Washington, D.C., for many years over drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and other parts of Alaska. The battleground for this controversy will spill over to courtrooms. BACKGROUND Federal lands in Alaska are vast. Roads and people are scarce. Wildlife abounds unseen by human eyes. The weather can stop most human activities for days at a time, as well as make any travel of people or goods uncomfortable, risky, and expensive. Economic development around most types of activities such as agribusiness, oil or mineral drilling, logging, tourism, and shipping is equally constrained by the weather and the expense of dealing with cold, inclement weather. Without good roads and transportation infrastructure most economic development suffers, making them attractive benefits to many Alaskan communities. However, the federal government was, and is, the largest landowner and has exerted its power to create and protect its interests. Ever since Alaska was recognized and accepted by the United States as a state, environmental protection and natural resource use have been at odds. Although seemingly limitless in abundant natural resources, these existed in fragile tundra and coastal environments. Without roads, logging, mining, or any substantial human development were very difficult. Indigenous peoples of Alaska were self-sufficient and subsisted on the land and water. Subsistence rights to fish, game, and plants as well as ceremonial rights to this food are very important to many indigenous people, including bands and tribes in the United States. Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) and established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Then Congress specifically avoided a decision regarding future management of the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain. The controversy pitting the area’s potential oil

Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling |

and gas resources against its importance as wildlife habitat, represented by wellorganized environmental interests, was looming large then. This was the not the first nor the last experience pitting oil companies against environmentalists, state interests in economic development against federal interests in preserving wilderness areas, and other confrontational battlegrounds. Numerous wells have since been drilled and oil fields discovered near the ANWR. Also, the characteristics of the ecosystem and measures of environmental impacts to date have been documented in very similar places nearby. Global warming and climate change greatly affect this particular controversy. Most scientists agree that for every 1°F of global warming, the Arctic and Antarctica will warm up by 3°F. The planet has been warming and the Arctic ice is melting. In September 2004 the polar ice cap receded 160 miles away from Alaska’s north coast, opening up more and more open water. This has dramatic environmental impacts in the Arctic because many species from plankton to polar bears follow the ice for survival. Its implications for the ANWR oil-drilling controversy are developing. Environmentalists think it may make an already sensitive ecosystem even more sensitive. Mosquitoes are now seen further north than ever before. They attack nesting birds that do not leave the nest for long periods and never had exposure to mosquitoes before. There are many anecdotal reports of species impacts in the Arctic. The focus of the controversy about oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is its coastal plain. It is a 25-mile band of tundra wetlands that is of key interest to both oil interests and environmental concerns. This area provides important nursing areas for Arctic wildlife. Damaged tundra takes a long time to recover and is generally considered a sensitive ecosystem. Tundra is very sensitive to many of the activities around oil drilling. The wetlands, which can move food around the coast efficiently, can also move hazardous materials around the same way. But the refuge’s coastal plain also contains oil, exactly how much and where being a subject of dispute. Controversies about the sensitive ecological character of the refuge, the amount, kind, and accessibility of oil that lies beneath it, and the environmental impact that oil development would have on it all abound. The primary concern about its impact is the threat to species and other parts of the ecosystem. THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Far north of most places, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is part of the vast federal landholdings in the vast state of Alaska. Brutal winters and glorious summers characterize its seasonal extremes. Given its human inaccessibility, many species of wildlife thrive here. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located between the rugged Brooks Mountain Range and extends to the Beaufort Sea in northeast Alaska. By covering such a large area with ecotones ranging from mountains to the coastal plain many species can adapt to seasonal extremes. The seasonal migration of the caribou plays a large part in the food chain here. The coastal plain is a rich ecosystem easily affected by both local

29

30

| Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling

and global environmental forces. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain alone supports almost 200 wildlife species, including polar bears, musk ox, fish, and caribou. Every year, millions of tundra swans, snowy owls, eider ducks, and other birds migrate to the coastal plain to nest, raise their offspring, molt, and feed. Other species give birth there, and many others migrate through it. Some environmental scientists consider the coastal plain to be the biological heart of the entire refuge. They maintain that any oil drilling in the refuge would irreparably harm the wildlife by destroying the unique habitat. Oil development, with its drilling, road building, water and air emissions, noise, and waste, could irreparably environmentally degrade this pristine, fragile wilderness. The fact that it is exploration and drilling for oil and gas, the very substances that cause much pollution, heightens the controversy. The environmental groups are making a stand because this is one of last remaining untouched wilderness areas of this type. This battleground is characterized by aggressive environmentalist and conservationist pressures that have been fully engaged ever since oil was found. THE CURRENT INDUSTRIAL IMPACT: THE NORTH SLOPE EXPERIENCE The controversy about environmental impacts of drilling is not a new one in Alaska. The oil spill of the Valdez, its environmental impacts, and subsequent, protracted litigation are well known. Environmentalists point to other nearby similar areas that have allowed oil development to argue that the environmental impacts in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are not worth the oil. They point to the controversial Alaskan North Slope. The Alaskan North Slope was once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States. In some environmental aspects it is similar to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With controversy it was opened up to oil drilling and a pipeline and accompanying environmental impacts. Alaska’s North Slope oil operations expanded on a large scale. It now has one of the world’s largest industrial complexes. The oil operations and transportation infrastructure are vast. They cover about 1,000 square miles of land. Most of this land and environment was as wild as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are oilfields, oil tankers, a few basic oil refineries, oil storage, and oil spills. Roads or airstrips are often built. This drastically increases environmental impacts in wild areas. Sometimes local communities are in favor of infrastructure development as a means of economic development, despite environmental consequences. On the Alaskan North Slope, Native Americans also have important interests. Sites can be sacred. Rights in land may extend to a limited set of natural resources, such as timber or seasonal harvesting. They may also be in favor of infrastructure development as a means of economic development. The scale of industrial operations here affects all these interests. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields on the Alaskan North Slope include the following: • 28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment and power plants • 38 gravel mines

Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling |

• • • •

223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads 500 miles of roads 1,800 miles of pipelines 4,800 exploration and production wells

The scale of such an industrial operation is taking place in a comparably fragile region much like the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve. In the modern context of global warming and climate change, the caribou that play such an important role are affected by the retreating ice. They cannot feed on the lichen on rocks in places formerly covered by ice. Their migratory route is being altered. The same is true for many species. Its environmental impact alone is a controversy, now fueling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge controversy. Ecosystem resiliency is defined as the length of time it takes the ecosystem to recover from stress. Because of the same factors that affect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge the North Slope is considered fragile. These factors are a short, intense summer growing season, bitter cold in the long winter, poor soils, and permafrost. These were both wildlife areas with little human intrusion. Environmentalists contend that any physical disturbance to the land, such as roads, oil spills, and drilling, has long-term, perhaps irreparable environmental impacts. The National Academy of Sciences concluded, “it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will ever be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries.” Many environmentalists contend that the cumulative impacts of oil development have affected Prudhoe Bay negatively. Environmentalists use the North Slope experience to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They use it to show it is impossible to drill for oil without irreversible environmental consequences. Of particular concern is spilled oil and other petrochemical waste products from engine maintenance. According to environmentalists, oil operations spill tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope every year. Environmentalists worry that not all spills are reported, as most industry environmental impact information is self-reported. Spills can occur when drilling for new oil, storing, and transporting it. Conditions for all these activities can be physically rough in Alaska. Weather conditions can become severe for days at a time and can be conducive to spills. According to industry and government reports, from 1996 to 2004, there were at least 4,530 spills on the North Slope of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid, and other materials. Some of these chemicals can rapidly percolate, or move through, soil to reach water tables. Conditions in Alaska can make it difficult to contain and clean up a spill of any size. OIL OPERATIONS AND THE AIR Coal-burning power generation and petrochemical refineries emit large quantities of regulated pollutants into the air. Diesel generators and vehicles, trucks, and airplanes all also emit pollutants. According to the Toxics Release Inventory, oil operations on Alaska’s North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides a year. Sulfur and nitrogen are air pollutants, which contribute

31

32

| Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling

to smog and acid rain. North Slope oil operations also release other pollutants, which are major contributors to air pollution. Each year, they admit to emitting 7 million to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane in the North Slope. This is probably within the terms of their air permit and may exclude de minimus or fugitive emissions. Emissions caused by natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis are also exempt. Sustainability advocates point out that the methane emissions do not include the methane released because of the melted permafrost. All these impacts are in the context of larger controversies such as global warming and climate change that also affect sensitive Alaskan ecosystems. Emissions will be higher in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as North Slope oil is transported by tanker from the site to a refinery. It is refined and distributed off the drilling site. ANWR oil and gas could still be refined on site if oil exploration and drilling is approved. POLAR BEARS AND GLOBAL WARMING All over the southernmost part of their Arctic range, polar bears are thinner, lower in number, and producing fewer offspring than when the ice is thick. As the ice retreats the polar bears get food from human garbage sites. Polar bears are a particular problem because they must learn fear of humans. Some say that the lack of ice due to global warming has disrupted the ability of polar bears to hunt for seals, forcing them to swim further and further out in search of food. In 2004, researchers found four dead polar bears floating about 60 miles off Alaska’s north shore. Although polar bears are capable of swimming long distances, 60 miles is considered unusual. Most observers think that the lack of ice forces polar bears to swim further for food. Others think they just follow the ice northward until a split separates them from land. The polar bear is at the top of the food chain in the Arctic. At least 200 species of microorganisms grow in Arctic ice flows. They form curtains of slimy algae and zooplankton, and when they die they feed clams at the bottom, which feed the walruses and seals, which feed polar bears. Also, polar bears bioaccumulate chemicals and compounds in great concentrations. This is especially true for metals such as mercury and other chemicals used in industry. Some scientists closely examine apex animals, such as polar bears and humans, that are living in the places where the effects of climate change are first observable. The North Slope polar bears are now monitored by radio collaring and mapping dens.

Airborne pollution from Prudhoe Bay has been detected as far as Barrow, Alaska, about 200 miles away. The environmental impact of industrial oil operations on the North Slope is widespread. The environmental impact of these air pollutants on Arctic ecosystems remains controversial. The Canadian government has experimented with oil companies and cumulative impacts research in neighboring northern Alberta. In the sensitive Arctic environment of northern Alberta the government has allowed oil company drilling and refining operations on the condition that they account for all impacts, including cumulative

Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling |

impacts. Because vast areas of Alaska are undeveloped the potential exists for a large environmental impact before it can be discovered. The effects of acid rain and air pollution on migratory animals such as birds, caribou, and whales are unknown. Robins have appeared in northern Alaska for the first time, as have other warm-weather species. HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ITS IMPACTS ON WATER AND WETLANDS Drilling for oil includes digging large pits in the ground. As these pits become obsolete they were and are used as waste dumps. Pits holding millions of gallons of wastes from oil and gas drilling and exploration were all over the North Slope. The pits were a stew of toxic chemicals, many with long-lasting environmental impacts in any ecosystem. Deep well injection, as this waste disposal method is called, was stopped because of its impact on underground aquifers. As aquifers dry up, as around San Antonio, Texas, they pull in the waste injected in deep wells. Of the known and undisputed pit sites more than 100 remain to be cleaned. Clean is a relative term. In this case, it generally means pumping out the toxic materials and removing them for treatment as hazardous waste. Clean does not mean restoring the ecological integrity of the place. This is why some environmentalists claim the impacts of oil exploration and drilling cannot be mitigated and that therefore it should not be allowed. There could be many more. Many of the sites that have already been cleaned had pervasive environmental impacts because the wastes had migrated into the tundra and killed it. The oil company pit sites contain a variety of toxic materials and hazardous chemicals. Typically, they include acids, lead, pesticides, solvents, diesel fuel, caustics, corrosives, and petroleum hydrocarbons. If the pit sites are not adequately closed, they can become illegal sites for more trash. This second wave of trash can include vehicles, appliances, batteries, tires, and pesticides. Oil industry trade groups point out that deep well injection was an accepted method of waste disposal for oil operations. It was the prevailing practice in Texas and Alaska for many years. Environmentalists respond by noting that the industry may have been acting within the bounds of its permits, but the environmental impacts are still too large. Politically, the oil operations expanded revenue for the state and built some infrastructure in a large state with a low population. Communities differ greatly on aspects of this controversy. State environmental agencies do not strictly or overzealously enforce environmental laws against large corporations. In fact, Alaska voluntarily relinquished its control of the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took it over. This aspect of the ANWR controversy, the hazardous waste cleanup, is a battleground for state environmental agencies and federal environmental agencies. Most state environmental agencies get most of their revenue from the federal environmental agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, in federally mandated environmental programs, such as the Clean Air Act, the state must either do it to some minimal standards, or the EPA will do for them. In most instances states are free to choose the best method to meet the

33

34

| Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling

federally mandated result. However, in Alaska results were not meeting federal standards. This confrontation heightens the intensity of the ANWR controversy for industry, community, and environmental interests. It is seen by some as a test of federal sovereignty over states rights, which removes some of the environmental issues from the discussion. If oil drilling is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve then more impacts to the environment from hazardous and toxic waste can be expected. Environmentalists point out that most past mitigation efforts were not successful or mandatory. There is no legal requirement to mitigate the impacts of mitigation, which could themselves be considerable in large-scale projects. CURRENT AND CONTROVERSIAL POLICIES Generally, the George W. Bush administration is facilitating processes for the energy industry to drill for oil and gas in many sensitive public lands. Across the western United States, federal agencies such as Department of the Interior are leasing these areas for oil and gas development. And the tenants are oil and gas companies setting up operations on millions of acres of previously wild and open federally owned land. Proponents of this change in public policy note that there is an energy crunch and with rising gas prices they need access to all possible U.S. sources. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council: the 2006 Bush administration is granting faster, almost pro forma, drilling approvals for requests to drill for oil on public lands. They have also loosened access to oil and gas deposits on public lands, reduced royalty payments and fewer environmental restrictions. Officials from the Bureau of Land Management, the Interior Department agency that manages the vast majority of federal lands and onshore energy resources, have directed field staff to expand access to public lands for energy development and speed up related environmental reviews. BLM data show that the number of leases for oil, gas and coal mining on public lands increased by 51 percent between 2000 and 2003—from 2.6 million acres to more than 5 million acres. The BLM has also repeatedly suspended seasonal closures designed to protect wildlife and is rushing to update numerous western land use plans to permit even more leasing and drilling. In the interior West, where most of the nation’s oil and gas resources lie, more than 90 percent of BLM-managed land is already open for energy leasing and development. There is much controversy about how much oil exists in ANWR. Critics say that if it were the only source it would yield less than a six months’ supply of oil. Supporters of drilling based on national security say that all resources need to be marshaled. Overreliance on foreign oil sources leaves us dependent on other countries and vulnerable while at war. The United States is a large consumer of oil. The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but consumes

Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling |

almost a quarter of all the oil produced every year. The United States has only 3 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, making drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a higher-stakes battlefield. Federal agencies have assessed the issue. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the amount of oil that might be recovered and profitably brought to market from the refuge’s coastal plain is only 5.4 billion barrels, based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) average forecast price of $28 a barrel over the next 20 years. At $40 per barrel the USGS estimates there would be only 6.7 billion barrels that could be profitably brought to market from the coastline reserves. The United States uses about 7.3 billion barrels of oil per year. Drilling proponents claim that at least 16 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from the refuge coastal plain. They point out that there could be recoverable oil and gas in other parts near the coastal plain. But the USGS says there is less than a 5 percent possibility that the coastal plain and adjacent areas contain that much recoverable oil. They maintain that only a small part of that oil could be economically produced and transported to markets. Drilling proponents are accused of ignoring the fact that the costs of exploration, production, and transportation in the Arctic are substantially higher than in many other regions of the world. Shipping, pipelines, and rail are all challenged by rough weather, earthquakeprone landscapes, and wilderness conditions. Extreme weather conditions and long distances to market would make much of that oil too expensive to produce at current market conditions. Drilling supporters claim that once the roads are built and the infrastructure is set up, costs will decrease, and oil demand is almost always increasing. They point out that the North American continental natural gas pipeline is expanding and that technology may make oil transport cheaper and safer for people and the environment. They also consider global warming to have one positive impact in that shipping lanes will be more reliably open because of the receding ice. The ice has drastically receded at the coastal plain in ANWR. To many rural Alaskan communities getting infrastructure and the promise of an oil-company job are benefits. With new roads and airstrips and ports, other forms of economic development would be able to occur. Tourism is a growing industry without the environmental impacts of oil drilling but requires a safe transportation network. The area’s Inupiat Eskimo and Gwich’in Athabaskan-speaking Native inhabitants are actively involved in the controversy. Their respective views are significantly shaped by the nature of their relationship to the economy, the land, and its natural resources. Some of the oil reserves are on tribal lands. Some tribes are in favor, some are divided, and others are against oil exploration. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The Arctic National Wildlife drilling controversy swirls around questions of how much oil is there and whether any drilling at all is acceptable in a pristine

35

36

| Automobile Energy Efficiencies

wilderness area. It may be that there is more oil and much more gas there than currently known. It may also be the case that oil cannot be reached without irreversible environmental impacts. As other global petrochemical resources dry up, the pressure to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will increase. Petrochemical controversies around protected parts of nature also affect other controversies in this battleground. Declining air quality from burning petrochemicals touches all aspects of this battleground, from local neighborhoods, tribes, and communities to global warming concerns. Political concerns about oil company profits right after Hurricane Katrina and all during the Mideast conflicts also inflame oil drilling issues in the Arctic. The earlier controversy concerning North Slope oil exploration and drilling provided evidence of severe environmental impacts. The potential for future controversy in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling is very great. See also Climate Change; Endangered Species; Indigenous People and the Environment; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air; Transportation and the Environment Web Resources Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Available at arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html. Accessed March 2, 2008. Federal Agency North Slope Science Initiative. Available at www.mms.gov/alaska/regs/mou_ iag_loa/2005_BLM.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2008. Sacred Lands: Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Available at www.sacredland.org/endangered_sites_ pages/arctic.html. Accessed March 2, 2008. Further Reading: Fischman, Robert L. 2003. The National Wildlife Refuges. Washington, DC: Island Press; Standlea, David M. 2006. Oil, Globalization, and the War for the Arctic Refuge. New York: SUNY Press; Truett, Joe C., and Stephen R. Johnson. 2000. The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field. London: Elsevier; U.S. PIRG Education Fund. 2001. The Dirty Four: The Case against Letting BP Amoco, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum Drill in the Arctic Refuge. Washington, DC: U.S. PIRG Education Fund.

AUTOMOBILE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES Emissions from cars and trucks have been part of the air pollution controversy since the first federal clean air laws were passed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Pollution-control devices and lead-free gas have decreased some emissions. The onus is on the automobile industry to produce more efficient cars that use less gas and to decrease their environmental impact. Emissions from cars and trucks continue to accumulate in land, air, and water. Increased retail sales of inefficient suburban utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks, combined with overall increases in number of vehicles, still produce emissions that can degrade the air quality. Environmentalists want cleaner cars. Consumers want inexpensive gas and more cars and trucks to drive. The petrochemical industry claims it is moving with deliberate speed to comply with environmental standards,

Automobile Energy Efficiencies | 37

garnering tax breaks and profits along the way. Communities want clean air and have valid public health concerns. FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT: INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT The battle between the government and industry over legislating the production of more efficient vehicles is a long-standing one. Most of this legislation requires minimal compliance by industry at some date years in the future. Manufacturers claim that it takes resources from research and development right now to try to change production technologies to meet those standards. Sometimes they get tax breaks and other public policy–based encouragement to do so. One battleground is the free market. Market demand is for more cars, trucks, airports, and other petrochemical-based activities. Does legislation from democratically elected representatives constitute market demand? Most economists would say it does not. Environmentalists claim the minimal requirements are not fast or stringent enough. Currently, to meet federal fuel economy standards of the Clean Air Act, fuel efficiency must be increased to over 40 miles per gallon by 2015 and 55 miles per gallon by 2025. Some states, such as California, are adopting even more stringent standards. Rising gas prices, the slowly deepening effects of rising gas prices on food and other consumer goods, and concern about air pollution all increase public involvement. Other states with large pollution problems are exploring options and developing a state legislative and administrative department for controversies automobile energy efficiency over. Adopting fuel-efficient or alternative fuel technologies to meet the Clean Air Act standards would save enormous amounts of gas and oil, in theory. A major controversy is whether it would prevent further environmental degradation. Global warming controversies are also pushing this issue into the public view. The United States needs to do more in terms of addressing mobile emissions sources and their environmental impacts. The exploration of alternative fuels for vehicles can be controversial in terms of environmental impacts. The removal of lead from U.S. gasoline was a major step forward, not yet replicated around the world. It greatly reduced airborne lead emissions. However, with current standards and volume of driving, assuming complete environmental compliance, U.S. vehicles would still emit 500,000 tons of smog-forming pollution every year. The United States is among the leading nations for both pollution and pollution-control technology. Diesel-powered vehicles are major polluters. They emit almost 50 percent of all nitrogen oxides and more than two-thirds of all particulate matter (soot) produced by U.S. transportation. Because the United States is more reliant on trucks, which tend to be diesel fueled, for the shipment of goods and raw materials than other nations, diesel emissions can be large contributors to an air stream with many other pollutants. Some of these regulated pollutants are from industry and some from the environment. The scale of diesel usage and its known emissions make it an environmental issue. Nitrogen oxides are powerful ingredients of acid rain. Acid rain can cause nitrogen saturation in crops and wilderness areas. Soot, regulated as particulate matter, irritates

38

| Automobile Energy Efficiencies

the eyes and nose and aggravates respiratory problems including asthma. Urban areas are often heavily exposed to diesel fumes. While diesel is a polluting fuel, regular unleaded gasoline can also pollute. Overall, the environmental impacts of the combustion engine remain largely undisputed. What is disputed is whether the environmental regulations go far enough to mitigate environmental impacts from these sources. The controversy about automobile energy efficiencies opens this aspect of the debate. Commercial hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) models use both batteries and fuel. In the past few years they have been produced and marketed to the public. More recently, HEV drive trains have been used successfully in heavy-duty trucks, buses, and military vehicles.

There are many scientific controversies about specific chemicals and whether they cause a given adverse effect. This is an important controversy because these concerns form the basis for environmental regulations designed to protect the public health. Fundamental questions exist about whether chronic exposure to burning oil products causes specific symptoms. Even more questions emerge about alternative fuels. If petrochemical fuel is to be replaced by alternative fuels, many people want to make sure it is safer. The following quote reports on the first-ever conference on “Air Pollution: Impacts on Body Organs and Systems,” which was held in Washington, D.C., on November 18, 1994, by the National Association of Physicians for the Environment (http://www.nutramed.com/environ ment/carschemicals.htm).

Adverse Health Effects of Chronic Exposure to Petroleum Combustion Products HEALTH EFFECTS OF CAR EXHAUST: A short list of the likely pathogens in car exhaust: • • • • • • •

Carbon monoxide Nitrogen dioxide Sulphur dioxide Suspended particles including PM-10, particles less than 10 microns in size Benzene Formaldehyde Polycyclic hydrocarbons

Air pollution is the source of many materials that may enter the human bloodstream through the nose, mouth, skin, and the digestive tract. . . . For example, lead interferes with normal red blood cell formation by inhibiting important enzymes. In addition, lead damages red blood cell membranes and interferes with cell metabolism in a way that shortens the survival of each individual cell. Each of these harmful effects can result in clinical anemia. Benzene and other less known hydrocarbons are produced in petroleum refining, and are widely used as solvents and as materials in the production of various industrial products and pesticides. Benzene also is found in gasoline and in cigarette smoke. It has been shown that

Automobile Energy Efficiencies | 39 exposure to benzene is related to the development of leukemia and lymphoma. Benzene has a suppressive effect on bone marrow and it impairs blood cell maturation and amplification. Benzene exposure may result in a diminished number of blood cells (cytopenia) or total bone marrow loss. Common air pollutants also have an affect on blood and thus on organs of the body. For example, carbon monoxide, arising from incomplete combustion of carbonaceous materials, binds to the hemoglobin over two hundred times more avidly than oxygen and distorts the release to the tissues of any remaining oxygen. Thus, CO poisoning is akin to suffocation. In addition, it has been observed that carbon monoxide can exacerbate cardiovascular disease in humans. The toxic chemicals in environmental air pollution stimulate the immune system to activate leukocytes and macrophages that can produce tissue damage, especially to the cells that line human blood vessels. Although the damage is initially slight and may not produce significant limitation to blood flow, repetitive exposure to toxic substances interferes with the ability of these lining cells to release a substance called endothelial-derived relaxing factor (EDRF). EDRF relaxes the smooth muscle in blood vessel walls, and blocking the release of EDRF leads to systemic hypertension. At the same time, leukocytes on the endothelium’s surface appear to play a part in promoting the arteriosclerotic disease process. The combined effect of these events is to accelerate the changes that eventually lead to hypertension and ischemic heart disease. The central nervous system (CNS) is the primary target for many serious air pollutants, such as lead, which is a major environmental hazard. Research over the past 10 years has provided evidence that levels of lead exposure associated with central nervous system effects, particularly as manifest in behavioral changes, is far lower than previously realized. Fifteen years ago, blood lead concentrations in children were not considered problematic until they exceeded levels greater than 30 to 40 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL). Since that time, more sophisticated epidemiological studies have demonstrated changes in cognitive function at blood concentrations as low as 10 to 15 μg/dL. While children are more susceptible to lead’s CNS effects, adults exhibit similar deficits in learning and memory as well. Advanced aging is also a period when enhanced vulnerability to the toxic effects of lead are predicted. In Germany, a large study documented an age-related decline in bone lead concentrations with advancing age. This effect was more pronounced in women than in men, reflecting post-menopausal processes in women which contribute to bone resorption and the release of lead back into the bloodstream. These results mean that lead exposure is actually increased during a period of already heightened susceptibility due to concurrent degeneration of other physiological functions, including both CNS and renal functions. The effects of airborne pollutants on the immune system have been most widely studied in the respiratory tract. An airborne pollutant may enter the respiratory tract as a volatile gas (e.g., ozone, benzene), as liquid droplets (e.g., sulfuric acid, nitrogen dioxide), or as particulate matter (e.g., components of diesel exhaust, aromatic hydrocarbons). These pollutants interact with the immune system and may cause local and systemic responses ranging from overactive immune responses to immunosuppression. Most airborne pollutants are small

40

| Automobile Energy Efficiencies

molecular weight chemicals that must be coupled with other substances (e.g., proteins or conjugates) before they can be recognized by the immune system and cause an effect. There is clearly an underlying genetic basis for susceptibility to immunologic disease resulting from exposure to pollutants, but knowledge in this area is rudimentary at this time. For example, there is little understanding of genetically-determined susceptibility or resistance to pollutant-induced immune disorders. There is a lack of appropriate in vitro models, and it is difficult to identify specific, biologically-active substances that may be linked to immune disorders. More research is needed to learn about the effects of airborne pollutants on mucosal immunity, the local immunity that is most effective against pathogenic microbes that invade the body through the respiratory and digestive systems.

Researchers also want to move HEV technology into a more sustainable lifestyle. They would like to produce and market plug-in hybrids that can plug in to household outlets. They want them to be able to store electricity and operate as clean, low-cost, low-environmental-impact vehicles for most of their normal daily mileage. Right now electric cars are limited by the batteries. Combining engines with them and using braking power to recharge the batteries does extend their range and power but also increases their emissions. Transportation is conceptualized as part of a environmental low impact and sustainable lifestyle. These communities unite plug-in hybrids, other low-impact transportation alternatives (bicycles, mass transit stops), zero-energy homes, a range of renewable energy technologies, and sustainable environmental practices. One example of such a community is the Pringle Creek Community in Salem, Oregon. HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES Hybrid electric vehicles, also known as HEVs, represent a new kind of fuel efficiency. Present-day hybrids come with internal combustion engines and electric motors. The source of the fuel and the electricity may differ from model to model. The biggest current challenge plug-in hybrids face is the cost and weight of batteries. At this point, even the most rechargeable batteries lose the ability to hold a charge. They then become hazardous waste and part of the environmental impact. There is also a financial and environmental cost to the use of electrical power. Much electrical power in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants. These plants produce large emissions of regulated air pollutants. Some would argue that the environmental cost of this use should be calculated when evaluating alternative energy sources. It is also possible to recharge plugin hybrid vehicles from renewable energy sources. Scientists are extensively researching thermal management, modeling, and systems solutions for energy storage. Scientists and engineers also research ways to increase the efficiency of the electrical power.

Automobile Energy Efficiencies | 41

Researchers are also seeking to make the plug-in electric car reversible. In many areas homes and businesses can sell back energy they do not use or that they create. This is one way to protect the electric grid from brownouts, as well as conserve energy from nonrenewable resources. In hybrid vehicles it is called a vehicle-to-grid or V2G. These cars would have a two-way plug that allows the home and vehicle owner and local utility to exchange power back and forth. This could make the batteries accessible backup power in the event of a natural disaster or other power outage. It could also encourage citizens to buy new hybrid cars. Utilities pay for peak, backup, and unused power. Transportation analysts can quantify the potential value of such systems in terms of gas saved, air quality, and other measures. There could be substantial automobile energy efficiencies in these approaches, but many remain untried at a large level. Reversible electrical energy may not be much less environmentally harmful if the source of the electric power and the waste generated have harmful environmental impacts. FUEL CELL VEHICLES As research and conceptualization has moved HEVs into production, fuel cell technology is taking shape. Hydrogen fuel cells have long been used to generate electricity in spacecraft and in stationary applications such as emergency power generators. Fuel cells produce electricity through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen and produce no harmful emissions. In fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), hydrogen may be stored as a pressurized gas in onboard fuel tanks. The electricity feeds a storage battery (as in today’s hybrids) that energizes a vehicle’s electric motor. An FCV may be thought of as a type of hybrid because its electric battery is charged by a separate onboard system. This underscores the importance of advancing present-day HEV technologies. HEVs help reduce petroleum consumption immediately and provide lessons about batteries, energy storage, fuel advancements, and complex electronic controls that may apply directly to future transportation technologies. WHAT IS BIODIESEL? Biodiesel is a catchall term used to describe fuel made from vegetable oil or animal fats. These fats are generally converted to usable fuel by a process called transesterification. Biodiesel fuels are usually mixed with conventional diesel. It is estimated that 140 billion gallons of biodiesel could replace all oil used for transportation in the United States. This is an enormous amount of biodiesel, which is creating controversy and innovation in the sources of biodiesel. Largevolume biodiesel use could raise concerns about land-use impacts common to all plant-based fuels. Are there enough plants, such as corn, to meet the fuel needs? Land-use impacts could be much larger if the market demand is driven by fuel needs. Alternative energy sources almost always include renewable energy sources such as solar power. Because most biodiesel is made from plantbased oils or waste stream sources, it is a renewable fuel. Is there enough of it?

42

| Automobile Energy Efficiencies

Waste vegetable and animal fat resources are estimated to be able to produce one billion gallons of biodiesel per year. That prediction is considered speculative by some because it assumes adequate plant and waste production. Collecting the wastes, distilling and cleaning the fat from it, and using it as fuel may all have environmental impacts. Farmers and proponents of biodiesel claim that distribution costs should go down as the first biodiesel stations begin operations, and the price of petrochemicals increases. Use of more than in billion gallons a year of biodiesel would require more virgin plant oils and crops for biodiesel production. It would also require discovery and organization of other waste stream sources to meet larger demands. More land would be needed to plant necessary crops, such as corn. Crops grown for biodiesel can be grown in a manner that has negative environmental consequences for entire ecosystems. Just as other crops, they can require pesticides and be genetically manipulated. ALTERNATIVE FUELS, ETHANOL, AND CORN: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS With the rapid increase in demand for ethanol, more corn is being planted in the United States. Ethanol is made from corn. The U.S. Agriculture Department estimates that 90.5 million acres of corn were planted in 2007, out of about 434 million acres of cropland, more than anytime in the last 50 years. Farmers plant the crops with the most profit. The problem with growing large amounts of corn is the environmental impact. One large concern is the amount of water required for its production. A gallon of ethanol requires about three gallons of water to produce. In locations without reliable water sources it may not be a cost-efficient alternative fuel. Corn requires about 156 pounds of nitrogen, 80 pounds of phosphorus, and differing amounts of pesticides per acre to grow from seed to harvest. Corn requires large amounts of nitrogen because it cannot absorb it from the air. What the corn does not absorb runs off the land into the water table. This causes algae blooms that warm up the water and use up the oxygen, sometimes resulting in large fish kills. Nitrates in the water, largely from agricultural runoff, are also blamed for deaths of livestock, and some suspect them in some human fatalities. Algae growth can cause other bacteria to grow that are harmful to humans. Farmers do not like to waste fertilizer. Many corn farmers use sophisticated satellite tracking measurements to make sure fertilizer levels are not exceeded. Many keep records of inventory as a condition of bank loans and can keep track of fertilizer expenses. More and more farmers are planting buffer strips between their fields and waterways. These buffer strips are areas of vegetation, usually indigenous, that filter water or runoff from fertilized fields. It is difficult for farmers to leave a buffer strip. Usually the soil near the water is better. Buffer strips can attract animals that dig holes in the fields and destroy crops. Not all farmers are owner-operators. Many commercial agribusinesses lease land to farm. While their leases often make allowances for buffers and land held in soil and water conservation programs, they are seldom enforced.

Automobile Energy Efficiencies | 43

BIODIESEL AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE One of the environmental advantages touted with biodiesel is that it has fewer environmentally degrading emissions. Critics have pointed out that biodiesel vehicles require more fuel depending on the mix and may have overall more combustion. Some biodiesel requires chemicals to start up when it is cold. Sometimes the vehicle must warm up to get the grease warm enough to flow. Pure 100 percent biodiesel results in large reductions in sulfur dioxide. However, they can have 10 percent increases in nitrogen oxide emissions. A popular mix of biodiesel is about 80 percent biodiesel and 20 percent regular diesel, which increases the pollutants emitted proportionality. These pollutants are responsible for acid rain and urban smog. Biodiesel companies are beginning to operate service stations to distribute the fuel. There is controversy about its environmental impacts. Some tailpipe emissions are reduced. However, when the entire life of the vehicle is considered, running on 100 percent biodiesel, some smog-forming emissions can be 35 percent higher than conventional diesel.

ARE THERE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES OF BIODIESEL? One big concern and source of controversy are oil spills and their environmental impacts. Regular petrochemical spills can travel quickly in water and permeate land, depending on soil structure. Biodiesel is considered less harmful to the environment because it biodegrades four times faster than conventional diesel, so its environmental impacts are not as long term or ecologically pervasive. It quickly degrades into organic components. Production of petroleum diesel creates much more hazardous waste than production of biodiesel. Biodiesel produces more overall waste depending on the source, but generally twice as much as nonhazardous waste. Some of the nonhazardous wastes may be recyclable. One developing source for biodiesel is algae, grown specifically for the purpose. The specialized algae are grown in a variety of ways. They are vastly easier to grow than most other crops and grow very quickly. While growing they absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Technological entrepreneurship is very much engaged in this, and algae strains are sometimes protected trade secrets. The species used now in the United States is Botryococcus braunii because it stores fat that is later used as fuel. The algae must then be broken down to separate fats from sugars. Solvents are used for this, which could be a source of environmental impacts depending on by-products and manufacturing waste streams. Fats cannot be cold pressed out of algae because they are too fragile and disintegrate. The fats are made into biodiesel. One issue is whether they could produce enough to meet demand for biodiesel from vehicles. The New Zealand algae fuel company, Aquaflow, says it has achieved this.

44

| Automobile Energy Efficiencies

OIL AND POWER: IMPACTS ON AUTOMOBILE ENERGY EFFICIENCY The primary resistance to increasing the efficiency of automobile and truck engines is the petrochemical industrial complex. Large oil companies are the backbone of U.S. industry and part of a thriving economy. They are multinational corporations that exert political power here and abroad. Some have revenues larger than most nations. Their only legal motivation is to make profit from dispensing a limited natural resource. Environmental and ecological integrity and consumer quality-of-life issues are not their concern. The oil industry has been a strong industrial stakeholder and exerted power at the local, state, and federal levels of government for almost a century. Many state legislatures have passed laws exempting oil companies from releasing their environmental audits or helping oil companies avoid compliance with environmental regulation or enforcement action. Oil companies are not responsive to community concerns and can litigate any issue with vast financial resources. The petrochemical industrial complex has also become part of social institutions such as foundations, churches, schools and universities, and athletic contests. Some employment opportunities, some infrastructure, and the hope of more economic development are offered to communities by oil companies. Oil politics and the U.S. presidency are closely intertwined as both Bush presidents were major players in the oil industry in Texas and internationally with Saudi Arabia. Since George W. Bush was elected president in 2001, the top five oil companies in the United States have recorded record profits of $342.4 billion through the first quarter of 2006, while at the same time getting substantial tax breaks from a Republican Congress. This is extremely controversial as gas prices have risen dramatically for most average citizens, and the national debt has gone from a surplus to a large deficit. With the controversial war in Iraq, an oil-producing nation, some people in the United States thought gas prices would decrease domestically. Oil company profit taking during times of natural disaster, such as hurricane Katrina, and war, has attracted much congressional attention. In one congressional hearing in 2006 major oil executives were subpoenaed to testify before Congress and refused to swear to tell the truth. Here are some of the profits in the first quarter of 2006. They have remained consistently high since then. ExxonMobil: $118.2 billion Shell: $82.3 billion BP: $67.8 billion ChevronTexaco: $43.1 billion ConocoPhillips: $31.1 billion No oil company seems to be turning their profits into consumer savings. Some are just starting to research more alternative energy sources, but this is controversial. Some environmental groups have recently challenged this assertion. To many U.S. consumers it seems there is a direct correlation between record prices

Automobile Energy Efficiencies | 45

paid by consumers and record profits enjoyed by oil companies. From 1999 to 2004, the profit margin by U.S. oil refiners has increased 79 percent. POLITICAL CONTROVERSY: TAX BREAKS FOR OIL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS? The search for automobile energy efficiency lies in the political maelstrom of the oil industry in Congress. President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress gave $6 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies in 2006 alone. This is in the face of large oil company profits. From 2001 to 2006 the oil industry gave $58 million in campaign contributions to federal politicians. Eightyone percent of that went to Republicans. Given the awkward state of campaign financing, it is likely that these numbers would be much higher if travel and other expenses are included. Environmental groups, concerned communities, and taxpaying consumers have all protested this as corruption, misfeasance, and malfeasance in office. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Continued dependence on fossil fuels guarantees increased controversy. As oil becomes depleted, multinational oil corporations exert all their huge influence on the United States to protect their sources, even if it means going to war. The dissatisfaction of environmentalists and communities with the petrochemical industrial complex, the dependence and demand of the United States for oil, the lack of governmental support for alternative energy development, and the inability to keep large environmental impacts secret all fuel this raging controversy. See also Air Pollution; Climate Change; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Global Warming; Good Neighbor Agreements; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air Web Resources National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Advanced Vehicles and Fuels Research. Available at www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/. Accessed March 2, 2008. Union of Concerned Scientists. Cleaner Cars. Available at www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/ big_rig_cleanup/biodiesel.html#1#1. Accessed March 2, 2008. U.S. Department of Energy. Retail Stations Offering Biodiesel. Available at www.eere.energy. gov/afdc/infrastructure/refueling.html. Accessed March 2, 2008. Further Reading: Clifford, Mary. 1998. Environmental Crime: Enforcement, Policy and Social Responsibility. MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; Dobson, Andrew P. 2004. Citizenship and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press; Galambos, Louis, Takashi Hikino, and Vera Zamagni. 2006. The Global Chemical Industry in the Age of the Petrochemical Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Marzotto, Toni, Vicky Moshier, and Gordon Scott Bonham. 2000. The Evolution of Public Policy: Cars and the Environment. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers; Wells, Peter E., and Paul

46

| Avalanches Nieuwenhuis. 2003. The Automotive Industry and the Environment: A Technical, Business and Social Future. Washington, DC: CRC Press.

AVALANCHES Fatalities due to avalanche have been increasing since the 1950s. Avalanches claim more than 150 lives each year worldwide, and hundreds more are injured or trapped as the result of an avalanche. As more roads, buildings, and towns are forced into avalanche-prone areas, controversies arise around overdevelopment in sensitive mountain terrain as well as responsibility for monitoring and rescuing avalanche victims. Avalanches of snow occur in mountainous regions all over the world. They are very powerful, leveling everything in their path. They can move at speeds greater than 100 miles per hour, creating a wind gust ahead of them that travels at about the same speed. They are difficult to predict, but knowledge of snow formation in a particular region and the resulting avalanche risk can help recreational users make better judgments. WHAT CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY FOR AVALANCHES? Ninety percent of all avalanches occur on moderate slopes with an angle of 30° to 45° except in the unusual situation of snow accumulating on steeper slopes. Avalanches happen most frequently when the gravity pushing snow at the top of the slope is greater than the strength of the snow to hold it up. Over the snow season, snow falls in different layers. Some of these layers bind well with each other, whereas other layers do not. When the weight of the snow on top is greater than the ability of the snow to hold itself together, the layers will sheer off. A change in temperature, a loud noise, a weather front, or engine vibrations are all possible triggers to start a snowfall that begins at a starting zone. These are generally the higher, steeper slopes but can occur anywhere on the side of a snowy mountain. The avalanche continues downslope along the track. To the experienced eye these avalanche tracks can be discerned by the lack of trees, or shorn trees all in the down direction. Avalanches can start other avalanches that occur minutes or days later. The avalanche fans out from the track and slows down quickly. The snow then settles in the runout zone. When they stop, they harden into a solid snowpack in a matter of minutes. Generally, search and rescue operations consider anybody under seven feet or more of snowpack for more than 1/2 hour as most likely dead. The United States ranks fifth worldwide in avalanche risk. Colorado, Alaska, and Utah have the most avalanche fatalities. Of those, Colorado has the most fatalities and the most 14,000-foot or higher mountains in the United States. There are probably avalanches in many parts of unmonitored and unsettled mountain ranges of the world.

Avalanches

BATTLEGROUNDS ABOUT CONTROLLING AVALANCHES Controlling avalanches can become a battleground because of the drastic impacts they can have on sensitive mountain ecotones. Local communities may consider avalanche control necessary to protect their lives and livelihood. Avalanche prevention and mitigation involves a variety of methods, all of them requiring knowledge of local climatic conditions and planning. A primary method is to prevent snow buildup on the higher slopes. Snow fences are built to prevent the buildup of snow in starting zones, and sometimes snow precipices and other avalanche-prone snow formations are exploded, setting off a controlled avalanche. Avalanches can be diverted with careful planning. Deflecting walls are built to divert avalanche flows away from buildings and even entire towns. The reforestation of slopes with trees helps to prevent avalanches. Some environmentalists claim that allowing logging on steep slopes in the mountains can increase avalanche risk, and that timber corporations should assist with the mitigation of avalanche risk. Another aspect of avalanche injury prevention is to adequately warn recreational users and all road traffic of any avalanche danger. Snowmobilers are those most often killed by avalanches in the United States. Snowmobiles can travel much farther than a person could walk in one day. A controversial practice of snowmobilers is to race their snowmobiles as far up a wide-open track as their machines will take them. Unfortunately, some of the wide-open tracks are avalanche tracks. The loud noise and on-slope vibration caused by the machines, combined with reckless behavior, can greatly increase risk of avalanche. Most avalanches in the United States occur during January, February, and March. On average, 17 people are killed per year nationwide. WHAT IS THE PROFILE OF A TYPICAL U.S. AVALANCHE VICTIM? According to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (http://avalanche. state.co.us/), 89 percent of victims are men and most are between the ages of 20 and 29. Three-quarters of victims are experienced backcountry recreationists. Mountain climbers, backcountry skiers, extreme skiers and snowboarders, and snowmobilers are the most likely to be involved in avalanches. An underlying controversy with avalanches is the use of motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles, snocats, and helicopters in backcountry areas. Environmentalists have long been opposed to opening up wilderness areas to engines because of the disruption of the environment. Modern snowmobiles are very powerful machines with noise and vibration. One activity snowmobilers do in backcountry mountainous regions is to see how high up a steep slope they can go. After an afternoon competing on a steep slope in this fashion, it is more likely that an avalanche could occur. If it does occur and a search and rescue operation is mounted, who pays? If the search and rescue operation is faulty and one of victims dies, who is responsible? The battleground for this controversy moves then to monitoring and rescue responsibilities and costs.

| 47

48

| Avalanches

WHEN AND WHERE AVALANCHES HAPPEN Avalanches happen more frequently and predictably at different times in different locations. Wintertime is when most avalanches will slide down a slope. The highest number of fatalities occurs in January, February, and March. This is when the snowfall amounts are highest in most mountain areas in the United States. A significant number of deaths occur in May and June because of spring snows, runoff, and the melting season. Risk from avalanches is dependent on the type of activity. Mountain climbers can experience avalanches all through the summer. Each mountain is different with regard to avalanche formation. Unexpected seasonal variations in weather can create avalanche zones in predictable areas. Many mountain ranges can create their own weather systems with little or no warning. If climate change does occur this type of environmental information can mitigate the impact of natural disasters such as avalanches. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As development moves more into the mountains, the natural paths of avalanches can be crossed and avalanche zones can be created. There are ways to mitigate some avalanches when a town is directly in its path. The cost of and responsibility for these mitigation measures are part of this controversy. The underlying controversy about allowing engines and mechanized vehicles in wilderness and national park areas is still simmering. It gets added fuel from outdoor recreationists who create avalanches. The controversy surrounding the unanswered question of who bears the cost of monitoring for avalanche safety and for search and rescue operations is likely to continue. See also Mountain Rescues; Ski Resort Development and Expansion Web Resources Colorado Avalanche Information Center. Annual avalanche statistics. Available at avalanche. state.co.us/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: National Research Council (U.S.) Panel on Snow Avalanches and National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Ground Failure Hazards Mitigation Research. 1990. Snow Avalanche Hazards and Mitigation in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; Tremper, Bruce. 2001. Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain. Seattle: The Mountaineers Books.

B BIG-BOX RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Big-box retail development refers to large-scale retail stores surrounded by acres of parking lots. It is an environmental controversy because of the noise and pollution they generate. Large impervious surfaces such as parking lots also contribute to runoff problems. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Big-box retail development is a very controversial issue for most communities. For many citizens it is one of their few interactions with the actual land-use planning processes that surround large commercial transactions. These developments involve large tracts of land, generate large amounts of traffic, and are often touted as economic development by local government. Lack of meaningful public notice and public participation before decisions are made is often a controversy in big-box retail development. Some have accused big-box retailers of targeting less-savvy communities with informal land-use processes. Big-box retailers try to go with market demand for their goods and services. Some communities welcome any economic development, whereas others do not. Some communities have little experience dealing with sophisticated international retail corporations and do not know what types of environmental mitigation to request in negotiations. Many communities have little interest in local land-use issues until after all the notices and processes are done. Most notices are very poor at informing citizens, especially tenants, of these events. They are generally listed in the classified section of the local newspaper (if there is one) under legal notices. If there is a legal lack of notice and meaningful participation then the

49

50

| Big-Box Retail Development

legal remedy is to do the whole process again with the proper procedures. This seldom changes the result but does increase negotiation, if there is any room left for that by this time. Big-box retailers can wait for local land-use processes and can mitigate environmental impacts in new construction and in current operations. This commercial sector does not have the environmental air and water emissions of heavy industry, although they can have other environmental impacts. For example, Wal-Mart, the largest big-box retailer in the world, recently began a sustainability campaign. In the battleground for this controversy, the local land-use planning process and environmental concerns merge with health care cost concerns. Labor unions play a strong role in some of the battleground states, such as California. California also has an initiative process powered by voters, which is used in this battle. For that reason it is a good example of the parameters of this complicated and intense controversy, with a representative sample of cases discussed further on in this entry. Big-box retailing consists of oversized stores, especially in suburban and exurban areas. Big-box retailers vary in market niches. Some big-box retail stores specialize in one kind of retail good. For example, Best Buy and Circuit City sell electronics while Home Depot and Lowe’s sell home improvement products. These big-box retailers are sometimes also referred to as category killers. This means that they will eliminate any local competition that sells goods or services in their category. They can spread losses among stores until the local competition can no longer compete. At the same time, some big-box retail stores sell a variety of products with no particular niche, for example, discount department stores such as Wal-Mart and Target and warehouse clubs such as Sam’s Club. SPRAWL: THE CONTRIBUTION OF BIG-BOX DEVELOPMENT Big-box retail development is often connected with controversies around sprawl, that is, unrestrained and environmentally consumptive growth of human habitat. Big-box retail exacerbates sprawl. One of the main environmental impacts of sprawl is the consumption of large tracts of land for development. Because big-box retailers need a large space to build their stores, they rarely choose urban infill locations for new development and choose to locate in suburbs and exurbs. This pulls economic activity away from dense urban cores, spreading out the population and vehicle traffic over more and more land. Also, urban residents without cars cannot easily access these stores. Mass transit systems in the United States are poor at best, but big-box stores support automobile dependence. They usually have very large parking lots and a large ecological footprint. However, they may try to mitigate traffic and noise concerns of nearby or contiguous residents. When big-box retail stores locate in farmland, wetlands, or green space, they eliminate natural resources and open space. According to the American Farmland Trust, the United States loses 3,000 acres of productive farmland to sprawl every day. Some of this loss is fueled and caused by big-box retail trade. The loss of acres of farmland per year equals about the size of Delaware.

Big-Box Retail Development

Urban residents with cars may choose to shop at big-box stores because of their low prices and because of the convenience of a large variety of products housed in one building. Research has shown that a shopper will park further away from a suburban mall retail shop and thus walk further than if they had parked closer to urban retail shops. In this way, big-box retail takes business from local so-called mom-and-pop shops, not just downtown shops. In small towns with little downtown area, small family-owned businesses face stiff competition. Big-box stores have the ability to undercut local, homegrown retailers with lower prices because of their sheer size and economies of scale. If a particular big-box retail store chooses to, it can lower the price on the goods sold by the smaller stores, one or more at a time. Because they have larger inventories, they can raise the price on other goods to make up for their loss leader item. Industry representatives say that this is the free market model; if small stores want to compete they can lower prices, increase personal service, or offer specialty items. In many towns in the United States, big-box retailers moving into a community have eliminated the competition. The concern then is loss of jobs, lack of consumer price control, and sometimes an unanticipated change in the character of the community. FAMILY-WAGE JOBS One of the biggest limitations of retailing as a form of economic development is the fact that retail jobs can seldom sustain a family. Family-wage jobs are sought because they represent stable communities and property ownership. Retail jobs most often pay lower than a living wage. In fact, many retail jobs have pay scales that hover near minimum wage. Retail jobs also are most commonly part-time jobs with fewer hours and no medical benefits. Also, retail jobs typically lack career tracks. The chances of significant advancement from a retail job are slim. There have also been concerns about race and gender employment discrimination at the big-box retail outlets. Unionized grocery stores are the only exception to the poverty-wage problem of retail economic development. GHOSTBOXES AND GRAYFIELDS Dead malls, grayfields, and ghostboxes are nicknames for vacated retail space, which generally consists of abandoned structures and parking lots. While it is not immediately environmentally harmful, it is not particularly environmentally beneficial. It is an indication of the level of land-use and business planning in a community, as well as changing circumstances and site obsolescence. The United States has excess retail space. The National Trust for Historic Preservation estimates that there is 38 square feet of store space for every man, woman, and child. The program director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Center has testified that cities with too much retail space suffer all kinds of hidden costs—in addition to whatever subsidies they grant. When just one Main Street store, with two floors of 2,000 square feet, goes from being occupied and busy to being vacant, the total cost to the local economy

|

51

52

| Big-Box Retail Development

is almost $250,000 a year. That includes losses in property taxes, wages, bank deposits and loans, rent, sales, and profits. A 2001 study by the Congress for the New Urbanism and PriceWaterhouseCoopers about grayfields found that 7 percent of regional malls were already grayfields and another 12 percent are potentially moving toward grayfields status in the next five years. That would be 389 dead malls. Because vacant or underutilized properties usually get reassessed and pay much lower property taxes, dead malls mean big tax revenue drops. When tax revenue decreases, the quality and quantity of municipal services also decrease. As new big-box retail stores are developing, old retail stores and malls are vacating. When this happens they are called grayfields. BIG-BOX DEVELOPMENT AND COSTS TO LOCAL ECONOMY When Wal-Mart and other low-wage big-box retailers fail to provide their workers with a decent wage and full-time hours, many employees and their families qualify for safety-net help such as Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Earned Income Tax Credits, Section 8 housing assistance, low-income energy assistance, and free or discounted school lunches. These programs cost taxpayers money. A 2004 report by congressional staffers tallied all of these hidden costs; they estimate that each Wal-Mart store with 200 employees costs federal taxpayers $420,750 a year in safety-net costs. Multiply that by the 3,500 stores Wal-Mart already has in the United States and by the 300 more stores it plans to open every year and the safety-net costs to the community become staggering. To date, 19 states have disclosed the names of employers who hire the greatest number of workers that depend on taxpayer-funded health care programs. Many big-box retailers receive massive economic development subsidies to locate in new areas. Sometimes property and utility taxes are reduced to tempt a big-box retailer into a community. An environmental controversy can ensue if the site selected needs to be cleaned of waste and the city or state agree to wave environmental cleanup responsibilities. A prospective land buyer is supposed exercise due diligence to find out about environmental liabilities, and most buyers are required to disclose most of them. Sometimes the site is a wetland or a soil and water conservation district. These are not environmental problems unique to big-box retail development. Subsidizing retail trade is not a very effective form of economic development. Big-box retail economic development ranks among the least effective. Economic development success is generally measured by the increased wealth of a community, indicated by income and increased property values. Stable, high-paying or at least family-wage jobs are the most sought-after types of economic development. Manufacturing-based industrial development with local suppliers, warehouses, and distributors is considered very effective economic development by these crude measures. Environmental concerns now enter into many more local land-use decisions, and communities that can afford to seek only clean industrial bases for their economic development. Big-box retail economic development does not create many jobs for the local economy from the supplier side as most

Big-Box Retail Development

|

53

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT: APPRAISALS VS. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS In the private real estate market where land is bought and sold, appraisers assess value. Traditionally, to determine value residential and commercial land appraisers looked at the sale of comparable property, if there was any. As environmental law enlarges the liability for cleanup of contaminated land sites, sellers tend to keep this information quiet. Buyers want to know more about any environmental issues. Banks and mortgage lenders especially want to know whether they could be liable for environmental contamination. Buyers and sellers are supposed to use due diligence to disclose and find out about environmental contamination. This can mean a number of activities such as interviewing contiguous neighbors, sampling soil and water, and searching public records. The traditional real estate appraisal does not provide enough security for banks and mortgage lending institutions to know about potential environmental liability. They therefore require an environmental evaluation before approving loans to buy questionable land. Unlike an appraisal, the actual environmental condition of the property is analyzed. Both appraisals examine comparable market data, but environmental assessments are required to check all agency information and to verify it with other market participants. Extensive environmental agency research at the federal, state, and local levels is also required. If the land is found to be contaminated, an environmental assessment must include the costs of remediation in the assessment. Environmental risks are analyzed, but generally no human health risk assessment is required. In the end, whereas a traditional residential or commercial real estate appraisal may not reflect actual value, an environmental assessment does by including actual environmental conditions. Environmental assessments are expensive and time consuming. They may also disclose environmental liability of the seller that remains if the land remains unsold. Industry resists the costs in money, time, and potential liability. Communities applaud the disclosure and cleanup of environmental contamination. Government agencies work with national lending institutions to develop enforceable public policies that clean up contaminated land for the public health safety and welfare and to develop profits for private financial institutions.

goods come from overseas or elsewhere. The jobs created are few, do not provide a family wage, and lack health care. That means most retail workers have very small disposable incomes and therefore little buying power to stimulate the local economy. Some contend that there is only one justifiable time for government to subsidize retail economic development. That is to help neighborhoods that lack access to basic retail goods such as food, drugs, and clothing. BATTLES OF THIS CONTROVERSY Big-box retail development is engaged in land-use battles all across the contiguous United States and Hawaii. The state of California has a growing,

54

| Big-Box Retail Development

dynamic population and expanding market for retail trade big-box development. Cities in California are considering passing laws to stop or restrict additional big-box retail development. Several other cities in California have approved plans for the construction of Wal-Mart supercenters after some negotiation. Following are examples of the battleground of this fierce controversy from California. Examples include current laws that restrict big-box or supercenter development as well as information on recent approvals in several California cities. This research was published by the Public Law Research Center at Hastings Law School in the spring of 2006, edited by Jodene Isaacs, with the title California Responses to Supercenter Development: A Survey of Ordinances, Cases, and Elections. Alameda County Statute/Proposal: On January 6, 2004, the county board unanimously passed an ordinance that bans retailers of more than 100,000 square feet that devote more than 10 percent of their floor space to groceries and other nontaxable goods in unincorporated county areas. Players/Purpose: County supervisors say that the ban protects small business and will help minimize traffic concerns in unincorporated areas. Legal/Political Issues: January lawsuit by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart argues that the ban unfairly targets Wal-Mart supercenters. The petition claims county supervisors violated the California Environmental Quality Act when they said review was not needed before approving the ordinance, and also asserts that the public was not properly notified the board was considering the action. Wal-Mart also claims the county overstepped its authority “by enacting a law that imposes unusual and unnecessary restrictions on lawful business enterprises,” and didn’t follow state-mandated procedures in enacting the ordinance. Wal-Mart claims the ordinance should have been reviewed by the county Planning Commission prior to adoption. The petition asks the court to block the ordinance from taking effect in February and to deem it invalid. Comments: The Alameda County suit is the first Wal-Mart has filed in California. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Amy Hill commented that a lawsuit was more appropriate than a referendum. “They were so determined to get this passed immediately,” Hill said, “we felt a lawsuit was a more appropriate course of action.” City of Beaumont Statute/Proposal: City Wal-Mart approval. Wal-Mart plans to build a 149,500 square-foot building that could be expanded by 71,500 square feet. Legal/Political Issues: Two hundred residents turned out for a January public hearing about the Wal-Mart and raised questions about traffic, air pollution, and urbanizing the San Gorgonio Pass. Comments: After listening to residents, planning commissioners approved the store for a site south of Interstate 10. They sent the project to the city council, which has the final say.

Big-Box Retail Development

City of Calexico Statute/Proposal: June 2001 ban on any store in excess of 150,000 square feet that dedicates 7.5 percent of its floor space to nontaxable items. Ban overturned. Players/Purpose: Wal-Mart and labor unions. Legal/Political Issues: Wal-Mart spokesman Peter Kanelos noted that in March 2002 voters in the border town easily overturned a measure the city had passed to block Wal-Mart and similar retailers from doing business. Comments: Measure B lost 1,381 to 2,651 with Wal-Mart in campaign spending roughly $56 per vote. Contra Costa County Statute/Proposal: June ban in unincorporated areas on stores larger than 90,000 square feet that devote more than 5 percent of floor space to selling nontaxable groceries. Overturned by Ballot Measure L—53.8 percent to 46.2 percent, March 2, 2004. Players/Purpose: Board of Supervisors stated that traffic and controlling urban sprawl in unincorporated county areas was the major purpose for the ordinance. John Gioia, a Contra Costa county supervisor, argues that there are parts of Contra Costa County outside of city limits that already have traffic congestion and are at risk of losing open space. U.S. Representative George Miller contends that Wal-Mart workers could also be a drain on county health resources because the company does not offer adequate health insurance, an allegation Wal-Mart disputes. Legal/Political Issues: Ballot Measure L: Supporters of Measure L, who included elected county officials, community members, environmentalists, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and Safeway say that without sales tax revenue, the county cannot make the road improvements needed to handle increased traffic and other related impacts that the huge stores would have. Opponents of Measure L pointed to the negative impact on consumer choice. Opponents argued that Measure L would unfairly restrict Wal-Mart from selling goods at lower prices to working families. Comments: Wal-Mart spokesperson Amy Hill has acknowledged that Wal-Mart has contributed about $500,000 to the “No on Measure L” campaign before the end of January and could easily spend more than $1 million. Hill said Wal-Mart does not have any plans to open a supercenter in Contra Costa County. City of Gilroy Statute/Proposal: March 2004 city approval of Wal-Mart supercenter. Players/Purpose: The United Food and Commercial Workers union and Councilman Paul Correa worked to overturn the council decision. Correa notes that “if it’s going to happen for sure, maybe we can sit down with Wal-Mart and talk to them about having a positive impact on this community other than delivering low-cost goods.” Correa said he would like to discuss with Wal-Mart

|

55

56

| Big-Box Retail Development

issues such as hiring workers from Gilroy first, using local companies to do construction work at the new site, paying livable wages to its employees, and donating more to local charities. Legal/Political Issues: Wal-Mart campaign funding of supportive council members. Wal-Mart sent out last-minute mailers urging residents to vote against union-friendly candidates. Comments: A nearly 220,000-square-foot Wal-Mart may become one of California’s first. Supercenter Sites City of La Quinta Comments: Home of California’s first Wal-Mart supercenter, opened March 2, 2004. City of Lodi Statute/Proposal: City has considered a supercenter ban. Players/Purpose: Wal-Mart officials would like to replace the store on Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road in Lodi with a 219,000-square-foot supercenter. The supercenter project has not yet reached the planning commission. Legal/Political Issues: When the Lodi Planning Commission considered a size limit as part of its design standards in February 2004, Wal-Mart submitted a petition against the action containing more than 1,000 signatures collected at its current Kettleman Lane location. The city also received a letter from a law firm representing Wal-Mart, claiming a size limit without proper research would be a violation of state law. Comments: More than 100 Lodi residents turned out for the commission’s January 28, 2004, meeting, asking that a size limit—100,000 square feet was the most common number—be adopted by the city. At its February 11, 2004, meeting, the commission considered such an option but decided not to include it among the standards. City of Los Angeles Statute/Proposal: Proposal to ban any store whose stock includes grocery items from exceeding 100,000 square feet. Players/Purpose: Los Angeles councilman Eric Garcetti has spearheaded the campaign against Wal-Mart. Garcetti argues that supercenters would drive down local wages, as rival businesses struggle to survive; wipe out more jobs than they create; and leave more residents without health insurance—and with no choice but to use public hospitals and clinics that are already overrun by demand. Comments: Garcetti states that: “We don’t believe their business model is good for the kind of economic development that we want in the places where we need it most. And we want people to realize that the 10 cents they may save on

Big-Box Retail Development

a jar of pickles could mean paying another $5 in taxes for all the extra visits to local emergency rooms.” City of Manteca Statute/Proposal: Wal-Mart has proposed a supercenter project, and city officials contend that they have no plans to adopt a ban. City of Martinez Statute/Proposal: A ban on supercenter-format big-box retail. Legal/Political Issues: Wal-Mart has not challenged the ban. City of Moreno Valley Statute/Proposal: City approval. Comments: The Moreno Valley City Council voted on November 25, 2003, to approve a shopping center, despite objections from a number of residents and environmental activists. LJC Enterprises plans to build the shopping center, including a 227,194-square-foot Wal-Mart. The project also will include as many as 300 multifamily housing units to be built later. City of Oakdale Statute/Proposal: City staff will tailor a proposed ordinance after that adopted in Turlock, says community development director Steve Hallam (limits stores selling nontaxable goods on 5 percent or more of their floor space to 100,000 square feet or less). Players/Purpose: Oakdale city administrator Bruce Bannerman said the city’s streets “are not designed to accommodate this kind of traffic. . . . And there is only so much retail trade in any community. And if a retailer like this comes into a small community, and Oakdale is a small community, it takes away from others.” Legal/Political Issues: Amy Hill, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said Oakdale is not a planned supercenter location. Comments: The city council voted 5–0 to refer a proposed ban on Wal-Mart supercenters to the planning commission, which will be heard in early April 2004. Any planning commission decision will serve as an advisory vote for the city council, which would ultimately decide on the ordinance. City of Oakland Statute/Proposal: City Code § 17.10.345: October 2003 ban on stores more than 100,000 feet with more than 10 percent of sales floor area devoted to nontaxable merchandise, but excluding wholesale clubs or other establishments selling primarily bulk merchandise and charging membership. Legal/Political Issues: Wal-Mart has not challenged the ban.

|

57

58

| Big-Box Retail Development

City of Redding Statute/Proposal: City supercenter approval. Comments: Planning commission has approved a Wal-Mart supercenter. Proposed development would add 93,000 square feet to an existing discount store, expanding it to 220,000 square feet, including 60,000 square feet of grocery space. May be location of second California supercenter. City of Redlands Statute/Proposal: No final action to develop or prohibit. Comments: Community development director Jeff Shaw has said that Wal-Mart officials approached city officials about two years ago for preliminary talks about supercenter sites. The most recent talks took place in November 2003 and Wal-Mart has not submitted a formal proposal or requested a preliminary review. Two Redlands sites discussed were vacant parcels on San Bernardino Avenue and Tennessee Street and California Street and Lugonia Avenue. A site in the unincorporated Donut Hole also was discussed. Redlands Mayor Susan Peppler said she was aware of Wal-Mart criticisms but has not heard any local outcry. “We’ll always be mindful of that but because discussions are very preliminary, it’s a little too early and we’re not at the point where it should be a major concern,” she said. City of Sacramento Statute/Proposal: Proposed ban on stores larger than 100,000 square feet with between 5 percent and 10 percent of nontaxable sales items. Players/Purpose: City Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy said when smaller stores are pushed out of business by the large chains, it can result in blighted property. Sheedy has said that big box stores are “too big for an urban setting.” City and County of San Francisco Statute/Proposal: Retail business size-caps: The city and county created “Neighborhood Commercial Individual Area Districts” (NCDs) in 1987 in San Francisco requiring neighborhood zoning size-caps, and subjecting structures greater than a given size to conditional uses as deemed appropriate by the characteristics of each district in the city (e.g., North Beach). Players/Purpose: The city contends that the ordinance creates greater regulatory control over the size of nonresidential uses within the NCDs, and therefore, preserves and enhances the existing neighborhood-serving uses and enhances future opportunities for resident employment and the ownership of other neighborhood-serving business. City of San Marcos Statute/Proposal: August approval of Wal-Mart store by city council.

Big-Box Retail Development

Legal/Political Issues: Wal-Mart tried unsuccessfully to stop a March referendum by voters wanting to overturn their city council’s approval of a regular Wal-Mart store. These are a few examples of the bitterly fought land-use and environmental battles over big-box retail trade in California. Not every state has an initiative process, but these big-box retail controversies occur in every state and in other countries. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY This controversy has grown from community resistance to state and federal court litigation and state legislation. Environmental controversies are part of the concerns of many citizens when considering big-box retail development issues, but it is mixed with many others. Local retail trade may fear the inability to compete with chain giants, especially if the chain is a category killer in the same category as the local store. Unions fear loss of family-wage jobs. Environmentalists and land preservationists fear the loss of environment due to sprawl. The neighborhood in the site where the retail trade development operates will have noise and traffic concerns. These factors can lower property values and erode municipal tax bases. All citizens get annoyed and angry when they experience a land-use planning process that does not value public participation or that makes secret land-use deals with big-box retail corporations. Many of these retail trade corporations seek entitlements to use the property when they acquire the site. These entitlements are generally designed to help ensure profits for the store, and high-volume traffic is desirable from that point of view. Nearby neighborhoods almost always object to increased traffic and parking concerns. Therefore, when acquiring sites, big-box development prefers entitlement negotiation be kept confidential for fear of losing legal rights after public disclosure. The retail big-box trades contend they are providing a needed service and paying their labor fairly. This controversy shows no sign of diminishing. Outcomes are uncertain and political saliency is high. Sprawl can affect big, small, and medium-sized cities. Small communities desperate for any economic development create strips of retail trade near interstates and large state roads. When a big-box retailer comes in and develops a new site, many of these older retail strips become vacant. A fundamental aspect of this particular controversy is whether government should help local businesses compete. Most would answer yes. With big-box retail development the land-use question becomes what can we do to keep out business that competes better than local business. Environmental concerns and controversies can become part of the mechanizations communities endure when trying to exclude certain land uses. Many low- and moderate-income citizens like the low prices and one-stop shopping big-box retail trade offers them, so community resistance to them across the board is uneven. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Public Participation/ Involvement in Environmental Decisions; Sprawl

|

59

60

| Brownfields Development

Web Resources AlterNet. Big Box Swindle: The Fight to Reclaim America from Retail Giants. Available at www.alternet.org/stories/45166/?comments=view&cID=372780&pID=372682. Accessed January 20, 2008. Dead Malls.com. Available at www.deadmalls.com/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Good Jobs First. Disclosures of Employers Whose Workers and Their Dependents Are Using State Health Insurance Programs. Available at www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_sub sidy/hidden_taxpayer_costs.cfm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Good Jobs First. Shopping for Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth. Available at www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Cohen-Rosenthal, Edward, and Judy Musnikow. 2003. Eco-Industrial Strategies: Unleashing Synergy between Economic Development and the Environment. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing; Nevarez, Leonard. 2002. New Money, Nice Town: How Capital Works in the New Urban Economy. New York: Routledge; Rubinfeld, Arthur, and Collins Hemingway. 2005. Built for Growth: Expanding Your Business Around the Corner or Across the Globe. PA: Wharton School Publishing; Satterthwaite, Ann. 2001. Going Shopping: Consumer Choices and Community Consequences. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

BROWNFIELDS DEVELOPMENT Policy aimed at cleaning up contaminated land is called brownfields. It is relatively new, with a distinct urban focus. It is controversial because of the displacement of current residents and reliance on market forces to rebuild some sites. Whether the site is cleaned up to a level safe for residential development, or just safe enough for another industrial use, is a community controversy. BEGINNING OF BROWNFIELDS POLICY Since the disaster of Love Canal and the Hooker Chemical Company, U.S. environmental policy has developed a distinct clean-up aspect. It is very controversial. Extremely hazardous sites were prioritized as part of a National Priorities List under the Superfund program. Superfund can assess liability for the cost of a cleanup against the property owner if no other primary responsible parties are around. Huge amounts of unaccounted wastes were produced before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was formed in 1970, and huge amounts have continued to be produced. As much as 80 percent of Superfund budget allocations have gone to the litigation that can surround these sites. As knowledge and public awareness increased, many more sites were located. Most states had adopted some type of landfill or waste management environmental policy by the late 1980s. Controversies that still simmer today over what is hazardous pushed the EPA into a new phase of cleanup policy. There was a need to prevent nonhazardous sites from becoming hazardous. This can happen at illegal dumps over time. Metals from refrigerators, stoves, cars, cans, and roofing can leach into the water, depending on the site. Many of these sites were in or

Brownfields Development | 61

near areas densely populated, not a traditional area for the EPA at this time. In some states this was legal if operated as a dump, no matter where it was located. There were many sites waiting to be verified as hazardous or not for Superfund consideration. Even if the community was successful in getting the site designated as hazardous there was a complicated and political process of getting on the National Priorities List, a list of about 1,200 or so of the most important sites for the EPA. Getting a site designated as hazardous was not always considered the best thing for the community because it could suppress property values. Sometime local government fought against such a designation, against the community and the EPA. This is often the case in many communities seeking environmental justice. As environmental justice advocacy increased within the EPA in the early 1990s cleanup policy changed to include more of these sites. In 1993 the EPA first began to address sites that may be contaminated by hazardous substances but that did not pose a serious enough public health risk to require consideration for cleanup under the Superfund program. The cleanup policy that evolved was conceptualized regionally at first, partially motivated by concerns about sprawl. The idea was to save as much green space as possible by reusing, or infilling, some of these polluted sites. Infill is often proposed as a mitigating solution to sprawl. Municipal boundaries are not related to bioregions or ecosystems, and one municipality or city may not want infill. Municipalities have different and sometimes competing priorities. Combating sprawl or environmental protection and cleanup are generally not as important as economic development at this level of government. As a result, there are many polluted sites. When they become abandoned and are foreclosed on by the municipality or city for failure to pay property taxes, the city owns it. Cities, such as Milwaukee, Wisconsin, then become liable for the cleanup of the polluted sites, as well as losing any tax revenue. It is extremely difficult to sell polluted land, and all efforts are made to escape environmental liability in the process. According to the EPA, Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. They range in size from a small gas station to abandoned factories and mill sites. Estimates of the number of sites range from the tens of thousands to as high as 450,000 and they are often in economically distressed areas. Portland, Oregon, estimates that it has about 1,000 brownfield sites. Developers avoid them because of cleanup costs, potential liability, or related reasons. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS In 2001, new brownfields policy development authorized granting a liability exemption to prospective purchasers who do not cause or worsen the contamination at a site. It also gave this exemption to community-based nonprofit organizations that seek to redevelop these sites. Most states now have their own brownfields programs. There were substantial differences between

62

| Brownfields Development

some state approaches and the EPA brownfields policy. Some of this has to do with the level of cleanup required for a site to be considered clean. An industrial level is cheaper but still polluted. A residential level is very expensive but not polluted. It is still very controversial. Often no developers or nonprofits are willing to clean up the site. Unlike Superfund, brownfields policy does not attack primary responsible parties for liability. State policy approaches are given some leeway in the 2001 policy changes. The new policy stops the EPA from interfering in the state cleanups. There are three exceptions written into the law: 1. a state requests assistance, 2. the contamination migrates across state lines or onto federal property, or 3. there is an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to public health or the environment, and additional work needs to be done. U.S. URBAN ENVIRONMENTALISM The United States is still in the early stages of urban environmentalism, a complex subject with intricate and important histories. The potential for unintended consequences for people, for places, and for policy is great. Solid wastes are accumulating every day, combined with a century of relatively unchecked industrial waste that continues to pollute our land, air, and water on a bioregional basis. The wastes in our ecosystem respect no human-made boundary, and the consequences of urban environmental intervention through policy or other actions, intended or not, affect us all. TERMS OF ART Brownfields Site According to the most recent law and policy Public Law 107–118 (H.R. 2869), “Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act,” signed into law January 11, 2002, the definition of brownfield is: With certain legal exclusions and additions, the term “brownfields site” means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Superfund Site A Superfund site is any land in the United States that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health and/or the environment. There are tens of thousands of abandoned hazardous waste sites in our nation. The implementing edge of the Superfund program is a system of identification and prioritization that allows the most dangerous sites and releases to be addressed, called the National Priorities List.

Brownfields Development | 63

When outcomes from cleanup and revitalization projects are assessed, the EPA may have unintentionally exacerbated historical gentrification and displacement. EPA funds may have been used to continue private development at the expense of low-income residents. Urban Environments Urban areas are complex. For at least a century, urban areas in the United States experienced unrestrained industrialization, with no environmental regulation and often no land-use control. U.S. environmental movements have focused on unpopulated areas, not cities. In addition, U.S. environmental movements did not consider public health as a primary focus. Rather, they emphasized conservation, preservation of nature, and biodiversity. In addition to being the dynamic melting pot for new immigrants, cities became home to three waves of African Americans migrating north after the Civil War. These groups faced substantial discrimination in housing, employment, education, and municipal services. African Americans are the only group in the United States to not have melted into equal opportunity for employment, housing, and education. In addition, people of color and low-income people faced increased exposure to the pollution that accompanied industrialization. Citizens living in urban, poor, and people-of-color communities are currently threatened by gentrification, displacement, and equity loss on a scale unprecedented since the urban renewal movement of the 1960s. Market forces appear to be the primary drivers of this phenomenon. Spurred by local government attempts to reclaim underutilized and derelict properties for productive uses, residents and businesses who once abandoned the urban core to the poor and underemployed now seek to return from the suburbs. By taking advantage of federal policies and programs, municipalities, urban planners, and developers are accomplishing much of this largely beneficial revitalization. However, from the perspective of gentrified and otherwise displaced residents and small businesses, it appears that the revitalization of their cities is being built on the backs of the very citizens who suffered, in place, through the times of abandonment and disinvestments. While these citizens are anxious to see their neighborhoods revitalized, they want to be able to continue living in their neighborhoods and participate in that revitalization. In addition to facing tremendous displacement pressure, African Americans and other people of color also face difficult challenges in obtaining new housing within the same community (or elsewhere) after displacement. For example, when these populations are displaced they must often pay a disproportionately high percentage of income for housing. Moreover, they suffer the loss of important community culture. While it is not fair to suggest that federal reuse, redevelopment, and revitalization programs are the conscious or intentional cause of gentrification, displacement, and equity loss in these communities, it is apparent that the local implementation of these programs is having that net effect. These then become the unintended impacts of these well-intended and otherwise

64

| Brownfields Development

beneficial programs. Brownfields is a pioneering urban environmental policy, and unintended impacts could easily occur. Community activists should have an educated perspective to decide if brownfields programs will provide hope and opportunity to their distressed neighborhoods, or whether they will exacerbate environmental contamination and/or provide little or no opportunity for their own families to benefit proportionately. Brownfields redevelopment is a big business. Profits are generally more important to brownfields entrepreneurs than community concerns about displacement or reduced cleanup standards. In fact, at EPA’s 2004 National Brownfields Conference, developers reinforced this notion by highlighting their perspective that in order for communities to be players in the redevelopment and revitalization process, they need to be financially vested in the process. This view clearly speaks to the need for EPA intervention to ensure meaningful community involvement irrespective of financial status. The EPA provides some funding for brownfields to state and local government and to some tribes. As of July 2007, about 2.2 million dollars was awarded to brownfields revolving loan fund recipients. The EPA claims that since 1997 they have awarded about 55 million dollars for about 114 loans and 13 subgrants. The EPA states these loan funds have leveraged more than $780 million dollars in other public and private cleanup and redevelopment investment. Some criticize the program as being underfunded and underresourced. They say the need for cleanup of the places where we live, work, and learn is paramount for any environmental cleanup policy. HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN? Cumulative impacts concern EPA because they erode environmental protection and threaten public health, safety, and welfare. They cross all media—land, air, and water. Independently, media-specific impacts have been the focus of the EPA’s work for years. However, if the combined, accumulating impacts of industrial, commercial, and municipal development continue to be ignored, the synergistic problems will only get worse. The cleanup of past industrial practices must be thorough and safe for all vulnerable populations, say most communities. Another community concern is that long-term industrial use of a given site may decrease the overall value of property in the area, resulting in a loss of wealth over time. However, to clean up the site to a level safe enough for residential development is much more expensive. It is also fraught with uncertainty, which translates into risk for most real estate financial institutions. The state of the law of brownfields cleanup is also very uncertain and dynamic. One thing is certain though: the United States is dotted with contaminated sites generally concentrated in urban areas and multimodal transit nodules (e.g., ports, depots). By far, the populations most impacted by brownfields decisions are those who live, work, play, or worship near a contaminated site. These people are already in areas with a high pollutant load, with generally higher rates of asthma.

Brownfields Development | 65

Vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, the elderly, children, and individuals with preexisting health problems are at increased risk. In many environmental justice communities, a brownfields site may be the only park-like setting available, so it can attract some of the most vulnerable populations. To the extent members of the community are forced to leave because of increased housing costs, the community loses a piece of its fabric, and sometimes knowledge of its history and culture. This adverse impact needs to be addressed as part of a cumulative assessment. The sense of identity common to many environmental justice communities is threatened when communities are displaced. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As part of the first and very necessary wave of urban environmentalism, brownfields unearths many deep-seated environmental and political controversies. U.S. environmental policy and the U.S. environmental movement have ignored cities, where most of the pollution and most of the immigrants and people of color reside. The environment, urban or not, is difficult to ignore as population expands and concepts of sustainability are developed. Citizen monitoring of the environment, environmental lawsuits, and the need to enforce environmental laws equally have driven environmental policy to urban neighborhoods. Cleanup of the environmentally devastated landscape is usually an early priority for any governmental intervention in environmental decision making. A hard uncertainty underscores the current methods of holding private property owners liable for waste cleanup. What if they cannot afford it? What if they manipulate bankruptcy or legitimately cannot afford it? What if the contamination is so extensive that no one stakeholder alone can afford to clean it up? Ecosystem risk assessment, now mandated at Superfund sites, will unearth only more contamination. The levels of contamination themselves are highly controversial because some believe they do not protect the public enough. How much real estate corporations and banks should be supported by government in developing market-based cleanup strategies is a big policy controversy. Yet, without any intervention these sites accumulate wastes that can spread to water and land. They do not go away but generally get worse. Over time there will be no hiding any of them. With the new and rapidly developing global consensus on sustainability, cleanup of contaminated sites is a natural and necessary first step. This step takes place in a political context of race, class, and awkward histories of human oppression. The immigrants and migrants always lived in the tenements or on the other side of the tracks. (Train toilets dumped directly on the tracks until the late 1990s.) Success was defined as leaving the city for a house in the suburbs, with a better school district. Many but not all immigrant and migrant groups came through polluted and unhealthy urban neighborhoods. This political step is also a necessary step, and one that remains very controversial in the U.S. context. Currently, brownfields is the policy face of that step forward.

66

|

Brownfields Development

BROWNFIELDS PLAYING A ROLE IN THE BIOFUELS INDUSTRY Many contaminated sites are old gas stations, many of which have leaking underground storage tanks. The cleanup costs and liability are much larger when the contamination has spread, especially if it has spread to water. However, without cleanup the contamination can spread. From the city’s point of view it is an unproductive piece of taxable property. This common scenario has repeated over and over again over the last 30 years. Creative new solutions to this difficult and controversial policy issue require collaboration by local government, the EPA, and the property owner. SeQuential Biofuels opened the first alternative fuel station in Oregon. The country has a renewed interest in gaining energy security and independence by moving toward producing more of its fuels, including biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Biofuels are cleaner fuels that produce fewer pollutants than mainstream fuels. There also is much potential for homegrown economic development in this rising new industry. Brownfields redevelopment can play an important role in this emerging industry. Brownfields are a good fit because redeveloping these contaminated lands protects green space; the sites often are an opportunity to reutilize unused urban and industrial space. And often these former gas stations are ideal for such development because they already sit on properties close to roadways. SeQuential Biofuels has 33 branded pumps around the state with independent retail sites. The company, which owns 60 percent of the biodiesel market share in Oregon, has a large commercial biodiesel production facility that may serve as for a model gathering the fat necessary for biofuel production. The facility produces one million gallons of biodiesel made from used cooking oil collected from regional restaurants and food processors. It also uses virgin canola oil grown in eastern Oregon. By gathering resources and wastes locally, recycling and processing them, and distributing them locally, the overall ecological production footprint is smaller because of lower energy costs through less transportation. The retail fuel station sits along a commercial corridor adjacent to Interstate 5. The former Franko facility sold gasoline from 1976 until 1991. At that time, the property was turned over to a bankruptcy trustee. Also in 1991, petroleum contamination from the site was observed during trenching along the highway east of the site. Contamination also had migrated to a residential well west of the facility. In 1996, a private party purchased the property and removed the five underground storage tanks and some contaminated soil. Subsequent assessment identified the former fuel pump islands as the primary source of contamination. Lane County then acquired the property through tax foreclosure and in January 2005 removed more than 400 tires and 15 drums of waste. SeQuential purchased the property later that year after entering into a prospective purchaser’s agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The retail fuel station, which sells ethanol and biodiesel blends, opened last fall. Renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable design elements are all part of the business plan. Covering the fueling islands are 244 solar panels that will provide 30 to

Brownfields Development | 67 50 percent of the electrical power the station requires annually. On the roof of the convenience store is a garden. There are 4,800 plants in five inches of soil. SeQuential took advantage of several state incentives on this project. Oregon and Washington have played active roles in providing tools to advance biofuels in the private sector. On this project, the Oregon DEQ provided $19,600 for site assessment, the EPA awarded a $200,000 brownfields cleanup grant to Lane County, and the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department provided a $50,000 loan as matching funding for the EPA assessment grant through its Brownfields Redevelopment Fund. The project also qualified for the Oregon Department of Energy’s Business Energy Tax Credit, which equals 35 percent of an eligible project’s costs, and its Energy Loan Program, which provides low-interest loans. In the first six months in business the retail station exceeded volume projections. Its biggest obstacle now is teaching consumers that these biofuels are appropriate for any vehicle.

See also Air Pollution; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecological Risk Management Decisions at Superfund Sites; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Environmental Justice Web Resources Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. Brownfields & Brownfield Redevelopment. Available at www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Environment/brownfields.aspx. Accessed January 20, 2008. Tarr, Joel A. “Urban History and Environmental History in the United States: Complementary and Overlapping Fields.” Available at www.h-net.org/~environ/historiography/usur ban.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Cohen-Rosenthal, Edward, and Judy Musnikow. 2003. Eco-Industrial Strategies: Unleashing Synergy between Economic Development and the Environment. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing; Collin, Robert W. 2006. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cleaning Up America’s Act. Westport, CT: Greenwood; Russ, Thomas H. 1999. Redeveloping Brownfields: Landscape Architects, Planners, Developers. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; Thomas, June Manning, and Marsha Ritzdorf, eds. 1997. Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows. London: Sage; Thompson, J. William, and Kim Sorvig. 2000. Sustainable Landscape Construction: A Guide to Green Building Outdoors. Washington, DC: Island Press; Witkin, James B. 2005. Environmental Aspects of Real Estate and Commercial Transactions: From Brownfields to Green. Chicago: American Bar Association.

C CANCER FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION The controversy about power lines and cancer involves farmers, electrical workers, schools, and residents because animals, children, and homes might be affected. Utilities, bond markets, power line and pole manufacturers and distributors, and their trade associations all insist on the necessity of power lines. Government allows utilities to operate. Some research shows a correlation between environmental emissions of power-frequency magnetic fields and the incidence of some cancers. Electromagnetic sources of cancer are very controversial on several levels. Scientists disagree with each other, and the U.S. public questions the credibility of the science to date. Allowing high levels of electromagnetic energy benefits industries with high needs for power and communities seeking economic development. If or when a scientifically validated cause of cancer is established it will open a floodgate for lawsuits from people with cancer, ranchers and farmers, and parents with exposed children. It may require a more direct accountability for industrial impacts on the environment to the exposed community. A possible link to cancer is raising the profile of utilities and power supply grids. The background of this controversy is scientific, and communities, schools, and farmers are rising to the challenge of understanding this science because of a fear of direct, life-threatening impacts. Local governments seek economic development and a stable tax base but wonder if the public health risks and costs are worth it. Local landowners are very upset when power lines force their way through their private property because of the potential health risk and the risk of suppressed property values.

69

70

| Cancer from Electromagnetic Radiation

BACKGROUND The specific frequency of the source of electromagnetic frequency (EMF) has a direct impact on how it affects the environment. At the very high frequencies (less than 100 nanometers), electromagnetic particles (photons) have enough power to break chemical bonds in living matter. This is very destructive. This breaking of bonds is called ionization; X-rays are an example of the ionization of molecules. At lower frequencies the power of a photon is generally considered too low to be destructive. Most visible light and radio frequencies fall into this range. IONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC SOURCES AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS Many of these impacts on plants or animals have not been studied. The electric fields around the power-frequency sources exist whenever voltage is present. These electric fields are generally considered too weak to penetrate buildings or skin. However, there is controversy about this on several battlefields. The scientific community contests this on grounds of failure to consider cumulative effects and synergistic or antagonistic chemical interactions, and failure of sample size. Communities are not reassured by this. When children or livelihoods are at risk from EMF exposures, communities can move the battleground to the local legislative and land-use areas of government. Utility rights-of-way have long been contested by environmentalists. The possibility that utility lines could degrade the environment around them only pushes the battleground even further into the litigation area.

How do you measure a magnetic field? Measurement forms the basis of scientific observation. Dynamics that are difficult to measure remain unproven under scientific principles. Without a measure of exposure it is difficult to know who is actually exposed, how much they are exposed, and how much this risk contributes to cumulative risks; risk will usually be underestimated. In the United States magnetic fields are still measured in gauss (G) or milligauss (mG), where: 1,000 mG = 1 G. In the rest of the world, magnetic fields are measured in tesla (T): 10,000 G = 1 T 1 G = 100 microT (μT) 1 microT = 10 mG Electric fields are measured in volts/meter ( V/m).

Cancer from Electromagnetic Radiation | 71

Another crinkle in this controversy is about the magnetic fields around power-frequency sources. Electrical currents generate magnetism, which only occurs when current is flowing. These magnetic fields are difficult to contain, and they penetrate buildings and people. The concern is whether residential exposure to power-frequency fields may be because of the magnetic field. There is much less conclusive scientific research in this area. Belief in the healing power of magnets has risen in the popular culture. POWER LINES AND CANCER RATES This aspect of the battleground awkwardly incorporates public health and land use. Because it involves cancer and children it is very powerfully felt among affected stakeholders. Many areas of the United States are underserved by public services competent to measure EMFs, as are their land-use decision-making bodies. They turn to published scientific research. There are hundreds of published research studies, and more that remain unpublished. Scientists from industry, research institutions, and government are researching this issue. Some studies indicate that children living near high-voltage transmission power lines have higher than average rates of leukemia, brain cancers, and/or overall cancer. They are correlations, not causal models. The correlations are weak. Other studies have shown no correlations or causality between residence near power lines and risks of childhood leukemia, childhood brain cancer, or overall childhood cancer. Many of these studies themselves are controversial. They are criticized for requiring very high levels of proof, ignoring cumulative and real-life multiple exposures, and focusing on animals rather than humans. Some, as in other environmental controversies, challenge the independent judgment of the scientists if their study is funded by utilities or others who profit from power line expansion. This would include industrial manufacturers, distributors, retail trade, and the trade associations affiliated with these groups and with big business, generally like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The scientific perspective is very important in this controversy. Scientists fundamentally contend that the results of epidemiological studies cannot be used as a basis for land-use restrictions. Citizens at home and work and in hospitals and schools expect their government to protect them from serious public health risks. The mere perception of risk affects property values. Homes near power lines may be less expensive now and much less attractive to young home buyers with children. An additional problem is the lack of knowledge of the correct dose metric. How do you measure how it affects humans, animals, or plants? This creates complex multiple-comparison problems for researchers, regulators, litigators and courts, and scientists. This basic research issue will continue until a new way of measuring EMF doses and methodology is developed. It hinders communities

72

| Carbon Offsets

from preventing exposure because it is difficult to develop land-use and public health regulations without a metric of exposure. Absence of a way to measure impacts allows industrial and municipal power generators and users to continue with business as usual. It also neglects an important aspect of environmental impact assessment. There is a broad consensus that exposure to these fields cannot be proven to be safe or dangerous. Scientific approaches vary, differing in methodology and result. The public controversy increases daily. As we increase in population, increase our electrical power needs, and develop along the electrical power grid, this controversy is going to increase. There is a marked divergence in conclusions between U.S. and British research on the danger of EMFs. When a measure and dose metric are developed it could turn out that doses were very dangerous, or that they were completely harmless, perhaps even good for you. Technological advancements in the near future will form the early contours of this battleground, and they could open it up to federal legislation, class action lawsuits, and thousands of land-use ordinances designed to prevent the siting of power lines. These advancements could also conclusively prove that EMFs do not contribute to cumulative risks, pose no threat to any life-form, and efficiently and safely move electrical energy. See also Children and Cancer; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Pesticides Web Resources Electromagnetic Radiation and Public Health. Available at http://www.math.albany.edu:8008/ EMF.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Farley, John W. Powerlines and Cancer: Nothing to Fear. Available at www.quackwatch.org/ 01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html. Accessed Stony Brook News. Breast Cancer and Electromagnetic Fields Study. Available at http://com mcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=3&num=481. Accessed Further Reading: Doll, Richard. 1992. Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer. Documents of the National Radiological Protection Board, United Kingdom; Norden, Bengt. 1992. Interaction Mechanisms of Low-Level Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Wilson Bary W., ed. 1990. Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: The Question of Cancer. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

CARBON OFFSETS The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its contribution to global warming and climate change have motivated individuals and corporations to purchase ways to offset the ecological footprint of their carbon dioxide emissions. A number of companies offer to perform environmental activities to offset the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by certain activities. Controversy is evoked when these activities are scrutinized, and the actual environmental contributions of the carbon offsetting activity are analyzed.

Carbon Offsets |

WHAT ARE CARBON OFFSETS AND HOW DO THEY WORK? Carbon offsets are provided by profit and nonprofit organizations to offset the carbon dioxide emitted, generally by a specific activity. The profile of carbon dioxide offsets was raised when mortgage companies in the United Kingdom used them in their mortgage advertising, and when carbon offset organizations specifically marketed them to air travelers. Air travelers could elect to pay for their share of the carbon dioxide on a particular flight. Airplane emissions are substantial. Besides fuels and lubricants, airports use wing deicer and other toxic solvents. With acres of paving the runoff of these pollutants usually affects local water supplies unless treated. The money paid is supposed to go to an activity that uses carbon dioxide, to offset the carbon dioxide emitted on the flight, such as tree plantings. Some have estimated the carbon offset market could be as high as 100 million dollars. U.S. businesses have also been buying carbon dioxide offsets in order to engage in international business. Many other industrialized and nonindustrialized nations signed the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. The United States has refused and is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol set global caps on emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Many nations devoted substantial resources for many years to the Kyoto process, as did international bodies like the United Nations and the Union of Concerned Scientists. National and international environmental groups, along with community groups and labor unions, all also devoted considerable resources to this process. There is an international movement of cities that sign on with the Kyoto Protocols, including many of the major U.S. cities. U.S. businesses feel strong pressure to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in order to continue international business transactions where higher standards are required. EMERGING BATTLEGROUNDS There are still some questions about how carbon dioxide emissions are calculated, although the emissions estimates for most major activities are known. The big battleground is about how the money for carbon offsets is spent. The range of carbon offset projects has attracted criticism of them. There is no welldefined offset protocol or policy, so there are many gray areas. If the money goes to develop alternative renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, is the carbon dioxide from the petrochemicals that would have otherwise been used offset? Does it make a difference if the companies assisted make a profit, are nonprofit, or are state operated? Another gray area is home weatherization to save energy costs as a carbon offset. Does it make a difference to an offset program if a single homeowner is benefited? The argument for it counting as a carbon offset is that decreased energy use through conservation measures reduces carbon dioxide emissions by lowering consumption of pollution-causing energy sources. These differences can easily become battlegrounds.

73

74

| Carbon Offsets

NOT ENOUGH REGULATION TO BE RELIABLE? The biggest upcoming battleground for this controversy is government regulation of it. Currently there is very little. There are big differences in costs and projects of the carbon offset programs. There is a private, nonprofit effort to create a Green-E certification requiring the carbon offsets that meet some type of standard. Consumers of carbon offsets want their offsets to truly offset carbon dioxide. There are also concerns that without regulation some offsets may be sold many times or go to projects that occur anyway. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Carbon offsets are reaching businesses, individuals, and some cities. Carbon offsets are a voluntary market. There are many ways to mitigate carbon dioxide use, and some feel that buying offsets just uses money to justify pollution. Some fear it favors big polluters that just pay for their pollution, with the degrading environmental impacts such as global warming. Most of the carbon offset programs would take many years to offset the carbon dioxide used in one airplane trip. Realistically, trees take about 100 years to mitigate the carbon dioxide emissions of one person on one long airline trip. Others feel that the criticisms of the carbon offset market are inflated. The potential for future controversy around carbon offsets is unknown. It depends on how much they are used, the project selection, and looming governmental regulation. It also depends on whether it stays limited to just carbon dioxide emissions. Some environmentalists question the underlying premise of paying for your pollution. It allows rich nations and rich people to pollute. If the environmental impacts are not negligibly reduced, then they question the overall efficacy of it. Carbon offsets do engage the public imagination and give business an avenue to express environmental concern in a voluntary market. Some have argued that overregulation can limit the ability of industry to make pollution reduction and prevention changes. However, governmental environmental regulations are generally phrased in ways that induce compliance to minimal standards. Most times these standards are simply require industry to report their own emissions to the government. Large emissions are permitted, and industries self-report whether they are under a regulatory threshold necessary for a permit. Government regulators and environmentalists claim that industry is always free to do more for the environment. Purchasing carbon offsets is one way they are beginning to do just that. See also Air Pollution; Climate Change; Global Warming Web Resources EcoBusiness Links. Carbon Emissions Offsets directory. Available at www.ecobusinesslinks. com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Environmental Defense Fund Evaluation of Carbon Offset Programs. Available at http:// www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm. Accessed January 20, 2008.

Carbon Taxes | 75 Further Reading: Bass, Stephen, and D. B. Barry Dalal-Clayton. 2002. Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book. London: James and James/Earthscan; Bayon, Ricardo, Amanda Hawn, and Katherine Hamilton. 2007. Voluntary Carbon Markets: An International Business Guide to What They Are and How They Work. London: James and James/ Earthscan; Follett, Ronald F., and John M. Kimble. 2000. The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Smith, Kevin. 2007. The Carbon Neutral Myth: Offset Indulgences for Your Climate Sins. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.

CARBON TAXES As concern about greenhouse gases increases because of concerns about climate change, more policy focus is brought to bear on taxing the gases that cause it. Carbon dioxide is one such gas. Industry and others resist reducing carbon dioxide emissions because of the cost.

BACKGROUND Carbon taxes are taxes on those who contribute to climate change by emitting carbon dioxide into the environment, including homes, businesses, and industries that use petroleum products for energy. Carbon taxes are seen as one way of making those who contribute to pollution pay the cost of doing so. Nations around the world now have carbon taxes. In September 2007 the Vatican in Rome officially became carbon neutral. Carbon dioxide emissions are a global concern, with the United States leading the world in emissions. In the United States, carbon dioxide makes up 82 percent of all greenhouse gases when weighted by climate impact. The United States emits almost 22 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions but has only about 5 to 6 percent of the world’s population. These emissions are large and current environmental regulatory regimes do not adequately prevent them from entering the atmosphere. Some scientists are beginning to examine ways to sequester carbon dioxide under the ground or sea, such as the state oil company of Norway. However, this research is just starting, with no battlegrounds developing as of print. Economists and sustainability proponents have traditionally embraced the idea that the polluter pays, which means that the source of the pollution should pay the costs of cleaning up the pollution. While in theory this principle is attractive, it is very difficult to implement as an environmental protection policy. Enforcement is weak, coverage of polluters incomplete, and questions about whether money can ever compensate for environmental degradation all prevent environmental regulations from reducing carbon dioxide emissions quickly enough to avoid a global tipping point. The tipping point concept is itself debated in the scientific community. It means that once the atmosphere reaches a certain level of carbon dioxide there will be no way to turn back to lower levels. Many carbon tax advocates feel that the only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions quickly enough to prevent a tipping point problem is to tax carbon

76

|

Carbon Taxes

dioxide emissions. Sustainability advocates also like carbon taxes because they could help move society away from nonrenewable fuels like gas and oil. Critics point out that many of the results sought in terms of carbon emissions could be approached by reducing subsidies for nonrenewable energy sources like oil. Politically, a policy of reducing subsidies to nonrenewable energy sources has simply not happened, argue carbon tax proponents, and results are needed. Critics also say that the same results could be attained by use of a cap and trade program. Carbon proponents argue back that traditional cap and trade programs only apply to generators of electrical energy, which account for only about 40 percent of carbon emissions; that carbon taxes are more transparent and easily understood than cap and trade arrangements between industry and government; and that carbon taxes will get quicker results in terms of decreased carbon dioxide emissions. CARBON TAXES AND GOVERNMENT The first country to put a tax on atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions was Sweden in 1991, followed by Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands. At first it was applied to combustion-only point sources over a certain size. The tax was equivalent to about $55 (U.S.) per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. Norway has extended the tax to offshore oil and gas production. They found it effective in spurring industry to find cost-efficient ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The European Union just began a carbon tax in 2007 and plans to increase the rate of tax in the near future. It is clear that other industrialized nations are taxing carbon to control pollution. The more the United States resists these efforts to meaningfully slow global warming and radical climate change the more the battleground for carbon taxes will become international. Radical climate change could have drastic impacts on agricultural food production. One recent climate change model has suggested that severe drought could occur in the same areas that feed and shelter 80 percent of the global population. The global community is highly motivated to reduce the risk of environmental uncertainty rapid climate change would cause. THE UNITED STATES AND THE CARBON TAX The United States emits about 4.5 tons of carbon dioxide per capita; Denmark, 2.8 tons; Norway, 1.2 tons; Sweden, about 1.2 tons; Finland, about 2.8 tons; West Germany, about 2.8 tons; Japan, about 2.6 tons; France, about 1.8 tons; the United Kingdom, about 2.7 tons; and Italy, about 2.1 tons per capita in 1991. Most analyses conclude that the United States has higher emissions from primary energy used, larger houses, and much more driving per capita. Carbon taxes have been battlegrounds at the city, state, and federal level. Some environmentally conscious communities have passed their own carbon tax, such as Boulder, Colorado. Boulder’s carbon tax is about $7 a ton and applies only to electricity generation. The mean electric bill for residential consumers is $16 per year, and $46 per year for businesses. Advocates there claim

Carbon Taxes | 77

it will raise almost seven million dollars over five years. Direct environmental regulation of carbon by municipalities could occur rapidly in the United States, especially if state legislatures or Congress does not develop a carbon tax policy. Currently, there are about 330 U.S. mayors signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Carbon tax battlegrounds could occur in many different localities. Many state legislatures are being exposed to the idea of carbon taxes. In the United States, Massachusetts has formed a study commission on tax policy and carbon emissions reduction. Advocates for a carbon tax say that it will reduce U.S. oil dependence. Nonrenewable energy sources account for much of the U.S. carbon waste stream. Natural gas is responsible for 22 percent, coal burning for 36 percent, and petroleum products for 42 percent of U.S. annual carbon emissions. If the carbon tax is enough to change pollution behavior, then advocates claim it will generate a large amount of revenue, some estimating between $55 billion and $500 billion a year depending on the carbon tax program. AL GORE The First National U.S. Carbon Tax Proponent and Environmental Leader In 1994 Vice President Al Gore presented a carbon tax plan to President Clinton. It did pass the House of Representatives, but failed in the Senate. Republicans claimed that gas prices would increase 20 percent if the bill passed. It was an extremely controversial proposal in the battleground of national politics. Al Gore has held many leadership posts in addition to vice president of the United States. In all his national positions he has steadfastly advocated cleaner, cheaper, and smarter ways of increasing environmental protection. Many now-accepted environmental policies about hazardous waste cleanups owe their existence and continued development to Representative and then Senator Al Gore. Intelligent, sophisticated, well-informed, and well-known, Mr. Gore continues to advocate for environmental protection to many public audiences. Although he received the most votes for president in 2000, the Republican-dominated Supreme Court selected George W. Bush as president, leading to a continuing controversy on election fraud by political parties. One dissenter in the decisive Bush v. Gore case, Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote: Although we will never know with complete certainty the identity of the winners of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as the impartial guardian of the law. (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 [2000], available at: www.oyez.org/cases/2000–2009/2000/2000_00_949/) With characteristic strength and perseverance, Gore has continued to lead the charge against global warming and coming climate change and now commands an international constituency committed to environmental protection and sustainability. In 2006 he was awarded the Nobel Prize, among his many other honors. He is also the owner of a new media corporation.

78

|

Carbon Taxes

Al Gore was born in 1948 in Washington, D.C. His father was a senator, and many in his family were very politically active. In high school he was very athletic. At age 17 he began college at Harvard University and in 1969 received a BA in government. Although he opposed the Vietnam War, he served in Vietnam. From 1971 to 1972 he studied theology at Vanderbilt University. He switched over to the law school from 1974 to 1976. From 1977 to 1985 he served in the House of Representatives. He then served as senator and vice president, and in other leadership positions in government. Besides his strong advocacy for the environment, Gore, and his father, Senator Gore, Sr., distanced themselves from traditional separate but equal southern racial sentiments. In these positions Gore began to reinvent government. He focused on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and created various initiatives. These initiatives helped focus policy to achieve substantive environmental results. He encouraged scientific research and exploration into new pollution abatement and control technologies and included stakeholders like Environmental Justice for the first time. Under his vision, the United States slowly began the process of switching some permitting over to different industrial sectors, instead of the one-size-fits-all permit. Tighter fits between industries and their environmental permits allow for better environmental regulation. Modern industrialized nations recognize between 20 and 60 industrial sectors, identified with standard industrial codes or SICs. The International Standards Organizations (ISO) uses these sectors to evaluate compliance with international treaties. Gore’s initiatives helped push the United States up to international standards by creating a policy focus on sector-based permitting. By doing this he divided industry stakeholders into their respective industrial sectors, fundamentally changing the battleground. His vision also included many parts of the public not usually included in EPA processes, including cities and people of color. He is a firm believer in robust public participation practices for everyone. He was a strong advocate for the formation and expansion of the Toxics Release Inventory, a formidable tool in today’s environmental decision-making processes involving citizens. Al Gore did reinvent government from the technical levels to the politically inclusive processes of public policy. Source: Al Gore, Earth in Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1992).

Carbon taxes have made their way into congressional discussions and legislative proposals to reduce pollution. In September 2007 Representative Peter Stark from California and Jim McDermott from Washington introduced a bill to reduce global warming by taxing carbon in fossil fuels. It is called the Save Our Climate Act. He wants it discussed along with controversial and complicated cap and trade programs that are under legislative consideration. Their bill would charge $10 per ton of carbon in coal, petroleum, or natural gas. It would increase by $10 every year until U.S. carbon emissions decreased by 80 percent of 1990 levels. He maintains that this is the level most scientists claim is necessary to slow rapid climate change. Some environmental groups do not endorse it, some influential newspaper columnists (self-described as liberal and conservative respectively) do endorse it, and many are leery of anything called a tax.

Cell Phones and Electromagnetic Radiation

Accepting the concept of carbon taxes requires acceptance of global warming and climate change. These are environmental controversies themselves. In the United States they are also political controversies. As a political controversy, taxes for anything environmental may have difficulty getting enough support to become law. There is now academic discussion of a global carbon tax. Economists focus on carbon taxes in some of their environmental and policy analyses. It is likely that many nations would find this appealing. Huge issues of enforcement in rich and poor nations would prevent this. No nation likes another nation to tax its citizens in their own country. Nonetheless, the small economics battleground of carbon taxes as environmental policy is receiving serious attention. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Carbon taxes shift environmental policy into the tax policy regulatory arena. Taxes are very strong policy devices and are used here to change the behavior of polluters. As such there are distributional impacts and other taxes to consider. Some have wondered, why not just prohibit carbon dioxide emissions, or regulate them out of existence? Carbon taxes do appeal to the basic polluter-pays principle but suffer some of the same problems. Who does the polluter pay? Who gets the benefit of the new carbon tax revenue? These questions fall into the same category of questions as avoiding carbon taxes by subsidizing renewable energy or withdrawing nonrenewable energy subsidies (for oil companies, for example). The political will of regulatory agencies and federal courts is not strong enough to reduce the power of industry enough to tax carbon dioxide emissions. The fundamental question is whether carbon taxes will actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions. See also Climate Change; Global Warming; Sustainability Web Resources Carbon Tax Center. Available at www.carbontax.org. Accessed January 20, 2008. EcoNeutral. Neutralize Your Footprint. Available at www.econeutral.com. Accessed January 20, 2008. The Idea of Carbon Tax. Available at http://deq.utah.gov/Issues/climate_change. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Carraro, Carlo, and Domenico Siniscalco. 1993. The European Carbon Tax: An Economic Assessment. New York: Springer; Dellink, Rob B. 2005. Modeling the Costs of Environmental Policy: A Dynamic Applied General Model. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing; Park, Patricia D. 2002. Energy Law and the Environment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Serret, Ysé, and Nick Johnstone. 2006. The Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

CELL PHONES AND ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION Causes of cancer are controversial. When an important, new, and ubiquitous piece of communications technology such as the cell phone is suspected

|

79

80

|

Cell Phones and Electromagnetic Radiation

of cancer-causing emissions, the environmental aspect of the controversy heats up. The rapid development of communication technology has moved large amounts of information into the palm of our hand. Although initially starting as cellular telephones, these handheld devices now include cameras, computers, voice recorders, televisions, and video-calling capabilities. Industry has invested billions of dollars in these technologies, and consumers demand them. The federal government has taken a hands-off approach to their development. But there is a problem. Tests have found a possible link between cell phone emissions and cancer. The studies have two disturbing findings: (1) biological indications of cell changes seemed to occur with U.S. cell phone exposures, and (2) there is a statistical link correlating cell phone usage with certain types of brain cancer. However, other research has found no such link. Some of the early tests were funded by the cellular telephone industry, others by the government. There are differences in both research results and cell phone technology by country. The United States uses microwave technology via cell towers. Microwave ovens can emit radio frequency waves that threaten heart pacemakers. Western Europe, in contrast, uses satellite transmissions more in the cell phone systems. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration interpreted the brain cancer test results as worthy of more research. Some consumer protection groups wanted more consumer protection, interpreting the test results in the light of cell phones being more risky for the average consumer. Consumer groups and public health advocates want stricter regulation to ensure public safety. Brain cancer victims may sue cell phone manufacturers for negligence if causality and liability can be established, shifting this aspect of the controversy to the courtroom. A part of this controversy involves the amount of exposure to radio frequency emissions. Some occupations require exposure to these emissions and are generally regarded as dangerous. Workers generally try to avoid prolonged exposure to transmitting antennas. The safety, power, and technology of transmitting antennas have improved rapidly in the past 50 years. Cell phones in the United States operate in a radio frequency of 850 to 100 megahertz and emit about .6 watt of power, although new handheld communications devices may be more powerful. The radio frequency is nonionizing at that range. Ionizing radiations, like X-rays, produce more risk. The antenna produces the most energy, which comes in the form of heat. Given that the power is so low, most assume that it is not enough to cause damage. The ability to use satellites to transmit has greatly increased their communication potential. Handheld cell phones and communication devices place the transmitting antenna directly against the skull. Their proximity to the brain makes concern about brain impacts of their environmental emissions a flash point in this controversy. Cell phone transmitters remain on even when the user is listening rather than talking. This increases the total amount of time the consumer is exposed to radio frequency emissions. The increased time of exposure and the proximity to the brain make cell phone usage risky, claim consumer protection advocates.

Cell Phones and Electromagnetic Radiation

EVIDENCE OF HEALTH DAMAGE Because much of this controversy in the United States hinges on a set of research tests, advocates on all sides have scrutinized them closely. The tests were conducted at Stanford University and Integrated Laboratory Systems in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, a respected research center. Their research found “chromosomal changes in blood cells subjected to the same type of electromagnetic radiation emitted by hand-held cell phones.” There have been other ominous research studies. One research study compared brain cancers in people who use cell phones with those who do not. It found a large increase in brain cancer in those who used cell phones. One kind of brain cancer was noticeably increased. Neurocytomas are brain cancers that grow inward from the periphery of the brain and seem to increase with cell phone usage. Industry, government, and university researchers are now examining these findings and exploring other aspects of this controversy. Industry has challenged some of the conclusions about cell phones causing cancer, especially brain cancer. Using science, they claim it is impossible to prove cell phone use alone caused brain cancer when there are multiple intervening and overlapping variables that could equally have caused it. It is difficult to research because longitudinal studies take time, cell phone technologies are changing rapidly all the time, and consumer use patterns differ. Science and industry, and some courts, do not accept animal studies or computer models as solid proof of damage to a given individual. However, environmental and public health regulatory agencies do accept them as a basis for public health, safety, and welfare regulations. CHILDREN CAN BE AT HIGHER RISK FOR GENETIC DAMAGE FROM RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION Children are among the most vulnerable segments of any society. As cell and handheld communications devices reach more young people the concern is the environmental impact on them, given that they are still developing and that their lifetime exposure may be longer. Research from the United Kingdom has created some controversy. A British report recommended that children under 16 not use cell phones unless necessary. The panel said, the developing nervous system is more vulnerable to functional genetic damage both because of the higher rate of cell division and the thinness of the skull, which allows more penetration of radio frequency radiation into the brain. In addition, children may be more vulnerable because they would presumably be using cell phones over a longer period of time than adults, thus potentially increasing the risks associated with exposure over time. The British report made several recommendations, including: • Establishment of a system to capture health complaints among cell phone phones users so that reliable data can be gathered and analyzed;

|

81

82

|

Cell Phones and Electromagnetic Radiation

• Adult-onset leukemia should be added to the outcomes potentially related to radio frequency exposure, along with the brain cancer and salivary gland tumors now being studied; • Specific studies of children for health concerns related to radio frequency emissions; • Studies of the impact of radio frequency radiation on pregnant women and fetuses. Other studies have researched effects of pulse-modulated radio frequencies on the movement of calcium ions in cells and tissues of the nervous system. Early studies were refuted by later studies. The American Cancer Society said there was no increase in brain cancer incidence or mortality in the past decade, when the use of cell phones dramatically increased. Critics point out that cell phones are a recent phenomenon and it is extremely difficult to prove that a new technology is absolutely safe. Industry claims that proving cell phones do not cause cancer is too difficult a burden. SPERM Because proximity to the cell phone or other handheld communication device increases risk from radio frequency emissions, where it is stored matters. Many consumers and workers keep their cell phones on their belts or in their pockets. A British study finds, “storage of mobile phones close to the testes had a significant negative impact on sperm concentration and the percentage of motile sperm,” according to a report published by the British Royal Society. The study was conducted under the auspices of the University of Western Australia and based on samples collected from 52 heterosexual men. The samples were assessed using World Health Organization guidelines. The study found “that those men who carried a cell phone in their hip pocket or on their belt had lower sperm motility and a lower sperm concentration than men who carry a mobile phone elsewhere on the body.” BRAIN DAMAGE The cautious government response has been seen as overly protective of a dangerous technology by some. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) public policy posture is that it will review the health effects of cell phones. Consumer advocates say this is typical of the FDA, and is why they proceed to litigation. There have been many studies on this issue in other countries. Many do not find any scientific causality. Some just observe characteristics of trends in data for any correlation. Some of the studies are longitudinal. Some involve different cell phone technologies. Two Swedish studies reported an increased risk of brain tumors linked to use of cell phones used for more than 10 years. They concluded that those who used cell phones heavily had a 240 percent increased risk of a cancerous tumor. They also found that the tumor grew on the side of the head where they used their phone. Other researchers had also noticed that

Cell Phones and Electromagnetic Radiation

the type of brain tumors associated with cell phones tended to grow on the side and near the place the phone was used. The researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life had compared data from 2,200 cancer patients and 2,200 healthy patients. The FDA’s response to a set of studies replicating the Swedish studies in the United States is: The FDA continues to monitor studies looking at possible health effects resulting from exposure to radio frequency energy. In 1999, FDA signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the Cellular Telecommunication & Internet Association (CTIA). As called for by this CRADA , FDA plans to convene a meeting in the near future to evaluate all completed, ongoing and planned research looking at health effects associated with the use of wireless communication devices and identify knowledge gaps that may warrant additional research. (www.fda.gov/cdrh/wireless/braincancer040606.html) To many consumers and self-perceived victims, this response indicates industry control of the FDA. A meeting in the near future to identify research priorities seems to underestimate risk to the public if the research studies already completed are accurate. Nonetheless, it indicates that one battleground in this controversy is whether to research it at all at the government level in the United States. CELL PHONES AND PROFIT In 2005, the wireless-device industry generated $113.5 billion in revenue as usage time exceeded 1.4 trillion minutes and the number of cell phone users in the United States surged to 208 million in 2005 from 340,213 in 1985, when wireless networks were first being built. Now, handheld devices hold computers, cameras, microphones, live video feeds, all in addition to a multifunction telephone. There is no evidence of adverse health effects, according to a wireless industry trade association. There is a general controversy about adverse effects of chemical exposures, but this is about exposure to sound waves. This industry has large profits, little regulation, and strong trade organization representation at the congressional level in Washington, D.C. Wireless phones emit low levels of radio-frequency energy while in use and in stand-by mode. Radio-frequency energy can heat and damage body tissues. Despite industry assertions, there is uncertainty about the effects of frequency, intensity, proximity, and duration of exposure. This uncertainty finds its way into a legal battleground. A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit that charges manufacturers are making and selling cell phones with the knowledge that they are dangerous. The federal court ruled that because the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not issued standards regulating cell phones, the states are not preempted from regulating the devices and state courts are not barred from hearing lawsuits about the potential dangers of cell phones. As discussed earlier, the FDA’s stance on the research showing potential harmful effects on the brain was to rigorously examine whether it needed more research but do

|

83

84

|

Cell Phones and Electromagnetic Radiation

nothing in terms of law or regulation. This lawsuit does not claim specific health problems but argues that cell phone manufacturers have been aware that cell phones emit radiation into users’ brains and have done nothing to protect their customers. The suit argues that cell phones should have been sold with headsets as standard equipment to reduce consumers’ exposure to potentially harmful and known emissions of radiation. Among other legal remedies requested by the victims, this lawsuit asks that cell phone manufacturers supply headsets to past and future customers and reimburse those who purchased headsets on their own. The cell phone industry argued that Congress had given the FDA the sole authority to oversee cell phone safety, and those courts and state legislatures had thus been preempted. They argued that this is true even if the FDA decides not to exert its authority, delegates it to the states, and engages in no activity except considering research potential. The court ruled that because the FDA has not issued standards, the courts and other jurisdictions are free to set up their own regulations. This greatly concerns the cell tower–based communications industry because the lack of uniformity makes it expensive for them. Each state, and sometimes municipalities within the state, depending on their state constitution and enabling legislation, could have different rules and procedures. The placement of the tall cell towers necessary for many U.S. cell phones in residential neighborhoods is also very controversial. They are considered ugly, may emit dangerous radiation, can potentially decrease property values, and are placed in locations with vulnerable human populations. The legal battleground for this issue is a very large one. There are several class-action court cases being litigated at high levels, with many appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to dismiss a number of class-action lawsuits that challenge radiation emissions from cell phones. Class-action lawsuits are large lawsuits representing an entire class of victims. It is in the interest of judicial economy and decisional consistency that class actions are allowed, because otherwise there would be many cases with different decisions. Also, if there is gross manufacturing negligence that is actually harming people, it is more effective for the courts to handle it all at once to reach a more effective remedy. The problem with class action lawsuits is that if you are part of the class and do not opt out of it, your case is decided without you and you are prevented by the legal principle of stare decisis from refiling your case. This happened in the case of African American farmers and their lawsuit against the federal government for land loss. Also, class actions are not a regulatory tool per se but a way to protect the public health. With the then-new Chief Justice John Roberts presiding, the court declined to consider an appeal from cell phone manufacturers, who wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision allowing a class action to stand. Class-action lawsuits currently pending in Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania allege that cell phone radiation caused brain tumors. The suits allege the manufacturers are aware of the danger and have deliberately kept consumers without necessary knowledge to make informed consumer choices. The suits seek to force phone manufacturers to reduce the amount of radiation produced by phones and to warn users of the alleged health hazards. Some of the largest U.S. and international cell phone manufacturers are defendants named in

Childhood Asthma and the Environment

the lawsuits. Respected neurologists are also named plaintiffs in some of these lawsuits. Whatever the course of all this litigation on this issue, the next usual battleground for all stakeholders in issues like these is the legislature. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY This controversy is being waged on scientific fronts. Industry scientists say cell phones are safe; the U.S. government sides with industry, allowing phones to proliferate without testing or well-developed standards. Consumer groups here and abroad would rather cell phone usage be proven safe rather than just not deadly. What is the risk? In developing countries and rural areas of others, the mobile phone is replacing land-based wire systems. Cell phone towers are themselves a controversy in the United States, with some arguing they are a “taking” of private property. This controversy has just started to percolate up through the U.S. courts. It will require years of scientific research and legislative and administrative initiatives before the regulations catch up with current technology. Consumers have learned that safe does not always mean risk free. In this case, the jury is out as to what the risks are. See also Children and Cancer; Ecological Risk Assessment; Human Health Risk Assessment Web Resources The Cell Phone Chip Store: Cell Phone Use Associated with Decline in Fertility. Available at http://www.thecellphonechipstore.com/lovelife.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Cell Phone Index: Cancer. Available at www.mercola.com/article/cell_phones/index.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Wave Guide: EMF/RFR Bioeffects and Public Policy. Available at www.wave-guide.org/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Burgess, Adam. 2003. Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Kane, Robert C. 2001. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette: A Historical and Scientific Perspective. New York: Vantage Press; Ma, Jian-Gou. 2004. Third Generation Communication Systems: Future Developments and Advanced Topics. New York: Springer Press.

CHILDHOOD ASTHMA AND THE ENVIRONMENT Recent increases in childhood asthma have created controversies about the environmental causes. Children living in urban areas are especially vulnerable to asthma because of the high number of pollutants and allergens in their environment. Others argue that exposure to pesticides in the air and food helps cause it. Asthma is a disease that affects breathing. It attacks and damages lungs and airways. Asthma is described as breathing through a straw, and it can be serious for any age group. Childhood asthma attracts attention because of its potential developmental consequences. Asthma is characterized by partially blocked airways. It can occur periodically or reactively, and attacks or events can range from mild to severe. The nose, sinuses, and throat can become constricted. Breathing

| 85

86

|

Childhood Asthma and the Environment

becomes difficult and is accompanied more coughing and wheezing. During an asthma event, the muscles around the breathing passages constrict. The mucus lining of the airways becomes inflamed and swollen. This further constricts air passages. These episodes can last for hours or days. They can be terrifying events for parents and children. Childhood asthma and its disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations is one of the foundational issues of environmental justice in the United States. CAUSES OF ASTHMA: FOUNDATIONS OF A CONTROVERSY Asthma is a complex disease with many causes, some known, some contested, and some unknown. Each one presents its own battlegrounds. Environmental causes are controversial because they represent a broad, catchall category. Controversies about science, industry trade secrets, and unequal enforcement of environmental laws merge with a very high level of citizen concern. There is an emerging role for public health experts and advocates in urban environmental policies around childhood asthma. There is a greater incidence of asthma among children in U.S. inner cities. Asthma often accounts for a large number of emergency room visits, especially in poor areas underserved by medical insurance. Hospitals, health care administrators, and health insurance corporations are all very interested in the cause of asthma. Employers and educators know that a number of days in school or on the job are lost because of asthma. They also have an interest in understanding the cause. Some stakeholders may fear liability for causing asthma. They have a strong interest in not being named as the cause. ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGERS FOR ASTHMA The policy question posed now is what triggers an asthma attack. Others, such as public health experts and advocates, ask what prevents it. They are concerned that focus on a trigger overlooks vectors of causality as opposed to last exposure. INDOOR AIR CONTAMINATION Dust mites, cockroach droppings, animal dander, and mold can be environmental conditions that cause asthma. Exposure to allergens could induce the onset of asthma itself. Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke is also a contributor to childhood asthma. Certain insecticides may be triggers for asthma. Some researchers consider pesticides to be a preventable cause of asthma in children. Indoor air may be made worse by the increasing use of synthetic materials in homes in the form of carpets, carpet glues, curtains, and building materials. There is concern that as these materials age, they release potentially dangerous chemicals. This is a small battleground in this controversy. Manufacturers of these items strongly contest any conclusion that their products cause childhood asthma. However, concern about release of toxic synthetic materials has affected market trends in these products. Because many household products could cause asthma, the marketplace is a major battleground. Large big-box retailers like Wal-Mart are accommodating these consumer concerns about asthma causes that consumers can control, such as dust mites and animal dander.

Childhood Asthma and the Environment

OUTDOOR AIR POLLUTION There is strong evidence from longitudinal studies that ambient air pollution acts as a trigger for asthma events among persons with it. Truck and automotive exhaust is a big part of the polluted air, especially in dense, urban areas. Combined with industrial and municipal emissions and waste treatment practices (such as incineration) the quality of the air becomes so degraded that the total polluted air load in some urban areas and nearby urban areas is a threat to the health of children. It is a threat that they can get asthma through longtime exposure, and a threat that they could have an attack at any time. CHILDREN IN THE CITY It is clear that the increasing severity of asthma in the United States is concentrated in cities among children who live in poor conditions. Children are especially vulnerable to air pollution and other exposure vectors compared to adults. Children have more skin surface relative to total body mass. According to Frederica Perera, director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health: They consume more water, more food, and more air per unit body weight than adults by far. Today’s urban children are highly exposed to allergens, such as cockroach and rodent particles, and pollutants, such as diesel exhaust, lead and pesticides. And these elements affect them even before they are born. Preliminary evidence shows that increased risk of asthma may start as early as in the womb before birth. The small particles of soot “are very easily breathed into your lungs, so they really exacerbate asthma,” say Peggy Shepard, executive director of the West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., adding that she believes these diesel particles also may play a role in cancer. Shepard says New York City is second in the nation when it comes to the amount of toxins released in the air, preceded only by Baltimore, Maryland. When it comes to cockroach particles, they pose a problem for urban areas nationwide, says David Evans, who runs the Columbia Center’s “Healthy Home, Healthy Child” intervention campaign. He says, “simple house cleaning won’t solve the problem, because the cockroach residue tends to be present in many city neighborhoods.” According to the Harlem Lung Center, childhood asthma rates have increased 78 percent between 1980 and 1993. And according to the Columbia Center, there are an estimated 8,400 new cases of childhood cancer each year nationwide. DISPARITIES IN ASTHMA CARE Access to health care is an important aspect of the asthma controversy. Many low-income groups do not have health insurance and tend to use the emergency room when necessary. An asthma attack often presents that necessity. Language and cultural differences can make a tense medical situation worse. Even with regular medical intervention differences in asthma treatment by race, gender, and class create a battleground out of this issue. It is not contested that dispari-

| 87

88

|

Childhood Asthma and the Environment

ties in the burden and treatment of African Americans and Puerto Ricans with asthma are well documented. Among African Americans and Puerto Ricans the rates of asthma, hospitalizations, and deaths are higher when compared to whites. This is especially true among children. Different medicines are prescribed and used. Research shows that the use of long-term medications to control asthma is lower in African Americans and Puerto Ricans. Cost may be a factor, especially if there is no insurance coverage. Access to medical care is affected by many factors. There are shortages of primary care physicians in minority communities and issues of trust about the role and usefulness of medications. COSTS OF ASTHMA Asthma is a cause of death among U.S. children. There are 247 deaths each year due to childhood asthma. It is the leading cause of hospital admission for urban children. Asthma is also the leading cause of days of school missed. It is estimated that about 30 percent of acute episodes of childhood asthma are environmentally related. Air pollution is considered a major cause of asthma, and asthma and public health are major regulatory justifications for clean air laws. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated the cost savings that resulted from the Clean Air Act. For the years 1970–1990, the EPA calculated that the annual monetary benefits of reductions in chronic bronchitis and other respiratory conditions was $3.5 billion. That is, these are health care costs that would have been incurred if there were no clean air regulations. There are other costs of course. Also, if there were no costs and if asthmatics could get free and accessible medical attention, the cost of human resources necessary to handle the scope of the problem could be large. Additional childhood asthma benefits are projected by the EPA to accrue over the years 1990 to 2010, assuming full implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY This controversy is very salient among communities and public health professionals. Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other places where vulnerable people live hold strong views but lack resources. Emissions from traffic, industry, and heating and cooling systems are now part of the U.S. urban landscape. Environmentalists note that the law does not cover all the pollutants and is not enforced equally. Environmental justice advocates consider childhood asthma as proof of at least one disproportionate environmental impact. Asthma generally has resulted in a substantial increase in sales and profits of pharmaceutical companies. This controversy is structural in that it pits public health concerns against industrial emissions, and is therefore deep. There will be many battlegrounds. The environmental controversies around childhood asthma will focus on air pollution and use other controversial methods such as ecosystem risk assessment or cumulative risk assessment. Childhood

Childhood Asthma and the Environment

| 89

FACTS ABOUT ASTHMA Childhood asthma is an environmental controversy with much saliency in metropolitan areas. The following summary is from the Center of Children’s Health and the Environment at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine: • In 1993–1994, approximately four million children aged 0–14 reported asthma in the preceding 12 months. • Self-reported prevalence rates for asthma among children ages 0–4 increased by 160 percent from 1980 to 1994; rates among children ages 5–14 increased by 74 percent. • Asthma was selected as the underlying cause of death among 170 children aged 0–14 in 1993. • Among children ages 5–14, the asthma death rate nearly doubled from 1980 to 1993. • Over 160,000 children aged 0–14 are hospitalized for asthma annually. • Among all age groups, children aged 0–4 had the highest hospitalization rate in 1993–1994 (49.7 hospitalizations per 10,000 persons). • The cost of illness related to asthma in 1990 was estimated to be $6.2 billion, according to a 1992 study. Of that amount, inpatient hospital services were the largest medical expenditure for this condition, approaching $1.6 billion. Many more suffer asthma without medical care. There may be rural, institutional, and pockets of urban populations that lack public health resources. Many citizens do not have health care coverage for asthma.

asthma is a big part of the new inclusion of cities by the EPA. In the early 1990s the visionary EPA administrator Carol Browner reduced the level of particulate matter allowed in urban air districts, effectively banning many diesel and leaded gas vehicles. She started an urban air toxics policy task force to help engage cities and the EPA, along with several other successful policy initiatives. Exxon and other oil companies responded with letters to their accounts about the new air pollution regulations. In an unusual step, the American Lung Association and other public health organizations responded in support of the EPA. As U.S. environmental policy matures into including all environments, including cities, a greater battleground in the areas of public health can be expected. Battle lines were drawn then and are much deeper now. Asthma is worse, there is greater consensus that air pollution not only triggers but also causes asthma, there are large documented environmental injustices by race and class, and there is a large overall push for sustainability. See also Children and Cancer; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Environmental Justice; Sustainability Web Resources American Family Physician. Management of Asthma in Children. Available at www.aafp. org/afp/20010401/1341.html. Accessed January 20, 2008.

90

|

Children and Cancer American Lung Association: Childhood Asthma Overview. Available at www.lungusa.org/ site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=22782. Accessed January 20, 2008. Beyond Pesticides. Asthma, Children, and Pesticides. Available at www.beyondpesticides. org/children/asthma/index.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Bernstein, I. Leonard. 1999. Asthma in the Workplace. New York: Marcel Dekker; Cherni, Judith A. 2002. Economic Growth versus the Environment: The Politics of Wealth, Health, and Air Pollution. London: Palgrave Macmillan; Christie, Margaret J., and Davina French. 1994. Assessment of Quality of Life in Childhood Asthma. London: Taylor and Francis; Institute of Medicine. 2000. Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; Naspitz, Charles K. 2001. Pediatric Asthma: An International Perspective. London: Taylor and Francis.

CHILDREN AND CANCER A core controversy is whether environmental stressors, such as pollution and pesticides, are responsible for the increase of childhood cancers. BACKGROUND The cause of cancer is always a controversial topic. The rate of cancer among U.S. children has been rising since the 1970s. The mortality rate, however, has decreased since the 1980s. There are scientifically established causes of childhood cancer. Family history of cancer, radiation exposure, genetic abnormalities, and some chemicals used to treat cancer are known causes of childhood cancer. The plethora of new chemicals in food, air, water, clothing, carpets, and the soil is strongly suspected as being part of the cause of cancer in children. The scientific model of causality struggles with proof of the cause of childhood cancer, and engages fierce environmental controversy in the process. Some aspects of this controversy have moved into the courtroom. There science struggles both with causality by a certain chemical, and liability of a specific person (the defendant). CHILDHOOD CANCER FACTS According to the National Cancer Institute (http://www.cancer.gov/cancer topics/types/childhoodcancers), the following set of statistics measures the expanding parameters of childhood cancer. A newborn child faces a risk of about 1 in 600 of getting cancer by 10 years of age. The rate of increase has amounted to almost 1 percent a year. From 1975 to 1995 the incidence of cancer increased from 130 to 150 cases per million children. During this time mortality due to cancer decreased from 50 to 30 deaths per million children. In the United States, cancer is diagnosed each year in about 8,000 children below age 15. Cancer is the most common form of fatal childhood disease. About 10 percent of all deaths in childhood are from cancer. There are big differences between types of cancer, and researchers investigate these differences because it may lead them to the environmental stressors. Leukemia was the major cancer in children from 1973 to 1996. About one-quarter of all childhood cancer cases were leukemia. Brain cancer, or glioma, increased

Children and Cancer | 91

nearly 40 percent from 1973 to 1994. The overall rate of central nervous system tumors increased from about 23 per million in 1973 to 29 per million children in 1996. These two forms of cancer account for most of the disease in children. Lymphomas are the third most diagnosed category of childhood cancer. Lymphomas are diagnosed in about 16 percent of cases. There are different kinds of lymphomas; for some categories childhood incidence rates have decreased and for others they have increased. (Non-Hodgkins lymphomas increased from 8.9 per million children in 1973 to 11 per million in 1996, for example.) According the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Children’s Health protection (http://Yosemite.epa.gov/ochpweb.nsf/content/childhood_ cancer.htm) there are substantial differences by age and type of cancer. Rates are highest among infants, decline until age 9, and then rise again with increasing age. Between 1986 and 1995, children under the age of 5 and those aged 15–19 experienced the highest incident rates of cancer at approximately 200 cases per million children. Children aged 5–9 and 10–14 had lower incidence rates at approximately 110 and 120 cases per million children. The U.S. EPA also reports some ethnic differences in childhood cancer rates: Between 1992 and 1996, incidence rates of cancer were highest among whites at 160 per million. Hispanics were next highest at 150 per million. Asian and Pacific Islanders had an incidence rate of 140 per million. Black children had a rate of 120 per million, and Native Americans and Alaska Natives had the lowest at 80 per million. Also, different types of cancer affect children at different ages. According to the U.S. EPA: Neuroblastomas, Wilm’s tumors (tumors of the kidney) and retinoblastoma (tumors in the eyes) usually are found in very young children. Leukemias and nervous system cancers are most common through age 14; lymphomas, carcinomas, and germ cell and other gonadal tumors are more common in those 15–19 years old. SCIENTIFIC MODEL: STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP WITH POLICY The last century saw a drastic lowering of infectious disease rates due to strong public health measures and education. In the United States and other industrialized nations this has been accompanied by a general rise in systemic, whole-body or immune system breakdowns. Cancer is considered a possible result of a wholebody immune system breakdown. About 100,000 chemicals are released into the environment. Less than 2 percent of them are tested for public health impacts. The tests are done in constrained laboratory conditions, generally considering a given chemical safe if less than one-half or one-quarter of the mice exposed to it die. The scientific model requires the isolation of an extraneous possible cause or intervening variables. It ignores cumulative, synergistic, and antagonistic real-world chemical interactions that are the exposure vectors of chemicals for children. The

92

|

Children and Cancer

actual biological vulnerability of the affected humans is not taken into account. A developing fetus is much more vulnerable to harm by cancer-causing chemicals. It takes a newborn child at least one year to develop an efficient blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier works to protect the brain while the central nervous system develops. Before it begins fully functioning an infant could be exposed to whatever the mother is exposed to. There is research that indicates that children of people who work with dangerous chemicals have an increased frequency of childhood cancer. The problem of childhood cancer is a driving force behind many other environmental controversies. The real-world number of cancer cases in industrialized nations has increased overall, although it depends on demographics and type of cancer. Environmental scientists, from government, industry, and environmental groups, have been laboring for many years to unravel some of the exposure vectors to children with cancer, and sometimes endocrine disruption. Many chemicals are much more dangerous when mixed with other chemicals. Children are especially vulnerable to many of the chemicals used around the house, such as cleaners and pesticides. Research found over twice the risk of brain cancer for children exposed to household insecticide. Some studies found even higher rates of risk. These early studies focus on just one type of cancer from a few known exposure vectors. The cumulative and synergistic emissions of the past are becoming the cancer risks of the present. COSTS ARE VERY HIGH: WHO PAYS? Health care in the United States is another controversy altogether. Access is difficult, and cancer treatments are very expensive. The annual overall incidence of cancer is 133.3 per million for children under 15 years old in the United States. There were 57.9 million children under 15 years of age in the United States in 1997. About 7,722 cases of childhood cancer are anticipated each year, which is very close to the 8,000 reported. Experts have estimated the cancer related costs for children to be about $4.8 billion. There are other costs. Psychological stress, transportation, time with medical staff and insurers, and time as a health care provider are all also costs. The cost of treatment of childhood cancer is controversial in that it is generally too much for an average family to afford. This plays into other controversies about the health care system. If the family cannot afford it, or if their insurance company requires it, they file a lawsuit against the most likely cause of the cancer. The litigation hurdles of proof and the burden of proof are often insurmountable obstacles. WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS CAUSE CHILDHOOD CANCERS? The following brain cancer figures, from the American Cancer Society, show a disturbing trend in the number of cases being found: 1940: 1.95 per 100,000 population 1945: 2.25 per 100,000 1950: 2.90 per 100,000

Children and Cancer | 93

1955: 3.40 per 100,000 1960: 3.70 per 100,000 1965: 3.85 per 100,000 1970: 4.10 per 100,000 1975: 4.25 per 100,000 These figures show a steady increase for all industrialized nations. To many public policy makers the cancer rates in these countries implicate chemicals used there. Similar increases are occurring in children. Many chemical manufacturing industries would contest this association, stating that in most cases the scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves causality. CHEMICALS AND CHILDHOOD CANCERS As discussed previously, a major form of childhood cancer is brain cancer. Which chemicals have been linked to brain cancers? Chemical workers are often the most exposed to a particular chemical. They make it, store it, and transport it. Sometimes they also use it. Epidemiologists follow the exposure vector to workers of various suspected chemicals. Brain cancer risks follow workers exposed to chemicals used in vinyl and rubber production, oil refineries, and chemical manufacturing plants. Another study by the National Cancer Institute of 3,827 Florida pest control operators found they had approximately twice the normal rate of brain cancer. Pesticide exposure increases risks for childhood cancer. Because adult workers had higher rates of brain cancer when exposed to these chemicals in their occupations, researchers surmise that because children are more vulnerable they may get more brain cancer when exposed to these chemicals. Some chemicals used in pesticides concern public health officials more than others. Chlordane is one of high concern. Research on children who developed brain cancer after their homes were treated with pesticides led them to this chemical. The battleground for this chemical has moved to litigation in these cases. Chlordane is a high-risk chemical for brain cancer. It is a fat-soluble compound. Fat-soluble compounds are absorbed into the nervous system, which is developing rapidly in children from birth to age 5. Legal chlordane use was stopped in the United States in April 1988. However, the law was and is poorly enforced. One reason it was made illegal was its long-term killing power, which also made it an effective pesticide. The degree to which a chemical persists in the environment is one measure of how dangerous it could be to the environment and to humans. Chlordane is such a persistent chemical that it is still being detected today. Tests of more than 1,000 homes performed by federal agencies found that approximately 75 percent of all homes built before 1988 show air contamination with chlordane. They also found that 6 to 7 percent are suspected of being over the maximum safe levels for chlordane exposure in residential housing set by the National Academy of Sciences, a limit that some have argued is too low. Research into this controversial area has increased. Authors Julia Green Brady, Ann Aschengrau, Wendy McKelvey, Ruthann A. Rudel, Christopher H. Schwartz, and Theresa Kennedy from the Boston University School of Public

94

|

Children and Cancer

Health in Massachusetts published, “Family Pesticide Use Suspected of Causing Child Cancers, I” (Archives of Environmental Contamination Toxicology 24, no. 1 [1993]: 87–92). In this peer-reviewed article the relationship between family pesticide use and childhood brain cancer was closely examined. The researchers compared brain cancer rates for families using pesticides and those not using pesticides. They concluded that the chemicals did increase the risk of getting cancer. Significant positive associations with brain cancer rates were observed in families using regular household supplies and pest control chemicals. Bug sprays for different kinds of insects, pesticide bombs, hanging no-pest strips, some shampoos, flea collars on dogs and cats, diazinon in the garden or orchard, and herbicides to control weeds in the yard were all found by the authors to be part of the chemical vector increasing risk of brain cancer. These results are still being disputed. Some argue that the sample sizes are very small in some of these studies and the results may not be typical. Unanswered questions fueling the uncertainty that underlies this controversy concern the total range of effects of chemicals. What happens when they combine in water or sunlight over time? Are there possible generation-skipping effects? What happens to the typical child when exposed to these chemicals in their normal environment? What constitutes their regular environment? Does air pollution pose another cancer-causing vector for children? The evidence is fairly conclusive now that secondary tobacco smoke can cause health risks. Originally, tobacco smoking and chewing were considered good for your health. The danger they posed was a conclusion resisted tenaciously by the tobacco industry. Secondary smoke was highly controversial and remains contested when local land-use ordinances forbid tobacco products. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Childhood cancer is a traumatic event for all involved. The costs are very high. Right now it is difficult to overcome scientifically based burdens of proof in litigation. Families with children with cancer often seek legislative recourse to the incidents they believe caused the cancer. Children as growing beings naturally absorb more from the environment than adults. The increase in most childhood cancer rates is a cause for alarm for environmentalists and public health officials. Industry tries to cap environmental liabilities through legislation and internal agency advocacy. This all means that this controversy will intensify as more chemicals are linked with childhood cancers. See also Cancer from Electromagnetic Radiation; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Human Health Risk Assessment; Pesticides Web Resources National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute: Research on Childhood Cancers. Available at www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood. Accessed January 20, 2008.

Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions | 95 National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences: Childhood Cancer Research. Available at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents. www.niehs.nih.gov/external/resinits/ ri-22.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Natural Resources Defense Council. Children, Cancer, and the Environment. Available at www.nrdc.org/health/kids/kidscancer/kidscancer1.asp. Accessed January 20, 2008. Pressinger, Richard W., and Wayne Sinclair. Environmental Causes of Cancers. Available at www.chem-tox.com/cancerchildren/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Hayman, Laura L., ed. 2002. Chronic Illness in Children: An EvidenceBased Approach. New York: Springer Publishing; Pangman, Julie Klaas. 1994. Guide to Environmental Issues. Darby, PA: Diane Publishing; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. The EPA Children’s Environmental Health Yearbook. Darby, PA: Diane Publishing.

CITIZEN MONITORING OF ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS In many communities citizens are monitoring the chemicals in the land, air, and water for pollutants, aided by the expansion of right-to-know laws. Currently, most citizen environmental complaints about pollution must go through the state and/or federal environmental agency that granted the permits to the industrial and municipal emitters in that region. Industry environmental compliance is self-reported by the industrial entity to the agency, not the local community. Controversies about lack of notice and involvement of the citizens, the actual measurement of the emissions, and enforcement flare up around these dynamics and push many citizens into organized monitoring. Many communities that suffer from cumulative and ongoing emissions may begin monitoring if cancer, miscarriage, asthma, or other public health degradation indicators show cause for concern. Citizens and other residents monitor the environment every day. Farmers monitor weather to grow crops efficiently. Emergency response personnel monitor weather for natural disasters. Citizens are now monitoring the conditions of the land, air, and water around them, with and without the assistance of state or federal government agencies. Citizens are often in the best location to gather environmental knowledge and have the most at stake. Environmentalists strongly encourage citizen monitoring. Recent increases in citizen access to information about the Toxics Release Inventory encourage citizens to ask questions. Concern about cancer-causing chemicals lurks in the public’s mind despite scientific assertions otherwise. Many science and health courses in elementary and secondary education now teach important monitoring skills. Citizen monitoring is going to continue, but the controversies will erupt around whether they should count in government regulation of development and industry in that area. The battleground can begin in both the land-use and industrial permitting arenas. From here they both can end up in court. Whether citizen monitoring counts by law or not, it is a strongly salient political force in all U.S. environmental policy. Community environmental controversies can fester long after judicial intervention.

96

|

Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions

WHAT DO PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT? Monitoring the environment is both a recreational and a scientific pursuit. People tend to monitor the environment as it relates to their own safety and that of their loved ones. Agribusiness monitors the environment for profit. Mothers with asthmatic children may monitor the air more closely for pollution. Kayakers and canoeists may monitor water discharges more closely, especially in controlled water flows. Citizen monitoring often springs from a concern about the environment without knowledge of the source of the pollution. One function of citizen monitoring of the environment is to expand what the regulating state and federal environmental agencies know. The coverage of environmental regulation in the United States is thin and relatively new. From the perspective of direct enforcement of environmental law, citizens supply information necessary to help both government and industry ensure compliance with the law. This would also help alleviate problems with unequal enforcement of environmental law that have occurred as a result of whole communities being left out of the scope of environmental policy and law. Many community-monitoring programs begin with dissatisfaction with local, state, or federal agency response to an environmental issue. They often will search the telephone book and Internet for industries near the site. Illegal waste sites are a large concern for many communities. They want more enforcement from environmental agencies and do not get it. They want the site cleaned up and put back into productive use and do not get it. Citizen monitoring can take the form of an inventory or a survey of the offending activities. They often seek the name of the owner of the illegal waste or property. Communities will often take photographs. Aerial photographs of suspicious sites are useful and now available on the Internet. Communities are powerful stakeholders in terms of information. They will interview past and present employees of industries suspected of pollution. Communities will take down license plates and note warnings and signage on the truck or delivery vehicle. At landfills this can indicate how much waste, the kind of waste, and origin of the waste. Communities resisting a landfill expansion, modification, or renewal, or the siting of a new one, find this information very helpful. Polluting industries are thoroughly examined by information-hungry communities. Industry tends to resist this. This struggle for accurate information affects other controversies like environmental impact statements and environmental audit privileges for industry. When researching a particular industry, information tools used by citizen monitoring groups include the Toxics Release Inventory, county deeds and records for the property owner, the corporation’s articles of incorporation filed with the secretary of state in the corporation’s home state, a Dunn and Bradstreet report to find out subsidiaries and any otherwise undisclosed financial relationships, environmental records in other states, and, for publicly traded corporations and, some utilities, their 10(K) annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. Another way citizen monitoring can expand agency knowledge is by helping with sampling. Sampling programs are expensive. Sampling requires sample

Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions | 97

selection, collection, transportation, storage, analysis, and data interpretation. Most focus on sample collection. Citizens whose homes are next to a lake or stream or within its watershed are available to do routine sampling of water volume and quality. Citizens can and want to do extra monitoring during periods of concern. Storm event information for floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, desert flash floods, and other natural disasters can be easily missed by regulatory environmental agencies. Citizen monitoring is a personal experience, whether in a controversial or collaborative policy, program, or project. Many citizens have a view of nature that was shaped by happy memories of childhood, of camping, and of recreating in nature. Most have childhood memories of a certain place in nature. This same type of personal interest develops in monitoring. Natural places are familiar, interesting, complex, and integral parts of the ecosystem. CONCERNS ABOUT CITIZEN MONITORING Ever since members of the Audubon Society first did annual bird counts at the turn of the 1900s, citizens have monitored the environment. Farmers, ranchers, indigenous people, pioneers, and others monitored the environment. As environmental controversies and land-use conflicts have increased so has the involvement of communities. With this growth in power, mainly through information from the Toxics Release Inventory and through organization, came more battlegrounds and controversy. DO STATE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES NOT DO ALL THE NECESSARY MONITORING? The U.S. government does not have a complete monitoring system for the environment. The parts that are monitored, in part based on self-reported industry data, are generally not done by personnel who work with the public. Citizens and citizen monitoring are part of the agency’s engagement with the public. Agencies do monitor the chemicals within their statutory purview, and those that threaten public health if and when science requires them to do so. There are many chemicals in the United States that are not monitored because of a lack of legislation and science. Citizen monitoring moves to fill this void. There are some recent changes in the dynamics of this controversy. THE EPA WILL NOW MONITOR UNREGULATED CHEMICALS IN WATER A large issue has been whether the EPA should monitor water for chemicals that are not regulated. Because not all chemicals are regulated, and there is much scientific dispute on a chemical-specific basis about whether enough or too little of the chemical is covered. This battleground is tied to another controversy, the development of total maximum daily loads per chemical in water. This policy of ignoring unregulated water pollution has changed. Approximately 4,000 public

98

|

Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions

VOLUNTARY BIOLOGICAL MONITORING (VBM) IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Voluntary biological monitoring activities involve volunteers, from specialist amateurs to typical members of the public, in collecting data about the spatial or temporal distribution of species and habitats. In the United States, the Audubon Society’s bird counts have proven invaluable in developing environmental policy to protect their populations. In the United Kingdom, there are few, if any, species that are not counted. Population counts of indicator species, like many birds and fish, are an essential component of an accurate ecological risk assessment. These risk assessments form the basis for developing sustainable approaches to fishing, logging, and farming that do not degrade the natural environment or threaten public health. Britain probably has the best-documented flora and fauna anywhere in the world. The rich tradition of natural history that flourished in Europe from the eighteenth century and the learned societies whose aim was to enhance knowledge of their adopted group of organisms evolved into a much more structured and policy-generated demand for data. The current VBM landscape in the United Kingdom consists of (in approximate order of historical appearance): • recording schemes for different biological groups (such as plants, mosses, or dragonflies), focusing on data collection, usually with acknowledged experts appointed as vice county recorders; • specific projects to produce atlases, such as the New Atlas of the British Flora, based on more than nine million records collected by 1,600 volunteers; • wildlife trusts and other nature reserves and protected areas, which need data in order to plan and monitor management of such areas; • the more environmentally oriented political NGOs that seek to involve sectors of the public in lobbying for greater security for nature. National public surveys are organized with high media publicity, for example, the Garden Birdwatch Scheme, or PlantLife’s annual single-species survey (bluebells in 2003, poppies in 2004); • the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and its associated Local Biodiversity Action Plans, linked in various ways with the previous, and focusing on data required to monitor their individual species and habitat action plans.

water systems will monitor drinking water for up to 25 unregulated chemicals to inform the EPA about the frequency and levels at which these contaminants are found in drinking water systems in the United States. This is called the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule. According to the EPA, the rule is needed because it is through continuous monitoring and research that the EPA collects the information needed to make effective policy decisions. The EPA currently regulates more than 90 contaminants. This does not mean it prevents their discharge into water, although it can. One criticism of the EPA is that they allow too much pollution from their regulated entities. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the EPA to identify up to 30 contaminants for

Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions | 99

monitoring every five years. The first cycle was published in 1999 and covered 25 chemicals and one microorganism. The new rule requires systems to monitor for contaminants that are not regulated under existing law. It is a necessary challenge for the maturation of water quality regulation but will require massive amounts of sampling. When communities hear that the cost of sampling is preventing action on any environmental issue, they are often eager to volunteer. This does cause concern for some. The EPA will monitor the new contaminants in the water through a process that includes a review of EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List, which contains high-priority contaminants that are researched to make decisions about whether regulations are needed. The contaminants on the list are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems. However, they are unregulated by existing national drinking water regulations. Many communities have chemicals of concern. Additional contaminants of concern are based on current research about occurrence and various health risk factors. This is often a place where community involvement and participation can make a difference in prioritizing agency budgets. Costs for five years will total about $44.3 million. The EPA will conduct and pay for the monitoring for those water systems serving 10,000 people or fewer at a cost of $9 million. Citizen monitoring of the environment will greatly assist the development of this program and the scope of coverage of U.S. water quality law. IS THE CITIZEN DATA GOOD? Citizens can come into a project with different competencies. There is concern that overzealous activists or industrial sabotage may unfairly interfere with business. Another concern is whether the citizen group and agency follow the same biologically based protocols regarding sampling. Citizen groups who sample would like to see some results from their efforts. When the policy does not change, citizens feel that their data collection is simply a keep-them-busy type of cooption. If the data collected by citizens cannot meet the same protocols in collection, sample selection, and other areas, then it tends to be ignored. Minimally, it is not comparable to agency data. Data quality is a contested area. Data can become information from which policy is constructed or not. Data integrity is increased by tested and verifiable protocols. These are the types of sampling protocols agencies claim to use. There are many procedures for collecting and analyzing samples. The procedure used determines the quality of the data collected. If less rigorous sampling procedures are used, the resultant data are of lesser quality. Agencies claim it is not comparable to their data set derived after protocol was established. Protocols can vary greatly and include aspects unrelated to the monitoring of environmental conditions. Monitoring and sampling procedures need to be very clear before any collaborative efforts with environmental agencies begin. Citizen groups interested in monitoring need to ask themselves: • • • •

What is the purpose of your study? What do you want to know? What do you hope to accomplish? What would you like the final outcome to be?

100

|

Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions

• • • • •

How will the data be used by you or your group? Will you want to present the data to an agency or decision makers? Who will interpret the data? What are you expecting from agencies or other organizations? What are you expecting from local politicians and decision makers?

It is exciting to collect data, but sampling control must be strictly implemented to ensure the credibility of the information. Roles of citizen monitoring include: • Education should serve as a significant goal. • Guide legislative funding of resource protection and policy. • Keep current on new protocols, protocol adjustments, issues, and action options. • Increase the resolution of our information and knowledge. • Citizens can serve as knowledgeable local eyes and ears for natural resources. • The network should be a trusted source of quality information that is: • Usable for planning and decision making (at least higher-tier information) • Accomplished through standards certification and guides • Volunteer responsibility and QA/AC and volunteer follow-up • • • •

Increase awareness of habitat restoration and land-use planning. Should serve as the basis for a state-of-the-environment Report. Serve as an early warning system. Help pull together historic data and make it usable, for example, by digitizing it. • Citizen involvement is crucial and influential in the legislative process. There are ample opportunities for citizens to get involved. • • • • • •

Citizen lake monitoring provides quality testing information. Citizen monitoring decreases costs and increases the efficiency of the agency. Water quality is a key component in land-use planning. There is so much diversity that help is needed to cover all bases. Determine who the most credible interpreter will be based on the issue. Advocacy for use of data, for example, water quantity legislation bringing together shared interests. • Role of monitors will be to collect, disseminate/utilize/evaluate data, educate, and protect. • With partners, establish goals; set standards; provide training; gather, interpret, and disseminate information; and advise legislators and decision makers to provide education and protect and restore resources. Ideas that have worked in other states or programs: • Establish quality assurance criteria for each tier. • Have program-specific training support.

Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions | 101

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

A service provider network, training, certifying training. Individual attention to groups that want to move up a tier. Tiered data entry system. Engage data users in program development. Bring friends and foes to the table. Data can be used for enforcement and regulation. Gear the program to meet abilities and needs of target constituencies. Quality, not quantity, in numbers of volunteers. Establish a concise model of the program’s relationship with its constituency. Pilot programs. Make science the basis for what you do. Communicate frequently with volunteers, for example, through a Web page. Web-based data management system (input access and retrieval by anyone). Different parameters used for different systems.

COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION MOVEMENT As many as 2,200 lake-monitoring volunteers advocate for water quality in the United States. They coordinate citizen monitoring data with satellite imagery. They also coordinate citizen monitor training with colleges and tech schools. Agencies use volunteer monitoring to bridge data gaps (e.g., data in basin reports). The greatest water quality improvement can come from data that can be used for regulation and enforcement. Volunteers can get involved beyond data collection, for example, lobbying or advocacy to make something happen. Citizen monitors are often the citizens involved in other important environmental and community issues. As such, they become part of controversial environmental issues when decisions are made that affect them. DEVELOP STATEWIDE CITIZEN MONITORING: ANOTHER BATTLEGROUND State environmental agencies are under increasing pressure to know the physical environment they regulate, especially in the area of water quality. Credible information from any source may help complete an ecological picture of a place. This can enlarge the cast of stakeholders to include hunters, trappers, and anglers. They get access to data that is being collected by biology teachers and university instructors in repeated class projects. Data submitted by industrial and municipal permit applicants could be combined with citizen monitoring data. There is a strong basis for a collaborative approach in this controversy. Common data collection goals, common data quality standards, and an expanded range of low-cost environmental information all decrease the uncertainty characteristic of large and entrenched controversies. Lower tier (data quality) data can be

102

|

Climate Change

used for a lot of management decisions. Last, citizen monitors could gather regulatory-quality data when the polluter pays for cleanup. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Monitoring alone is an innocuous act of observation. As these observations become information and knowledge, citizens become empowered to challenge agency regulation of industry as too weak and lacking enforcement. Environmentalists become empowered to file environmental lawsuits because they have better evidence. Industry, however, now seeks to hide information they collect about themselves in privileged audits. Citizens and environmentalists continue to challenge the reliance on self-reporting by industry of their own environmental compliance. The need for information drives citizen monitoring in environmental policy, and distrust of government and industry fuels this environmental controversy. See also Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Public Participation/Involvement in Environmental Decisions; Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources A Citizen’s Guide to Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams. Available at www. ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/joysmanual/1advantages.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Ecologia. Citizen’s Environmental Monitoring Network. Available at www.ecologia.org/ about/programs/monitoring.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Borbone, Stephen A. 2000. Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology and Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Busch, David E., and Joel C. Trexler. 2003. Monitoring Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approaches for Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives. Washington, DC: Island Press; Gibbs, James P., Malcolm L. Hunter, and Eleanor J. Sterling. 1998. Problems in Conservation Biology and Wildlife Management: Exercises for Class, Field, and Laboratory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; Spellerberg, Ian F. 2005. Monitoring Ecological Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Strangeways, Ian C. 2003. Measuring the Natural Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Wiersma, Bruce. 2004. Environmental Monitoring. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

CLIMATE CHANGE The controversy that initially accompanied global warming has spilled over to climate change. The consequences of climate change are uncertain in terms of specific impacts for many stakeholders. This uncertainty heightens are everyone’s concern. The general impacts, such as rising ocean levels, are known. Specific weather changes in regions are not yet known and could occur abruptly. Many scientific, legal, and international battlegrounds are emerging in this controversy.

Climate Change

| 103

WHAT IS CLIMATE? Climate is the total of all weather conditions over time. Whether there are seasons such as winter and summer, and when they start and end, are also parts of the climate. Amount of rainfall, hours of sun, prevailing wind patterns, and temperature are all parts of the climate. The global warming controversy focuses CAN TECHNOLOGY SOLVE ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE? One part of an environmental controversy is people’s faith in technology to solve environmental problems. Many environmentalists point out that the application of technology to industry created some of the pollution problems in the first place. Technology has increased the scale and type of human environmental, which may now affect the globe. Engineers’ claim that is precisely the case for technological intervention, because it is possible for humans to affect the climate. While human climatic impacts are accidental up to now, it could be possible to purposefully intervene into climatic processes. Technology could be used to engineer the climate and slow down the rate of global warming and the abruptness of climate change. This is a type of engineering called geoengineering. Scientists have come up with several ideas about how to do it, all of them untested and controversial. One idea is to put shields on the outside edge of Earth’s atmosphere to block the sun. These shields would be very thin and could be controlled. Reflective balloons, reflective space dust, iron dust (which absorbs carbon dioxide), reflective roofs and roads, and reforestation are also technological fixes being discussed. At one point Australian engineers floated the idea of building a big pipe to pump ozone into the hole in the ozone that had developed above them. Another idea is to increase the reflective cloud cover by having oceangoing vessels spray saltwater mists into the air to form strong reflective ocean clouds, increasing the albedo. Many of these ideas are present and future battlegrounds in the controversy of climate change. Many of the engineering concepts suffer from cost issues, possible unintended impacts like pollution and acid rain, and lack of information and computational power. The response to these concerns is that cost is a reflection of priority and as climatic changes affect more of the earth it will become more and more of a priority. More research, monitoring, and analyses can diminish questions about lack of information and unintended impacts. Computational power is developing very rapidly. In 1993 the most powerful computer could process 597 billion floating point operations per second (597 gigaflops). In 2006 the most powerful computer processed the same at 280 teraflops. In 2012 supercomputers should reach 10,000 teraflops. Computers with this power will help other challenging issues like research, monitoring, analysis, and prediction of climate change. All of these ideas have potential benefits and burdens, and a mistake could have climatic implications. Controlling the climate could mitigate some of the weather extremes predicted by scientists. Crop productivity could increase with predictable weather. Natural disasters, species extinction threats, and rising sea level threats could be mitigated. Cloud cover could reduce the threat of skin cancer for many. Some fear that climate control could also be an instrument of war.

104

|

Climate Change

on whether the climate change is too fast, and the extent that humans cause it and can remedy it. When is climate change too fast, too abrupt? There is some controversy about this. According to the National Oceanic and Aeronautics Administration (NOAA, a federal agency), it refers to: the changes in average weather conditions that generally occur over long periods of time, usually centuries or longer. Occasionally these changes can occur more rapidly, in periods as short as decades. Such climate changes are characterized as “abrupt.” Other scientists tend to couch climate change in terms of effects on ecosystems and social systems and their ability to adapt to climatic changes. SCIENCE AND FORECASTING Underlying the battleground of most global controversies is contested science. The scale is so large that until the advent of computers the science of climate change was theoretical and controversial. Now there is consensus among scientists and engineers that climate change is driven by greenhouse gases. The sun provides about 344 watts of energy per square meter on average. Much of this energy comes in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to humans. The sun drives the earth’s weather and climate and heats the earth’s water and land surfaces. The earth radiates energy back into space through our atmosphere. Much of this is reradiated energy. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, particulate matter, and other gases are called atmospheric gases; they exist in a very delicate and dynamic balance. They act like glass windows, letting heat in and holding in some of it. This is why this is called the greenhouse effect. Scientists can now observe atmospheric conditions further in the past than recorded weather observations by examining deeply embedded ice cores from old ice. By doing this, scientists helped to isolate the effects of human development on the atmosphere. This research also helps to pinpoint large catastrophic natural events in Earth’s history. Since about 1750–1800, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased by almost 30 percent. Carbon dioxide is about .04 percent of the atmosphere. With more carbon dioxide and warmer air more moisture develops in the atmosphere and increases the warming trends. Methane concentrations have more than doubled in this period of time; this is discussed further on. Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15 percent. Increases of this scale in these gases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. They have blurred the windows on the greenhouse. This has the effect of heating the planet up, melting ice caps, and raising ocean levels. Human activities are the main reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Human impacts have affected the usual balance of plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release heavily on the side of CO2. Fos-

Climate Change

sil fuels are responsible for about 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24 percent of methane emissions, and 18 percent of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agribusiness, deforestation, landfills, incinerators, industrial production, and mining also contribute a large share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases. This estimate is based on models and industry self-reporting. Knowledge of past and present environmental emissions is limited. Most environmental regulation and monitoring are new, and most of the world is still unregulated and unmonitored. Even environmentally regulated countries still allow large amounts of chemicals into the land, air, and water without complete knowledge of short- or long-term ecological risks and impacts. It is difficult to assess these impacts because not all emissions into the environment from humans are regulated. Large amounts of unregulated industrial emissions, municipal emissions, agricultural emissions, and commercial and residential emissions all remain unregulated and a source of uncertainty. Each of these categories represents future stakeholders in a growing controversy. Because so much is unknown at the present regarding the scale and scope of these emissions, it is impossible to predict environmental impacts like synergistic and cumulative risks. Over time, with an increasing human population and more extensive climatic monitoring, the level of uncertainty as to effects of climate change will decrease. However, fear of liability under common polluter-pays principles may increase the resistance among the various stakeholders and thus increase the controversy. Uncertainty about the best policies to follow to mitigate climate changes will increase controversy. Most agree that it will require better knowledge about actual emissions to be developed over time. The policy need for this information and the stakeholder fear of liability and increased regulation will fuel the first fires of the climate change policy wars. Currently, the state of knowledge is highly dependent on modeling and weather data. THE CASE OF METHANE Methane emissions demand special attention in climate change scenarios. Methane remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9–15 years. Methane is more than 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and others conclude that there are large pockets of methane in the north and south poles and that as they warm more methane than currently predicted would be released, greatly increasing the rate of global warming and rate of climate change. Methane is a powerful gas in the atmosphere. It has both human and natural sources. It is estimated that 60 percent of global methane emissions are related to human activities. It has a strong industrial level of use all over the world. Methane is emitted during the drilling, refining, use, and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes. Wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, nonwetland soils, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires are natural sources of methane. Some sustainable dairy farms in

| 105

106

|

Climate Change

Vermont have defrayed expensive heating costs by collecting and burning the methane from the cow manure collected underneath the barn. It also collects in municipal solid waste landfills, which are near capacity. Sometimes landfills burn off the methane gas that can form in a landfill. Methane is a primary constituent of natural gas and an important energy source all over the world. Other emissions may also be affecting climate change. As human populations and industrialization increase, these emissions will also increase. Greenhouse controversies will escalate substantially. The climate changes that occur could be dramatic. Most experts generally expect 1. Land to increase in temperature more than oceans 2. A substantial retreat of northern hemisphere sea ice 3. Sea level to rise more than a meter over the next several hundred years, although there is some controversy over the rate, both generally and at specific locations 4. A sharp reduction in the overturning circulation of the North Atlantic ocean 5. Substantial reductions in midcontinental summer soil moisture (~25 percent) 6. Increases in the intensity of tropical hurricanes/typhoons, at least for those that tend to reach mature stages 7. Sharp increases in summertime heat index (a measure of the effective temperature level a body feels on a humid day) would be likely in moist subtropical areas (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/aboutus/article/aree_page9. html—Delworth) There could be other impacts not yet known. There could be increases in natural disasters and in conflicts over power between nations. CLIMATE DATA AVAILABILITY Climate data provide the basics for our characterizations of the time-averaged climate states for various statistics for temperature, pressure, wind, water amounts, cloudiness, and precipitation as a function of geographical location, time, and altitude. Data provide invaluable information on the natural variability of climate, ranging from seasons to decades. These data sets have led to important understandings of how the climate system works. These data sets also provide valuable information on how ice ages and warm epochs interact with climatic changes. For meteorological purposes thousands of observation points collect information continuously for weather forecasting. Most of this information is also important research on longer-term climate change. Climate change data are more expansive than weather forecasting data sets. Some climate change data not usually included in weather data sets are vertical velocity, radiative heating/cooling, cloud characteristics (albedo), evaporation, and properties of critical trace species such as particles containing sulfate and carbon. Weather data sets do not provide information on the vegetative cover and its role in governing surface water evaporation. The ocean’s currents, waves, jets, and vortices are important climatic measurements not included in usual weather data sets.

Climate Change

Weather often determines human settlement patterns, and as world population increases, the unstable and sometime contradictory computer modeling of climate changes lends itself to controversy. Weather forecasts can also determine financial lending patterns in agricultural areas, as well as economic development based on industrial manufacturing. This expands the role of industrial stakeholders from one of being regulated by various international and state governments to one of engagement with the accuracy of the models. CLIMATE CHANGES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON ANIMALS The Earth is warming and the climate is changing. One aspect of climate change is that the climate changes faster than an ecosystem. Some species in the food chain will be affected first and, unless they evolve or move, will become extinct. Abrupt climate change has dramatic and unknown effects on the environment. Robins have been sighted in the Arctic for the first time. Species may move to new territories and interbreed. Grizzlies and polar bears have done this in northern Canada. The polar bears lose the ability to get to the seals they hunt because climate change has melted the ice. They move inland in search of food. Other aspects of an ecosystem will be tested with rapid climate change. WHERE ARE THE ANIMALS GOING? CURRENT RESEARCH Vast ecosystem changes cause plants and animals to migrate. They can cause migrating animals to alter their genetically inbred routes of travel. In 2000, scientists from 17 nations examined 125,000 studies involving 561 species of animals around the globe. Spring was beginning on average six to eight days earlier than it did 30 years ago. Regions such as Spain saw the greatest increases in temperatures. (This contradicts some climate change models that forecast the greatest temperature changes at the north and south poles.) Spring season began up to two weeks earlier there. The onset of autumn has been delayed by an average of three days over the same period. Changes to the continent’s climate are shifting the timing of the seasons. There is a direct link between rising temperatures and changes in plant and animal behavior. Research this year examined 125,000 observational series of 542 plants and 19 animal species in 21 European countries from 1971 to 2000. The results showed that 78 percent of all leafing, flowering, and fruiting records are happening earlier in the year, while only 3 percent were significantly delayed. Species that are dependent on each other but changing at different rates could break down the food web. Current research is based only on indicator species not entire ecosystems. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Scientific and political controversies about climate change will increase. International environmental responsibilities and choices and rising local concern

| 107

108

|

Climate Change

will raise some inconvenient environmental issues. Industrialization has had and continues to have a large environmental impact, perhaps affecting climate stability. Some of the nations most benefiting from industrialization are now debating policies about sustainability. They request poorer nations to refrain from using the same fuels that began their own economic development under free market capitalism. This is the so called north–south debate. Poorer nations want the quality-of-life improvements of free markets and do not like interference from richer nations. This aspect of the battleground is global. Another continuing aspect of climate change is the rate of climate changes. In August 2007, a study by Professor James Hansen predicted that oceans could rise substantially more than predicted. Hansen is director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University. Because of positive feedback loops in the atmosphere, global warming events could cause a spiraling effect, causing oceans to rise much more quickly then predicted. By 2100, oceans could rise hundreds of feet instead of the smaller predictions of two to four feet by conservative climate watch organizations. His prediction was disputed by other international climate change sources until recently. Recent ice quakes in Greenland, ice core samples from the poles indicating rates of melting, and rapid release of methane from thawing permafrost all give greater credibility to this still controversial prediction. There will be more battlegrounds on the accuracy of the climate changes themselves, their rate of change, and their environmental impacts. It is also a local battlefield. As the push for sustainability rises to a policy level in richer nations, they confront an industrial past. Large programs of waste cleanup and assessments are begun. Environmental regulations are tightened to include all environmental impacts. Local communities begin to adopt environmental principles, like the precautionary principle, in their land-use laws. All these areas are controversial, and part of the bigger battlefield of climate change. Climate change concerns may be creating a greater environmental consciousness and in that way create a supportive environment for policies like sustainability and 100 percent waste cleanup. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Global Warming; Sustainability Web Resources Global Warming: Early Warning Signs. Available at www.climatehotmap.org/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Greenpeace. Stop Climate Change. Available at www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/ climate-change. Accessed January 20, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change. Available at www.epa.gov/climate change/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Cox, John D. 2005. Climate Crash: Discovering Rapid Climate Change and What It Means to Our Future. New York: National Academies Press; Faure, Michael, and Joyeeta Gupta. 2003. Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. UK: Edward Elgar

Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making Publishing; Jepma, Catrinus J., and Mohan Munasinghe. 1997. Climate Change Policy: Facts, Issues and Analyses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Victor, David G. 2004. Climate Change: Debating America’s Policy Options. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations.

COLLABORATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING The cost, unpredictability, rancor, and ill will generated by environmental litigation push nonadversarial problem-solving approaches such as collaboration to the fore. Collaboration in environmental decision making is encouraged by government but is new and lacks a solid basis in legislation. It is controversial because it is new, involves community stakeholders, and could be expensive and time consuming. Within the federal government, the EPA has been a leader in the use of collaborative approaches to accomplish strategic goals and objectives. The ability to collaborate effectively, internally and externally, is becoming more important as environmental problems become more complex and combine land, air, water, and ecosystem approaches. Collaboration is an attitude that prompts people to approach environmental decision making in the spirit of proactive cooperation and shared effort that leads to better, more creative outcomes. Taking collaboration to a new policy level will require this attitude to be developed in legislation, promulgated rules and regulations, and application to environmental decisions. This policy goal would be realized when: • Environmental decisionmaking explicitly considers whether collaborative approaches should be used; • EPA managers and staff are fully equipped with the skills, tools, and resources to effectively implement collaborative problem-solving projects across EPA programs, media, and organizations and with external stakeholders and the public; • These collaborations achieve superior environmental outcomes; • EPA accountability systems for air and water media are aligned with these new expectations; and • Organizations, communities, and groups outside the EPA (government, nonprofit, and private) see this approach as a catalyst for other collaborative efforts to improve the environment. Collaboration is a specific approach to working with stakeholders, in which participants develop a mutually agreeable process for joint learning and problem solving. Collaboration takes many forms and can be either formal or informal, but it is distinct from other forms of engaging stakeholders and the public, such as informing, consultation, involvement, or empowerment. The requisite degree of formality will depend on the purpose of a collaboration process; the number and diversity of stakeholders; the scale, scope, and complexity of the issue at hand; the duration of the process; and other factors. In some situations, an

| 109

110

|

Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making

informal, ad hoc process may be appropriate and sufficient to solve an environmental problem; in other situations, it may be necessary to convene a formal advisory committee under the auspices of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In all of its forms, collaborative approaches to environmental protection can foster superior environmental outcomes. Collaborative processes, however, are not considered appropriate in all situations. Precollaboration situation assessments are a valuable tool that can help EPA managers and staff by providing an objective assessment to determine whether collaboration is appropriate in a given situation and, if so, what type of formal or informal collaborative approach would be most effective. Such assessments, which vary in their complexity and are often conducted by a neutral third party, entail a situation-specific analysis of an environmental problem’s complexity and history, the needs and resources of interested and affected parties, and time constraints. They need to do essentially a placestudy. Placestudy assessment results often lead to a detailed plan that describes the goals, process, participants, timing, and structure of EPA-stakeholder interactions. As this is a new policy approach, there is not much controversy. When these approaches are mandated or otherwise required, and costs in time, capital, and lost opportunity affect a wide range of stakeholders, some controversies could arise. Currently, the environmental and community health data needs are not met to the standard this approach would require. THE EPA’S ROLE The EPA’s role in collaborative environmental problem solving will vary. In many situations, the EPA’s statutory responsibilities place it in a leadership role that requires convening the relevant parties and facilitating interaction. In other situations, the EPA will simply act as one of many interested parties in a collaborative problem-solving effort convened by another federal agency; a state, tribe, or local government; or a private-sector entity. In still other situations, the EPA may be the beneficiary of a collaborative problem-solving effort without actively participating in the collaboration itself. Collaboration cannot replace the core functions of a regulatory agency, standard setting, permitting, and enforcement and compliance assurance, nor compromise the EPA’s decision-making responsibility. In general, however, the EPA looks to all affected stakeholders for ideas and innovative solutions and, where appropriate, incorporates stakeholder recommendations into policy and practice. Where environmental problems require collaboration, some common themes in successful collaborative problem solving emerge. Collaborative efforts to solve environmental problems are more likely to succeed when these factors are present. A SHARED ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM Stakeholders are motivated to collaborate when all parties would benefit by solving a problem, but no single party has the capacity or incentive to do so. Collaborative responses to shared problems allow stakeholders to coordi-

Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making

nate their activities, leverage resources, and enhance accountability. Without a shared problem, stakeholders have little reason to collaborate. In some cases, the intensity of a problem will have risen to the level where common pain brings the parties to a table. In other instances, a common sense of the opportunity for better outcomes through a collective process will be sufficient. This aspect of successful collaboration suggests the following EPA practices: • The EPA should target its collaborative efforts on high-priority shared problems. Collaborative processes are unlikely to sustain themselves in the absence of a motivating problem and are unlikely to resolve issues associated with fundamental rights or social values. • In some instances, a shared problem may exist but not be recognized by affected stakeholders. In these situations, EPA can catalyze collaboration by raising awareness of an environmental problem and the need for a collaborative approach to develop and implement of solutions. CONVENER WITH POWER A convener with power can catalyze collaboration by legitimizing the process, encouraging stakeholder participation, and shouldering initial organizational costs to bring parties together to address a shared problem. A convener can help to sustain collaborative processes by reaffirming the process and the importance of all parties working together to solve a common problem. This factor in successful collaboration suggests the following EPA practices: • Convening a collaborative process takes time, energy, and financial resources, so the EPA must strategically decide when to serve as a convener. Shared problems of national significance that clearly fall within the statutory authority are particularly strong candidates for EPA investment. • Where EPA lacks statutory authority or recognized credibility, it may facilitate collaboration by encouraging other agencies or organizations to convene stakeholders to solve a shared problem. In complex situations that involve multiple issues and stakeholders, it may be necessary for the EPA to instill confidence in a collaborative process by using a respected neutral party to convene the relevant stakeholders and facilitate the process. COMMITTED LEADERSHIP While a convener is necessary to bring a group together, committed leadership is necessary to craft an agreement among collaborating parties. When participants become disappointed or disillusioned, the committed leader—staff or manager—can sustain a group by reiterating the benefits of collective, coordinated action compared to the drawbacks of independent, uncoordinated action and by emphasizing the personal commitments that participants have made to each other and to the collaborative process.

| 111

112

|

Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making

The EPA and other governmental agencies can foster the committed leadership necessary to sustain collaboration. • Giving the individuals responsible for leading a collaborative process the capacity (time, resources, skills) to do so will enhance the likelihood that these EPA representatives can serve as committed leaders. • Successfully leading a collaborative process requires the authority to make decisions. In many instances, fostering committed leadership by EPA representatives will require conscious delegation of authority to the EPA from Congress. • Assigning a dedicated, knowledgeable, and reputable person who is known to the other participants to represent EPA in a collaborative process can provide an initial reserve of trust and goodwill that enables effective leadership and facilitates collaboration. STAKEHOLDERS OF SUBSTANCE Successful collaborative problem solving requires direct involvement by representatives of substance, individuals who have sufficient authority to decide on behalf of, or sufficiently influence, their represented interest, and who, collectively, by virtue of prominence, role, or market share, can implement timely solutions to a given problem. These representatives must represent a critical mass of affected stakeholders; by bringing these stakeholders together, a collaborative process can foster the development and implementation of an effective policy. Excluding key stakeholders from collaborative processes, by contrast, frequently leads nonparticipants to reject resulting decisions, undermine timely and complete implementation, and inhibit subsequent efforts to develop collaborative solutions to environmental problems. This part of successful collaboration suggests that the EPA should: • Ensure that a critical mass of affected stakeholders participates in collaborative processes. EPA will need to identify and recruit a balanced group of representatives who represent the full range of interests. Principals familiar with collaborative processes and with long time horizons (i.e., expectations of long-term involvement with an activity or issue) are particularly good candidates to participate in collaborative processes because of their knowledge and expectations for the future. • Collaborate processes are generally more likely to succeed when the number of participants is relatively small. While it may be tempting to reduce the complexity of a collaborative process by ignoring differences among stakeholder groups (e.g., geographic or cultural differences, different risk perceptions or exposures, etc.), differences should not be ignored in an attempt to facilitate collaboration by assembling like-minded participants. • Stakeholders are much more likely to support (and participate in) collaborative processes if these processes provide ample opportunities for meaningful collaborator involvement. Early stakeholder involvement in collaborative processes enhances group ownership of both process and

Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making

outcomes. In some instances, the EPA may need to provide training and resources to ensure that stakeholders have the capacity to participate meaningfully in a collaborative problem-solving process. • To ensure the legitimacy of collaborative decision-making processes, the EPA will need to foster the accountability of stakeholder representatives to their constituents. Stakeholder accountability can be fostered through both formal (e.g., elections) and informal (e.g., town hall meetings) mechanisms. • Truly participatory decision making involves not only consulting with affected stakeholders but also enlisting them as partners in decision making. CLEARLY DEFINED ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM Collaborative efforts are more likely to succeed when groups develop a clearly defined purpose for themselves. This purpose should respond naturally to the collective problem that the group shares. An overly ambitious or misaligned purpose can frustrate groups, undermining both the collaboration process and the development of viable policy solutions. It may also affect the leadership abilities of involved stakeholders. This suggests that collaborators should: • Set boundaries around problems that are large or ill defined (in scale or scope) to facilitate successful collaboration by providing focused, manageable problems for stakeholders to address and achieve results. In some instances, however, allowing stakeholder groups to define the scope of a problem more broadly can create new opportunities for negotiation and/ or areas of common ground. • Focus on shared problems and problem solving in order to help maintain group purpose, facilitate collaboration, and minimize conflict. In the course of a collaborative process, participants may lose sight of their purpose. FORMAL CHARTER Because collaboration is a complex and high-stakes process that often involves many individuals and issues, clearly and collectively articulated roles and responsibilities are critical to timely success. A formal written charter fosters successful collaborative problem solving by reducing the uncertainties and ambiguities among collaborating parties that can cause conflict and, thus, enhances participants’ confidence in each other and the collaborative process as a whole. A formal charter can also help to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and participatory, enhancing the legitimacy, accountability, and ownership of collaborative processes by allowing stakeholders to understand how decisions are made and to have a voice in decision making. Collective definition of purpose, roles, and procedures also enhances group ownership of both process and outcomes, enhancing the likelihood of successful collaboration. This key to successful collaboration suggests that the EPA or other convening stakeholders should adopt the following measures into the formal charter.

| 113

114

|

Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making

• Timelines establish a framework that encourages decision making and results, providing useful measures of success and instilling group confidence in the process and progress. In many cases, establishing important milestones at the beginning of a collaborative process can provide momentum for participants. • Reliable measures help stakeholders to define the magnitude of a problem and to track progress toward its resolution. Measures also foster accountability by tracking indicators of stakeholder behavior and performance. Measures should address both procedural outcomes (e.g., development of a shared understanding of an issue) and environmental outcomes (e.g., increase in a population of organisms) because changes in public policy or practice may take time to have the desired impact on human health or the environment. COMMON KNOWLEDGE BASE A common information base enables collaborators to develop a shared understanding of the problem and possible solutions, facilitating development of viable, legitimate policy solutions through information exchange and dialogue. Information asymmetries (where different actors hold different information) can exacerbate power inequalities and foster conflict among collaborators. This key to successful collaboration suggests that: • Participants should work jointly to identify key questions, assemble the relevant information, and determine how to address information gaps. • Stakeholders should be sufficiently knowledgeable and able to understand necessary information, and the EPA should provide stakeholders with the capacity to obtain independent technical assistance where necessary. • Information regarding both process and substance should be broadly disseminated in order to enhance the transparency of collaborative processes. Particular attention should be given to ensure that populations at risk and other marginalized groups have access to information.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As an untested policy, collaborative environmental decision making is criticized as too theoretical. Its foundations rest on many currently unresolved controversies. Accurate environmental information and transparent environmental transactions are still controversial. In the United States, many environmental disputes are fought in the courts. The EPA is an agency that must meet the specific statutory missions of most national environmental legislation. The EPA is a young and dynamic agency that always has a policy development or reinvention office with important and timely ongoing projects. Within the EPA, the Office of Environmental Justice has taken the lead in developing case studies of collaborative environmental problem solving. In many ways, collaborative environmental policy represents the new foundation for a

Community-Based Environmental Planning

generation of new environmental policies that are based on ecosystems and focused on multiple stakeholders. However, a very strong push for sustainability globally, nationally, and locally has brought a groundswell of support for collaborative methods. While there are many controversial hurdles to overcome with this approach, it offers a cheaper, cleaner, and smarter way to achieve politically salient environmental policies like sustainability. Resistance, and some controversy, comes from the cost to each stakeholder in terms of time, money, and lost opportunity. Businesses claim to lose money, many community people do not get paid if they do not work and therefore lose money by participating, and many environmentalists prefer the traditional lawsuit. While collaborative environmental policy approaches may evoke controversy as they are rolled out from research and development into real public policy, their focus on environmental outcomes and public engagement meets many of the demands of a maturing environmental policy. See also Different Standards of Enforcement of Environmental Law; Litigation of Environmental Disputes; Sustainability Web Resources Cires. Collaboration Features/Success Stories. Available at cires.colorado.edu/collaboration/ features/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Collaboration in Environmental Enforcement: Experiences with the Build-Up of a Coordinated Enforcement Structure. Available at http://www.inece.org/3rdvol1/pdf/tindem. pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Collaborative Efforts to Restore a Contaminated Reservoir. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ region6/6xa/collaboration.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Oregon Solutions. Community Collaboration for Sustainability. Available at www.orsolu tions.org/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Carmin, JoAnn, Toddi A. Steelman, Craig W. Thomas, Cassandra Moseley, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, and Tomas M. Koontz. 2004. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; Collin, Robert. 2006. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cleaning Up America’s Act. Westport, CT: Greenwood; Durant, Robert F., Daniel J. Fiorino, and Rosemary O’Leary. 2004. Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Marshall, Graham R. 2005. Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management: Renegotiating the Commons. London: James and James/Earthscan; Stern, Alissa J. 2000. The Process of Business/ Environmental Collaborations: Partnering for Sustainability. Westport, CT: Quorum/ Greenwood; Wondolleck, Julia Marie, and Steven Lewis Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Community-based environmental planning (CBEP) is new in the United States. Controversies around the capacity of the community to plan for natural resources

| 115

116

|

Community-Based Environmental Planning

and environmental protection, the failure of state and federal agencies to support it, and industry concern that the community will know too much of its environmental information form the current, dynamic boundaries of this battleground. Communities are very aware of environmental conditions around them, and are growing more so with the Toxics Release Inventory, accumulating industrial pollution, and environmental justice activism. The EPA, the federal agency responsible for environmental protection, has not included cities as places for environmental protection until recently. Their view of CBEP has not been developed as a serious environmental policy until very recently in test cases. One such placestudy is described here. CAN COMMUNITIES REALLY PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? Some environmentalists are concerned that communities may not be able to preserve their environment or resources. A logging community may vote to cut down all the protected old growth trees, for example. A very poor and desperate community may agree to not enforce or monitor environmental conditions to accommodate any type of job creation. The U.S. history of giving tax abatements to industry in exchange for jobs and in the hopes of economic development shows that as soon as the tax abatement is over, if not sooner the industry leaves. Most of the time the promises of job creation were illusory. Because property taxes are used to fund education in many places, giving up taxes effectively reduces the education budget in that community. When the industry leaves or fails to meet its promises, there is little recourse unless there is an enforceable Good Neighbor Agreement, which is new and rare. The community ends up with very little economic development and often a more polluted environment. COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND THE EPA Community-based environmental planning refers to an integrated, placebased, participatory approach to managing the environment that simultaneously considers environmental, social, and economic concerns. In its CBEP framework document, the agency describes CBEP as a process that “brings together public and private stakeholders within a place or community to identify environmental concerns, set priorities, and implement comprehensive solutions. Often called a place-based, or ecosystem approach, CBEP considers environmental protection along with human social needs, works toward achieving long-term ecosystem health, and fosters linkages between economic prosperity and environmental well-being.” The agency has identified several key attributes that characterize CBEP, including: • • • •

collaboration through a range of stakeholders; assessments that cut across environmental media; integration of environmental, economic, and social objectives; use of regulatory and nonregulatory tools;

Community-Based Environmental Planning

• monitoring to allow adaptive management; • and a focus on a geographic area. The EPA facilitates CBEP efforts by coordinating traditional regulatory programs to support CBEP; providing tools to communities pursuing CBEP activities; and collaborating directly with stakeholders. The Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI) coordinates the agency’s CBEP efforts. PLACESTUDY: CHARLESTOWN, SOUTH CAROLINA The EPA’s involvement in CBEP is new. Community-based environmental planning’s distinctly urban focus is not yet an integral part of current U.S. environmental policy. Nonetheless, some urban environments are next to important ecosystems and highly contaminated with industrial pollution. Community residents, environmentalists, churches, state and federal agencies, and national environmental justice organizations all advocated for environmental protection. The Charleston/North Charleston CBEP project focuses on the 17-squaremile neck area of the Charleston, South Carolina, peninsula that is bordered on the west by the Ashley River and on the east by the Cooper River. The area consists of more than 20 neighborhoods in the cities of Charleston and North Charleston with more than 40,000 inhabitants, of whom roughly 70 percent are minority and 40 percent live at or below the poverty level. An industrial corridor in close proximity to the residential population as well as to the peninsula’s abundance of tidal creeks, marshes, and rivers characterizes this place. Heavily industrialized since the 1800s, the neck area faces a complex set of environmental problems, including historical releases of hazardous waste and former and active industrial and commercial sites. Environmental contamination at one of these industrial properties, the site of a former wood-treating facility, brought EPA Region 4’s Superfund program to the Charleston/North Charleston area in the mid-1990s. As part of the program, EPA provided a grant for hiring a community technical advisor to meet with area residents and respond to questions about the site cleanup. Based on environmental justice and other concerns raised by several of the area neighborhoods, EPA began exploring the value of helping to organize a CBEP project. The EPA held sessions with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and other partners and, in the spring of 1997, assisted in the formation of a multistakeholder group to guide the CBEP project. The EPA suggested that a community advisory group (CAG) could provide an effective vehicle for the community to develop and guide its community-based environmental protection project. The resulting CAG consisted of representatives from neighborhoods and businesses in the CBEP area, local environmental and social advocacy organizations, and local, state, and federal agencies. The EPA provided funding to the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) to support the organization of the CAG. Through a detailed organizational process, a 25-member self-nominated group emerged, complete with a chairperson and other elected officers serving two-year terms, a mission and a vision statement,

| 117

118

|

Community-Based Environmental Planning

and a comprehensive set of bylaws. The CAG consisted of voting community and business representatives and nonvoting ex officio members, including MUSC and the other founding partners. The CAG also established subcommittees (e.g., a group addressing business/industry issues) to solidify its operation. Once organized, the CAG confronted a complicated, overlapping set of human health, socioeconomic, environmental, and other quality of-life issues in the Charleston neck area. The environmental concerns cut across all media, including air, surface water, groundwater, sediments, and soil. Residents had long-standing concerns about cancer rates, childhood lead poisoning, and other health problems in their communities and the potential for links to chemical releases, contamination, and other effects of improper environmental compliance and management. Although the original idea for the project arose because of concerns expressed by a handful of central neck-area neighborhoods, the CAG set the project boundaries to cover the seven-square-mile area described previously, which encompasses the historical industrial corridor and also approximates the boundary lines of Charleston’s Enterprise Community (now the Greater Charleston Empowerment Corporation), a distressed area targeted for economic and cultural revitalization. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The long-term goal of the Charleston/North Charleston Community Project is to improve the quality of the land, air, water, and living resources to ensure human health, ecological, social, and economic benefits. To achieve the multiple aspects of this goal, project managers have established many short-term objectives through partnerships with citizens, industry, conservation groups, and other stakeholders. The CAG developed its own mission and vision statements to guide it in its activities. Its stated mission is “to address environmental quality programs and concerns as they relate to the community’s well-being and that of the environment. It exists to increase environmental awareness through education and effective collaboration with diverse groups and to promote and cultivate cooperation with industry and government. Finally, the group exists to empower, create, and sustain a healthy, livable community that will positively impact residents’ quality of life.” Both the CAG and the overall CBEP project have environmental improvements and human health concerns as long-term goals as well as ecological, social, and economic well-being. To accomplish these overall goals, CAG members have established the following short-term objectives: • • • •

To develop a baseline for environmental conditions To reduce both lead contamination of soil and childhood lead poisoning To identify and remediate locations with elevated indoor radon levels To minimize the effects of environmental contamination from former phosphate/fertilizer facilities • To provide targeted compliance assistance and pollution prevention information for small businesses

Community-Based Environmental Planning

In developing and carrying out efforts to address these objectives, the CAG has drawn on several partnerships with industry, government, academic institutions, and other stakeholders. Numerous activities and indicators have been developed to facilitate progress toward these objectives. PROJECT ACTIVITIES The first activities undertaken by the CAG were the development of the previous objectives, which emerged from its neighborhood research. To begin to address all of the challenges facing the more than 20 neighborhoods in the targeted area, the CAG and its partners embarked on outreach, research, environmental remediation, and other activities. Through monthly gatherings, public forums, and subcommittee meetings, the CAG developed several short-term and long-term initiatives to help in the achievement of its goals. The short-term activities, the full set of which is beyond the scope of this evaluation, have included river cleanup events, Earth Day fairs, and other outreach events aimed at increasing understanding of community-based environmental protection and environmental awareness in general. Long-term initiatives led by or associated with the CBEP project include the following. CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMUNITY CONCERNS The priority concerns as determined by the CAG are the ones addressed by the activities described further on. Other issues identified among residents relate to crime, excessive noise, poor air quality, the need for economic development, a lack of safe playgrounds and open spaces, improper drainage and flooding, contamination of open ditches and associated safety risks, environmental justice concerns, and poor environmental compliance among local commercial and industrial facilities. Baseline Environmental Data Compilation: CAG partners undertook an extensive effort to assemble data about regulated industrial facilities, chemical releases, water quality, and other environmental conditions to meet their first objective of a baseline environmental characterization of the CBEP area. The collected data were to represent baseline conditions for the CBEP project. The CAG also intended to complete an outreach effort to make the information available to residents in the surrounding communities. Lead Poisoning Prevention: The purpose of this effort was to provide education to new and expectant mothers to meet the objective of reducing childhood lead poisoning. Much of the housing within the neck area dates from the early and mid-1900s, when lead paint was still used widely. With the help of EPA grant money, MUSC provided training to community members (termed advisors) hired to conduct outreach with new and expectant mothers and other family members about how to protect their children from lead exposure in homes and other locations. The introduction of lead exposure tracking will provide indicator data for the success of the initiative.

| 119

120

|

Community-Based Environmental Planning

Testing for and Mitigation of Elevated Indoor Radon Levels: Because of past phosphate mining (a factor in the presence of elevated radium levels in soil), the CBEP area is considered to be at risk for elevated indoor radon levels. CAG members began a radon testing survey and a related educational outreach effort and will provide mitigation in homes where elevated levels are discovered. These efforts address both radon reduction objectives and broader goals of community involvement. Assessment and Remediation of Former Phosphate/Fertilizer Facility Sites: The goal of this initiative is to evaluate the contamination present at nine former phosphate/fertilizer facilities. Where unacceptable risk is found, CAG partners will ensure that an adequately protective site management strategy is implemented. SMALL BUSINESS COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE In light of the number of industrial and commercial facilities, including many small businesses, two CAG partners, EPA Region 4 and DHEC, have collaborated to address compliance issues. This initiative focuses on providing targeted compliance assistance to two industries, dry cleaners and auto paint and body shops, which appear to present the greatest potential for environmental impacts in the CBEP area. Researchers are using behavioral changes, compliance records, and environmental and human health improvements as indicators of success in meeting the compliance objective. With EPA involvement in this project, the community had to incorporate aspects of EPA agenda into the project. Environmentally Friendly Small Business/Pollution Prevention Initiative: Focusing mostly on auto paint and body shops, CAG partners undertook an outreach effort to inform small businesses of pollution prevention opportunities. Outreach team members conducted site visits and provided small business owners with information on environmental performance beyond that relating to regulatory compliance. This initiative will ensure that environmental gains are sustained and enhanced in the future and that small businesses are part of the process. While several of these initiatives are still ongoing, the CAG and its partners are currently evaluating the results of the CBEP efforts thus far and determining next steps. One of the most significant developments since the CBEP project’s inception is the decision to incorporate the CAG as an environmental subcommittee of the Greater Charleston Empowerment Corporation to take advantage of issue and organizational overlap. Like the initial CAG formation process, the majority of CBEP activities have been fully funded by the EPA. The lead poisoning prevention, radon reduction, and small business pollution prevention projects were all funded by the EPA through the RGI. The project has also leveraged in-kind contributions and other resources from a variety of sources, including MUSC; the USGS; DHEC; other local, state, and federal health agencies; Youth Build and other local nonprofit organizations; and businesses, such as Lowe’s and Home Depot. Part of the rationale for making the CAG part of the Greater Charleston Empowerment Corporation is to leverage resources between efforts with similar sustainable development goals.

Community-Based Environmental Planning

EMERGING APPLICATION OF THE EPA’S ROLE IN CBEP According to everyone involved, the EPA has acted as the driving force within the Charleston/North Charleston CBEP project from the beginning. The Charleston site became a major EPA project when it was listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The agency has supplied specialized information, facilitation support, and sources of funding to launch and carry out all of the activities detailed previously. At the same time, the key role played by EPA has had both positive and negative implications, as viewed from the perspectives of different CAG members and project stakeholders. IMPACT OF OPERATIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EPA AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS Some participants felt that the project has been influenced by differences in expectations and approach between the EPA (as well as other institutional members) and community members. Although the priority of everyone involved has always been to improve the area’s quality of life, some residents expected more immediate results (e.g., health screenings, repair work to address risks posed by drainage ditches). Some feel that the EPA and others have been overly concerned with developing the project itself, such as formation of CAG procedures, use of resources to publicize the project, and so on. Some participants noted, for example, that the communities had previously voiced their priority issues, so they felt that the effort to record resident concerns was not the most efficient use of time and resources. For some participants, EPA-facilitated developmental process was perceived as only further bureaucracy rather than a process to build credibility and trust, and added to the cynicism of residents who viewed previous partnership efforts as failing to deliver concrete results. However, some CBEP participants viewed the structured CAG process as an asset. In fact, these participants credit the CAG structure with gathering different community viewpoints at the table and keeping participants engaged when differences of opinion arose. CONTROVERSY ABOUT EPA SUPPORT AND FACILITATION In this project the EPA claims it has always expressed the desire that the Charleston/North Charleston efforts be community-led and thus has encouraged operational mechanisms such as the CAG. From the perspective of some participants, however, the project has been neither community-directed nor responsive to community voices. This sentiment originates from perceptions about a lengthy CAG formation process dominated by the EPA and other institutional partners, which may have helped lead to a subsequent lack of involvement from residents (e.g., lack of public attendance at CAG-sponsored meetings and events). Participants holding this view would have preferred that the EPA provide less overall facilitation in exchange for more up-front support for existing community priorities (e.g., technical assistance for targeted health screenings, repair of drainage ditch hazards, etc.). Some participants also

| 121

122

|

Community-Based Environmental Planning

suggested performance tracking and evaluation as a valuable niche role for the EPA within CBEP projects. Confronted with a complex set of environmental problems and other challenges that are very characteristic of the environment where most people live, work, and play, the EPA and its partners established an ambitious agenda of objectives and strategies for the Charleston/North Charleston CBEP project. Tracking of some of the project’s completed initiatives remains unfinished, and other efforts are still ongoing. Measuring progress toward the project’s overall goals of improving the environmental quality to ensure human health and ecological, social, and economic benefits is a long-term process. Nevertheless, participants can point to several environmental and other accomplishments to characterize the project’s progress in meeting the previously stated objectives. In the summer of 1999, CAG partners finished the environmental data compilation effort to meet their objective of determining the baseline environmental conditions. They released a draft document titled Summary of the Environmental Information Collected for the Charleston/North Charleston Community-Based Environmental Protection Program. The document contains more than 20 maps and tables with data ranging from a summary of area Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) releases to the location of facilities with NPDES permits for discharges. The CAG has provided comments on the document as well as recommendations for the next phase of the effort. Based on these recommendations, the CAG is making plans to use the information to assess certain environmental conditions, create maps showing the data points on a neighborhood-specific level, and develop a user-friendly system to enable community access to the data. To address the lead poisoning prevention goal, MUSC trained eight area residents who were hired to be community educators or advisors. The purpose of the outreach was to inform new and expectant mothers and other family members about childhood lead poisoning and preventative behavioral measures (e.g., frequent washing of hands). By the summer of 2000, the advisors had reached more than 900 community members in interactions that ranged from brief oneon-one conversations to group meetings in residents’ homes. To the surprise of the advisors and their CBEP partners, a large percentage of young mothers were unaware of lead poisoning risks and reported that their children were not being screened at their regular medical check-ups. As a result of the outreach efforts, many families have reported taking their children in for lead level screening. In addition, DHEC CBEP participants are investigating the adequacy of regular lead level screenings within the Charleston area. Identification of homes with elevated radon levels is under way. Thus far, testing is complete at 200 out of a targeted 2,000 residences for which test kits have been obtained. CAG members have secured support from the Southern Regional Radon Training Center, which will provide training to the local Youth Build program to complete the mitigation work, and Home Depot and Lowe’s have offered to contribute mitigation materials. The minimization of impacts from former industrial sites is under way. Preliminary environmental assessments are now complete at the nine former

Community-Based Environmental Planning

fertilizer/phosphate facilities targeted by CAG partners. Additional results to date under this initiative include a removal action at one site, a remedial investigation at another site, a Superfund NPL designation and subsequent remediation plan at one site, and voluntary cleanup agreements with several responsible parties. WAS CBEP EFFECTIVE AS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY? The Charleston/North Charleston project showed how an effective CBEP has resources to complete assessments, remediation, and other environmental outcomes; increase capacity-building within the community (e.g., lead-poisoning prevention training); and nurture multistakeholder partnerships (e.g., through the CAG). Although in some ways the CAG represents the most controversial aspect of the project, its continued operation is perhaps the strongest demonstration of the effectiveness of the CBEP process. Despite the group’s difficulties, many local organizations have participated in the CAG (with some requesting to join following its initial formation). In fact, several participants noted that the CAG represents a significant first in terms of bringing diverse community viewpoints to the table to discuss environmental issues. They noted that without the unique collaborative, comprehensive nature of the CBEP approach, this enlarged discussion could not have occurred. Although some project participants questioned the extent to which community voices are represented on the CAG, the group’s membership includes the leadership of diverse organizations, most of which are new CBEP recruits. DHEC, for instance, which had no previous CBEP experience, has maintained active CAG participation all along and has implemented changes suggested by the group (e.g., providing better public access to an environmental release log within its offices). Although many of the project’s objectives were either accomplished or are in progress, frustrations with the initial stages of the CBEP process were still evident. The EPA is still assisting the community in the CBEP process; for example, in early 2002, the EPA organized and delivered a workshop for planning boards and citizens on the planning process and methods for encouraging public participation. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Community-based environmental planning is taking place with or without the EPA or state environmental agency involvement. Citizen monitoring of environmental decisions, the rise of Good Neighbor Agreements and collaborative approaches to environmental decision making, and a groundswell of support for sustainability all push U.S. environmental policy in this direction. Many of the environmental controversies that face state and federal environmental agencies could soon face communities. Some of these very controversies, such as Superfund cleanups, can mobilize a community into environmental action. Others may not. Some challenges to CBEP are controversies now because of their newness, because of a slight increase in environmental empowerment

| 123

124

|

Community-Based Science

of a community, and because of underlying controversies based on race and cultural differences. In the rush of many new voices describing the ecology where they live, work, and play; deliberating about local environmental problems in inclusive ways; and planning for ways to solve them, many controversies will arise. CBEP is a controversial way to handle the grassroots end of environmental policy. This is usually the most controversial part of any policy, especially new environmental policies. However, an environmental policy with inadequate implementation and enforcement is none at all. The community in any given ecosystem is one of the best witnesses to implementation and enforcement. Their testimony presents many inconvenient and controversial truths about the real state of the environment in many places. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making; Community-Based Science; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecological Risk Management Decisions at Superfund Sites; Good Neighbor Agreements; Public Participation/Involvement in Environmental Decisions Web Resources Check Your Success: A Community Guide to Developing Indicators. Available at www.uap. vt.edu/checkyoursuccess/. Accessed January 20, 2008. EPA: Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting Ecosystems and Communities. Available at http://www.epa.gov/care/library/howto.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Operations Manual for Hispanic Community-Based Organization. Available at http:// www.epa.gov/care/library/hispanic_community-sed_orgs.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Bowen, William Milton. 2001. Environmental Justice through ResearchBased Decision-Making. New York: Routledge; Boyce, James K., and Barry G. Shelley, eds. 2003. Natural Assets: Democratizing Environmental Ownership. Washington, DC: Island Press; de Roo, Gert, and Donald Miller. 2004. Integrating City Planning and Environmental Improvement. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing; Honachefsky, William B. 2000. Ecologically Based Municipal Land Use Planning. Singapore: CRC Press; Randolph, John. 2004. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Washington, DC: Island Press; Riddell, Robert. 2004. Sustainable Urban Planning: Tipping the Balance. London: Blackwell Publishing; Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne, and Timothy O’Riordan. 2002. Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting beyond the Protected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

COMMUNITY-BASED SCIENCE Community-based scientific research is controversial because it is not considered valid, may misuse the community, and provides information that challenges government and industry environmental decision makers. In the United States, universities can provide science to communities, but this is just developing.

Community-Based Science | 125

BACKGROUND: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND COMMUNITIES Most research occurs at research institutions, such as universities, private laboratories, and some federal government agencies. It is assumed that scientific research is always done by scientists. Even when communities are studied in the social sciences or public health professions, communities are not consulted except as research subjects. Part of the problem is the definition of community, which can create a battleground. Definitions of community can determine who can participate in the research. Many communities do not like to be research subjects, but even when they agree to do so, the results can be used against them. In the case of the Hanford Nuclear Power Plant in the state of Washington, a community group known as the Downwinders learned this. This group was organized around concerns about nuclear emissions and waste from the nuclear power plant upwind of them. One large area of concern was the health effects on pregnant woman and the rate of miscarriage there. When the power plant, via its consultant, offered free medical consultation and screening for all pregnant women downwind from the plant most of the woman agreed. When the same consulting firm, still working for the power plant, performed a survey of all those downwind from the power plant, they eliminated all woman who had been to the screening as subjects in the survey on downwind health effects because they had already been subjects. According to them their inclusion would have biased the sample. Their survey found very few health effects downwind of the power plant but did increase community organization and interest in science. Another problem is that some communities are asked to scientifically prove that a given land use or industrial expansion is harmful to them while other communities can exercise political power and resist pollution-causing land uses. This is especially a battleground in environmental justice communities and raises controversies about the unequal enforcement of environmental laws. Most often, industry and/or government scientists are trying to persuade the community that everything is safe and that the risk is minimal. Another major issue, and potential battleground, is the question of exactly who represents the community. How many from the community and who from the community are logistical and practical questions that can prevent scientists from community engagement at all. However, many environmentally significant research questions can only be addressed in a community setting with the active assistance of community members. POLITICAL INFLUENCES ON GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS Testimony of Rick Piltz , Director, Climate Science Watch Government Accountability Project Washington, D.C. Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Allegations of Political Interference with the Work of Government Climate Change Scientists, January 30, 2007.

126

|

Community-Based Science

Despite the utility of the National Assessment, beginning in 2001, and more aggressively from the second half of 2002 onward, the Bush Administration acted to hide the National Assessment. . . . The Administration failed to consider and utilize the National Assessment in the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program issued in July 2003. From my experience, observation, analysis of documentation, and personal communications with others in the program, I believe it is clear that the reasons for this were essentially political, and not based on scientific considerations. I believe this is generally understood within the program. I was directed by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to delete the section of the draft report on the National Assessment. No documented explanation was provided to the program leadership and the program office as to why this alteration was necessary and appropriate. However, I was given to understand that the directive from OSTP was related to the Administration’s intention to settle a lawsuit that had been brought by Competitive Enterprise Institute et al. v. George W. Bush et al., seeking to suppress the distribution of the National Assessment. Specifically, that CEI et al. would withdraw the lawsuit in return for an assurance by Administration officials that the Administration would, in effect, disown the National Assessment. (CEI is an industry-funded policy organization that has aggressively promoted the position of denying that global warming is a significant problem calling for a significant policy response strategy.) The Administration was uncomfortable with the mainstream scientifically based communications suggesting the reality of human-induced climate change and the likelihood of adverse consequences. The administration had adopted a policy on climate change that rejected regulatory limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, and cited scientific uncertainty about climate change as one of its justifications for the policy. Straightforward acknowledgement of the growing body of climate research and assessment suggesting likely adverse consequences could potentially lead to stronger public support for controls on emissions and could be used to criticize the administration for not embracing a stronger climate change response strategy. Administration political officials appeared increasingly to take an interest in managing the flow of communications pertaining to climate change in such a way as to minimize the perception that scientifically based communications might be seen as conflicting with the Administration’s political message on climate change policy. Immediately prior to taking the position of CEQ Chief of Staff, Cooney had been employed as a lawyer-lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute (API), the primary trade association for corporations associated with the petroleum industry. He was the climate team leader at API, leading the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gas emissions. CEI also had a close relationship with the oil industry, having reportedly received $2 million in funding between 1998 and 2005 from ExxonMobil.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY VS. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY Community-based researchers must negotiate the difficult, often blurred boundaries between advocacy and inquiry. Although the research may serve a larger advocacy function, its claims must be able to withstand public and scientific scrutiny.

Community-Based Science | 127

The research work is complex, involving diverse skills and decisions. Community members are more appropriately part of some aspects of research than others. For instance, although it is both appropriate and valuable to consult with community members on the design of a survey instrument, they will probably not have a role to play in the statistical interpretation of its structure. Clear boundaries should be stated at the outset. Community members are much more likely to let us do our job if we make it clear that we are going to let them do theirs. Finally, although consultation with community representatives prior to publication is important, they should be aware that no individual or group will have the authority to prevent publication. Good community-based research is a difficult social achievement. Poorly handled projects can, and do, leave damaging trails of mistrust. Yet contributing to the life of state and regional communities through research is central to the mission of all land grant colleges and universities. When handled well, community-based projects enhance public support for research universities. PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP Researchers and government agencies, along with many nonprofit groups that work with communities, have struggled to attain some principled way to collaborate. According the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, some of these basic principles include: 1. Community partners should be involved at the earliest stages of the project, helping to define research objectives and having input into how the project will be organized. This is often controversial because academic requirements may differ from community-defined research objectives. Also, the use of human subjects in research requires an ethics committee approval from the university. News that they are subjects in research is not usually well received by the studied community. 2. Community partners should have real influence on project direction and at least enough power to ensure that the original goals, mission, and methods of the project are adhered to. This can be controversial because the learning needs of the students may require the professor to prioritize her students. 3. Research processes and outcomes should benefit the community. Community members should be hired and trained whenever possible and appropriate, and the research should help build and enhance community assets. Communities often feel used when they interact with a community science project and are left with no product in hand afterwards. 4. Community members should be part of the analysis and interpretation of data and should have input into how the results are distributed. This does not imply censorship of data or of publication, but rather the opportunity

128

|

Community-Based Science

to make clear the community’s views about the interpretation prior to final publication. Academic and scientific models of causality face significant challenges when viewed through the lens of the studied community. The usual scientific explanation for lack of no causality or of causality (the null hypothesis) usually strikes communities as validating the status quo and discounting their known and shared experience. If the sample size is too small to be statistically valid, as is often the case with a community science project that is designed around a course, then the community may view the exercise as a waste of time. 5. Productive partnerships between researchers and community members should be encouraged to last beyond the life of the project. This will make it more likely that research findings will be incorporated into ongoing community programs and therefore provide the greatest possible benefit to the community from research. 6. Community members should be empowered to initiate their own research projects that address needs they identify themselves.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As citizens become frustrated with governmental environmental regulation that seems to ignore cities and cater to industry’s self-reported style of enforcement, they are seeking scientists to help understand their local environmental concerns. As scientists from industry or government seldom help communities some community leaders turn to universities in their neighborhood for scientific help. Community-based science is a controversy that fills in the void left when communities have no access to government or industry scientists. There is usually a felt need for science in environmental controversies when a community feels threatened and does not trust the information from industry and government stakeholders. Universities are often an excellent resource for communities to find scientists. However, universities are stakeholders too. The students expect to receive a safe and valuable educational experience. Universities are also responsible for environmental impacts for the operation of their physical plant and for the chemicals used in research. In most places, colleges and universities are exempt from right-to-know laws. They produce toxic, hazardous, and radioactive waste in close proximity to young, child-rearing adults. Some universities do a large amount of research for the military in these areas. Tension and controversy between the university and host community-form part of the battleground of community based, university-affiliated science shops. In one sense community-based science laboratories are an extension of citizen-based environmental monitoring. As in citizen monitoring, any evidence of environmental permit violations can only come through the permit holder (unlikely) or the permit grantor (usually a state environmental agency or regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency). Communities,

Community Right-to-Know Laws | 129

students, faculty, and scientists are likely to become frustrated by the lack of power scientific information about the environment has on government decision making. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Collaborative Environmental Decision Making; Environmental Impact Statements; Public Participation/Involvement in Environmental Decisions Web Resources Science and Environmental Health Network: Community Research. The Networker 3(3). Available at www.sehn.org/Volume_3-3.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health. Available at www. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid = 1280385. Accessed January 20, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Estuary Program: Implementing a Community Based Watershed Program. Available at www.epa.gov/neplessons/. Accessed March 2, 2008. Further Reading: Agrawal, Clark C. 2001. Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Horgan, John. 1997. The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. New York: Broadway Books; Hynes, H. Patricia, and Doug Brugge. 2005. Community Research in Environmental Health: Lessons in Science Advocacy and Ethics. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing; Randolph, John. 2004. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Washington, DC: Island Press; Spellerberg, Ian F. 2005. Monitoring Ecological Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAWS Many community residents assume they have the right to know about industrial emissions and environmental conditions generally, especially if they pose risks. Often they do not. This extremely contentious issue resulted in federal, state, and local laws that give communities some rights to know about some of the emissions from industry and some of the environmental conditions of their permits. The reporting of environmental impacts is always contentious. Industry resents the cost, the exposure to environmental liability, and the potential loss of trade secrets. Firefighters, police, and sanitation workers were among the first exposed to the hazards of interacting with unknown chemicals. Toxic spills are difficult to handle without knowledge of their contents. They can spread and affect a large area, sometimes for a long time. Residential communities along major roads and rail lines began to get concerned about the contents of these spills, especially as they might taint water supplies. The city of Eugene, Oregon, was among the first cities to enact right-to-know laws, basically copying part of the federal law discussed further on. There are still many battles in this battleground. Many industries are still not included under right-to-know law coverage, such as universities, defense agency research sites and agribusiness. The direction of more inclusion of all industries and all environmental impacts is gaining rapid momentum, spurred on by a new wave of sustainability proponents

130

|

Community Right-to-Know Laws

and policies. The reporting requirements established under community rightto-know laws provide the public with important information on chemicals that can be hazardous in their communities. Hazardous chemicals and materials are a part of everyday life. They range from common household products such as cleaning solvents to industrial substances used in businesses surrounding your neighborhood. Being aware of chemical hazards within a community will help facilitate environmental planning, land-use decisions, and emergency planning and help reduce the effects of chemical incidents. Industry concerns about public knowledge of their emissions include fear of litigation, partially driven by citizen suit provisions. Sometimes, concerns about protected trade secrets emerge and are challenged by communities and environmentalists. Most industries are concerned with profit and perceive environmental compliance as reducing profit. They are concerned about liability for waste they did not produce and other contingent environmental liabilities. FEDERAL LAW On October 17, 1986, the president of the United States signed into law the “Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986” (SARA). This act amended the already-existing law titled “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980” (CERCLA), which was also known as Superfund. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was part of this legislation. States and some municipalities have used this law as a model for their own right-to-know laws. BIRTHPLACE OF THE TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY (TRI) This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). It was later expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. EPCRA’s primary purpose is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to state and local governments in order to help communities prepare to respond to chemical spills and similar emergencies. EPCRA Section 313 requires the EPA and the states to annually collect data on releases and transfers of certain toxic chemicals from industrial facilities and make the data available to the public in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In 1990 Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act that required that additional data on waste management and source reduction activities be reported under TRI. The goal of TRI is to empower citizens, through information, to hold companies and local governments accountable in terms of how toxic chemicals are managed. EPCRA does not place any limits on which chemicals can be stored, used, released, disposed of, or transferred at a facility. It simply requires accurate environmental information. The law applies different requirements, has different deadlines, and covers a different group of chemicals, which is a reporting cost

Community Right-to-Know Laws | 131

borne by industry now. These specific requirements are contained in the following sections of EPCRA: • • • •

Emergency Planning (Sections 301–303) Emergency Release Notification (Section 304) Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements (Sections 311–312) Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting (Section 313)

Each one of these sections contains specific and detailed procedures and processes. They themselves are not controversial. What is controversial is their level of enforcement. In many states the protocol is not followed. Communities now want to know more about their environment, especially anything potentially dangerous. Environment justice advocates want to measure the benefit and burden of past and present environmental decisions. Sustainability advocates want to know all past and present environmental impacts, usually at the ecosystem level. As the coverage of right-to-know laws is rapidly expanding, so too is the level of enforcement. Citizen monitoring of environmental decisions, environmental litigations, and political organizing are part of the backdrop to this battleground. As they increase so does the controversy about right-to-know coverage and enforcement. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONFLICT As populations grow and cumulative risks rise, communities will insist on completely transparent environmental transactions. The tendency for right-toknow provisions to grow from a few standard industrial classifications to more and more comprehensive categories is very strong. Accurate information about cumulative emissions requires knowledge about all environmental impacts. Most environmental information is self-reported. The battleground here is defined by high levels of distrust, fear and actuality of contentious environmental and toxic tort litigation, and awkward relations between state environmental agencies and local communities. Today, communities that can do so seek sustainable industries. In the late 1990s a wave of cities began enacting municipal right-to-know ordinances. They need to know all environmental impacts. City employees that deal with fire, law and order, and emergency services all need to know what chemicals they may be forced to work and interact with. This concern is spreading to public schools and impacts on children, especially in schools built on landfills. Parents need to know all the environmental impacts on their children. The need to know environmental impacts is often greatest at the actual point of impact. Air, water, and land vectors of exposure are often of great interest to public health agencies. Many communities that relied on military bases that have since closed also need to know about any remaining environmental risks. Sometimes, the wing de-icers used on military landing strips can contaminate local groundwater supplies, for example. The security concerns raised by the 9/11 attack on New Yorks’ Twin Towers have slowed the rapid growth of right-to-know coverage, as discussed previously. One of the last proposals to move forward in the waning days of the Bush administration’s EPA was to change the reporting requirements from once a year to once every two years. Communities and environmentalists strongly

132

|

Conservation in the World

protested this attempt. In rural states, the battleground of right to know is the area of agricultural emissions. Agricultural fertilizer can be and was used for bombs, so post-9/11 concerns about where it now goes have increased. However, whether the community has a right to know about agricultural uses and emissions is a developing area in many state legislatures now. Farmworkers and their exposures are also part of this push for more information. Despite consistent concerns about the cost of these requirements by complying industries and state agencies and local environmental agencies, right-toknow laws show no signs of slowing down. There are still categories of uncovered environmental impacts, such as low emitters and universities. The new push for sustainability will also push open these categories. Right-to-know laws may remain controversial because they open the door to other unresolved and currently unknown environmental controversies. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources Right to Know Network. Available at www.rtknet.org/. Accessed March 2, 2008. South Coast AQMD. Cumulative Impacts Working Group Maps. Available at www.aqmd. gov/rules/ciwg/maps.html. Accessed March 2, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Database. Available at yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/lepcdb.nsf/HomePage?openForm. Accessed March 2, 2008. Further Reading: Baram, Michael S., Patricia S. Dillon, and Betsy Ruffle. 1992. Managing Chemical Risks: Corporate Response to SARA Title III. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Boyce, James K., and Barry G. Shelley. 2003. Natural Assets: Democratizing Ownership of Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press; Gray, Peter L. 2002. Epcra. Washington, DC: American Bar Association; Legator, Marvin S. 1993. Chemical Alert: A Community Action Handbook. University of Texas Press; Rainey, David L. 2006. Sustainable Business Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; West, Bernadette M. 2003. The Reporter’s Environmental Handbook. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

CONSERVATION IN THE WORLD World conservation efforts focus on the most important areas of the environment in terms of biological diversity. Controversies occur when these efforts clash with cultural and developmental interests in these places. Marine world conservation issues are just beginning. WHAT DO WORLD CONSERVATIONISTS CONSERVE? Conservationists have national and international organizations. They focus on conserving, and sometimes protecting, natural resources and the environment. They are a traditional environmental advocacy group. One prominent example of such a group is the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). They try to conserve nature and natural systems. This often becomes the basis for large government parks or animal protection zones.

Conservation in the World | 133

Conservationists now try to protect endangered species and habitats. Many view their mission as combating the extinction of species. World conservationists tend to view the planet in terms of ecoregions and look closely to save endangered species’ habitat. They try to avoid political entanglements in countries but are very practical when it comes to getting and protecting habitat. Environmentalists, cooperating scientists and governments, and universities have examined many species and habitats. To this end, they have mapped out almost 900 ecoregions of the world. For a variety of reasons, some controversial, they have so far found 238 of them to be of great importance for biological diversity. This type of conservationist ethic also resonates with sustainability proponents, who tend to view biological diversity as an important ecosystem survival mechanism over time. According to the WWF, which ran the main project, the definition of an ecoregion is: An ecoregion is a relatively large unit of land or water containing a geographically distinct assemblage of species, natural communities, and environmental conditions. Ecoregion conservation aims to address the fundamental causes of biodiversity loss by looking across whole regions to identify the actions needed to secure long-term conservation and results that are ecologically, socially and economically sustainable. World conservationists now focus on preservation of these areas while working with local populations. Issues of plant and animal poaching, fair pay to local workers, the emerging role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the never-ending goal of discovering all the species can all present battlegrounds. WORLD CONSERVATION AND HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS Protected ecoregions may occur on someone’s land. While private property will form the battleground for conservation efforts in Western countries, other countries have different land ethics and practices. About 18 percent of U.S. land is protected while 0.4 percent of U.S. waters are protected. Battlegrounds may be tribal, community based, unknown, and rapidly developing. Research indicates that areas of high environmental biodiversity are also of high cultural diversity. Because many indigenous people are in oppressive and complex relationships with the current nation-state or country, conservation intervention in these areas is very controversial. This battleground can be complex. In many instances, indigenous people have accumulated important ecological knowledge. This knowledge is important to other people. Strong interests in potential medicines, patents, lumber, minerals, water, as well as ecoregion protection for biodiversity all lay claim to land that is someone else’s. The right of indigenous peoples to self-development is a serious, ongoing battleground. When indigenous people or poor nations want to economically develop and achieve a standard of living comparable to the United States, but occupy highpriority ecoregions, controversy may ensue from the imposition of conservation policies. Logging, mining, low-level nuclear waste sites, and other similar activities bring in needed capital but at a huge environmental price. A large problem is that the benefit of world conservation policies is focused on the world population

134

|

Conservation in the World

but the burden of such policies rests predominantly on poor people with low life expectancies and the desire to use their country to achieve economic prosperity. Some environmental groups have worked hard to fill this void by offering to help with sustainable trade in these areas. For many environmentalists, this has meant increasing their level of cultural competency because of the cultural diversity often associated with areas of environmental biodiversity. The world is a very diverse place, both culturally and environmentally. In total, 6,867 ethnolinguistic groups in about 2,252 ecoregions are known. WORLD CONSERVATION EFFORTS WITH OCEANS Oceans represent the cutting edge of world conservation efforts. Marine areas are among the most highly prioritized ecoregions. Oceans cover most of the Earth. They are intrinsically part of the climate and life cycle. Ocean conservation efforts still comprise only a small part of total conservation efforts. The deep ocean floor is unseen by most people, so the severe environmental impacts caused by mining, bottom trawling, and dredging equipment go unnoticed. Pollution affects oceans differently than it does land masses. As noted by the World Watch Institute: Once pollution enters the sea, currents and tides can move and mix them far from the original source. Or they may be consumed by a species and move up the food chain, becoming more concentrated as they go. Both pollutants and species continually migrate across boundaries and interact, complicating protection efforts. Pollutants created and dispersed by one nation may have an impact on oceans and wildlife far from its borders. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) synthetic chemicals do not degrade easily. Over time they tend to circulate toward colder environments such as the Arctic. There they accumulate in the fatty tissues of fish, then move up the food chain to predators at a more concentrated level. POPs have been implicated in a wide range of animal and human health controversies. Perhaps the greatest difficulty in protecting the world’s oceans is that although ocean waters are used by many nations, no nation owns them. A nation has sovereignty over its lands and territorial sea, the small coastal strip adjacent to its shores, but no nation has sovereignty over the high seas. Conserving open-ocean resources thus requires concerted international cooperation, a more complicated effort than is involved in national land conservation efforts, which can generally be coordinated within one nation. Prior to the mid-twentieth century, this international cooperation was lacking; in fact, the use of ocean resources was guided by the freedom-of-the-seas principle. OCEAN LAW AND WORLD CONSERVATION In 1958, however, a number of factors prompted the United Nations to develop an international law to govern the oceans. Some coastal nations had unilaterally claimed different parts of the oceans as their own and conflicts between nations

Conservation in the World | 135 LOSS OF REEFS The loss of ocean reefs is a great concern for many environmentalists: • Twenty percent of the world’s coral reefs have been effectively destroyed and show no immediate prospects of recovery; • Of the 16 percent of the world’s reefs that were seriously damaged in 1998 approximately 40 percent are either recovering well or have recovered; • Twenty-four percent of the world’s reefs are under imminent risk of collapse through human pressures; and a further 26 percent are under a longer-term threat of collapse; Reefs are useful to the environment and to people because they • Protect shores from the impact of waves and from storms • Provide benefits to humans in the form of food and medicine • Provide economic benefits to local communities from tourism The reef damage is global, but early indicators suggest that some areas are worse hit than others: • Coral reefs of Southeast Asia, the most species-rich on earth, are the most threatened at more than 80 percent, primarily from coastal development and fishingrelated pressures. • Most U.S. reefs are threatened. Almost all the reefs off the Florida coast are at risk from runoff of fertilizers and pollutants from farms and coastal development. Close to half of Hawaii’s reefs are threatened, while virtually all of Puerto Rico’s reefs are at risk. • Nearly two-thirds of Caribbean reefs are in jeopardy. Most of the reefs on the Antilles chain, including the islands of Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica, and other vacation favorites, are at high risk. Reefs off Jamaica, for example, have been ravaged as a result of overfishing and pollution. Many resemble graveyards, algae-covered and depleted of fish. Some actions that can mitigate the loss of reefs are creating marine parks; treating sewage before it reaches reefs; and eliminating costly government subsidies of reef-destroying activities. However, polluted runoff from land into the ocean remains largely uncontrolled. Ocean dumping of all kinds of toxic and hazardous waste and materials continues unabated. Ships incinerate waste at sea. The environmental effects of this waste could be as devastating to the ocean as air pollution is to the climate. The reefs are among the first signs that there may be deep-ocean environmental impacts.

began to arise. In addition, ocean pollution had begun to threaten coastal regions and wildlife worldwide. In response, the United Nations held a series of conventions between 1958 and 1982 that resulted in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which went into effect in 1994 and, as of February 2002, has been ratified by 138 nations. Although the United States has not yet

136

|

Conservation in the World

ratified the convention, it has accepted it in principle. UNCLOS covers a wide range of ocean issues, including protection of the marine environment and the conservation and management of its resources. UNCLOS also approved a twelvenautical-mile territorial limit for coastal nations and a two-hundred-nauticalmile exclusive economic zone, in which the adjacent nation may control fishing rights, marine environmental protection, and scientific research. The provisions of UNCLOS, some claim, are insufficient to protect the marine environment. The scarce language in UNCLOS regarding the conservation of marine biodiversity is far more aspirational than operational. Treaties such as UNCLOS, they argue, operate using unsuccessful marine policies, based on the outdated maxim, “Take as much as can be taken and pollute as much as can be polluted until a problem arises.” These conservationists argue that a precautionary principle, preventing damage before it occurs, must be incorporated into conservation treaties. For many, marine conservation efforts continue to lag behind those on land, and identifying how best to meet the challenges of conserving ocean and coastal resources remains the subject of ongoing controversy. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The rapid advancement in knowledge about the world’s biodiversity fuels the power of the world conservation movement. There is a strong emphasis on SEA LIONS VS. SALMON California sea lions, many kinds of salmon, and Pacific Harbor seals on the West Coast are protected species. Sea lions in particular have thrived, with their numbers increasing at an annual rate of about 5 to 7 percent, tripling since the 1970s. Sea lions and harbor seals have increased in population and pursue food sources that now include piers, docks and marinas, and other public spaces. That raises a battleground of public safety concerns. Some of the sea lions can be aggressive and large. An environmental battleground develops when the sea lions pursue returning salmon and other fish. Sea lions are smart and inquisitive, especially in search of food. They follow the salmon up fish ladders when the salmon return from the ocean to spawn. Salmon numbers then decrease, which reduces the allowable fishing for licensed anglers and sports fisherman. Fishermen want to shoot and kill the sea lions, still a protected species. Federal and state wildlife agencies have tried to deter them with loud noises, bean-bag bullets, and their presence. Sea lions quickly learn any weaknesses in these deterrents and are very persistent. This creates a fundamental conservation question. NOAA’s official position is that in cases where seals or sea lions are causing repeated, serious conflict with human activity, state or federal managers should be authorized to lethally remove identified problem marine mammals after individual animals fail to respond to repeated attempts to deter them. Killing problem sea lions has diminished salmon predation problems in some areas. Wildlife researchers are quick to point out that there are many other factors affecting diminished fish populations, such as pollution, overfishing, fishery reductions, and poaching.

Cultural vs. Animal Rights

monitoring of environmental conditions in land, air, and water. Global warming and climate change controversies have also sparked renewed interest in world conservation. Species extinction, indigenous cultural integrity, increasing world population and consumption, and more accurate environmental information will make this controversy continue for a long time. See also Climate Change; Cultural vs. Animal Rights; Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity; Endangered Species; Precautionary Principle; Rain Forests; Sustainability Web Resources United Nations Environmental Programme—Earth Monitor for World Conservation. Available at www.earthwatch.unep.ch/observation/index.php. Accessed January 20, 2008. World Conservation Union. Available at www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2005/newjune05. htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. World Conservation Problems: Factsheet. Available at www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/ env_facts/world_con_probs.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Jenkins, Martin D., and Brian Groombridge. 2002. World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth’s Living Resources in the 21st Century. Berkeley: University of California Press; Levitt, James N. 2002. Conservation in the Internet Age: Threats and Opportunities. Washington, DC: Island Press; McDuff, Mallory D., Martha C. Monroe, and Susan Kay Jacobson. 2006. Conservation Education and Outreach Techniques: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Nierenberg, Danielle. 2006. State of the World 2006: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress toward a Sustainable Society. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute; Ray, G. Carleton. 2003. Coastal Marine Conservation: Science and Policy. London: Blackwell Publishing; Sayer, Jeffrey A., and Bruce Morgan Campbell. 2004. The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods and the Global Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CULTURAL VS. ANIMAL RIGHTS: THE MAKAH TRIBE AND WHALING Whaling is an ancient industry that has defied meaningful environmental regulation despite the near extinction of some whales. Whaling is one of the cultural and aboriginal rights of the Makah people. The whales they hunt are endangered and environmentalists protest the killing of these whales.

THE MAKAH The Makah Tribal Reservation is centered on Neah Bay (on the northwest tip of the Olympic Peninsula in the state of Washington), an area that is far from large population centers and difficult to find. The tribe has about 2,500 members, about 1,300–1,500 of whom live on the reservation in Neah Bay itself. The Makah tribe are a coastal people with a close relationship with the sea. Jobs are hard to find locally. There is one small town, and few health facilities.

|

137

138

|

Cultural vs. Animal Rights

The Makah tribe were whalers and traded whale products. In 1856 they sold $8,000 worth of whale oil. The tribe stopped whaling around 1926 because California gray whales were almost extinct. Makah people resumed the whale hunt recently, taking a gray whale on May 17, 1999. Environmentalists strongly protested, including physical confrontation. WHAT GOOD ARE WHALES? Whales provided the sustenance for the Makah. All parts were used, and none wasted. Whales gave oil, meat, bone, sinew, and gut. According to the Makah, whaling was approached ceremoniously. To get ready for the hunt, whalers went off by themselves to pray, fast and bathe ceremonially. Each man had his own place, followed his own ritual and sought his own power. Weeks or months went into this special preparation beginning in winter and whalers devoted their whole lives to spiritual readiness. Spring was the time for the hunt. Men waited for favorable weather then paddled out, eight in a canoe, timing arrival on the whaling grounds for daybreak. (http://makah.com) Tribal whaling methods contrasted sharply with modern whaling. Greater efficiency in ocean fishing used more boats and explosive harpoons. Whales tend to have lower population replacement rates. With the rapid overfishing of the whale stocks, the whale population plummeted. THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION (IWC) The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was created in 1948. The whaling was self-regulated even after the formation of the IWC. The IWC had no enforcement authority to penalize wrongdoers or to correct inaccurate reporting of the numbers of whales killed. A MORATORIUM ON COMMERCIAL WHALING The United Nations (UN) held its first conference on the environment in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. Whales were high on the agenda. At this meeting whale protection advocates rallied against the IWC. The UN delegates present unanimously adopted a resolution recommending a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling. A few weeks later at the IWC meeting in London, whalers soundly defeated the call for a moratorium. The moratorium remains in place now only because the pro-whaling nations of Japan and Norway cannot get the three-fourths majority of votes necessary to overturn it. The Makah tribe maintains that they have a right to hunt whales, as evidenced by a signed treaty. The Humane Society protests the inhumane killing of all animals. They sought to stop the Makah from hunting whales by suing them in federal court.

Cultural vs. Animal Rights

THE TREATY OF NEAH BAY The tribe maintains that its 1855 treaty, the Treaty of Neah Bay, expressly preserves its right to whale. However, the treaty does so “in common with all citizens of the United States,” the appeals court judges held, quoting from the treaty itself. They further wrote: The Tribe has no unrestricted treaty right to pursue whaling in the face of the MMPA [Marine Mammal Protection Act]. Instead, having concluded that the MMPA is applicable to regulate the Tribe’s whaling because the MMPA’s application is necessary to effectuate the conservation purpose of the statute, and because such application is consistent with the language of the Neah Bay Treaty, we conclude that the issuance by NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] of a gray whale quota to the Tribe, absent compliance with the MMPA, violates federal law. In short, while the court did not rule that the Makah lacked a treaty right to hunt whales, it held that the Makah must comply with the MMPA if they wish to pursue any such right. Under the MMPA, entities may apply for waivers to the law’s prohibitions. The court has ordered the Makah to follow the MMPA’s waiver procedures before proceeding with their hunt. These procedures do not guarantee the cultural and subsistence rights the Makah thought were protected by treaties. The Makah have stated that this ruling will have damaging implications for treaty rights across the board, that is, will be used to negate treaty rights. The Humane Society points out that the MMPA has specific procedures that allow tribes to exercise their treaty rights to hunt marine mammals. According to them, this ruling in no way negates those rights. They feel the federal court opinion ensures that strong conservation principles will govern the exercising of those rights. The Humane Society has opposed the Makah hunt from the beginning, not because they oppose native treaty rights or even the aboriginal subsistence hunting of marine mammals. The HSUS does not oppose the Makah or Makah culture. They do oppose any killing of marine mammals when it is done in an inhumane manner. They also oppose marine mammal hunts when they do not meet clear subsistence needs. They oppose all whaling that is not in compliance with international treaty obligations. The HSUS has worked for decades at the international level to improve the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling and to minimize the quotas needed to meet subsistence needs. The ban on commercial whaling does not affect aboriginal subsistence whaling, which is permitted by Denmark, the Russian Federation, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States. Nor does this ban cover small whales, as Japan and a handful of other nations refuse to accept the IWC jurisdiction over small whales and dolphins.

|

139

140

|

Cultural vs. Animal Rights

HOW THE MAKAH HUNT WHALES One of the concerns of environmentalists is how the Makah people actually hunt and kill the whales. Here, in their own words, is how the Makah hunt the whale. Paddling silently, whalers studied the breathing pattern of their quarry. They knew from experience what to expect. As the whale finished spouting and returned underwater, the leader of the hunt directed the crew to where it would next surface. There the men waited. When the whale rose, the paddlers held the canoe just to its left matching the speed of their quarry. As the back broke the surface, the harpooner struck and the crew instantly paddled backward, putting all possible distance between the canoe and the wounded prey so as to avoid the thrashing tail flukes. A hit in the shoulder blade interfered with use of the flippers and slowed the whale. Floats of sealskin blown up like huge balloons and attached to the harpoon line slowed the whale. Harpoons weren’t intended to kill the whale, but to secure the sealskin floats to them until they tired themselves and could be lanced fatally. Shafts of yew wood measured 12 to 18 feet long—heavy wood to add to the harpooner’s thrust and help the blade pierce deeply. Splices in the shaft deadened the springiness and furthered the penetration. They also let the shaft break rather than hit the canoe repeatedly if the whale rolled. Furthermore, they allowed a clean break rather than a splintering. This aided repair. Shafts fell away once the harpoon head had been set. In a whale, the head turned partly sideways. Barbs of elk antler helped to keep it from pulling out. They fit one on each side of the blade, which was mussel shell. Spruce pitch, at Ozette still pungent after 500 years within the earth, fared and smoothed the head. Whale sinew plied into rope and bound with wild cherry bark attached the harpoon head to as much as 40 fathoms of additional rope. This line, which was of twisted cedar boughs, was carried coiled within the baskets so that it would play out easily and wouldn’t entangle the canoe’s occupants. A telltale float at the end of the line acted as a marker so that the whalers could follow the wounded whale, setting additional harpoons and staying out over night if need be. Eventually the time came for the final kill of the whale which was done using a special lance. The next step was to tow the whale home—a distance of only a few miles if its spirit had heeded prayers to swim for the beach, perhaps 10 miles or more if not. As a precaution against the whale’s sinking, a diver generally laced the mouth shut. This kept water from flooding into the stomach, weighing the carcass down and interfering with the tow. . . . Songs welcomed the whale to the village, welcomed the returning hunters and praised the power that made it all possible. http://makah.com.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As populations increase and ocean hunting technology improves to the point of being harvesting, the whaling controversy will increase. There is a large market advantage for those countries that do not comply with the law. The information is self-reported in a self-regulated industry. Aboriginal people,

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks |

such as the Makah exert cultural rights in traditional ways. Many indigenous groups around the world have very strong traditions and subsistence needs tied to ocean fishing. They too suffer when large floating whale-harvesting factories deplete the species beyond a sustainable level. The battleground for this controversy is the ocean, the habitat of the whale. The lack of identified ownership by people or states and the uncharted vastnesses of ocean depths contribute to the inability to solve this particular environmental controversy. Strong political advocacy by environmental groups like Greenpeace have increased public awareness of this issue. See also Endangered Species; Environmental Impact Statement: Tribal; Sustainability Web Resources Federal Government Reaffirms Makah Treaty Rights Regarding Whaling. Available at http:// www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2001/jul01/noaa01r121.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Humane Society of the United States. Federal Appeals Court Bars Makah Tribe from Whaling. Available at www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/federal_appeals_ court_bars_makah_tribe_from_whaling.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Makah Tribe. Whaling. Available at www.makah.com/whaling.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Erikson, Patricia Pierce, Helma Ward, and Kirk Wachendorf. 2002. Voices of a Thousand People: The Makah Cultural and Research Center. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; Heyning, John. 1995. Masters of the Ocean Realm: Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises. Vancouver: University of British Colombia Press; Kieran, Mulvaney. 2003. The Whaling Season: An Inside Account of the Struggle to Stop Commercial Whaling. Washington, DC: Island Press; Martello, Marybeth Long, and Sheila Jasanoff, eds. 2004. Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Stoett, Peter John. 1997. The International Politics of Whaling. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press; Tweedie, Ann M. 2002. Drawing Back Culture: The Makah Struggle for Repatriation. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS, IMPACTS, AND RISKS Since the mid-1850s the results of the industrial revolution have polluted the environment. When industrial manufacturing processes garner raw materials, they produce a product and by-products. These by-products are often wastes and chemicals. They have grown enormously since then. In many urban areas industrial emissions have accumulated for 150 years. These emissions are mixed with other waste streams as they percolate through soil or volatize into the air. This can result in accumulating impacts to the environment, almost all negative. Emissions that impact the environment can bioaccumulate in all species, including humans. Bioaccumulation of some chemicals, such as metals, is known to be very harmful, and therefore risky, to humans. Emissions, impacts, and risks

141

142

|

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks

fall under the collective label of cumulative effects. No one industry wants to be liable for the emissions of others. Many communities are concerned about the eroding health of their families. Environmentalists want cumulative effects to be accounted for in environmental impact statements. Policy development is weak, yet every day these cumulative effects increase. This is a young controversy that is growing and will drive and divide many other environmental policies.

BACKGROUND Several reports have highlighted the importance of understanding the accumulation of risks from multiple environmental stressors. These reports, as well as legislation such as the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), urged the EPA to move beyond single chemical assessments and to focus, in part, on the cumulative effects of chemical exposures occurring simultaneously. In 1999, the EPA’s Risk Assessment Forum began development of EPA-wide cumulative risk assessment guidance.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative risk means the combined risks from aggregate exposures to multiple agents or stressors. Several key points can be derived from this definition of cumulative risk. First, cumulative risk involves multiple agents or stressors, which means that assessments involving a single chemical or stressor are not cumulative risk assessments under this definition. Second, there is no limitation that the agents or stressors be only chemicals. They may be, but they may also be biological or physical agents or an activity that, directly or indirectly, alters or causes the loss of a necessity such as habitat. Third, this definition requires that the risks from multiple agents or stressors be combined. This does not necessarily mean that the risks should be added, but rather that some analysis should be conducted to determine how the risks from the various agents or stressors interact. It also means that an assessment that covers a number of chemicals or other stressors but merely lists each chemical with corresponding risk without consideration of the other chemicals present is not an assessment of cumulative risk under this definition. Cumulative risk assessment in this report means “an analysis, characterization, and possible quantification of the combined risks to health or the environment from multiple agents or stressors.” One key aspect of this definition is that a cumulative risk assessment need not necessarily be quantitative, so long as it meets the other requirements. The framework itself is conceptually similar to the approach used in both human health and ecological assessments, but it is distinctive in several areas. First, its focus on the combined effects of more than one agent or stressor distinguishes it from many assessments conducted today, in which, if multiple stressors are evaluated, they are usually evaluated individually and presented as if the others were not present. Second, because multiple stressors are affecting the same population, there is increased focus on the specific populations potentially af-

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks |

fected rather than on hypothetical receptors. Third, consideration of cumulative risk may generate interest in a wider variety of nonchemical stressors than do traditional risk assessments. THE EPA APPROACH The term cumulative risk assessment covers a wide variety of risks. Currently, EPA assessments describe and, where possible, quantify the risks of adverse health and ecological effects from synthetic chemicals, radiation, and biological stressors. As part of planning an integrated risk assessment, risk assessors must define dimensions of the assessment, including the characteristics of the population at risk. These include individuals or sensitive subgroups that may be highly susceptible to risks from stressors or groups of stressors due to their age (e.g., risks to infants and children), gender, disease history, size, or developmental stage. There are other risk issues, dimensions, and concerns that the EPA does not address. This broader set of concerns, recognized as potentially important by many participants in the risk assessment process, relate to social, economic, behavioral, or psychological stressors that contribute to adverse health effects. These stressors may include existing health conditions, anxiety, nutritional status, crime, and congestion. On the important topic of special subpopulations, the EPA and others are giving more emphasis to the sensitivities of children and to gender-related differences in susceptibility and exposure to environmental stressors. The EPA’s stated focus is on risk assessments that integrate risks of adverse health and ecological effects from the narrower set of environmental stressors. There is a great deal of controversy about what specifically is an adverse impact. The EPA is engaged in several activities that involve working with stakeholders. However, the EPA still resists regularly incorporating cumulative risk concerns in most applied policy areas such as environmental impact statements. HOW DO YOU AGGREGATE RISKS? This is a very controversial area on many levels. In the scientific community there is a diverse body of opinion and perspective. Most would like to have a model of some kind that reliably predicts an effect from a given cause. Without a model many scientists do not believe it is possible to have a policy. On the community level, controversies surround what goes into the pool of risks that are aggregated. For example, low levels of fire and police protection may make an area more risky then one with high levels of fire and police protection. Environmental advocacy groups want to make cumulative effects part of the requirements for an environmental impact assessment. Due to the current state of the practice, strongly vested stakeholder positions, and limited data, the aggregation of risks may often be based on a default assumption of additivity in the United States. This simply adds the risk per chemical for a sum total of risk. It also ignores antagonism, when chemicals mitigate the risk from one another. In many western European markets,

143

144

|

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks

synergized risk and risk to vulnerable populations determine entry into commerce. Some emerging cumulative risk approaches in Canada and western Europe may help set up data development approaches in the United States. However, U.S. approaches to emission control still leave many sources completely unregulated, and those that are regulated emit millions of pounds of chemicals per year. For an accurate cumulative risk assessment, all past and present emissions must be counted. FLINT, MICHIGAN, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CUMULATIVE LEAD EXPOSURE Flint, Michigan, was the site of an early legal challenge based in part on cumulative impacts of lead on African American people, primarily African American children. The industrial plant was built by the Genesee Power Company. It was located in a predominantly African American residential neighborhood in Flint. The lawsuit (NAACP-Flint Chapter et al v. Engler et al., No. 95–38228CZ [Circuit Court, Genesee County, filed 7/22/95]), filed by two community groups—United for Action and the NAACP-Flint Chapter—and several African American women, challenged the state of Michigan’s decision to grant a construction permit to the power company on environmental and environmental justice grounds. The complaint alleged that granting this permit would allow that facility to emit over two tons of lead per year into an African American community that already had very high levels of lead exposure and contamination. The Maurice and Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, a Detroit-based national civil rights organization represented the community. Census data showed that a substantial disparity exists in the racial composition of the population around the proposed site. Then, the population within a one-mile radius surrounding the incinerator was 55.8 percent African American; in contrast, African Americans comprise 19.6 percent of those living in Genesee County and 13.9 percent of Michigan’s population. There was evidence in the form of a risk assessment demonstrating that African Americans living in Flint constituted the population that would be most affected by the emissions from this incinerator. Health data included public reports, studies from scientific journals, and privately commissioned studies. It Is Worse for Children Health information specific to children was also very important in this case. Children under six are especially vulnerable to lead’s negative effects, because children absorb more lead in proportion to their weight than do adults. Of children ages six months to five years living in the Flint metropolitan area 49.2 percent already have elevated blood lead levels. Lead exposure at an early age has been linked to attention-deficit disorder, problems with anger control and management, and other behavioral changes.

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks |

Lead Exposure: It Is Black and White in Flint A much higher percentage of African American (22.5 percent) than white (8.1 percent) children living in cities similar in size to Flint have blood lead levels exceeding 10 pg/dl. These levels of exposure come from many sources, some controversial. The power plant in Flint was an incinerator used to burn old buildings. Old buildings built or renovated before1980 have lead paint that can enter the air after incineration. Flint was a community that saw the demise of a manufacturing base that left it a wasteland. Flint has many sources of pollution, which comes in the form of unregulated junkyards that burn garbage and tires, bulk-storage gas and chemical tanks, an asphalt company and cement factory, and a fenced-off holding pond containing sludge and other liquid waste northwest of the industrial park. It also takes the form of vehicle emissions and leaching industrial waste sites. The question for the court here was whether this new proposed use, a power plant that is really an incinerator that burns and emits even more lead, is an acceptable cumulative risk for an already lead-poisoned community. The lower state court issued an injunction stopping Michigan from granting any air permits for six months. Appeals ensued. They were granted and allowed the incinerator to go into the African American community in Flint. BEGINNINGS U.S. environmental policy is relatively new, with the EPA forming in 1970. U.S. policy is just beginning to study cumulative effects. The research is emerging slowly, and no one is anxious to hear the news. Cumulative effects often represent the environmental impacts of humans when there were no environmental rules or regulations. They can be significant, and represent large cleanup costs. If cumulative effects are an issue in a typical environmental impact statement, then a finding of significant impact on the environment is made and a larger-scale environmental impact analysis is required. This too is expensive. Cleanup costs and the cost of environmental impact assessments are usually borne by industry. Industry strongly resists assuming responsibility for what they did not cause, based on a weak model of cumulative effects to date. Many of these cleanup costs could affect the profitability of any single corporation in these industries. Currently, most corporations listed in the stock exchange place these types of environmental issues in a 10B5 Securities Exchange Commission reporting statement under “contingent liabilities.” Nonetheless, communities are very concerned about any emissions, especially as they accumulate in their midst. Public accessibility has increased knowledge about emissions generally and locally, and they become easier to detect as they accumulate over time. As some legislation now contains some cumulative effects provisions, some federal agencies are beginning new policies. The first policy experiments are important in terms of lessons learned. Decisions made now about cumulative environmental and human effects in public policy will have a direct bearing on the future health of communities, the future profitability of corporations, and the place

145

146

|

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks

in government that resolves the hard parts of implementing this type of policy. Right now, data and information are being developed through pilot programs. Here are some of them. • Cumulative acute and subchronic health risk to field workers’ infants and toddlers in farm communities as a result of organophosphate pesticide exposure (that is, through respiratory, dermal, dietary, and nondietary ingestion) resulting from agricultural and residential uses in light of the nutritional status of field-worker families. • Cumulative ecological risk to the survival and reproduction of populations of blue crabs or striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay resulting from water and air emissions from both urban and agricultural sources. • Cumulative risk under the Food Quality Protection Act may be defined using terms such as aggregate exposure (that is, the exposure of consumers, manufacturers, applicators, and other workers to pesticide chemical residues with common mechanisms of toxicity through ingestion, skin contact, or inhalation from occupational, dietary, and nonoccupational sources) or cumulative effects (that is, the sum of all effects from pesticide chemical residues with the same mechanism of toxicity).

EXAMPLES OF CUMULATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE EPA IN 2002 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in several cumulative risk activities. The Superfund program has updated its guidelines on risk assessment to include planning and scoping cumulative risk assessment and problem formulation for ecological risk assessments. The plan for the Office of Solid Waste’s Surface Impoundment Study includes both a conceptual model and an analytical plan, per the agency guidance on planning and scoping for cumulative risk. The Office of Water is planning a watershed-scale risk assessment involving multiple ecological stressors. This approach was developed through collaboration with external scientists and is now being evaluated in the field. Several regional offices are evaluating cumulative hazards, exposures, and effects of toxic contaminants in urban environments. In Chicago (Region 5), citizens are concerned about the contribution of environmental stressors to endpoints such as asthma and blood lead levels. In Baltimore a regional/ Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances/community partnership tried to address the long-term environmental and economic concerns in three neighborhoods that are adjacent to industrial facilities and tank farms. Dallas is developing a geographic information system approach for planning for and evaluating cumulative risks. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 requires that the EPA consider the cumulative effects to human health that can result from exposure to pesticides and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. The Office of Pesticide Programs has developed guidelines for

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks |

conducting cumulative risk assessments for pesticides and has prepared a preliminary cumulative risk assessment for organophosphorous pesticides. The Office of Air and Radiation’s (OAR’s) air toxics program has a cumulative risk focus. Under the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, OAR will be considering cumulative risks presented by exposures to air emissions of hazardous pollutants from sources in the aggregate. Assessments will be performed at both the national scale (a national-scale assessment for base year 1996 was completed in 2002) and at the urban or neighborhood scale. In partnership with the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the National Exposure Research Laboratory, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is developing the total risk integrated methodology (TRIM), a modular modeling system for use in single- or multimedia, single- or multipathway human health and ecological risk assessments of hazardous and criteria air pollutants at the neighborhood or city scale. ORD’s National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) has completed ecological risk assessment guidelines that support the cumulative risk assessment guidance. Five watershed case studies are being assessed to demonstrate the guidelines approach. Each of these cases deals with cumulative impacts of stressors (chemical, biological, and, in some cases, physical). In addition, federal agencies have prepared a draft reassessment of dioxin and related compounds. As emissions, impacts, and effects continue to accumulate in the environment, more chemicals will be reevaluated for their contribution to environmental degradation and public health impacts. This is not happening fast enough for many environmentalists and communities. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The public is exposed to multiple contaminants from a variety of sources, and tools are needed to understand the resulting combined risks. The stakes are very high and getting higher every day. It is likely the first set of U.S. tools will eventually be tested in the courts. This controversy is not there yet. Cumulative effects are receiving much study here and are being implemented as policy abroad. With global warming and climate change developing into treaties and U.S. municipal ordinances, this controversy could flare up rapidly in the United States. See also Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water Web Resources Assessment of Cumulative Environmental Effects, a Selected Bibliography (November 1995). Available at www.ec.gc.ca/ea-ee/eaprocesses/bibliography_1995_e.asp. Accessed January 20, 2008. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Available at www.nepa.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008.

147

148

|

Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Available at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/ 013/0001/0004/index_e.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Lawrence, David Peter. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; National Academies Press. 2003. Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope. Washington, DC: National Research Council; Simon, Thomas P. 1999. Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. London: CRC Press; Social Learning Group. 2001. Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

D DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW The enforcement of environmental law often disappoints citizens. It is rare, difficult, and different depending on the community. Fines for the same environmental offense are lower in African American communities than in white communities. Environmental cleanup efforts disproportionately benefit white Americans over people of color. A landmark 1992 study uncovered glaring inequities in the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforced environmental laws. The study found a racial divide in the way the U.S. government cleans up toxic waste sites and punishes polluters. White communities see faster action, better results, and stiffer penalties than communities where African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities live. This unequal protection often occurs whether the community is wealthy or poor. A recent study in Massachusetts found that communities where people of color compose 25 percent or more of the population face nearly nine times higher cumulative rates of exposure to hazardous materials than predominantly white communities. Most U.S. environmental laws allow enforcement of pollution-control standards by state government officials and private citizens as well as federal officials. Beginning in the early 1980s, the EPA delegated enforcement responsibility to individual states while retaining general oversight authority. State environmental laws often are similar to federal statutes. One reason for the unequal enforcement of environmental law is that state approaches to enforcement vary widely. Some states provide the minimal amount of enforcement necessary for minimal EPA funding. Other states seek the maximum enforcement and acquire the maximum

149

150

| Different Standards of Enforcement of Environmental Law

federal support and resources possible. Still other states supplement the federal environmental enforcement money with their own. Large and medium-sized cities now have environmental departments. One battleground in this controversy is at the state environmental agency level. Environmentalists, citizens, some local governments, and others all expect that environmental laws will be equally enforced. If they are not, the fear is that industry will shop around for the least environmentally regulated community. States and cities sometimes seek economic development with lax environmental enforcement for desired industries. When states and cities compete with one another to have the least environmental regulation and enforcement, this is called the race to the bottom. By retaining oversight authority, the federal government mandates a minimum level of environmental protection. If the state does not do it, the federal government will step in and do it themselves. This was recently the case in Alaska. Alaska declined to regulate older hazardous waste facilities. The EPA stepped in and now runs that particular program. States usually seek to keep the federal government from deciding local issues. State agencies are between the federal government and the citizens. They have to balance economic development with environmental enforcement. If they close an industry due to environmental regulations, then economic development could suffer. That is why the EPA, and virtually every state environmental agency, accommodates compliance policies, not punishment policies. CITIZEN SUITS Many U.S. environmental laws authorize citizen suits, lawsuits brought by any citizen against another party thought to be in violation of a pollution-control standard. These citizen suits are generally barred if federal or state agencies are diligently prosecuting an action against the same defendant for the same violation. Citizen suits must be pursued with respect to environmental rule violations that are ongoing, not alleged violations of pollution laws that occurred in the past.

ENFORCEMENT CONTROVERSY One aspect of the law is that there is an expectation that it will be enforced, and enforced fairly. That generally means that like behavior is treated the same way. That is not the case in environmental enforcement. A core controversy that riddles this battleground is the best approach to enforcing environmental laws in the United States. Government works hard to facilitate compliance with environmental rules. One view is deterrent enforcement. Wrongdoers are punished for their acts. The punishment should be enough to deter, or prevent, them from benefiting from their actions or repeating them. The EPA will go through a complex process to determine how much to fine a polluting industry without putting it out of business. The prevailing enforcement approach is the compliance model. Here, regulatory agencies advise regulated industries on how to come into compliance. They include compliance incentives that encourage regulated industries to police

Drought | 151

themselves by engaging in environmental audits and self-correction of violations. Sometimes, one part of the deal is that, by adopting cleanup measures that go above and beyond what the law requires, industry gets enforcement forgiveness or flexibility. Compliance programs also incorporate compliance assistance efforts. Environmental agencies, state or federal, assist regulated industries and communities to comply with environmental laws. This can include technical assistance and grants. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The difference in legal expectations from one group of stakeholders (citizens, environmentalists, environmental justice advocates, and sustainability proponents) to another (industry, state and federal environmental agencies, and courts) is very large. This is the battleground of environmental law enforcement generally. This particular controversy of unequal or poor enforcement of environmental laws shows that some of them can be enforced. As U.S. environmental policy begins to include the urban areas, a historical pattern of exclusion will emerge and cause conflict. A different standard of enforcement is interpreted by some to indicate where it is acceptable to pollute. Cities are where most people of color reside, where most immigrants arrive, and where the most pollution exists. Different standards of enforcement of environmental law between city and suburb will cause difficulties as concern about cumulative effects and sustainable policy development mounts. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Environmental Audits and Environmental Audit Privileges; Environmental Justice; Litigation of Environmental Disputes; Supplemental Environmental Projects Web Resources Neal, Ruth, and April Allen. Environmental Justice: An Annotated Bibliography. Available at www.ejrc.cau.edu/annbib.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Environmental Protection Agency. Enforcement. Available at www.epa.ie/OfficeofEnviron mentalEnforcement/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Hawkins, Keith, and John M. Thomas, eds. 1984. Enforcing Regulation. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff; Landy, Marc K., Marc J. Roberts, and Stephen R. Thomas. 1990. The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions. New York: Oxford University Press; Mintz, Joel A. 1985. Enforcement at the EPA: High Stakes and Hard Choices. Austin: University of Texas Press.

DROUGHT Droughts are environmental controversies in the United States in terms of both monitoring and governmental response. They are integrally related to the water cycle and have deep environmental impacts. On the international level, droughts can cause mass movements of people in search of food—environmental refugees. The environmental impacts of drought can be severe and long lasting. Climate change may cause drought to spread.

152

|

Drought

WHAT IS A DROUGHT? Droughts have been the bane of human existence since they were one of the seven plagues in biblical references. Droughts highlight the role of water in ecosystems and in agribusiness. Irrigation can mitigate the impact of droughts on crops but not on ecosystems. Droughts can also increase the concentration of pollutants, such as fertilizer and pesticide runoff, for downstream water users. Droughts can cause low wells to run dry, and junior water rights holders to be completely without water. In this way droughts can pull out other controversies around water pollution, water rights, and environmental impacts. A pragmatic definition is that a drought is a period of unusually dry weather that lasts long enough to cause serious problems for important stakeholders. These problems include crop damage, water supply shortages, and risk to ecosystems. The severity of the drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the duration, and the size of the affected area. DROUGHT CHARACTERISTICS Drought differs from other natural hazards in several ways. The effects of drought accumulate slowly over a time. Serious problems from drought may fester for years. Drought impacts are less apparent and spread over a larger geographic area than are damages that result from other natural hazards. The measurement of environmental impacts and the need for disaster relief are difficult with drought disasters. A big battleground is the definition of drought. How much drought is natural? How much is due to climate change? Can human intervention mitigate drought? When does the government intervene to assist drought-stricken communities? What kind of intervention best assists drought victims? Should there be government-assisted drought insurance similar to flood insurance? Are droughts an act of God, and insurable? The lack of a precise and objective definition has been an obstacle to drought policy development. Population increases and industrialization have increased the demand for water. Increased demand for water is increasing societal vulnerability to drought conditions. Future droughts could create greater impacts because of the increased social vulnerability. Environmental impacts of drought include: • • • •

• • • •

Damage to animal species Reduction and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat Lack of feed and drinking water Greater wildlife mortality due to increased contact with agricultural producers, as animals seek food from farms and producers are less tolerant of the intrusion Disease Increased vulnerability to predation (for species concentrated near water) Migration and concentration (loss of wildlife in some areas and too many wildlife in other areas) Increased stress to endangered species

Drought | 153

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Loss of biodiversity Hydrological effects Lower water levels in reservoirs, lakes, and ponds Reduced flow from springs Reduced stream flow Loss of wetlands Estuarine impacts (e.g., changes in salinity levels) Increased groundwater depletion, land subsidence, reduced recharge Water quality effects (e.g., salt concentration, increased water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) Damage to plant communities Loss of biodiversity Loss of trees from urban landscapes, parks, and wooded conservation areas Increased number and severity of fires; wind and water erosion of soils; reduced soil quality; air quality effects (e.g., dust, pollutants); and visual and landscape quality (e.g., dust, vegetative cover, etc.)

CRISIS MANAGEMENT VS. RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO DROUGHT MANAGEMENT There is a major controversy in policy approaches to drought and its environmental impacts. The policy of government has been to react to severe drought through the provision of food, water, and shelter or other emergency assistance. Some argue that government intervention in this manner serves as a disincentive for sustainability because it reinforces poor drought management practices. Technological and social change is improving the ability to effectively manage water during periods of drought. Scientists claim that an improved understanding of complex atmospheric-oceanic systems and the development of new computer models have improved drought-forecasting skills. DROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of the climate of virtually all portions of the United States. Because of the country’s size and the wide range of climatic systems present, it is rare for drought not to exist somewhere in the country each year. Drought frequently affects more than 10 percent of the United States, and sometimes more than 30 percent of the nation is affected. Other regions of the world can go for years with very little rain, and then for years experience a high amount of precipitation. Some areas have had drought so long they are considered deserts. Drought can be spotty in some areas, leaving only parts completely dry. Drought-stricken areas are difficult to live in. Without water, many plants and animals suffer. What water resources remain can become quickly contaminated. Drought is devastating to certain industries, especially farming and ranching. On an international level, drought can cause the mass migration of people in search of food. The United Nations calls these people environmental refugees. An area’s

154

|

Drought

sensitivity to drought ultimately determines the level of financial investment and risk that banks and other financial institutions are willing to consider. HOW CAN A POLICY MITIGATE A DROUGHT? Should we mitigate all the impacts of all the droughts? Which ones should be mitigated, if possible? Mitigation is an environmental term that means activities that reduce the degree of long-term risk to human life and the environment. This definition is awkward in application to drought because there is often no direct loss of human life and measurements of long-term risk to the environment are unknown and debatable. States are given flexibility to define mitigation as including actions or activities that they felt were appropriate. Mitigation is a battleground in many environmental controversies, including this one. Sometimes, the mitigation activity itself is damaging, and there is often no obligation to mitigate the effects of mitigation attempts. Water conservation and storage at the home and AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL DROUGHT POLICY: A MODEL FOR THE UNITED STATES? Australia is a country with a harsh, drought-prone interior. Much of the settlement of the interior of Australia has been a struggle between civil engineering and the forces of nature, primarily water. The national government of Australia has been engaged in drought policy since European settlement. The Australian drought policy is focused on agricultural drought, thus focusing on animal and crop impacts. According to Australian policy, drought is considered to be an integral part of a highly variable climate. People should expect periods of drought in certain regions of Australia (known there as the Big Dry). Drought is considered to be one of many weather risks that agribusinesses face in managing farm operations. The Australian federal government under this policy assists agribusiness in coping with drought. They do so through the provision of better and timelier information about potential drought conditions. The objectives of Australian drought policy are: 1. to encourage primary producers and other segments of rural Australia to adopt self-reliant approaches in planning for climatic variation, 2. to facilitate the maintenance and protection of Australia’s agricultural and resource base during periods of increasing climatic stress, and 3. to facilitate the early recovery of agricultural and rural industries to levels consistent with long-term sustainable production. The long-term goals of this policy are to increase productivity, improve the allocation of resources, and enhance self-reliance. Given that previous attempts to mitigate drought in the United States have been unsuccessful, policy changes must occur to adequately address the drought management problems that exist today. One big problem in applying the Australian approach to the United States is private property ownership.

Drought | 155

local level may help mitigate some of the effects. More efficient use of water in agribusiness would also do so. When the government makes mandatory rules in both these areas, new battlegrounds develop about enforcement. Conflicts between water users increase during droughts. In the western United States, water rights are often divided into senior and junior water rights to the same water. If a drought occurs, only senior water rights holders will get water. That can mean one farm goes bankrupt while the next farm prospers. Enormous controversies are brewing between municipal and agricultural water users. If a drought occurs, a city generally will get the water over agribusiness. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Water is an increasingly scarce resource in the United States, and human and industrial water use is increasing. The economic, social, and environmental impacts of drought are significant. Government continues to deal with drought in a reactive, rather than planning, mode. States have developed and implemented a wide range of mitigation measures, but the shift from crisis management to risk management continues to be controversial. Drought shows the vulnerability of economic, social, political, and environmental systems to a variable climate. Projected changes in climate suggest a possible increase in the frequency and intensity of severe drought in the future. The battleground for much of this controversy lies within government agencies. These agencies are just developing the early parts of a comprehensive environmental policy around drought. All that will not necessarily stop a drought, or mitigate all the impacts if there is not enough water for everyone. A bigger battlefield for this controversy will occur when some of the policies require actions from private landowners that threaten water rights. See also Climate Change; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas; Global Warming; Sustainability; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution Web References National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Drought Information Center. Available at www.drought.noaa.gov/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Palmer Drought Index Graphic. Available at www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_ monitoring/regional_monitoring/palmer.gif. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Alvarez, Joaquin Andreu. 2005. Drought Management and Planning for Water Resources. Singapore: CRC Press; MacGuire, Bill, Ian M. Mason, and R. Kilburn Christopher. 2002. Natural Hazards and Environmental Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Whitmore, Joan S. 2000. Drought Management of Farmland. MO: Springer; Wilhite, Donald A. 1993. Drought Assessment, Management, and Planning: Theory and Case Studies. New York: Springer.

E ECOLOGICAL RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS AT SUPERFUND SITES Risk assessment and ecological risk assessment are themselves controversial. Superfund sites listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) apply ecological risk assessment in very important and controversial legally mandated cleanups of dangerous, toxic, and polluted areas. Although very technical and pioneering at this juncture, every step of this infant policy will engender environmental controversy. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT Ecological risk assessment involves a holistic perspective of how the land, air, and water interact. It is new, expensive, and time-consuming. Assessment and evaluation often uncover pollution from years of unregulated industrial activity. Industry does not want to be liable for waste it did not create. However, the cumulative impacts increase daily, and the amount of cleanup required to achieve minimal levels of public safety can be unmanageable for individual corporations. Ecological risk assessment is much more comprehensive and uncovers much more pollution. It also provides important environmental information necessary for new policies like sustainability, emissions trading, and impact assessment. Superfund cleanups represent the cutting edge of ecological risk assessment applied to important environmental issues. It is both a pioneering and rudimentary policy approach from a relatively young federal agency. Both characteristics spark intense controversy that finds expression in courts and legislatures. If the EPA’s ever-changing model survives lawsuits and legislative

157

158

|

Ecological Risk Management Decisions at Superfund Sites

attacks, and it usually does, then many states and some cities may adopt their approach and policy. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: HOW THE EPA DOES IT NOW Ecosystem and ecological risk assessment emerged from human health-based risk assessment. During the 1980s, risk assessment was a foundational part of environmental policy and law. The use of ecological information for decision making expanded slowly through the 1980s. In March 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency published Risk Management Guidance for Superfund, Volume 2: Environmental Evaluation Manual, which was among the first documents to address ecological risk (EPA540-/1–89/001). In 1992, the EPA published the Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA/63-R-92/001) as the first statement of principles for ecological risk assessments. In April 1998, the agency published the final Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA/630/ R-95/002F). Ecological risk assessments are most often conducted by the EPA during the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) phase of the Superfund response process. They are used to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects occurring as a result of exposure to physical or chemical stressors. Adverse impacts is a technical term with multiple meanings. Here, it is defined as any physical, chemical, or biological entities that can induce adverse responses at a given site. Exposure profiles are developed to identify ecological receptors, habitats, and pathways of exposure. The sources and distribution of pollutants in the environment are also examined. Other information contained in ecological risk assessments can include evaluations of individual species, populations of species, wildlife communities, habitat types, ecosystems, landslide risk, or landscapes. All this information fuels many other environmental controversies. In this way the EPA’s implementation of an ecological risk assessment becomes part of many later battlegrounds. In October 1999 the EPA published Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management Principles for Superfund Sites in order to begin policy implementation. This policy describes six principles to consider when making ecological risk management decisions. The policy specifically requires that all ecological risk assessments be performed according to the eight-step process described in Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. The EPA wants its risk management decision makers to be able to present a clear basis for their ecological risk management actions. They want them to be able to present them to the public in the proposed plan and the record of decision steps of the Superfund response process. This emphasis on public involvement facilitates the use of ecological risk assessments in other areas of controversy. Most cleanup sites listed on the Superfund National Priorities List have been the subject of community and environmental controversy anyway. They are risks to people and to the environment. Many of the pollutants at a site migrate from the site via the water, air, and land

Ecological Risk Management Decisions at Superfund Sites | 159

so that immediate cleanup is necessary to prevent ecosystem contamination. One premise of the use of ecosystem risk assessment here is that the policy goal is to prevent ecosystem contamination. PRINCIPLED ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING The policy requires EPA risk managers to adhere to the six principles summarized further on. Many community groups and environmental organizations find some of these processes incomplete in law, and especially incomplete in practice. This creates local controversies that simmer for years. Nonetheless, it is a U.S. starting point for beginning a long, expensive, necessary process to clean up the results of processes that contributed to our present-day affluence. These principles are taken directly from the previously described public documents and can be viewed in greater detail in the references and Web sites listed at the end of this entry. Principle 1: Superfund’s Goal Is to Reduce Ecological Risks to Levels That Will Result in the Recovery and Maintenance of Healthy Local Populations and Communities of Biota Principle 2: Coordinate with Federal, Tribal, and State Natural Resource Trustees Principle 3: Use Site-Specific Ecological Risk Data to Support Cleanup Decisions Site-specific data should be collected and used, wherever practical, to determine whether or not site releases present unacceptable risks and to develop quantitative cleanup levels that are protective. Site-specific data include plant and animal tissue residue data, bioavailability factors, and population- or community-level effect studies. Principle 4: Characterize Site Risks When evaluating ecological risks and the potential for response alternatives to achieve acceptable levels of protection, Superfund risk managers should characterize risk in terms of 1. 2. 3. 4.

magnitude, severity, distribution, and the potential for recovery of the affected receptors.

Principle 5: Communicate Risks to the Public Clearly communicate to the public the scientific basis and ecological relevance of the assessment endpoints used in the site risk assessment. Principle 6: Remediate Unacceptable Ecological Risks Superfund’s goal is to eliminate unacceptable risks due to any release or threatened release. Contaminated media that may affect the ability of local populations

160

|

Ecological Risk Management Decisions at Superfund Sites

of plants or animals to recover and maintain themselves in a healthy state at or near the site should be remediated to an acceptable level. Acceptable levels can vary depending on land use. If it is industrially zoned land, then a lower level of cleanup is necessary, which is much less expensive. However, this partially polluted land remains in the land base for the community, and since it is not clean, it is more difficult to develop for residential and commercial uses, legally. This decreases the overall economic wealth of a community as well as suppressing real estate values and increasing public health risks. Communities want sites cleaned up to residential standards, which is more expensive but safer. SUPERFUND CLEANUPS: NEW, EXPENSIVE, AND CONFRONTATIONAL The context for the application of ecological risk assessment is Superfund cleanups. Superfund is a federal EPA policy and law that mandates the cleanup of polluted sites. The 1,200 or so worst sites are placed on the National Priorities List, or NPL. The liability for cleanup is complex and litigated frequently. At any given site, the producers of the waste, then the shippers, then the storage providers, and ultimately the owner of the property are liable for the cost of the cleanup. These are known as primary responsible parties, or PRPs. If they do not clean it up, then the EPA can do so and go after the PRPs for the costs. It often strikes many property owners as unfair because they can be liable for the costs of cleaning up waste they did not cause. To complicate matters further, PRPs can go against other PRPs for costs. Some PRPs go bankrupt before, during, and after a mandated EPA cleanup. This causes more technical, protracted, and complicated litigation that decreases the value of the real property. Municipal economic development prefers to have high-value property because this increases the tax base. The tax base, in turn, pays for municipal services like education, the fire department, police, and sanitation. Their position is complicated because if the site does not get cleaned up, it does nothing for the tax base, but if they seek strict enforcement, then they could suppress the value of the property. Of fundamental importance is the level of cleanup required. Cleanup to residential standards can be very expensive. Some developers have complained that it has to be clean enough that the children can eat the dirt, in a case when there was lead contamination of the soil in a housing project. If the cleanup standard is much lower, for industrial purposes, then the costs tend to be lower. However, industrially zoned land has many dangerous and toxic impacts on the surroundings. It is much more difficult to increase the value of that land as opposed to residentially zoned land. Many subsequent land uses of that property, such as nursing homes, schools, and hospitals, would be put at risk if the site were never cleaned up to residential standards. Human health risk assessment, generally focusing on a single chemical via a single modality, is less expensive then an ecosystem risk assessment.

Ecological Risk Management Decisions at Superfund Sites | 161

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Litigation, level of cleanup, and emerging urban environmentalism are the policy and political context for the application of ecosystem risk assessment. Every stage of the emerging risk assessment process can be fraught with controversy. Who pays for it? Who pays for the cleanup? How long will it take to be accurate? Cleanup of polluted sites is the type of environmental policy that becomes more important if it is ignored. Pollution increases over time and with population increases; the longer it takes to clean up polluted areas the harder it will be to do so. This means that controversial issues will continue to flare as this pioneering and necessary policy evolves. The unfolding EPA policy on ecosystem risk assessment requires communication to the public of the scientific basis and ecological relevance of the assessment endpoints used in the site risk assessment. This particular principle is subject to wide interpretation and much controversy. Some argue for as much community participation as necessary, taking all the time required to bring communities up to a capacity to understand and engage environmental issues. Others argue that a small legal notice in one of the newspapers or a copy of the ecological risk assessment in city hall fulfills the policy requirement. There are practical aspects to this battleground, but some questions will need to be answered. Who gets invited? Does it matter what they think? What if science is inconclusive? Do some communities have to use scientific levels of proof while other communities simply politically resist it? What does adverse mean? Will these public meeting requirements be the basis of a lawsuit? Industrial and environmental stakeholders have strong and opposing positions in this battleground. Environmental justice communities and sustainability proponents clearly want to be fully apprised of all environmental issues where they live, work, and play. Environmental justice analysts are interested in the benefit and burden of environmental decisions, and that is often answered by an ecosystem risk assessment. Sustainability proponents consider ecosystem risk assessments part of sound environmental policy. Government considers them expensive and controversial. Industry sees them as an unnecessary expense that uses money that could go toward actually cleaning up the site. Stakeholders have strong positions, but the trend is to do more ecosystem risk assessment. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Environmental Justice; Sustainability Web Resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund. Cleaning Up the Nation’s Hazardous Waste Sites. Available at www.epa.gov/superfund/. Accessed January 20, 2008. U.S. EPA Compliance and Enforcement Portal. Available at www.epa.gov/compliance/. Accessed January 20, 2008. U.S. EPA Cleanup Enforcement: Information Resources. Available at www.epa.gov/compli ance/resources/cleanup.html. Accessed January 20, 2008.

162

|

Ecosystem Risk Assessment Further Reading: Calabrese, Edward James, Linda A. Baldwin, and Lawrence H. Keith. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Stockport, MI: Lewis Publishers; Pastorok, Robert A. 2001. Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment: Chemical Effects on Populations, Ecosystems, and Landscapes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Sunahara, Geoffrey Isao. 2002. Environmental Analysis of Contaminated Sites. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

ECOSYSTEM RISK ASSESSMENT Chemical manufacturers and others maintain that the chemicals they make are safe for the environment while environmentalists and others maintain that they pose risks to the ecosystem. Critics maintain that ecosystem risk assessments are unscientific and costly. Communities and environmentalists would like to see more of them included in environmental impact statements. Sustainability advocates want them performed every time there is a significant impact on the environment. BACKGROUND An essential part of environmental preservation is preserving the whole habitat for the entire food web. Extinction is one of the most extreme examples of failed ecosystems. There are many other ecosystem effects from pollution, natural disasters, and land development. This range of ecosystem effects is itself a battleground. The controversy escalates because many sustainability proponents are advocating ecosystem preservation and resiliency. The main concern is with ecosystems that are damaged for the foreseeable future. Cities, waste sites, roads, airports, mountain ecotones, and other large institutional uses (military bases, college campuses) are often put in this category. The battle commences when concern about the cumulative impacts on ecosystems in these areas affects growth and development. An ecosystem is an area where the land, air, and water share a common place and interact to support life. Some scientists have more precise definitions, but there is some controversy in that community about its application. Within the life sciences community, some sciences challenge conclusions about cause and effect when risk assessments are applied to an entire ecosystem. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an ecological risk assessment evaluates the likelihood that exposure to one or more chemicals may cause harmful ecological effects. Effects can be direct or indirect and short or long term. There is a battleground for every effect on the risk to the ecosystem. For example, in policy application, ecological risk assessment is used to determine whether a pesticide meets the requirements for registration with the EPA. In this process many controversies arise. EPA AND ECOSYSTEM RISK ASSESSMENT An important matter related to risk assessment becomes law and policy when pesticides are registered with the EPA. By their very nature, pesticides,

Ecosystem Risk Assessment

herbicides, rodenticides, fungicides, and others are designed to kill. One issue is often how long they persist in the environment because they may kill, or negatively affect, parts of the ecosystem beyond their intended usage. This is where ecosystem risk assessments are applied. Pesticides are highly regulated. To propose a pesticide for registration in the United States, the manufacturer must conduct scientific studies according to the EPA’s requirements. The manufacturer then submits the data to the EPA, where it is reviewed and the pesticide’s potential to cause problems is determined. This is only one application of ecosystem risk assessment in a controversial area. In April 1998, the EPA established Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment that describe the risk evaluation process in other applications. SCREENING LEVELS OF ECOLOGICAL RISK IN PESTICIDES The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is the main government agency currently screening ecotoxicity data. After reviewing an individual toxicity or ecological effects study for a pesticide, EPA scientists develop a data evaluation record (DER) for the study. A DER summarizes the toxicity to certain species groups that are expected to be exposed to the pesticide. The conclusions from all the individual ecotoxicity DERs are then integrated and summarized in a stressor-response profile, the final product of the ecological effects characterization. The profile presents the effects for various animals and plants and an interpretation of available incidents information and monitoring data. Then the OPP compares the stressor-response profile with potential exposure levels to determine the risk of exposure-related effects. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW An ecological risk assessment tells what happens to a bird, fish, plant, or other nonhuman organism when it is exposed to a stressor, such as a pesticide. In scientific terms, an ecological risk assessment “evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors.” Undesirable events can include injury, death, or a decrease in the mass or productivity of aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, plants, or other nontarget organisms. This does include endangered and threatened species. This assessment process combines all the information from the toxicity tests, the exposure information, assumptions, and uncertainties. An ecological risk does not exist unless an exposure has the ability to cause an adverse effect. Further, that exposure must contact an ecological component to elicit the identified adverse effect. There is much dispute over whether a certain effect is adverse. If not enough is known about a given chemical and its interaction with mammals, then the effect is not considered adverse. Another set of questions around controversies of what is adverse are, to whom is it adverse, and at what stage in their development. Infants and the elderly tend to be more vulnerable and have lower tolerances to exposure.

| 163

164

|

Ecosystem Risk Assessment

ADVERSE IMPACTS: WOULD YOU KNOW THEM IF YOU FELT THEM? The definition of adverse impacts is very important because it defines the contours of public health policy. It is a definition that can shift in meaning from legislation, to rule making, to judicial decisions. Adverse impacts are those that are proven by science to be medically harmful. Many in the public distrust scientists and science as it applies to them. Many communities simply do not want the threat of a chemical emission in their neighborhood, and they can find out about it on the Toxics Release Inventory. When the government permits an industry based on science, this controversy takes shape in policy. There are many medical conditions that are not considered adverse but can erode the quality of life, decrease worker productivity, and be unpleasant. This limited definition of adverse impacts makes such impacts seem authorized in the name of science. The government therefore issues more industrial permits allowing more emissions because they are not adverse. This is a scientific battlefield in this controversy. AIR The general definition of adverse respiratory health effects is “medically significant physiologic or pathologic changes generally evidenced by one or more of the following: (1) interference with the normal activity of the affected person or persons, (2) episodic respiratory illness, (3) incapacitating illness, (4) permanent respiratory injury, and/or (5) progressive respiratory dysfunction.” All changes are not adverse, citing the example of carboxyhemoglobin. The level of carboxyhemoglobin, beyond that from endogenous production, is indicative of exposure but it is not predictive of adverse effects until it reaches threshold levels, depending on the effect and the susceptibility of the exposed person. ANOTHER RECENT DEFINITION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS The events of September 11, 2001, highlighted the need to enhance the security of the U.S. food supply. Congress responded by passing the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act), which was signed into law on June 12, 2002. The Bioterrorism Act contains the phrase serious adverse health consequences to describe the standard relating to the exercise of many of the new powers. Together with the final rules implementing sections 303, 306, and 307 of the Bioterrorism Act, and the other sections of the act incorporating the serious adverse health consequences phrase, a definition of the phrase will further enable the FDA to act quickly and consistently in responding to a threatened or actual terrorist attack on the U.S. food supply or to other food-related public health emergencies. A definition of the serious adverse health consequences phrase will promote uniformity and consistency across the FDA in the understanding of the term and determination of an appropriate response. In addition, a definition of the term will inform the

Ecosystem Risk Assessment

public and stakeholders about what the FDA considers to be a serious adverse health consequence under the Bioterrorism Act. The proposed rule would define the phrase serious adverse health consequences for purposes of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) and any implementing regulations and guidance. In the interests of quickly providing the agency’s interpretation of serious adverse health consequences to the public, the FDA considered explaining the term in guidance. The agency concluded, however, that this option is neither effective nor efficient because guidance does not have the force and effect of law. If the definition or its application is ever challenged, guidance will receive less deference than if the definition were specified in a regulation. The FDA also considered explaining the term in guidance followed by a regulation at a later date. This option was considered because it offers the advantage of rapidly informing the public about the agency’s position while the agency gathers more information and experience in applying the definition. The agency concluded that guidance followed by a regulation was undesirable. First, as to the initial guidance, the FDA would encounter the same problems described previously for the guidance-only option. Second, this option creates a burdensome process for the FDA by doubling the agency’s responsibilities—first, to publish guidance, and, second, to engage in notice-and-comment rule making. FDA resources will be conserved by avoiding this two-step process. Further, there is the possibility that once guidance is published, a regulation might not follow. As a result, the definition might never have the force and effect of law. The FDA also considered defining or explaining serious adverse health consequences in preambles to rules promulgated under the Bioterrorism Act. However, implementing regulations are not required for all sections of the Bioterrorism Act that incorporate the term. Thus, the term would not be publicly addressed in the context of all of the applicable sections of the Bioterrorism Act. In addition, because preambles are not codified and incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations, the context and interpretation of the term eventually may become disassociated from the codified regulations. The FDA also considered adopting one of the two similar definitions for serious adverse health consequences or the definition for serious injury in medical devices regulations to promote consistency within the agency and avoid confusion. (In the medical devices reporting regulations, the preamble to the final rule states that “the agency intends for ‘serious adverse health consequences’ to have the same meaning as ‘serious injury’ under the [Medical Device Reporting] rule.”) This option could promote greater consistency within the agency, avoid confusion, and also save time. However, the agency believes that a broader definition must be used for foods and feeds in order to satisfy congressional intent. Specifically, it must be clear that the definition of serious adverse health consequences, for purposes of the Bioterrorism Act, (1) expressly includes vulnerable populations, and (2) expressly applies to food for humans and animals. In addition, there are terms incorporating the concept of serious in regulations. The

| 165

166

|

Ecosystem Risk Assessment

definitions of these terms are not entirely consistent because they are tailored to the needs of each center and apply only to specific portions of the applicable regulations, that is, they have specific uses and contexts. Thus, a specific definition for serious adverse health consequences under the Bioterrorism Act is necessary in order to avoid confusion with differing definitions of serious, serious injury, or serious adverse health consequences in other regulations, and the context in which these terms are defined and applied. The proposed definition would apply to (1) all foods and feeds in bioterrorist events and other public health emergencies; and (2) all populations, vulnerable or healthy, effectively having very wide applicability in a wide variety of emergency situations. Finally, the FDA considered leaving the term undefined, thereby providing maximum flexibility for determining what constitutes serious adverse health consequences on a case-bycase basis. By not defining, the agency could avoid the potential consequences of a definition that is either too broad or too narrow. However, leaving the term undefined could cause confusion and inconsistency in implementation. The impact of this proposed rule will depend on how the FDA decides to define the phrase serious adverse health consequences, which is used as a standard for taking action under the administrative detention, record-keeping, and prior notice provisions of the Bioterrorism Act. The broader the definition, the greater the costs and benefits associated with it. For example, if serious adverse health consequences were defined to include any case of food-borne illness, then foods would be administratively detained more often than if the definition were limited to cases resulting in death. A broader definition will mean the term is used more frequently in conjunction with the provisions of the Bioterrorism Act; therefore, there would be more costs, but also more benefits. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The definition of ecosystem is context- and policy-specific. What an ecosystem is must be defined and bounded by the policy or management question being assessed. This is controversial now in the context of national parks. As ecosystem risk analysis develops more standard protocols and is applied to complex environmental problems, more battlegrounds will emerge. Because ecosystem risk assessment is seen as a process and answer to a specific debate about environmental impact, it will also be part of other controversies. Risk assessment at the ecosystem level has always been a long-term goal of applied ecology. However, lack of detailed data on the interactions among species, coupled with the complexity of these interactions over time, challenges ecosystem risk assessment methods. There are enormous gaps of knowledge about species’ interaction. The effects of global warming and climate change on ecosystems are still unknown. There are many battlegrounds on this point from the community level to the courtroom. For example, how does the risk assessor incorporate scientifically derived data versus observational information from long-term residents? With environmental knowledge expanding rapidly to all sectors of society, and with ecosystem management a core value, it is likely that the controversies

Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity | 167

around ecosystem risk assessment will assist its growth and promote its robust and vigorous use by more environmental decision makers. This will increase the controversy surrounding ecosystem risk assessment and help refine it for better application. Ecosystem risk assessment is a favorite tool of sustainability advocates and is most frequently applied in controversial environmental situations, like hazardous waste cleanups. Concern about cumulative emissions, impacts, and effects also focuses more attention on ecosystem risk assessments. Controversies and policies about ecosystem risk assessments and cumulative risk assessment could merge as U.S. environmental policy incorporates the urban environment. See also Climate Change; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Human Health Risk Assessment; Pesticides; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk Project. Available at www.hear.org/. Accessed January 20, 2008. South Florida Information Access. An Evaluation of Contaminant Exposures and Potential Effects on Health and Endocrine Status for Alligators in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem. Available at sofia.usgs.gov/projects/eco_risk/endogtr_geer03abs.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides: Environmental Effects. Available at www. epa.gov/pesticides/ecosystem/ecorisk.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Efroymson, Rebecca A., Bradley E. Sample, and Glenn W. Suter. 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mazaika, Rosemary, Robert T. Lackey, and Stephen L. Friant, eds. 1995. Ecological Risk Assessment: Use, Abuse, and Alternatives. Amherst, MA: Amherst Scientific Publishers; Pastorok, Robert A., Steven M. Bartell, Scott Ferson, and Lev R. Ginzburg. 2001. Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment: Chemical Effects on Populations, Ecosystems and Landscapes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Steingaber, Sandra. 1997. Living Downstream: A Scientist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment. New York: Random House.

ECOTOURISM AS A BASIS FOR PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY Ecotourism is controversial because it directly challenges modern tourism concepts that tend to have many environmental consequences. Traditional tourism may displace indigenous and other local people from their homes and communities. The income from tourism can be used to support the protection of biodiverse areas. BACKGROUND Touring environmental wonders is not new or controversial. When countries such as Costa Rica began to develop tours of their rain forests, cloud forests,

168

|

Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity

deep biodiversity, and other natural wonders, both as industry and environmentalists took note. Ecotours advertise a soft impact on the environment, generally rustic surroundings in nature, and sometimes wildlife viewing. What if they include a zipline ride in an endangered tree? What if the hotel built to accommodate ecotours displaces a necessary wetland? What if the wildlife is enticed to be viewed and has its natural habitat disturbed for the sake of a photograph? The environmental impacts of most aggressive tourist development generally include land development (with golf courses), accommodations for emissionsproducing vehicles, and acres of paving. Ecotours generally do have less environmental impact than traditional western tourism models, however. Another aspect of ecotours is the hope that they will increase understanding of the global environment and inspire a desire to protect it. Rain forests and tropical biodiversity are a traditional part of ecotours. WHAT IS BIODIVERSITY? Biodiversity includes the world’s species with their unique evolutionary histories. It also includes genetic variability within and among populations of species and the distribution of species across local habitats, ecosystems, landscapes, and whole continents or oceans. The word biodiversity is used in many ways. In the population sciences it means “the variety and variability of biological organisms.” The Convention on Biological Diversity defines biodiversity as the “variability among living organisms from all sources.” The operational definition of biological diversity was a topic of the 2002 United Nations conference on ecotourism. This is one battleground in this controversy. The year 2002 was declared the International Year of Ecotourism by the United Nations in 1998. The event included 15 preparatory conferences and seminars held in as many different countries on ecotourism. Many of the issues and environmental controversies surrounding ecotourism were discussed. According to the United Nations, ecotourism represents between 2 and 4 percent of all international travel expenditure. Ecotour consumers are higher spenders than mass tourists, usually demanding smaller groups, special attention, and accommodation of customers. Many developing countries do not have convertible currency, and tourism is a good way to bring in foreign investment. NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS’ CONCERNS Many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are concerned that a sudden growth in ecotourism in previously undeveloped areas of the world may have negative cultural ramifications. Indigenous groups who met in the UN presummit preparatory conferences have issues with ecotours and cultural preservation. There is no international consensus on what constitutes ecotourism, and there is concern that it may simply be regular tourism under a marketing name and that it continues to degrade the environment.

Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity |

Most conference attendees felt that there is the need to strengthen the NGOs engaged in advocacy for cultural preservation. UN participants felt that funds should be mobilized to support indigenous ventures designed to create a balance between the environment and the eradication of poverty. Some environmental groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, do assist in these efforts. Ecotourism still has many definitions, most controversial. There is an uneasy consensus that it should minimize the industry’s negative environmental and cultural impacts and actively promote the conservation of biodiversity. Revenue from ecotourists may be the only resource available to pay for the protection of the environment and the cultural impact of development on populations living in or close to them. HAWAII: A PLACESTUDY OF ECOTOURISM AND BIODIVERSITY PRESERVATION Of the roughly 138 islands that make up the Hawaiian chain, only about eight are known to be inhabited. It is far from the mainland and the site of a large military base—Pearl Harbor. Several of the small islands and a few of the major volcanoes were shooting ranges and may still have ordnance. Today, more than any other state, tourism is Hawaii’s main industry. It has an economic impact per year of about nine billion dollars, supporting whole communities. Hawaii has marketed its beautiful tropical and diverse environment to tourism. Because of this, many would rather encourage ecotourism and therefore develop tourism that maintains Hawaii’s attractive environment. Hawaii’s unique native flora and fauna have many levels of biodiversity. The waters surrounding Hawaii are teeming with fish. Geologically very active, Hawaii’s big island, Hilo, offers ever-changing views of volcanic activity forming new land. Other islands have fought against development by restricting road development and have emphasized a garden island approach, punctuated with sustainable ecosystem practices. One example of this emerging form of ecotourism is Limahuli Garden, a national tropical botanical garden located in Ha’ena, Kaua’i. Nonetheless, tourism has environmental impacts. The more tourists there are, the greater the environmental impacts. Water and air pollution increase. Emissions from vehicles and airplanes increase, adding to any volcanic emissions. Recreational users like hikers, surfers, and others have increased, and so increased human encroachment on a sensitive ecosystem. The naval base at Pearl Harbor has also been a consistent source of emissions into air and water. Increased pollution, accumulating emissions, and human encroachment can have powerful impacts on the environment. The impacts of humans on Hawaii are far-reaching. The original Hawaiians cleared lowland forests to cultivate plants. They brought in small pigs, which led to the extinction of at least 35 species of birds. Many of the birds had no natural enemies and laid their eggs on the ground. Pigs and nonnative cats ate the eggs. Pigs also like to root around in dirt and dig up grubs and roots. Much of

169

170

|

Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity

the flora and fauna of Hawaii cannot survive being uprooted by pigs. Western Europeans later introduced cattle, goats, and sheep. The extinction of at least 27 species of birds since their arrival is one example of their tremendous environmental impact, well before tourism. Hawaii is no stranger to extinctions. Hawaii has 75 percent of the historically documented extinctions of plant and bird species. Of all U.S. bird species currently listed as endangered, 40 percent are Hawaiian species. Thirty-one percent of the 271 endangered U.S. plant species are from Hawaii. The Hawaii Natural Heritage Program tracks 30 vertebrates, 102 invertebrates, and 515 plants that are considered to be “critically imperiled globally” (1–5 occurrences and/or fewer than 1,000 individuals remaining, or more abundant but facing extremely serious threats range-wide) or “imperiled globally” (6–20 occurrences and/or 1,000–3,000 individuals remaining, or more abundant but facing serious threats range-wide). For comparison, in New Jersey, which is approximately the size of Hawaii, the Natural Heritage Program tracks 3 vertebrates, 14 invertebrates, and 21 plants that are critically imperiled globally or imperiled globally. Tourism shows no sign of abating in Hawaii. It accounts for about a third of the state’s economy. Hawaii’s beautiful environment is used to beckon tourists, but the impact of overdevelopment may imperil a sensitive island ecosystem. More people are now engaged in observing environmental impacts, which continue to threaten species survival. Ecotourism is an international business. The International Year of Ecotourism served to assist the replication of best practices among governments and private companies.

ECOTOURISM: WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) RECOMMENDATIONS In line with the first three objectives, WTO recommended that its 139 member states, in September 2000, undertake activities at the national and local levels, such as: 1. define, strengthen, and disseminate, as appropriate, a national strategy and specific programs for the sustainable development and management of ecotourism; 2. provide technical, financial, and promotional support for, and facilitate the creation and operation of, small and medium-size firms; 3. set up compulsory and/or voluntary regulations regarding ecotourism activities, particularly in reference to environmental and sociocultural sustainability; 4. establish national and/or local committees for the celebration of the International Year of Ecotourism, involving all the stakeholders relevant to this activity; and 5. inform the WTO secretariat of the activities planned for 2002 requesting, if appropriate, whatever support they deem necessary.

Endangered Species

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Ecotourism is a growth industry. It is expanding its reach into some of the most inaccessible places on the planet. Many environmentalists and proponents of sustainability applaud this development because ecotours instill a global approach to the environment. With the increase in tourism come environmental and cultural impacts, however. These can be very controversial. Ecotourism focused on biodiversity will face special challenges. There is no real measurement in the area of successful intervention, what data are needed, and what the impacts of ecotourism are on biodiversity. Given that much scientific measurement and analysis must be done to establish baseline measures of biodiversity, that the need for species preservation is urgent, and that ecotourism is growing, it is likely that controversies will continue. See also Conservation in the World; Rain Forests; Sustainability; Wild Animal Reintroduction Web Resources Ecotourism Resources. Available at www.tourisminsight.com/reports/ecotourismresources/. Accessed January 20, 2008. United Nations Report of the Economic and Social Council Assessment of the Results Achieved in Realizing Aims and Objectives of the International Year of Ecotourism. Available at http://pdj.sagepub.com/cgi/contentabstract/6/6/146. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Buckley, Ralf. 2003. Case Studies in Ecotourism. New York: CABI Publishing; Buckley, Ralf. 2004. Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. New York: CABI Publishing; Burgess, Bonnie B. 2003. Fate of the Wild: The Endangered Species Act and the Future of Biodiversity. Athens: University of Georgia Press; Honey, Martha. 1999. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington, DC: Island Press; Tucker, Hazel, and Colin Michael Hall. 2004. Tourism and Postcolonialism: Contested Discourses, Identities and Representations. New York: Routledge; Wearing, Stephen, and John Neil. 1999. Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities. New York: Elsevier.

ENDANGERED SPECIES Controversies about endangered species center around the value of species and the cost of protecting and preserving them and their habitats. There are battlegrounds about whether a particular species is going extinct and whether a particular policy actually does protect a designated species. Natural resource extraction (logging, mining, grazing), land and road development into wildlife habitats, and increased recreational use are all battlegrounds for this controversy. BACKGROUND Species extinctions have occurred along with evolution. As plant and animal species evolve over time, some adaptations fail. As human population has increased, along with our hunting, farming, and foraging capacities, plant and

|

171

172

|

Endangered Species

animal species have begun to disappear faster. Pollution, climate change, and other significant environmental impacts can destroy species in sensitive niches in the food chain. In most cases species are endangered because of human impacts, but each case can present a battleground. The evidence for human impact on species in the United States is often based on successful eradication programs for problem pests. Knowledge about species extinctions grew as environmentalists, hunters, researchers, and others observed extinctions and near-extinctions of several species, such as the buffalo and pigeon. Endangered species create a great concern for productive bioregions and ecosystem integrity. They can represent a significant part of the food web, and their loss can forever weaken other parts of that food web. Eventually, this great social concern for endangered species found its way into law, now one of the main battlegrounds for this controversy. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: OVERVIEW The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the policy implementation of the concern for species preservation. In its application the ESA is very controversial, touching on flash points related to long-term leases of public lands, private property, and defensible science. Scientific controversies include ecosystem risk assessment, the concept of a species and how it has been interpreted for ESA application, and conflicts between species when individual species are identified for protection and others are not. A prominent controversy was the preservation of the habitat for the spotted owl in Oregon, which prevented logging. Approximately 60 logging mills subsequently closed. There are current discussions about whether the mitigation plan really did preserve the spotted owl or not. Endangered species designation can have a dramatic effect on natural resource extraction (logging, mining) by prohibiting or limiting it. Before a plant or animal species can receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, it must first be placed on the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. The listing program follows a strict legal process to determine whether to list a species, depending on the degree of threat it faces. According to the ESA, an endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The federal government maintains a list of plants and animals native to the United States that have potential to be added to the federal list of endangered species. Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966. It was a small but very important first step toward species preservation by the United States. This law allowed listing of only native animal species as endangered and provided limited means for the protection of species so listed. The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense were to seek to protect listed species and to preserve the habitats of such species. Land acquisition for protection of endangered species was also authorized by law. The next law was the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. It was passed to provide additional protection to species in danger of worldwide extinction. Importation

Endangered Species

of such species was prohibited, as was their subsequent sale within the United States. This act also called for an international ministerial meeting to adopt a convention on the conservation of endangered species. A 1973 conference in Washington led to the signing of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This is a very important species preservation agreement. It restricts international commerce in plant and animal species believed to be actually or potentially harmed by trade. Later that year in the United States, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was passed. This law combined and considerably strengthened the provisions of earlier laws and greatly expanded the reach of the ESA. This also had the effect of intensifying the controversy and increasing the battlegrounds. Its principal provisions follow: • U.S. and foreign species lists were combined, with uniform provisions applied to both categories of endangered and threatened. • Plants and all classes of invertebrates were eligible for protection, as they are under CITES. • All federal agencies were required to undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and were prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its critical habitat. • Broad taking prohibitions were applied to all endangered animal species, which could also apply to threatened animals by special regulation. • Matching federal funds became available for states with cooperative agreements. • Authority was provided to acquire land for listed animals and for plants listed under CITES. • U.S. implementation of CITES was provided. Significant amendments have been enacted in 1978, 1982, and 1988, while the overall thrust of the 1973 act has remained basically the same. Principal amendments are listed here.

 • Provisions were added to section 7, allowing federal agencies to undertake an action that would jeopardize listed species if the action were exempted by a cabinet-level committee convened for this purpose. • Critical habitat was required to be designated concurrently with the listing of a species, when prudent, and economic and other impacts of designation were required to be considered in deciding the boundaries. • The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture (for the Forest Service) were directed to develop a program for conserving fish, wildlife, and plants, including listed species, and land acquisition authority was extended to such species. • The definition of species with respect to populations was restricted to vertebrates; otherwise, any species, subspecies, or variety of plant, or species or subspecies of animal remained listable under the act.

|

173

174

|

Endangered Species

 • Determinations of the status of species were required to be made solely on the basis of biological and trade information, without any consideration of possible economic or other effects. • A final ruling on the status of a species was required to follow within one year of its proposal unless withdrawn for cause. • Provision was made for designation of experimental populations of listed species that could be subject to different treatment under section 4, for critical habitat, and section 7. • A prohibition was inserted against removing listed plants from land under federal jurisdiction and reducing them to possession.

 • Monitoring of candidate and recovered species was required, with adoption of emergency listing when there is evidence of significant risk. • Several amendments dealt with recovery matters: (1) recovery plans will undergo public notice and review, and affected federal agencies must give consideration to those comments; (2) five years of monitoring of species that have recovered are required; and (3) biennial reports are required on the development and implementation of recovery plans and on the status of all species with plans. • A new section requires a report of all reasonably identifiable expenditures on a species-by-species basis that were made to assist the recovery of endangered or threatened species by the states and the federal government. • Protection for endangered plants was extended to include destruction on federal land and other taking when it violates state law. As of 2006 many species in the United States are listed as threatened and endangered or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. Listed are 398 species of animals and 599 species of plants. Fourteen species of animals and one species of plant are currently proposed for listing. Currently, 473 U.S. species have designated critical habitat. Critical habitats are specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a listed species or not, that are essential for its conservation and that have been formally designated by rule. Additionally, 138 species of animals are candidate species and 144 species of plants are candidate species for listing as endangered. Some species are also proposed for delisting, another battleground in this controversy. Also, 557 habitat conservation plans have been approved. According to the law, a habitat conservation plan (HCP) is plan that outlines ways of maintaining, enhancing, and protecting a given habitat type needed to protect species; it usually includes measures to minimize impacts and may include provisions for permanently protecting land, restoring habitat, and relocating plants or animals to another area. Currently, 1,043 species have approved recovery plans. A recovery plan is a document drafted by a knowledgeable individual or group that serves as a guide for activities to be undertaken by federal, state, or private entities in helping to recover and conserve endangered or threatened species. Recovery priority is

Endangered Species

also determined in these plans. There can be differences of opinion as to how high a priority certain species should have in a recovery plan. A rank ranges from a high of 1 to a low of 18 and these set the priorities assigned to listed species and recovery tasks. The assignment of rank is based on degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic distinctiveness, and presence of an actual or imminent conflict between the species and development activities. The regulations for protection of endangered species generally require protection of species habitat. As our population grows and development expands into natural areas, the protection of wildlife habitat becomes more important and more difficult. Preservation of riparian (water) migratory pathways, private conservation efforts, and applied scientific research all hold promise for species preservation. However, the need for wildlife habitat preservation will still impair the ability of some property owners use their land as they wish. The controversies around species preservation are likely to be around for a long time. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As human habitation grows into more formerly wild areas, more species are likely to become extinct. On September 12, 2007, the World Conservation Union issued a report called their red list. In 2006 there were 16,118 species on the list; in 2007 the number of species threatened with extinction worldwide increased to 16,306, according to the report. The organization itself states that the list is incomplete because the state of knowledge about all the species is inadequate. Their own assessment is underfunded and relies heavily on the volunteer efforts of scientists. They are concerned because they maintain that some species could be extinct before we know of them. For example, coral reefs are rapidly dying in many parts of the world and, with them, many of the species that make up a coral reef in a given location. It is difficult for the organization to assess species endangerment in nations at war. Some apes may be eaten in the bush-meat trade of central Africa, where warring groups have persisted in conflict. The report indicates that apes may be among the most endangered groups, known to date. There are strong world conservation efforts but also strong political controversies. As more information on human environmental impacts on marine environments develops, so too will lists of endangered species. There is controversy whenever a species is added to or taken off the endangered species list. See also Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Logging; Mining of Natural Resources Web Resources Endangered and Extinct Species Lists. Available at eelink.net/EndSpp.old.bak/ES.lists.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Endangered Species List for Navaho Nation. Available at www.natureserve.org/nhp/us/ navajo/esl.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Office of Protected Resources. Species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/. Accessed January 20, 2008.

|

175

176

|

Environment and War Further Reading: National Research Council, Committee on Scientific Issues in the Environment. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; Noss, Reed F. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: Island Press; Shogren, Jason F., ed. 1998. Private Property and the Endangered Species Act. Austin: University of Texas Press; Westley, Frances R., and Philip S. Miller. 2003. Experiments in Consilience: Integrating Social and Scientific Responses to Save Endangered Species. Washington, DC: Island Press.

ENVIRONMENT AND WAR Environmental effects of war are different from environmental warfare. Both have enormous, surprising, and controversial impacts on the environment. Land mines, wildlife recovery, and postwar environmental responsibility clash with postwar political realities. WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL WARFARE? The ability to control weather and climate for any purpose has been the subject of much study, speculation, and controversy. To do so for the purposes of war is called environmental war. War is generally an official act of a government attacking another nation that is the enemy. War can be a technical term that is avoided in many countries even if they are in fact at war with other nations. Environmental war is defined as an intentional attack on an ecosystem. This includes climate and weather, the ionosphere, the magnetosphere, the tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of earthquakes. The 1977 United Nations treaty against modification of the environment for war forbids it. Environmental war weapons systems can include chemical weapons systems (climate and weather modification) and electromagnetic weapons systems (climate and weather modification; seismic warfare). Each large weapon system has the potential to be classified as an environmental war weapon, and avoiding this classification is a battleground. However, the real-life battleground of war seldom observes environmental impacts as anything more than collateral damage. To add to the controversy, some definitions of environmental war are broader. For example, the use of depleted uranium in the Yugoslavian war has been termed environmental war. It is the nature of war to use whatever force is necessary to overpower the enemy. As technology improves and population increases, these forces can take the form of nuclear, environmental, and/or conventional war. Enormous international controversy exists with respect to environmental war. While it could give a military advantage in war, its global impacts could be long-term and irreversible. The argument against environmental war is that it is unjust because many unknown innocents could be killed who are not a party to the respective conflict. The possibility also exists that environmental war could backfire. That is, there could be an environmental act of war, like weather change, that could go awry and negatively affect the very nation who sent it as a weapon.

Environment and War |

RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION: DEPLETED URANIUM One environmental war weapon is radioactive, depleted uranium. Depleted uranium (DU) is a radioactive heavy metal. It is the waste left over when the isotope uranium-235 is extracted from naturally occurring uranium to fuel nuclear power stations and build nuclear bombs. There is a large amount of nuclear waste and a major controversy over where and how to store, ship, and eliminate it. It is very inexpensive and easy to obtain. DU is roughly 60 percent as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. It has a long half-life of 4.5 billion years. DU is a very good material for bombs because of its density. DU shells can pierce several inches of armor-plated steel on tanks, humvees, and most other military vehicles. They are radioactive and have a long-term impact wherever they land. Their use is very controversial because of the long-term human and environmental impacts. Their use in this manner allows for some reuse of low-level radioactive waste, benefiting industries involved with nuclear power, defense industries, and military manufacturing. The effects of DU on health are the topic of an ongoing controversy. The effects of DU are less aggressive because DU is less radioactive than natural uranium. Heavy-metal poisoning from the bomb itself is regarded as posing a more serious health risk than its radiation. When a DU bomb strikes armor or burns, it detonates, explodes, and releases clouds of uranium dust, which can be inhaled, ingested through swallowing, and absorbed through the skin and wounds. There are many heavy-metal particles swirling in the air. These heavymetal particles are also absorbed but are difficult to eliminate from the body. Once internalized the DU dissolves and enters the bloodstream. What happens next is also a battleground. Some scientists maintain that most uranium is excreted from the body through the kidneys. They argue that the human body is very effective at eliminating ingested and inhaled natural uranium. Furthermore, the low radioactivity per unit of DU means that the amount of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is impossible to obtain. Other scientists argue that exposure from radioactivity can be cumulative and adverse to human health, that not all human kidneys are efficient at removing DU (especially at war), and that the radioactivity from DU is significant enough to affect vulnerable and wounded people. They argue that most of the DU will be eliminated shortly after exposure, but some remains in the body. This can increase the risk of cancer and all other illnesses over time. DU left in the body is a source of lowlevel radiation. Radiation can damage cell structure for years, they argue. CONCERN ABOUT NUCLEAR FACILITIES AS TARGETS Controversy about nuclear facilities as targets in war is rooted in concern about the human and ecological devastation that would follow the bombing of such a facility. It could essentially be the same as a nuclear bomb, which is why it is crucial to know whether a facility is used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or for other purposes (power, research). If it is not used for the creation of nuclear weapons, then it is less likely to be a target.

177

178

|

Environment and War

ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE Environmental war weapons cause ecological damage. A heavy DU bomb creates temperatures of around 3,000°C, destroys all flora and fauna, and turns the lower layers of soil into a useless area that can take thousands of years to regenerate. Ecological damage includes destruction of vegetation, disturbance of migration corridors of migratory birds, crippling of the reproductive cycles of fish and amphibians through water pollution due to bombing of industrial complexes along waterways, destruction of reserves of biodiversity. The top layers of land and watersheds usually suffer the most damage once the fires of the bombing stop. Generally, only immediate measures to stop the downstream flow of pollution will prevent an ecological catastrophe. A war that targets chemical factories and oil installations and that deploys radioactive weapons in towns and cities will have enormous environmental effects. These impacts will follow natural vectors like watersheds, air sheds, and tides. In moving through these paths they will move through soil, air, and water. Their penetration into natural ecosystems is why many of the environmental effects are considered irreversible. REFUGEES AND IMPACTED INTERNAL CITIZENS The clearest evidence that there are environmental consequences of war comes from the impact of large numbers of refugees and returnees. Cities become more overcrowded than they previously were, leading to environmental impacts, often with inadequate water, sewage, and waste disposal facilities. Human habitats with half a million, a million, or more people concentrate on their surrounding land. These refugee camps are often not designed for large human settlement and face water, sewage, and disease problems on top of the food and shelter loss characteristic of war. The environmental impact of the camps is enormous, with very few living things left. In the case of South Vietnam, people fleeing from the countryside sought shelter in Saigon, whose population increased from 250,000 to 3 million. The 500,000 Rwandans fleeing to Tanzania in 1994 created the second largest urban center after Dar es Salaam. Refugee-receiving countries frequently herd refugees into very large camps from which refugees set out to supplement their needs if these are not met by relief agencies. Refugees also go somewhere within the affected country as internally displaced persons, in which case the effects on the environment would be dispersed instead of concentrated. What happens in the abandoned areas from which people flee? If humans leave, wildlife should recover. That is the impression given in the case of Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Angola, in Mozambique, in Liberia, and, to a lesser degree, in Rwanda. There are records of nature preservation due to war. In Nicaragua, on the Atlantic side of the country, indigenous groups maintained much of the forest for cover. In the Koreas, the demilitarized zone has become a wildlife haven and sports species seen nowhere else in either country, causing concern among conservationists today about an eventual reunification of the country. In the Central African Republic, one forest area made unsafe by rebel poachers gradually emptied of people, allowing forest cover to increase. In Angola, minefields prevented human encroachment and allowed nature to recover.

Environment and War |

179

In Liberia, the civil war forced so many people into the forests that gun-based hunting decreased. Shooting a gun would tell potential enemies your location. Wildlife recovered until peace made gun-based forest hunting safe again. An equally understudied topic is that of the biodiversity impact of returnees. Adverse wildlife effects are closely correlated with the return path of refugees. The reopened highways and transportation corridors serve as encroachment vectors along which wildlife disappears. FIREPOWER AND MOBILITY The red-necked ostrich in Niger is probably extinct due to the AK-47 and the jeep; guns, gas, and poaching are a deadly combination for wildlife. Populations of elephants and rhinoceroses in the Central African Republic have plummeted due to incursions of well-armed and well-traveled poachers from southern Sudan seeking to finance the war there. Small arms and light weapons make poaching for bush meat easy, but it takes access to the world market to convert diamonds to dollars and cash to finance internal war. So it is not only the jeep but airstrips built right into the ecosystem that greatly increase

ZOOS IN A WAR: HOW ANIMALS SUFFER Animals perceive their environment in different ways. Many have senses much more attuned to the natural environment than humans. As a result, their reaction to an ongoing war is severe. On May 30, 1999, a zookeeper in Belgrade noted the effects the bombing was having on the animals in the zoo. In his own words he describes a weapons assault at a zoo: The noise starts around half an hour before the bombs fall as the animals in the Belgrade Zoo pick up the sound of approaching planes and missiles. It’s a strange and disturbing noise. The Zoo was hard hit by NATO’s air strikes, particularly when the alliance attacked Belgrade’s power system, and indirectly the water supply. 1,000 eggs of rare and endangered species incubating, some of them ready to hatch in a couple of days, were all destroyed. Many birds abandoned their nests, leaving eggs to grow cold. A snake aborted some 40 fetuses, apparently reacting to the heavy vibration shaking the ground as missiles hit targets nearby. The worst night at the Zoo was when NATO hit an army headquarters only 600 meters away, with a huge detonation. The next day some of the animals had killed their young. A female tiger killed two of her four three-day-old cubs, and the other two were so badly injured they died. She had been a terrific mother until then, raising several litters without any problems. Armed guards patrolling the zoo are not there to keep people from harming or stealing the animals but to shoot the animals if the zoo gets bombed and some of them escape. Many animals exhibit signs of trauma; not eating, shaking, and physical wasting. NATO said that the environmental damage caused by the attack was collateral damage. This region contained a very important refinery, thus was considered a and strategic target. NATO bombed the chemical complex for 23 days, hitting it with at least 56 missiles or bombs.

180

|

Environment and War

environmental impacts from war. The role of oil, mining, and timber companies and of private military companies in Angola, Sierra Leone, and Papua New Guinea is enormous. In fact, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction in the United States this year has begun to consider whether an equivalent to the Sullivan principles is needed to help set standards of conduct for businesses operating in conflict zones. (The Sullivan principles were used to boycott those U.S. companies doing business in or with apartheid South Africa that did not adhere to the principles.) Peace can be more environmentally destructive than war. In the case of the Persian Gulf War, ornithologists discovered how little damage the war did to bird life. They also discovered how much irreversible damage economic development of the Saudi coastline along the Persian Gulf had done through tourism, fishing, and the oil industry. FRONTIERS OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION AND KNOWLEDGE The lack of funded research into the environmental effects of war fuels this controversy. War reparations are made to repair infrastructure and needed community facilities. Some of the best research is on how effective human pesticides were in killing. The record on Vietnam is ample but is almost exclusively focused on the effects of one dioxin-containing herbicide, Agent Orange, on human populations. This is an important topic in its own right, of course, but the result of this emphasis is that little is known about the environmental effects of the bombing, burning, and bulldozing of Vietnam’s forests in the 1960s. Likewise, in the Persian Gulf War, the majority of the international scientific effort was devoted toward study of the effects of the oil-fire-related smoke plume that might be transported by the jet stream around the world to affect the health and well-being of Europeans and Americans. This possibility captured the world’s headlines and funding. Further, the oil released into the Persian Gulf ’s marine environment made funding available to study the environmental effects of the Gulf oil spill. Almost nothing was spent to study the effects of the war on the desert flora, fauna, and ecology of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. Critics have charged Western nations with environmental ethnocentrism. If the potential environmental effects of a war might affect us, as in the case of airborne, transboundary pollution, we fund the necessary studies but if the effect is likely to remain local, as in the case of desert soil that does not travel well, we do not fund studies. This is confirmed in the case of Kosovo, where the United Nations funded DU-related studies because nuclear issues are always high-priority in Europe but neglected to similarly fund continued study of other environmental aspects of the war, even though scientists requested it. Other studies focus on Western conservationists’ interests, especially charismatic megafauna, not necessarily on important ecological effects of war. Microbes, contamination paths and size, preservable species and ecosystems, and sustainable food production would help reduce the scientific uncertainty that is driving this controversy.

Environment and War |

181

MAXIMUM RADIATION EXPOSURE LIMITS AND THEIR LIMITED APPLICATION TO URANIUM AND DEPLETED URANIUM The general public should not receive a dose of more than one millisievert (mSv) in a year. In special circumstances, an effective dose of up to five mSv in a single year is permitted provided that the average dose over five consecutive years does not exceed one mSv per year. An equivalent dose to the skin should not exceed 50 mSv in a year. Occupational exposure should not exceed an effective dose of 20 mSv per year averaged over five consecutive years or an effective dose of 50 mSv in any single year. An equivalent dose to the extremities (hands and feet) or the skin should not surpass 500 mSv in a year. In the case of uranium or DU intake, the radiation dose limits are only applied to inhaled insoluble uranium compounds. For all other exposure pathways and the soluble uranium compounds, chemical toxicity is the factor that limits exposure to the underlying radiation.

Guidance on Exposure Based on Chemical Toxicity of Uranium MONITORING AND TREATMENT OF EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS: When an individual is suspected of being exposed to DU at a level significantly above the normal background level, urine analysis can provide useful information. Fecal measurement can also give useful information on DU intake. However, fecal excretion of natural uranium from the diet is considerable (very variable), and this needs to be taken into account. Following war, levels of DU contamination in food and drinking water might be high in affected areas for years.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSIES War itself is always controversial. The military industrial complex, as originally described by President Eisenhower, drives both research and major corporate economic development. Transportation, communication, and manufacturing industries all increase production in war. These are very powerful industries with powerful federal agencies protecting them in the name of national security. Environmental protection is a low priority in this context. Communities have no say, even as they witness dangerous environmental practices that put them at risk. The overall environmental impacts of war, inclusive of this industrial ramping up of production, are larger than the direct impacts of war alone. Technology has allowed our powerful forces of destruction to have long-term effects and pinpoint accuracy. Technology has also developed instruments and measures that scientists can use to study and monitor ecological effects. In this way, the best way to mitigate the impacts of war can be developed for future, hopefully more peaceful, generations. Until then, this controversy will continue. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Environmental Impact Statements: United States; True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics; Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation

182

| Environmental Audits and Environmental Audit Privileges

Web Resources Effect of War on Environment. Available at http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_envi ronment.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Sierra Club of Canada. The Environmental Consequences of War. Available at http://www. sierraclub.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. War and Environment. Available at http://www.mapcruzin.com/war-and-environment/. Accessed January 20, 2008. World Health Organization. Depleted Uranium. Available at http://www.who.int/ionizing_ radiation/env/du/en/index.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Austin, Jay E., ed. 2000. The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Harf, James E., and B. Thomas Trout. 1986. The Politics of Global Resources: Population, Food, Energy, and Environment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; Woodbridge, Roy M. 2004. The Next World War: Tribes, Cities, Nations, and Ecological Decline. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT PRIVILEGES Industries that perform environmental audits do so for a variety of reasons: by law, voluntarily, and as part of other audits. These audits can disclose whether a particular plant is in compliance with environmental laws, areas of cost savings in environmental compliance, and multifacility environmental compliance measures. Industries want audits kept secret, or privileged. Small and mediumsized businesses especially want this legislation because they want to level the playing field with large industry, which that can use its own lawyers and hide information within attorney-client privilege. This secrecy prevents communities, environmentalists, and others from knowing about the environmental audit and any information that would relate to local environmental impacts or risks. Industry is concerned about environmental lawsuits and, if not protected by some legal privilege, would not perform any type of environmental audit. Since most U.S. environmental information about industry is self-reported, an independent audit carries much more credibility than the usual industry and government reports. Access to accurate environmental information is the crux of this controversy. More than 20 states have enacted environmental audit privilege legislation. It takes different forms and is usually controversial. Regular audits should become a normal business management tool that assists compliance with complex environmental regulations and avoids unnecessary waste. Such audits provide valuable information about potential environmental noncompliance, suggest methods for reducing or eliminating waste streams, inform shareholders and customer queries regarding off-site liability, and could be used to create a green corporate image. Self-auditing programs generate evidence that could be used against a company in an enforcement action. Any noncompliance reported in such a document may create a paper trail available to both enforcement agencies and private

Environmental Audits and Environmental Audit Privileges |

plaintiffs. Consequently, although numerous businesses undertake self-audits, many do not want information suggesting environmental noncompliance to be circulated or written down. The fear that this information will be discovered by a private party or a governmental agency discourages self-auditing programs at various companies. To environmental policy makers this fear is problematic because it distorts environmental information. Many communities distrust this secret audit process, preferring clear and transparent transactions. Large industry always has relied on the common law attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and, more recently, common law self-evaluation to argue that audit documentation is privileged. These legal arguments give privileged protection to large companies with environmental self-audit programs. The claim of lawyer-client privilege will start a discovery dispute that results in an in camera review by a judge, who will determine whether to allow the government to use the audit document against the regulated business. In contrast, a small business does not have the financial and strategic capacity to engage a lawyer for an expensive judicial fight for secrecy. The primary controversy between large and small industries here is who gets to privilege environmental information. This is not a controversy shared with communities or environmentalists. NEW STATE LAWS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PRIVILEGE More than 30 states have considered legislation involving environmental audit privilege, and 20 have enacted such laws, including Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. These state laws essentially codify discovery-dispute procedures that large businesses always have enjoyed. By eliminating the requirement of hiring an attorney, small companies can afford to engage in the same type of self-audit process that most large companies currently take for granted when this legislation is enacted. The environmental privilege is limited by law and not universally applied or available. A common legislative intent is to encourage owners and operators to conduct voluntary environmental audits of their facilities by offering a limited privilege to audited information. Proponents point out that it is infeasible and unnecessary for state and federal regulators to police each and every business in the state, and therefore self-auditing should be encouraged. Generally, a number of conditions must be met. Some of the conditions that are necessary for the state law on environmental audit privilege to apply are 1. All noncompliance identified during the audit is corrected in a reasonable manner; 2. The privilege is not asserted for fraudulent purposes; and 3. Information in the audit is not otherwise required to be reported. Some legislation also provides that a person or entity making a voluntary disclosure of an environmental violation is immune from any administrative, civil, and criminal penalties in return associated with that disclosure. As

183

184

|

Environmental Audits and Environmental Audit Privileges

discussed further on, the compliance focus of environmental law allows for rapid reduction of penalties in return for quick compliance and disclosed and remedied harms. HOW BROAD IS THE INDUSTRIAL PRIVILEGE? Proponents of audit privilege legislation state that it does not compel secrecy, because no privilege exists unless there is prompt disclosure and correction of the violation. Furthermore, unless the information falls within the very narrow scope of privileged information, it is decidedly vulnerable.

STATE LAWS State laws can vary from state to state. Some conditions and exceptions of state privilege and immunity laws include: • The audit must be scheduled for a specific time and announced prior to being conducted along with the scope of the audit. (AK) • The company makes available annual evaluations of their environmental performance. (AZ) • In exchange for a reduction in civil and/or administrative penalties a company implements a pollution-prevention or environmental management system. (AZ). • Privilege is not applicable to data, reports, or other information that must be collected, developed, maintained, or reported under federal or state law. (AR) • Audit report is privileged (secret) unless a judge determines that information contained in the report represent a clear, present, and impending danger to public health or the environment in areas outside the facility property. (CO) • An environmental audit report is privileged (secret) and is not admissible as evidence in any civil or administrative proceeding with certain exceptions, if the material shows evidence of noncompliance with applicable environmental laws and efforts to achieve compliance were not pursued by the facility as promptly as circumstances permit. (WY) • The Colorado Environmental Audit Privilege and Immunity Law does not affect public access to any information currently available under the Colorado Open Records Act. This information would include, but is not limited to, permits, permit applications, monitoring data, and other compliance/inspection data maintained by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. • Additionally, the audit privilege does not affect the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s authority to enter any site, copy records, inspect, monitor, or otherwise investigate compliance or citizen complaints. Community interest in this issue is high, and environmental organizations advocate against these laws. It is likely that state laws on this controversy will change rapidly.

Environmental Impact Statements: International |

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Many states that favor privileging environmental information argue that environmental protection efforts require that businesses, municipalities, and public agencies take self-initiated actions to assess or audit their compliance with environmental laws and correct any violations found. By getting to know all the industries affecting the environment and protecting their information better, compliance with the intent of environmental laws results. Communities and environmentalists respond that most if not all industrial emissions are self-reported, in a context of very weak enforcement. They argue that environmental information is a common good to be shared. Keeping it secret promotes a high degree of distrust and breeds controversy. Advocates of sustainability and environmentalists want full and complete disclosure of all environmental impacts. The battleground for this controversy is state and local legislatures and federal environmental agencies like the EPA. The relationship between states and the EPA on this issue is contentious and unfolding. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Community Right-toKnow Laws; Different Standards of Enforcement of Environmental Law; Good Neighbor Agreements; Supplemental Environmental Projects Web Resources Enforcement Response Policy for Treatment of Information Obtained through Clean Air Act Section 507 Small Business Assistance Programs. Available at es.epa.gov/oeca/ccsmd/ file11.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations (Audit Policy). Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance. Accessed January 20, 2008. Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses Memorandum—Subject: Reduced Penalties for Disclosures of Certain Clean Air Act Violations. Available at es.epa.gov/ oeca/ore/caa-tit.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Protocol for Conducting Environmental Compliance Audits for Hazardous Waste Generators under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PDF-726K), Available at es.epa.gov/oeca/ccsmd/epcrafinal.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Protocol for Conducting Environmental Compliance Audits under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and CERCLA Section 103 (3/01). Available at es.epa.gov/oeca/ccsmd/epcrafinal.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Dietz, Thomas, and Paul C. Stern, eds. 2002. New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS: INTERNATIONAL International environmental impact statements are controversial because they have much higher standards than U.S. environmental impact statements. More and more nations are requiring them as a condition of doing business in

185

186

|

Environmental Impact Statements: International

their country. They include cumulative impacts and ecosystem-based boundaries for environmental assessment. Environmental impact assessment is as varied as the environment. Environmental definitions, values, beliefs, and scientific capacities also differ greatly around the world. Many countries have natural resources they can trade but are concerned about environmental impacts of getting the natural resources out. There is a worldwide concern that some countries could be ravaged by foreign natural resource exploitation. Many countries have environmental disputes on their borders. For example, mining companies in Canada dump pollution into water headed for the United States. The U.S. illegal waste trade pollutes the Tijuana River in Mexico. In both cases, as in most, one country allows acts of environmental pollution it would not allow otherwise. River and lake boundaries for countries do not coincide with natural systems of watersheds. Many international agreements and treaties deal with trade and the environment. Some specifically deal with environmental impact assessment. CONVENTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN A TRANSBOUNDARY CONTEXT 1991 The Environmental Impact Assessment Convention lists countries’ obligations to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning for that activity. It is much easier to solve many potential environmental problems early in the process. The convention reaffirms the general obligation of states to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries. This international convention entered into force on September 10, 1997. Under this agreement environmental impact assessment means a national procedure for evaluating the likely impact of a proposed activity on the environment. Impact means any effect caused by a proposed activity on the environment including on human health and safety, flora, fauna, soil, air, water, climate, landscape, and historical monuments or other physical structures or the interaction among these factors. It also includes effects on cultural heritage or socio-economic conditions resulting from alterations to those factors. Transboundary impact means any impact, not exclusively of a global nature, within an area under the jurisdiction of a country caused by a proposed activity the physical origin of which is situated wholly or in part within the area under the jurisdiction of another country. CONTENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Environmental impact assessments can vary greatly in content. It is a battleground to get the environmental risk assessment that is acceptable to community, industry, environmentalists, and scientists. Generally, the more scientifically comprehensive the assessment is the more time it takes. Scientific site-applied

Environmental Impact Statements: International |

research is very time-consuming and labor intensive. If the environmental assessment includes cumulative risks and ecosystem risk assessment, it could be an ongoing process. The international consensus in the treaties regarding the content of an environmental assessment represents the ideal content if resources and time were unlimited. Information to be included in the environmental impact assessment documentation would be: 1. A description of the proposed activity and its purpose; 2. A description, where appropriate, of reasonable alternatives (for example, location or technological) to the proposed activity and also the no-action alternative; 3. A description of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed activity and its alternatives; 4. A description of the potential environmental impact of the proposed activity and its alternatives and an estimation of its significance; 5. A description of mitigation measures to keep adverse environmental impact to a minimum; 6. An explicit indication of predictive methods and underlying assumptions as well as the relevant environmental data used; 7. An identification of gaps in knowledge and uncertainties encountered in compiling the required information; 8. Where appropriate, an outline for monitoring and management programs and any plans for postproject analysis; and 9. A nontechnical summary including a visual presentation as appropriate (maps, graphs). Unlike the U.S. and U.S. tribal environmental impact statement requirements, international agreements require postproject analysis. This is an extremely important phase for evaluation of the effectiveness of any mitigating measures taken to soften or prevent environmental impacts. Some of these impacts can be irreversible if the mitigating measures do not work. They can be expensive and may slow or stop the project and its operations, and therefore industry usually avoids postproject analysis if it can. Without postproject analysis it is difficult to know true environmental impacts, so environmentalists and sustainability proponents generally advocate for this. It is a battleground. Countries at the request of any other country determine whether, and if so, to what extent, a postproject analysis will be done. Any postproject analysis undertaken includes the surveillance of the activity and the determination of any adverse transboundary impact. Adverse is a term of art, and its definition differs greatly from country to country. WHAT DO INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS LOOK AT? International environmental impact statements look at those activities that have negative impacts on the environment. The impact depends on the

187

188

|

Environmental Impact Statements: International

vulnerability of the environment affected, the biodiversity of a place, and other unique factors. These impacts can be cumulative, individual, collective, or some combination. They can be hard to measure and may engender additional scientific controversy. Therefore, the pragmatic focus is on activities that are known to have large environmental impacts: • Crude oil refineries (excluding undertakings manufacturing only lubricants from crude oil) and installations for the gasification and liquefaction of 500 metric tons or more of coal or bituminous shale per day • Thermal power stations and other combustion installations with a heat output of 300 megawatts or more • Nuclear power stations and other nuclear reactors, including the dismantling or decommissioning of such power stations or reactors (except research installations for the production and conversion of fissionable and fertile materials, whose maximum power does not exceed one kilowatt continuous thermal load) • Installations for the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel • Installations designed: • For the production or enrichment of nuclear fuel; • For the processing of irradiated nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste; • For the final disposal of irradiated nuclear fuel; • Solely for the final disposal of radioactive waste; or • Solely for the storage (planned for more than 10 years) of irradiated nuclear fuels or radioactive waste in a different site than the production site. • Major installations for the initial smelting of cast iron and steel and for the production of nonferrous metals • Installations for the extraction of asbestos and for the processing and transformation of asbestos and products containing asbestos; for asbestoscement products, with an annual production of more than 20,000 metric tons finished product; for friction material, with an annual production of more than 50 metric tons finished product; and for other asbestos utilization of more than 200 metric tons per year • Integrated chemical installations • Construction of motorways, express roads, and lines for long-distance railway traffic and of airports with a basic runway length of 2,100 meters or more • Construction of a new road of four or more lanes, or realignment and/or widening of an existing road of two lanes or less so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new road, or realigned and/or widened section of road, would be 10 km or more in continuous length • Large-diameter pipelines for the transport of oil, gas, or chemicals • Trading ports and also inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic that permit the passage of vessels of more than 1,350 metric tons • Waste-disposal installations for the incineration, chemical treatment, or storage of toxic and dangerous wastes

Environmental Impact Statements: International |

• Waste-disposal installations for the incineration or chemical treatment of nonhazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 metric tons per day • Large dams and reservoirs • Groundwater abstraction activities or artificial groundwater recharge schemes where the annual volume of water to be abstracted or recharged amounts to 10 million cubic meters or more • Pulp, paper, and board manufacturing of 200 air-dried metric tons or more per day • Major quarries, mining, on-site extraction, and processing of metal ores or coal • Offshore hydrocarbon production. Extraction of petroleum and natural gas for commercial purposes where the amount extracted exceeds 500 metric tons/day in the case of petroleum and 500,000 cubic meters/day in the case of gas • Major storage facilities for petroleum, petrochemical, and chemical products • Deforestation of large areas • Works for the transfer of water resources between river basins where this transfer aims at preventing possible shortages of water and where the amount of water transferred exceeds 100 million cubic meters/year • In all other cases, works for the transfer of water resources between river basins where the multiannual average flow of the basin of abstraction exceeds 2,000 million cubic meters/year and where the amount of water transferred exceeds 5 percent of this flow • In both cases transfers of piped drinking water are excluded • Waste-water treatment plants with a capacity exceeding 150,000 population equivalent • Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs with more than: • • • •

85,000 places for broilers; 60,000 places for hens; 3,000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg); or 900 places for sows.

• Construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km • Major installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms) Environmental impacts of all these projects are large and often controversial. There can be battlegrounds when these projects begin, as they operate, and as they close down and need to be cleaned up. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Environmental impact statements per se may be controversial because of their methodology or legal and political context. International requirements for environmental impact assessment may be seen as a restraint on trade by

189

190

|

Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal

industry. Many industries and multinational corporations strongly resist these requirements. Many governments and communities ask for information on environmental impacts. When mitigation measures are promised by project proponents, they require follow-through and compliance to effectively reduce environmental impacts. International environmental impact statements have a postproject analysis phase that others do not. This allows for mitigation of the negative environmental consequences of the mitigation measures themselves (not required in the United States), and for environmental accountability. Since communities, governments, environmentalists, and industries all are far apart in what they all would agree is a minimally accurate environmental assessment, it is likely this particular controversy will intensify. On an international level, until the U.S. environmental impact process catches up with international standards, controversy will ensue in trade, travel, and global environmental issues. See also Climate Change; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal; Global Warming; Sustainability Web Resources Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Available at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/. Accessed January 20, 2008. European Commission on the Environment. Environmental Assessment. Available at ec. europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Guidance on the Practical Application of the Espoo Convention. Available at www.unece.org/env/eia/guidance/intro.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: DiMento, Joseph F. C. 2003. The Global Environment and International Law. Austin: University of Texas Press; Farrell, Alexander E., and Jill Jäger. 2006. Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decision Making. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; Glasson, John, Rick Therivel, and Andrew Chadwick. 1999. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. UK: Routledge; Harris, Paul G. 2001. The Environment, International Relations, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; Wathern, Peter. 1988. Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice. UK: Routledge.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS: TRIBAL Tribes are given control over their water, land, and natural resources. Tribes can be treated as states and limit the rights of other water users. They can also control the terms of development in Indian country. Tribal environmental impact statements can be controversial because they can be seen as limiting the rights of non-Indians to reservation development opportunities and water. BACKGROUND Tribal status was conferred upon indigenous people who agreed to move to a reservation. Those that did not are generally called bands. These reservations

Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal | 191

were often placed in land no one wanted, far from home. Tribes are given a limited sovereignty as trustees of the United States. About 10 percent of the 500 or so tribes have casinos. The context of this controversy is one of horrific oppression of indigenous people. As tribes economically self-develop, nontribal businesses want access to the reservation. Some tribes have leased their land to governments for long-term leases. These areas have become major roads, and some of the leases are up soon. Tribal land is often sacred in intangible and holistic ways. Water from the river can be used in sweat lodges, which could intensify the exposure to any pollutants in the water. Tribes that rely on fish are very concerned about water quality. Currently, some tribes have been approached by energy companies to develop wind power along the wind paths of their reservations. Whether tribes have a formal environmental impact statement or not, environmental awareness and concern are very high on the reservation and in the minds of the inhabitants. Today a significant number of tribal governments are regulating their resources and managing environmental programs. TRIBES, CASINOS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT Many states regulate the environmental impact of tribal casinos based on casino receipts. Agreements between states and tribes are called compacts. These compacts have provisions for contributions to the state; traffic and environmental mitigation to local governments; and environmental analysis and mitigation of those impacts. In general, tribes must prepare a tribal environmental impact report (TEIR) before starting a new project. A project is broadly defined as any activity occurring on Indian lands to serve the tribe’s gaming activities that may cause a direct or indirect physical change in the off-reservation environment. In contrast, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires significant impacts on the environment before an environmental assessment is considered. NEPA has large categorical exclusions (cities) and frequently litigated language, which is different than many TEIRs. Failure by the tribe to prepare a TEIR could result in the state going to court and stopping the project. Tribes are required to meet and negotiate with local governments. This can sometimes present a battleground. They usually need to adopt an enforceable written agreement that addresses all off-reservation environmental impacts, public safety, gambling addiction, and other issues. If an agreement is not reached within a specified amount of time, binding arbitration becomes the next battleground. This generally requires the arbitrator to consider the most reasonable offer from the tribe and the local government. One of the battlegrounds of most big projects is the requirement to mitigate environmental impacts. These can be very expensive but are unknown until some environmental assessment is made. The arbitration process could also determine the adequacy of the TEIR prepared by the tribe, which can determine the cost of mitigation and project viability. States already require environmental impact assessments when casinos want to expand. The federal government requires tribes to prove they are able to

192

|

Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal

regulate water or air. Tribes have a high environmental awareness because of state and federal environmental requirements, with or without casinos. TRIBES PREFER THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS Many actions on reservations are subject to federal NEPA requirements, such as roads and airports. But NEPA is limited in several ways that do not account for issues of concern to tribes. NEPA is limited to procedural requirements of the U.S. government and does not impose substantive limits on environmental effects. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires habitat conservation plans in areas with endangered species. Many tribes feel that these plans do not adequately protect valued species. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As tribes develop their natural resources and pursue economic development, they develop environmental codes. A clash of cultures can occur around issues of environmental assessment, creating controversy. As more tribes become recognized as such (about 245 applications are currently pending at the U.S. Department of Interior) and as more tribes seek status as states to control water and air as a state would, more people will be affected. Businesses that want to develop tribal lands, other water rights holders off the reservation, the bands and tribes themselves, local and state governments that work with tribes in other economic and noneconomic ventures, and environmental organizations must now engage the environmental aspects of sovereignty for indigenous peoples. WHEN CAN TRIBES CONTROL THEIR WATER RESOURCES? Tribal Environmental Impact Statements ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THAT INDIAN TRIBES CAN IMPLEMENT SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) AND CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) PROGRAMS: The CWA and the SDWA both use the same general criteria that an Indian tribe must meet in order to be eligible to implement programs that a state can implement. These criteria follow: • the tribe must be federally recognized by the Secretary of the Interior (recognition criterion); • the tribe must carry out substantial governmental duties and powers over a federal Indian reservation (governmental body criterion); • the functions to be exercised by the Indian tribe must be within the area of the tribal government’s jurisdiction (e.g., under the CWA the tribe must have appropriate authority over the surface waters of its reservation) (jurisdictional criterion); and • the Indian tribe must be reasonably expected to be capable, in the administrator’s judgment, of carrying out the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the CWA and the SDWA and of all their applicable regulations (tribal capabilities criterion).

Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal | 193 Under the simplified process for determining that a tribe is eligible to administer a CWA or SDWA program, the EPA intends to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements as an integral part of the process of reviewing program approval applications. Once a tribe has met the four criteria for any CWA or SDWA program, only information unique to another program would need to be provided when a tribe is requesting permission to implement that program. RECOGNITION AND GOVERNMENTAL BODY CRITERIA: The determinations that a tribe has been recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and has a governing body are essentially the same under the SDWA, the CWA, and also the Clean Air Act (CAA). To establish that it is federally recognized, a tribe needs only to indicate that it appears on the list of federally recognized tribes that the Secretary of the Interior publishes periodically in the Federal Register. A tribe can establish that it meets the governmental duties and powers requirement with a narrative statement describing the form of the tribal government and the types of functions it performs and identifying the sources of the tribe’s governmental authority. The information to meet these criteria needs to be provided only the first time that a tribe applies to assume a program under the provisions of any of these laws. That is to say, once a tribe has been approved to implement any program that a state can implement under any of those statutes, it will not need to demonstrate in subsequent applications that it is federally recognized and governs a reservation. It will, however, need to meet the other criteria discussed further on. However, a determination that a tribe has inherent jurisdiction to regulate activities in one medium (e.g., water) might not conclusively establish its jurisdiction over activities in another medium (e.g., air). The EPA could approve the portion of a tribal application covering certain areas and withhold approval of the portion of an application where tribal authority has not been satisfactorily established. This is a potential battleground. TRIBAL CAPABILITIES CRITERION: A tribe may have the capability to carry out only some programs under the CWA or the SDWA. In evaluating tribal capability, the EPA will consider the following: • the tribe’s previous management experience; • existing environmental or public health programs administered by the tribe; • the mechanisms in place for carrying out the executive, legislative, and judicial functions of the tribal government; • the relationship between regulated entities and the administrative agency of the tribal government that will be the regulator; and • the technical and administrative capabilities of the staff to administer and manger the program.

See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Water Pollution Web Resources Indigenous Environmental Network. Available at www.ienearth.org/. Accessed January 20, 2008.

194

|

Environmental Impact Statements: United States Inter-Agency/Tribal Coordination Agreement. Available at www.vhb.com/pvd/eis/pdf/InterAgency-Tribal_Agreement_12212005.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Gedicks, Al. 1993. The New Resource Wars: Native and Environmental Struggles against Multinational Corporations. Boston: South End Press; Kreske, Diori L. 1996. Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Vine, Jr., Deloria Wilkins, and David Eugene. 2000. Tribes, Treaties, and Constitutional Tribulations. Austin: University of Texas Press.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS: UNITED STATES Environmental impact statements (EISs) are powerful regulatory tools that force proponents of projects that have significant impacts on the environment to assess those impacts. While advisory only, they are used in many environmental controversies. As knowledge about the environment has grown, so too has concern for the impacts of major projects and processes. Technology and project scale can greatly increase the impact of large-scale development on the environment. Environmental impact statements are advisory in practice but nonetheless required. It is a process fraught with controversies at most of the major stages. The environmental impact process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is one that every major project or process with a significant impact on the environment must undergo. Generally, anyone contesting the process must go through the internal agency process first. Some states and tribes have their own environmental impact statement rules and laws. Flash points for controversies under the EIS requirements are lack of notice, lack of inclusion, and inadequate stakeholder representation. The actual area of impact, called the study area, can shift during the process. Many of the processes of the EIS are time driven, and there is often inadequate time to assess ecosystem or cumulative impacts. The underlying environmental decision, as in the spotted owl controversy, can lend fuel to the EIS process. In the case of the spotted owl, the fact that logging the habitat of this endangered species was a significant environmental impact triggered the requirement for a full EIS. Environmental impact assessment also brings in controversies of risk assessment generally. However, an increase in environmental impact assessment at all levels is inevitable. Assessment is necessary to measure impacts of new projects and to establish baselines with which to measure changes in the environment. Citizen monitoring is also prodding more environmental assessment. Another common frustration with the federal EIS process is that it is advisory only. The decision maker is free to choose more environmentally harmful alternatives. All these controversies are likely to continue as the range of environmental assessments continue to expand into ecosystem and cumulative approaches. NEPA was signed into law on January 1, 1970. The act establishes national environmental policy and goals for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment, and it provides a process for implementing these goals within the federal agencies. The act also establishes the Council on Environmen-

Environmental Impact Statements: United States | 195

tal Quality (CEQ). This act is a foundational environmental law. The complete text of the law is available for review at NEPAnet. NEPA REQUIREMENTS Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy that requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony. Section 102 requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decision making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. These statements are commonly referred to as environmental impact statements (EISs). Section 102 also requires federal agencies to lend appropriate support to initiatives and programs designed to anticipate and prevent a decline in the quality of humans’ world environment. In 1978, the CEQ promulgated regulations under NEPA that are binding on all federal agencies. The regulations address the procedural provisions of NEPA and the administration of the NEPA processes, including preparation of EISs. The NEPA process is an evaluation of the environmental effects of a federal undertaking including its alternatives. Any type of federal involvement, such as funding or permitting, can trigger NEPA regulations. There are three levels of analysis depending on whether or not an undertaking could significantly affect the environment. These three levels include categorical exclusion determination; preparation of an environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI); and preparation of an EIS. At the first level, an undertaking may be categorically excluded from a detailed environmental analysis if it meets certain criteria that a federal agency has previously determined as indicating no significant environmental impact. A number of agencies have developed lists of actions that are normally categorically excluded from environmental evaluation under their NEPA regulations. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior have lists of categorical exclusions. This is an area of policy controversy. One aspect of these lists is that the cumulative effects of their exclusion are not considered. Another is that some of the categories that were once thought to be insignificant may not be now. Projects having insignificant environmental impacts are not required to perform an EIS. At the second level of analysis, a federal agency prepares a written environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether or not a federal undertaking would significantly affect the environment. Generally, an EA includes brief discussions of the following: the need for the proposal; alternatives (when there is an unresolved conflict concerning alternative uses of available resources); the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives; and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. It may or may not describe the actual study area. There is no actual requirement for notice to the community. Some communities

196

|

Environmental Impact Statements: United States

are environmentally assessed without their knowledge. If the agency finds no significant impact on the environment, then it issues a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The FONSI may address measures that an agency will take to reduce (mitigate) potentially significant impacts. This is the first notice many communities receive about any evaluation of the impacts. Many communities feel that there are significant environmental issues and, had they known about the EA process, could have directed the agency to them. If the EA determines that the environmental consequences of a proposed federal undertaking may be significant, an EIS is prepared. Significant environmental impacts can be threats to an endangered species, historic sites, or culturally significant areas. An EIS is a more detailed evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives. The public, other federal agencies, and outside parties may provide input into the preparation of an EIS and then comment on the draft EIS when it is completed. Interested parties are allowed to submit draft alternatives. The agency calls this scoping. Scoping is when the agency selects the interested parties who can submit an alternative proposal. This is a controversial stage of the process. There may be groups who wanted to participate but were not selected. Often there are communities who did not know about the internal agency scoping decisions. Once interested parties are selected, the alternative selection begins. A controversy can occur about which alternatives are examined. One alternative that is always examined is the no action alternative. The alternatives are compared and contrasted. There may be public hearings and some scientific studies. The agency then produces a draft EIS. This document can be a trove of information because it includes all the alternatives considered. The agency administrator then selects one alternative, and it is published in the final environmental impact statement of the EIS, along with its justification. The final EIS can only be 150 pages in length. The decision maker does not have to prioritize environmental protection over economic considerations. The EIS process seldom stops the decision or project, but it can slow it down and focus the public’s attention on the environmental controversy. If a federal agency anticipates that an undertaking may significantly impact the environment, or if a project is environmentally controversial, a federal agency may choose to prepare an EIS without having to first prepare an EA. After a final EIS is prepared and at the time of its decision, a federal agency will prepare a public record of its decision addressing how the findings of the EIS, including consideration of alternatives, were incorporated into the agency’s decision-making process. An EIS should include discussions of the purpose of and need for the action; alternatives; the affected environment; the environmental consequences of the proposed action; lists of preparers, agencies, organizations, and persons to whom the statement is sent; an index; and an appendix (if any). FEDERAL AGENCY ROLES The role of a federal agency in the NEPA process depends on the agency’s expertise and relationship to the proposed undertaking. The agency carrying out

Environmental Impact Statements: United States | 197

the federal action is responsible for complying with the requirements of NEPA. In some cases, more than one federal agency may be involved in an undertaking. In this situation, a lead agency is designated to supervise preparation of the environmental analysis. Federal agencies, together with state, tribal, or local agencies, may act as joint lead agencies. A federal, state, tribal, or local agency having special expertise with respect to an environmental issue or jurisdiction by law may be a cooperating agency in the NEPA process. A cooperating agency has the responsibility to assist the lead agency by participating in the NEPA process at the earliest possible time; by participating in the scoping process; in developing information and preparing environmental analyses including portions of the EIS concerning which the cooperating agency has special expertise; and in making available staff support at the lead agency’s request to enhance the lead agency’s interdisciplinary capabilities. While there are cooperating federal agencies, there is some controversy about intergovernmental relationships with states and municipalities. Where there is a large federal government land presence, as in the western United States, some communities are excluded from important EIS processes. EPA’S ROLE The Environmental Protection Agency, like other federal agencies, prepares and reviews NEPA documents. However, the EPA has a unique responsibility in the NEPA review process. Under section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and publicly comment on the environmental impacts of major federal actions including actions that are the subject of EISs. If the EPA determines that the action is environmentally unsatisfactory, it is required by section 309 to refer the matter to the CEQ. Also the EPA carries out the operational duties associated with the administrative aspects of the EIS filing process. The Office of Federal Activities in the EPA has been designated the official recipient of all EISs prepared by federal agencies. THE PUBLIC’S ROLE The public has an important role in the NEPA process, particularly during scoping, in providing input on what issues should be addressed in an EIS, and in commenting on the findings in an agency’s NEPA documents. The public can participate in the NEPA process by attending NEPA-related hearings or public meetings and by submitting comments directly to the lead agency. The lead agency must take into consideration all comments received from the public and other parties on NEPA documents during the comment period. Public participation can be time-consuming and costly for many stakeholders but especially community members. Receiving actual notice of when they can get involved in a particular EIS is generally a point of contention. Some communities consider the EIS decision already made and their participation a formality. Some EISs use complicated scientific analyses to measure different impacts, and these can be difficult to explain to some citizens. If a particular

198

|

Environmental Justice

project is controversial, the agency can find that a significant impact itself, thus triggering the EIS requirement. Demand for community involvement can be part of a particular controversy. There is no public participation in the list of actions categorically excluded from the EIS requirements. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Environmental impact assessment is now an integral part of many environmental decisions. The process forces an assessment and includes the public and interested parties. It can also include human health risk assessments and ecological risk assessments, which can create controversies of their own. EIS processes are necessary for the development and refinement of environmental policy at all levels. For sustainability purposes these assessments allow us to understand the environment around us. More communities and environmentalists demand them with the expectation of involvement and the hope that they are environmentally meaningful. To the extent these groups become more dissatisfied with both process and product, more controversy will develop. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Human Health Risk Assessment; Public Participation/Involvement in Environmental Decisions Web Resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Environmental Policy Act home. Available at www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/index.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Submitting Environmental Impact Statement. Available at www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/submiteis/index.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Eccleston, Charles H. 2000. Environmental Impact Statements. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Kreske, Diori L. 1999. Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Morris, Peter, and Riki Therivel. 2001. Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment. London: Spon Press.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Environmental justice refers to the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. It includes fair and equal access to all decision-making functions and activities. Race and income shape the historic and present distribution of many environmental benefits and burdens. PROXIMITY OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TO POLLUTION African Americans are almost four-fifths more likely than whites to live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution is suspected of posing the greatest health danger. In 19 states, African Americans are more than twice as likely as

Environmental Justice

whites to live in neighborhoods with air pollution. Controversies about racism between whites and African Americans, between other nonwhite groups and African Americans, and within environmental organizations and the government are inflamed by the proximity of African American communities to dangerous industrial pollution. The Associated Press (AP) analyzed the health risk posed by industrial air pollution using toxic chemical air releases reported by factories to calculate a health risk score for all communities in the United States. The scores are used to compare risks from long-term exposure to industrial air, water, and land pollution from one area to another. The scores are based on the amount of toxic pollution released by each factory, the path the pollution takes as it spreads through the air, the level of danger to humans posed by each different chemical released, and the number of males and females of different ages who live in the exposure paths. The AP study results confirm a long string of reports that show that race maps closely with the geography of pollution and unequal protection. These data do not include many other sources of pollution known to affect all urban residents. It also does not consider possible synergistic and cumulative effects. BACKGROUND Historically, African American and other people-of-color communities have borne a disproportionate burden of pollution from incinerators, smelters, sewage treatment plants, chemical industries, and a host of other polluting facilities. Environmental racism has rendered millions of blacks invisible to government regulations and enforcement. The risk scores also do not include emissions and risks from other types of air pollution, like trucks and cars. The AP research indicates residents in neighborhoods with the highest pollution scores also tend to be poorer, less educated, and more often unemployed. However, numerous other studies show blacks and other people of color concentrated in nonattainment areas that failed to meet EPA ground-level ozone standards. This is pollution mainly from cars, trucks, and buses. It is substantial and affects African Americans and Hispanics more than others. In 1992, 57 percent of whites, 65 percent of African Americans, and 80 percent of Latinos lived in one of the 437 counties that failed to meet at least one of the EPA ambient air quality standards. A 2000 study by the American Lung Association found children of color to be disproportionately represented in areas with high ozone levels. Hispanics and Asians According to the AP report in 12 states Hispanics are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanics to live in the neighborhoods with the highest risk scores. There are seven states where Asians are more than twice as likely as whites to live in the most polluted areas. In terms of air quality, other studies have shown

|

199

200

|

Environmental Justice

that Hispanic neighborhoods are disproportionately affected by air pollution, particularly in the southwestern United States. Income Many hold that environmental proximity is a function of income. This assumes a free and flowing housing market without institutional barriers like racism. Higher-income neighborhoods have more political, legal, and economic power to resist industrial sites. The average income in the highest-risk neighborhoods was $18,806 when the census last measured it (2000), more than $3,000 less than the nationwide average. One of every six people in the high-risk areas lived in poverty, compared with one of eight in lower-risk areas. Unemployment was almost 20 percent higher than the national average in the neighborhoods with the highest risk scores. Proximity to Pollution Increases Long-Term Exposure to Risk Short-term exposure to common air pollution worsens existing lung and heart disease and is linked to diseases like asthma, bronchitis, and cancer. Longterm exposure increases these risks. Many potentially synergistic chemical reactions in waste in cities are unknown, and so are their potential or actual bioaccumulative risks to humans. The question is who bears the risk of risks not regulated by the government? Until recently, the costs of public health have been separate from the costs of production for industrial capitalism. As health costs mount, the stakeholders who pay for them are protesting. Current EPA Response More than 80 research studies during the 1980s and 1990s found that African Americans and poor people were far more likely than whites to live near hazardous waste disposal sites, polluting power plants, or industrial parks. Other studies of the distribution of the benefits and burdens of EPA environmental decisions also found a clear demarcation along race lines. The disparities were blamed on many factors, including racism in housing and land markets, and a lack of economic and political power to influence land-use decisions in neighborhoods. The studies brought charges of racism. Legally, one must prove the intent to be racist, not just the fact that a given situation is racist. It is very difficult to prove the intent of a city or town when they pass a racially or economically exclusionary zoning ordinance. They are very difficult legal issues to litigate, but litigation still happens. President Clinton responded in 1993 by issuing an environmental justice executive order (EO 12898) requiring federal agencies to ensure that people of color and low-income people are not disproportionately exposed to more pollution. Recent reports suggest little has changed. The EPA does not intervene in local land-use decisions. The federal government has preemptive power over state and local government to take property it needs. The state governments tend to know about local land-use decisions

Environmental Justice

|

201

in relation to environmental agencies. The weak intergovernmental relations between these branches of government allow this controversy to continue to simmer. There are often battles between state environmental agencies and the EPA over the requirements of EO 12898. State environmental agencies are resistant to incorporating environmental justice issues but accommodate regulated industries with one-on-one consultation and permit facilitation.

FIRST U.S. SENATE HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: THE BRINK OF A NEW POLICY? On July 25, 2007, Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis (CA-32) testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health about the state of environmental justice in the United States. Many are anticipating a round of environmental justice hearings in the House of Representatives in the fall of 2007. Here are highlights of Congresswoman Solis’s testimony: Environmental justice is about ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society have clean air, clean water, safe homes, and good health. My legislation directed the California EPA to ensure environmental policies protect the health of minority and low-income communities. . . . minority and underserved communities have been forced to live in close proximity to industrial zones, power plants, and toxic waste sites. More than 5.5 million Latinos and 68 percent of all African Americans live within the range where health impacts from coal powered plants are the most severe. More than 70 percent of African Americans and Latinos live in counties that violate federal air pollution standards. In the district I represent, the water basin is contaminated, 17 gravel pits leave neighborhoods covered with gravel dust, there are three superfund sites and nearby is one of the largest landfills in the nation. Forty-three enforcement actions were taken against 39 facilities in LA County between October 2005 and May 2007. Ninety-two percent of people living within a three-mile radius of these facilities are minority and 51 percent live below the poverty level. Environmental justice communities have been under attack as a result of the policies of the Bush Administration. Consider the following: • Since 2004, the Bush Administration has requested at least a 25 percent cut in the environmental justice budget. • Despite “reaffirming its commitment to environmental justice” in a November 2005 memo, the administration proposed significant weakening changes to the Toxic Release Inventory Program in early 2006. • Despite promises that the EPA’s “environmental justice considerations are accurately described to the public when proposed and final regulations are published after January 2007,” a rule on locomotive emissions released this April failed to mention environmental justice even one time.

202

| Environmental Justice

The rhetoric from the administration on environmental justice is an empty promise which leaves the health of vulnerable communities across our nation hanging in the balance. We must do better for the health of our communities. We must also address the decision of the Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval. As a result of this case, persons would have to prove discriminatory intent rather than disparate impact. While this may be a difficult issue to resolve, I believe it is one we must address. Finally, we must ensure that environmental justice communities are protected in the drafting of any global warming legislation. Minority and low-income communities across this country are vulnerable to health impacts resulting from environmental conditions which have been largely ignored by this administration. Absent a real commitment to environmental justice, the health and welfare of these communities will continue to suffer.

Racial Disparities The ways to measure race are themselves very controversial. The U.S. census undercounts urban residents of color frequently, and mayors file lawsuits every 10 years. Significant disparities in health and the actual quality of aspects of the urban environment exist at every level, an indicator of institutionalized racism. • African Americans represent 12.7 percent of the U.S. population; they account for 26 percent of all asthma deaths. • African Americans were hospitalized for asthma at more than three times the rate of whites (32.9 per 10,000 vs. 10.3 per 10,000) in 2001. • The asthma prevalence rate in African Americans was almost 38 percent higher than in whites in 2002. • African American females have the highest prevalence rates (105 per 1,000) of any group. • African Americans are more likely to develop and die of cancer than persons of any other racial and ethnic group. During 1992–1999, the average annual incidence rate per 100,000 for all cancer sites was 526.6 for African Americans, 480.4 for whites, 348.6 for Asian/Pacific Islanders, 329.6 in Hispanics, and 244.6 in American Indians/Alaska Natives. • African Americans are more likely to die of cancer than any other racial or ethnic group in the United States. The average annual death rate from 1997 to 2001 for all cancers combined was 253 per 100,000 for blacks, 200 for whites, 137 for Hispanic Americans, 135 for American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 122 for Asians/Pacific Islanders. • Cancer kills more African American children than white children. Cancer is surpassed only by accidents and homicides as the number-one killer of African American children. • While cancer mortality rates for all races combined declined 2.4 percent each year between 1990 and 1995, the decline for African American children (0.5%) was significantly less than the decline for white children (3.0%).

Environmental Justice

• African American men have the highest rates of prostate, lung, colon, oral cavity, and stomach cancer. • African American men are more than 140 percent more likely to die from cancer than white men. • More white women are stricken with breast cancer than black women, yet black women are 28 percent more likely to die from the disease than white women. • The overall cancer cure rate, as measured by survival for over five years following the diagnosis, is currently 50 percent for whites but only 35 percent for blacks. • Cancers among African Americans are more frequently diagnosed after the cancer has metastasized and spread to regional or distant sites. • Minorities with cancer often suffer more pain due to undermedication. Nearly 62 percent of patients at institutions serving predominantly African American patients were not prescribed adequate analgesics. • Many low-income, minority communities are located in close proximity to chemical and industrial settings where toxic waste is generated. These include chemical waste disposal sites, fossil-fuel power plants, municipal incinerators, and solid waste landfills. • African Americans and other socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are more likely to live in the most hazardous environments and to work in the most hazardous occupations. • Inner-city black neighborhoods are overburdened with pollution from diesel buses. In a 2002 EPA report, researchers concluded that long-term (i.e., chronic) inhalation exposure to diesel engine exhaust (DE) is likely to pose a lung cancer hazard to humans, as well as damage the lung in other ways, depending on exposure. • There is a strong relationship between environmental exposure and lung cancer among African Americans, which accounts for the largest number of cancer deaths among both men (30%) and women (21%). • People living in the most polluted metropolitan areas have a 12 percent increased risk of dying from lung cancer compared to people living in the least polluted areas. • Smoking does not explain why lung cancer is responsible for the most cancer deaths among African Americans. While many black men identify themselves as current smokers, they typically have smoked less and started smoking later in life than white men. • Rates are higher in urban areas because of increased air pollution and increased particulate matter in the air. • Minority workers are at a higher health risk from occupational exposure to environmental contaminants. • African American men are twice as likely to have increased cancer incidence from occupational exposure as white men. Many feel that belated government efforts to control polluting industries have generally been neutralized by well-organized and well-financed opposition. Industry is challenged in lengthy court battles, during which time industry still

|

203

204

|

Environmental Justice

has the right to maintain production and exposure of people to suspect materials. Since the environmental regulations themselves and laws apply on a per industrial plant basis, and it is hard to prove any one plant at any one time did directly cause the harm alleged, the process and controversy continue. Communities have also become organized around this issue and have been developing environmental information and data. PROXIMITY OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TO POLLUTION Environmental Justice Locator Scorecard.org provides maps at the national, state, county, and census-tract levels that illustrate estimated cancer risks from outdoor hazardous air pollution and the location of three types of pollution-generating facilities: manufacturing firms reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory, facilities emitting criteria air pollutants, and Superfund sites. You can see whether your home, workplace, or school is located in an area where estimated cancer risks are higher, comparable to, or lower than in other communities. You can also see how many polluting facilities are located in your area of interest. Charts associated with the maps provide demographic information about an area, including the percentage of people of color, percentage of families living in poverty, and percentage of homeownership. You can also use Scorecard’s mapper to access environmental data at the most local level (i.e., for each individual census tract in the United States).

Distribution of Environmental Burdens Scorecard uses easy-to-understand bar charts to illustrate which demographic group bears the burden of different pollution problems. Four problems are evaluated: releases of toxic chemicals, cancer risks from hazardous air pollutants, Superfund sites, and facilities emitting criteria air pollutants. Scorecard analyzes the distribution of these problems using seven demographic categories: race/ethnicity, income, poverty, childhood poverty, education, Homeownership, and job classification. For example, Scorecard calculates whether whites or people of color live in areas with greater toxic chemical releases, and then graphically portrays the extent of the disparity, indicating which group is worse off. Further information about any environmental problems in an area can be found in Scorecard reports listed in the links section.

Locator for Unequal Impacts For any burden or combination of burdens that you select, or any group you select, this locator will show you every county where that group of people experiences a higher impact than the rest of the population in the same county.

Distribution of Risks by Race, Ethnicity, and Income Is race or income the driving factor accounting for disparate environmental burdens in your state? Scorecard examines the distribution of estimated cancer risks associated with

Environmental Justice

|

205

outdoor hazardous air pollution to illustrate patterns of inequity by race/ethnicity and income. Scorecard calculates a population-weighted estimate of the average lifetime cancer risks imposed on each racial/income group by hazardous air pollutants. The Y-axis shows the estimated cancer risk per million persons, and the X-axis displays nine annual household income categories ranging from less than $5,000 to more than $100,000. Each line in the graph represents one of five racial/ethnic groups: whites, African Americans, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Latinos. Gaps between the lines indicate potential racial/ethnic disparities in cancer risk burdens. Slopes in the lines indicate potential differences in cancer risk across income categories.

Environmental Hazards Scorecard provides several measures of environmental hazards that can be used to compare states or counties within a state, including average cancer risks from hazardous air pollutants, the number of facilities per square mile that emit criteria air pollutants, the number of Superfund sites per square mile, and the number of Toxic Release Inventory facilities per square mile. Environmental hazard indicators for counties and states can be compared to demographic profiles in order to assess which communities bear the largest burden from pollution sources.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Racism in U.S. society is not news but a fact. Slavery is racist and the United States had African slaves that built the foundations of the country. These facts reach far into many present-day environmental dynamics that are as repulsive as slavery and racism seem to present-day populations. And in the environmental area, just like history, the most pernicious racism is reserved for African Americans. After the Civil War three waves of African American people migrated north to the cities, seeking freedom and economic opportunity just as all other immigrants and migrants before and since. When urban industrialization expanded, it polluted the city. Many other people of color and migrants were able to melt into U.S. society. In the areas of housing, employment, health, education, and transportation this has not been the case with African Americans. Instead of moving out of the city, many African Americans stay because of foreclosed opportunities. Industry also stays in these neighborhoods. This controversy is the broken lock to a Pandora’s box of unavoidable and necessary controversy. All discussions of cumulative effects, sustainability, and U.S. urban environmentalism must know about the true environmental past of every place. There are many reasons for this, the least of which is to know where to clean up first. The next set of policy controversies involves the prevention of industrial growth in areas that may be irreparably damaged. Underneath this controversy is another set of issues. The primary reason for most environmental policy is to protect the environment and the public. In most

206

| Environmental Justice

U.S. cities it is now fairly easy to establish which communities bore the brunt of cumulative and synergistic risks. These communities are now shown to have a disproportionate, adverse reaction to environmental stressors, expressing itself in a number of physical ways such as childhood asthma. New environmental policies such as sustainability and the precautionary principle will require information about past environmental conditions, but the question of reparative public health intervention for proximate communities is left dangling. This is also known as the canary-in-the-coal-mine phenomenon. Currently, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee is meeting with the EPA to recommend ways to limit or mitigate harms to local communities from increased emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxide due to increased trade and movement of goods and related transportation infrastructure growth. Some feel that this will focus attention on commercial marine and locomotive engines and their emissions, a current battleground between environmentalists who want much stricter standards and industry that resists regulation. Ports, railroad depots, airports, and truck depots all create pockets of emissions, and many suspect these disproportionately affect low-income people and people of color. Concern over the impacts of the movement of goods has increased due to recent and projected increases in foreign trade. The assumption is that this increase will require substantial transportation expansion from coasts and ports to inland destinations, likely affecting many environmental justice communities that are already disproportionately affected by past and present pollution. It may be a sign of progress in some areas that the canaries in the coal mine are actively resisting all activities that increase their pollution exposure. It promises to be a large environmental justice battleground in the near future, especially as scientists begin to explore the ecological restoration of coastal waters and rivers. Environmental information will be highly scrutinized, there will be scientific debate about risk and causality, and government regulators will eventually enforce much stricter emission standards at multimodal transportation hubs. ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE: BLACK FARMERS AND LAND LOSS African American farmers have suffered the loss of large amounts of land in the Southeastern United States. White farmers are offered loans to help them stay in business, comply with soil and watershed conservation measures, and avoid foreclosure. Black farmers are not offered these loans and do not get them when they apply. Institutionalized racism by the federal agencies in charge is one cause. There are other controversial reasons. After recent federal litigation and a failed class action settlement, black farmers are moving this controversy into Congress. Background Farmers have significant environmental impacts. Farming is a complex business with many cash flow problems for small farmers competing against

Environmental Justice

agribusiness. Efforts to preserve the small family farm are widespread and included federal and state legislation that created agencies. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 14 percent of working farms were owned by African Americans in 1920, but today, only 1 percent of farms are. Overall the small, family-owned farm has declined. However, it has occurred three times faster for African American farmers. The USDA Commission on Small Farms admitted that “[t]he history of discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . is well documented,” finding that “indifference and blatant discrimination experienced by minority farmers in their interactions with USDA programs and staff . . . has been a contributing factor to the dramatic decline of Black farmers over the last several decades.” Land Loss Facts The loss of agricultural land is considered a destructive dynamic by sustainability proponents. The further away crops are from the point of consumption, the more energy is consumed, in transportation, preservation of food, and retail sale. As reported by the Land Loss Fund Web site (http://members.aol.com/til lery/llf.html): In 1920, 1 in every 7 farmers was black. In 1982, 1 in every 67 farmers was black. In 1910, black farmers owned 15.6 million acres of farmland nationally. In 1982, black farmers owned 3.1 million acres of farmland nationally. In 1950, black farmers in North Carolina owned 1/2 million acres. In 1982, black farmers in North Carolina owned only 40,000 acres. In 1920, there were 926,000 farms operated by blacks in the United States. In 1982, the total number of black farms had dropped to 33,000 and is steadily declining. What caused the loss of black-owned farmland? • Farmers Home Administration and other lending institutions’ failure to provide farmers the proper and adequate assistance they were supposed to give. • Failure on the part of black landowners to make wills that would secure hired land for future generations. When many heirs share one piece of land, but no one knows which portion belongs to them because a will was not made out, the land is easily lost to the tax office or the real estate speculator. • Failure of heirs to pay taxes on family-owned land. • Discriminatory practices by both public and private lending institutions toward African American landowners. In 1982, African Americans received only 1 percent of all farmownership loans, only 2.5 percent of all farm operating loans, and only 1 percent of all soil and water conservation loans. Despite some new regulations by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) meant to offset historically discriminatory lending practices, black farmers are still not getting adequate funding.

|

207

208

|

Environmental Justice

• Inadequate technical, marketing, and research assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Less than 5 percent of the research funds spent by land grant colleges and extension programs are directed toward the problems of limited-resource farmers. • Lack of access to land. Existing African American farmers cannot get adequate or timely funding to expand their operations, and young blacks are unable to secure funding to purchase new farms. • Lack of knowledge of legal rights as landowners. Most rural African American farmers do not have access to essential legal assistance and thus fall prey to land speculators and unscrupulous lawyers. Rough Litigation Legal resources were at a minimum for African American farmers. Lawyers willing to sue the federal government in a protracted and controversial case are very expensive. As a result, lawyers from large law firms in the Washington, D.C., area took on a large number of cases on a pro bono basis to assist the farmers’ originally. All parties, including the pro bono attorneys, expected a streamlined mediation process, not a lengthy trial. The trial was as rough as they come. It was characterized by excessive motions practice, USDA interlocutory appeals that repeatedly interrupted the cases, numerous evidentiary objections, delays, and aggressive litigation tactics. Such tactics included agreeing to postponements, then seeking dismissal for failure to prosecute, or seeking recusal of the arbitrator when faced with sanctions or adverse rulings. The pro bono work was more time-consuming and complicated than expected. Denials and Delays Prevail Of the nearly 100,000 farmers who came forward with racial discrimination complaints, 90 percent were denied any recovery from the settlement. As a result, instead of the $2.3 billion, USDA provided $650 million in direct payments to farmers. The farmers who had the best chance at achieving justice were the 230 who opted out of the settlement. Of the 73,747 African American farmers who sought late entry into the settlement process, 65,947 filed their applications on time. The overwhelming majority of the farmers who did apply on time, some 63,816 farmers, were ultimately denied entry into the settlement. Their claims were never heard on their merits, and they will never again have a chance to seek relief for their discrimination complaints. Overall, USDA spent $12 million by 2002 for assistance from the Department of Justice in disputing individual farmers’ claims. These numbers are extraordinarily high for a settlement that was intended to provide a virtually automatic payment to farmers through an abbreviated procedure. Instead, it appears that African American farmers were treated as adversaries rather than as partners in a cooperative settlement.

Environmental Justice

Congressional Intervention into This Controversy Right now, those trying to compensate for and prevent land loss for black farmers are moving the controversy into congressional forums. They are asking the following: 1. Congress should order USDA to provide full compensation to the nearly 9,000 farmers who were denied relief after being accepted into the settlement class; 2. Congress should order USDA to reevaluate the merits of the nearly 64,000 farmers’ claims that were shut out due to lack of notice of the settlement. 3. Congress should direct the USDA to institute accountability measures to monitor and enforce civil rights standards throughout the agency, requiring that in the future the USDA shall exert best efforts to ensure compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination; and 4. Congress should ensure the full implementation of outreach and financial assistance programs that support minority farmers. The history of discrimination that led to the lawsuit tells the tale of deeply entrenched institutionalized racism. The discrimination that led to the suit still persists in many forms, including even the administration of a civil rights settlement. Instead of a fair facilitation of the settlement, the victimization continues with delay tactics and aggressive litigation strategies. A settlement is a cooperative process, not a small-scale litigation battle. Ultimately, the farmers have not fared substantially better than they would have at a civil trial. Eighty-six percent of the farmers with discrimination complaints have been unsuccessful and walked away from the settlement with no money and no ability to redress their grievances in a court of law. It is a continuation of the disenfranchisement of the African American farmer at the hands of the USDA. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Small farmers, the group of farmers to which most African American farmers belong, are the backbone of our sustainable agricultural future. By contributing a heightened awareness of the needs of the land, utilizing sustainable practices such as multicropping, and supporting the growth and wealth of their local communities, small farmers provide an invaluable resource to the agricultural system. Government-subsidized loans and grants are designed to support the small farmer and provide vital resources to this important segment of the farming industry. In order for this system to operate effectively, it must operate equitably. To discriminate against small farmers, and to further marginalize particular small farmers with racially discriminatory practices in the administration of financial assistance, contravenes the spirit and purpose of these USDA programs. To the extent that federal agencies alter congressional intentions they act illegally, outside the scope of powers delegated to them. Actions of this nature can prevent the advancement of environmental policy.

|

209

210

| Environmental Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

See also Children and Cancer; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Different Standards of Enforcement of Environmental Law; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Farmworkers and Environmental Justice; Indigenous People and the Environment; Sustainability; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources Environmental Working Group. Available at http://www.ewg.org/featured/172. Accessed January 20, 2008. Is It Race or Income? Available at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbryant/enujustice.htm. Accessed January 20, 2008. Land Loss Fund. Available at http://members.aol.com/tillery/llf.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. National Black Farmers Association. Available at http://www.blackfarmers.org/. Accessed January 20, 2008. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Mortality Maps and Graphs. Available at www3.cancer. gov/atlasplus/charts.html. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Bittker, Boris I. 2003. Case for Black Reparations. Boston: Beacon Press; Bullard, Robert. 2000. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. New York: Westview Press; Bullard, Robert. 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. MA: South End Press; Ficara, John Francis, and Juan Williams. 2006. Black Farmers in America. KY: University Press of Kentucky; Frazier, John W. 2003. Race and Place: Equity Issues in Urban America. New York: Westview Press; Gerrard, Michael B., ed. 1999. The Law of Environmental Justice: Theories and Procedures to Address Disproportionate Risks. Chicago: American Bar Association; Rechtschaffen, Clifford, and Eileen Guana. 2002. Environmental Justice: Law, Policy, and Regulation. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The primary controversy with environmental mediation and dispute resolution is whether it is effective. Environmentalists, industry, and increasingly communities can go to court for an attempt at a formal resolution. BACKGROUND Environmental mediation and alternative dispute resolution describes two problem-solving processes borrowed from other areas of controversy. Most of the areas borrowed from are legal areas like family law, employment law, and labor law. The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act both give environmentalists special access to federal courts to help with the enforcement of the law. Other environmental laws also allow for citizen suits. Resolutions of legal controversies about environmental laws have therefore tended to be resolved in federal and some state courts. If the lawsuit somehow fails, then there is no motivation for the winning party to mediate and engage in informal dispute resolution practices. If parties to an environmental controversy do engage in these processes,

Environmental Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution | 211

and then go to court, the incentive for mediation and dispute resolution also dissipates. Environmental dispute resolution includes most nonlegal approaches that allow parties to meet face to face. The goal is to resolve the environmental issue of acts at hand between the parties to each person’s satisfaction. It is not facilitation, which is more focused on multistakeholder deliberation on environmental policy issues. Environmental mediation and alternative dispute resolution are not used frequently in the United States, but they are being used more by state environmental agencies. However, expensive and inaccessible judicial processes for environmental legal disputes may make alternative dispute resolution seem attractive for some types of environmental disputes. These types of services are generally not available in most communities. Communities and environmentalists prefer the finality and confidentiality of judicial processes. As citizen monitoring of environmental decisions increases, and new environmental policy developments like good neighbor agreements and community-based environmental planning evolve into implementable policy, communities are more engaged in environmental decisions. These decisions involve major environmental controversies that are settled in a court of law. Another general aspect of alternative dispute resolution processes generally is that they lack the formality of judicial proceedings. Rules of evidence and general procedural due process may not apply. Records of the proceedings are not kept as a judicial transcript. It may be difficult to appeal an alternative dispute process, but that may not stop losing parties from seeking judicial intervention anyway. The amount of deference courts give to environmental dispute resolutions is unclear, itself a looming judicial controversy. Some groups do not trust the informality and lack of finality in alternative dispute resolution. Many U.S. minority groups do not trust this process for these reasons. Environmental justice has mobilized many communities around race and class issues in the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Environmental justice communities are uneasy about outside approaches to their environmental issues that may cause them to lose rights or political power. FEDERAL AGENCY PERSPECTIVE Environmental decision makers in government continue to face intrinsic controversies of balancing competing public interests and federal agency responsibilities when striving to accomplish national environmental protection and management goals. This is a fundamental governance challenge. This challenge can manifest itself through the following. • Protracted and costly environmental litigation; • Unnecessarily lengthy project- and resource-planning processes; • Costly delays in implementing needed environmental protection measures; • Forgone public and private investments when decisions are not timely or are appealed;

212

|

Environmental Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

• Lower-quality outcomes and lost opportunities when environmental plans and decisions are not informed by all available information and perspectives; and • Deep-seated antagonism and hostility repeatedly reinforced between stakeholders by unattended conflicts. DO ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION WORK IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING? The battleground of environmental controversy is very contentious. Many environmental controversies reflect deep-rooted issues locally and nationally. Industries contend that they need to comply with the law, period. There is very little analysis or empirical research on environmental mediation efforts in the environmental management literature. Therefore, there are many unanswered questions. What is the cost versus benefit of environmental mediation when ecological impacts and public health costs are tabulated? Is it inclusive of urban areas or focused on wealthy suburban communities and insular negotiated environmental-rule making processes? How are public notice and participation handled, if at all? How does this approach handle emerging concepts like sustainability, collaborative environmental decision making, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts? Collaborative environmental decision making and community-based environmental decision making do include these modern concepts and may displace the U.S. initiative of environmental mediation and dispute resolution. THE ROLE OF MEDIATORS AND FACILITATORS Many advocates for environmental alternative dispute resolution feel that a mediator or a facilitator can be significantly helpful in resolving complex, multiparty issues. They can help analyze of case studies of hazardous waste siting, site cleanup, and regulatory negotiation, assuming they have the substantive expertise. The appropriate roles for the environmental mediator or the environmental facilitator are dynamic and often situation specific. A mediator or facilitator can be useful in identifying interested parties and determining whether they are willing to negotiate in good faith. Multistakeholder environmental decisions and controversies are complex, and if a stakeholder is there simply to slow down the process, then it is impossible to negotiate with them with. Mediators should lay out the costs and benefits of mediation for the parties. This is especially important in environmental controversies because of the availability of lawsuits for some environmental issues. A major role of the environmental mediator is to deal with the inequality of information among parties, the differences in environmental background of the stakeholders, and developing issues and areas of agreement and disagreement. Environmental justice is particularly sensitive to neighborhood inclusion and community capacity building. Industry is very sensitive to any one sector or site being held liable for

Environmental Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution | 213

accumulated pollution, whereas communities and environmentalists increasingly demand that these be accounted for in modern dispute resolution. IS ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CONFIDENTIAL? Industry is a very large stakeholder in environmental dispute policy development. When industry lawyers are discussing case settlement, one very important provision is confidentiality. Settlements are not court decisions or judgments, but rather consent decrees that admit no wrongdoing and often have nondisclosure components. Attention must be given to the impact of mediation on the confidentiality of settlement discussions. Historically, rules relating to the confidentiality of settlement discussions have attempted to balance the competing policy interests of promoting settlements and ensuring public access to the judicial system. However, this tension is now being heightened by two facts. First, most court-based mediations receive more confidentiality protection than traditional settlement discussions. Second, the settlement of environmental cases often impacts individuals or groups who are not involved in the underlying litigation. When litigation involving matters such as oil spills or Superfund site clean-ups is settled through mediation, there is a concern that these impacted nonparties may not have sufficient access to information needed for accountability and decision making. The increased use of court-based mediation has enhanced the amount of confidentiality protection afforded settlement discussions in many environmental cases. While this fact may cause some initial concern, it must be viewed in light of the mediation process itself. Because mediation promotes the exchange of information and allows parties to view the dispute in broader terms than in traditional litigation, it offers some unique advantages to the parties impacted by, but outside of, the mediation. These advantages include: 1. allowing parties outside of the litigation to directly participate in settlement discussions; 2. increasing the likelihood of disclosure of information and scientific data produced in the mediation; and 3. increasing the likelihood that settlements represent the interests of parties outside of the litigation. These advantages are partly due to the participation of a neutral third party in the settlement process who not only ensures procedural fairness but who may also have an affirmative obligation to disclose certain information to parties outside of the mediation. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Environmental mediation and dispute resolution is a process everyone would like to work, not necessarily because of the process but because there are many ongoing unresolved environmental controversies. Environmental justice, community-based

214

| Environmental Regulation and Housing Affordability

environmental planning, and collaborative environmental decision making all deal with unresolved environmental controversies in more holistic and communityinclusive ways. And courts still deal with issues of environmental law with greater formality, finality, and certainty. Environmental mediation and alternative dispute resolution will be refined through government use but remain controversial at the community and industry levels. See also Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making; Community-Based Environmental Planning; Litigation of Environmental Disputes; Public Participation/Involvement in Environmental Decisions Web Resources Ecodirections Environmental Mediation Booklet. Available at www.ecodirections.com/pdf/ Mediation_Booklet_Sept2003.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Alternative Dispute Resolution for Disputed Environmental Permit Applications. Available at www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/dis pute_res/. Accessed January 20, 2008. Further Reading: Blackburn, J. Walton, and Willa Marie Bruce. 1995. Mediating Environmental Conflicts: Theory and Practice. Westport, CT: Quorum/Greenwood; Levy, Paul F., Lawrence E. Susskind, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer. 2000. Negotiating Environmental Agreements: How to Avoid Escalating Confrontation, Needless Costs. Washington, DC: Island Press; Macnaughton, Ann L. 2002. Environmental Dispute Resolution: An Anthology of Practical Solutions. Chicago: American Bar Association; O’Leary, Rosemary, ed. 2003. The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Environmental regulation of housing generally requires changes in construction methods and materials. Configuration of the housing unit, location of the property, minimum required lot size for housing construction, sensitive environmental areas, sprawl, and endangered species also sometimes arise as environmental controversies around housing. Purchasing a house is the single biggest purchase for most people. It is often the time when young families seek to establish roots in a community. Housing can have a big environmental impact. Communities have sought ways to mitigate environmental impacts of housing; from a builder’s perspective most are controversial. Many environmentalists also consider them controversial in that they do not go far enough to reduce environmental impacts. Many people are involved with the sale and purchase of a house and real property. Lawyers, real estate agents, banks, mortgage corporations, title insurance corporations, local land-use authorities, and others all have vested and mainly financial interests in this transaction. Environmental regulations implemented at the environmental level are how most good regulations take effect. Decisions are made about the best way to

Environmental Regulation and Housing Affordability |

proceed environmentally and passed on from the federal government to the state government for possible implementation. Eventually, some degree of environmental sensitivity and literacy reaches the local elected levels of government, who pass regulations about land use and building codes. These are the very codes of law that many sustainability advocates say need major revision. Often these regulations have the most effect on those creating the most impact on the environment, such as builders. New regulations, longer waits, and more permits and enforcement all increase the cost of doing business. Builders say they just pass that cost along. Banks, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, developers, and real estate brokers all say the same thing. Others point out that these stakeholders have large profit margins and can more readily absorb the cost of doing business in an environmentally sensitive or sustainable way. Profit margins are often an important piece of information in this battleground but are not usually shared outside of industry circles. Current demographic trends in the United States are creating pressures on communities to provide adequate services for a growing population. Roads, sewers, drinking water, schools, hospitals, and police and fire stations are all services that greatly impact the environment. Many of these basic public works projects are now classified as environmental. Homeownership rates are the highest since measured in the 1940s, an indication of strong market demand. Homeownership includes almost 68 percent of U.S. households. Housing prices have continued to increase, although there is wide variation from region to region of the United States. There is also a wide variation in homeownership rate by age, race, gender, and income. Builders and developers respond to this demand by constructing housing units in suburban fringe and rural areas. Environmental regulations are barriers to development and impediments to affordability in the view of some stakeholders. Required cleanup responsibilities are also costs of land acquisition in urban areas. Many banks and mortgage lenders now require some certificate of due diligence in environmental risk evaluation. This is a battleground discussed in the entries on brownfields and Superfund ecological risk assessment. In practice right now it affects primarily industrial and commercial properties. As a battleground here, it is very likely to extend to all property. Most environmentalists and proponents of sustainability want to begin to clean up the environment from any pollution they can. The context of housing affordability is part of the battleground of whether environmental regulations decrease affordable housing. HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES, PRICES, AND AFFORDABILITY The median cost of a new home in the United States went up 32 percent from 1995 to 2005. Many factors go into the home price increases. Some houses are bigger, occupy bigger lots, or have modern technological features. Profit increases in building supplies and distribution, labor cost increases, and financing shifts in the primary and secondary mortgage markets are also factors. Government land-use regulations, designed by local elected officials to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare, may require permits and conditions that can increase

215

216

|

Environmental Regulation and Housing Affordability

time and cost involved in building a residential unit. When these land-use requirements, such as minimum lot size, become environmental requirements is a vague line. However, builders, developers, and their financiers attribute much of this increase to environmental regulations. Most housing researchers conclude that higher home prices are most likely the result of building bigger homes with more expensive modern amenities. RADON CONTROVERSIES IN HOUSING Radon is generally a naturally occurring mineral isotope. Radon gases trapped in homes and occupants’ exposure to them are a controversy and public health concern. After years of debate and research most scientific researchers agree that radon causes cancer. It is a gas that can accumulate in enclosed areas in the ground. Many of the early studies were on miners who could be exposed to it. In 1984, a nuclear power plant employee in Pennsylvania set off the dosimeter (radiation detector) at the plant. His home was found to have radon concentrations well beyond those permitted at work. A database on indoor radon concentrations showed that the problem was widespread in residences. Many public health professionals feel the need to improve the understanding of the risks posed to the general population by indoor radon is paramount. Radon hazards in the home can cause physical illness, compromise growth and development, and lower school performance in children. Hazardous radon levels occur at all economic levels. However, some health hazards such as lead poisoning, asthma, and fatal injuries occur at disproportionately high rates in poor-quality homes of children in low-income families. Research is necessary to understand how hazards affect children’s health and to develop interventions that can ameliorate or eliminate them.

Some argue that there is no direct connection between increased environmental regulation and house price increases. The homeownership rate in the United States is at a high of 66.8 percent, despite all environmental regulations. This is an important finding—markets adjust to environmental regulations. Much of this controversy takes place in the battleground of the marketplace in that the question often becomes who in the supply side will absorb the cost of environmental construction processes and housing products. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Citizen monitoring of environmental decisions, the Toxics Release Inventory, concern about cumulative impacts, and a societal push for sustainability all make knowledge about local environmental impacts widespread. One of the first industries noticed by most communities is new residential construction. Builders are at the point of interface with the environment and are required to partially implement some environmental policy. The goal of these environmental regulations is to protect the public welfare and the environment. It is probably true that environmental regulations will increase the relative cost of some housing. Builders

Environmental Regulation and Housing Affordability |

217

and developers must comply with federal laws that include the Clean Water Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. They have long assumed that these environmental reguMOLD AND HOUSING Mold contamination is an emerging controversial issue in housing. Mold in both old and new houses has been difficult to eradicate and is sometimes dangerous and unhealthy. When tenants have mold, it is generally the landlord’s or property owner’s responsibility to eradicate it. Some public housing tenants have complained about mold and then been retaliated against by their housing authority. Some new house buyers have had to destroy their houses due to mold infestation. Mold is an environmental condition that creates controversy when it remains untreated. Molds are simple organisms that are found everywhere, indoors and outdoors. The potential health effects of indoor mold are a growing concern. Mold can cause or worsen certain illnesses. Some molds are worse than others. Stachybotrys is a greenish-black mold and is especially dangerous to vulnerable populations. Inside your home you can control mold growth by: • • • •

Keeping humidity levels between 40 percent and 60 percent Promptly fixing leaky roofs, windows, and pipes Thoroughly cleaning and drying after flooding Ventilating shower, laundry, and cooking areas

Mold growth can be removed from hard surfaces with commercial products, soap and water, or a bleach solution of no more than 1 cup of bleach in 1 gallon of water. Mold growth, which often looks like spots, can be many different colors and can smell musty. No matter what type of mold is present, it should be removed. The best practice is to remove the mold and work to prevent future growth. Source: EPA Guide to Mold. Available at www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/moldguide.html. Accessed January 21, 2008.

lations which seek to improve air and water quality and protect biodiversity, have suppressed development and driven the costs of new homes beyond what buyers can afford. However, it could also be the case that these regulations increase the energy efficiency of the housing, thereby decreasing its cost over time. The role of technology is rapidly expanding in this battleground. It may be entirely possible that low-impact environmentally sensitive housing will be less expensive. Housing and building markets are captive to their suppliers. The U.S. housing material supply is characterized by a lack of diversity in its inventory, historically relying on wood and wood products. Other countries pioneer more economical and environmentally sensitive building materials, even using recycled materials. The U.S. inventory is rapidly catching up to world trends in the building supply

218

|

Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas

inventory. However, as long as environmental protection remains a highly held public value and as long as population and housing demand increases, this will remain an environmental controversy. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Community-Based Environmental Planning; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Sprawl; Sustainability Web Resources Calculating the Cost of Environmental Regulation. Available at http://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/ dpaper/dp-03-06. Accessed January 21, 2008. Environmental Valuation and Cost Benefit News: Real Estate. Available at envirovaluation. org/index.php?cat=76. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Freeman, A. Myrick, III. 2003. The Measurements of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; Greenberg, Michael R. 1999. Restoring America’s Neighborhoods: How Local People Make a Difference. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Greenberg, Michael R., and Dona Schneider. 1996. Environmentally Devastated Neighborhoods: Perceptions, Policies, and Realities. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Kelly, Eric Damian. 2004. Managing Community Growth. 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood; Thompson, J. William, and Kim Sorvig. 2000. Sustainable Landscape Construction: A Guide to Green Building Outdoors. Washington, DC: Island Press; Watkins, Craig. 2002. Greenfields, Brownfields and Housing Development. London: Blackwell Publishing.

ENVIRONMENTAL VULNERABILITY OF URBAN AREAS As underscored by the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, urban areas are vulnerable to natural disasters. Cities are where most of the pollution is located and where most people live. Natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tidal surges can exacerbate already-polluted conditions. Climate change may deluge coastal cities as ocean levels rise. Controversies ensue about liability for cleanup, poor environmental planning, evacuation, and lack of monitoring. GLOBAL URBANIZATION Urbanization now dominates the human habitat. The environmental impacts of urbanization are powerful. Some nations, under the sponsorship of the United Nations, are pursuing policies of urban sustainability. Water, air, and land quality can erode to a point affecting the entire environment, including the public health. According to population statistics, as of 2005 most of the people in the United States and in the world lived in cities. Cities are places where economic opportunity presents itself to many stakeholders. They are crossroads of transportation systems and engines of commerce, and have large environmental impacts. Many are located along the coasts or inland along water courses. Many cities began as ports, or developed at the point where a river ceased to be navigable. Global

Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas

warming and climate change could affect the environmental vulnerability of these cities by increasing their exposure to changes in weather and water levels. URBANIZATION DEFINED Urban areas are characterized by large concentrations of people. Urban areas tend to be a unit of local governance and service delivery. Fire, police, sanitation, education, and public works are municipal services organized around the city. Urbanization involves an increase in the number of people in urban areas, as people move from rural, suburban, or squatting communities. Generally urbanization is associated with industrialization and economic development. Cities are seen as offering a greater range of municipal services, economic opportunity, and cultural diversity. Urbanization and its potential environmental impacts are increasing in both developed and developing countries. Urban areas make up about 3 percent of the available landmass. Some statistics show that more than half of the world’s 6.6 billion people live in urban areas. The proportion of the world’s population living in urban areas is expected to reach 65 percent in 2030. It is likely that population counts underestimate actual numbers of the new urban humanity. In most cities in the world the city officially stops where the municipal water provision stops. Huge squatting populations congregate around the outskirts of megalopolitan area where water quality and quantity are a daily environmental battleground. Urbanization in Africa and Asia is expected to increase from 40 percent to 54 percent urban by 2025. Much of this urbanization will occur in areas that could suffer severe climatic changes under emerging global warming scenarios. Drought and famine could increase the environmental vulnerability of many people in many cities. The full environmental implications of rapid urbanization for water supply and sanitation, especially the disposal of wastes that the cities produce, are unknown and increasingly unavoidable. Each area presents environmental battlegrounds of its own, but the underlying social dynamic is rapid urbanization. Some environmentalists now challenge the value of growth for the sake of growth. Most models of economic development are premised on growth of markets. Limitless growth could drain the Earth of valuable natural resources. This is one big concern of antisprawl proponents. The battleground for this controversy then becomes the ecological carrying capacity of a particular region. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The environmental vulnerability of cities, especially coastal ones, will likely continue to increase. A looming controversy is which cities to save under what conditions. Should government flood insurance be offered to people who rebuild in environmentally vulnerable areas? If a city is rebuilt, who should be allowed back in? There is a gnawing social concern over who is liable for vulnerable people in vulnerable urban environments who get caught in a natural disaster. Life-and-death choices face emergency responders when transportation is limited and communication intermittent under these conditions. These personal,

|

219

220

|

Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas

policy, and professional choices are difficult and unresolved but must be faced. While some of the subsequent controversies will be about liability for the harm, much will be about how to adapt to specific changes in specific places.

MAJORA CARTER: SUSTAINABILITY IN THE SOUTH BRONX For many outside observers, the image of the South Bronx of New York City is that of an urban holocaust. The media-inflamed and politically manipulated image of the South Bronx has it crime ridden, gang controlled, and without the rule of law. Its environment is a wasteland, its land, air, and water all toxic beyond human tolerance. To Majora Carter this image presents a challenge. In 2001, she formed Sustainable South Bronx. This nonprofit organization is designed to achieve environmental justice by sustainable projects informed by the needs of the South Bronx. This is one of the many environmental accomplishments of Majora Carter. An early environmental battle developed when she learned that New York City was going to process 40 percent of its solid waste through and in her neighborhood. This means trucking in waste to waste transfer stations where it can sit for months. It means incinerating of some of it, adding to an already-bad air pollution problem. Exercising considerable community-organizing skills she helped to stop it. She has a vision for the land, air, and water in the South Bronx with a sustainable community. Parks, bike paths, greenroof development, community health and environmental education, and community food markets are all part of that vision. With Carter’s focus, energy, and enthusiasm some of these are now viable projects. A self-described lifelong resident of Hunts Point, Majora Carter graduated from the Bronx School of Science in 1984, earned her bachelor’s degree from Wesleyan University in 1988, and earned her masters of fine arts (MFA) from New York University in 1997. Hunts Point has been at the leading edge of environmental and environmental justice issues for decades. A multicultural community with large historic and ongoing industrial emissions and municipal waste flows, it has also been the site of community research into cumulative risks and especially community empowerment. Hunter College, and now Columbia University, work with various groups in the South Bronx, in Hunts Point, and with Sustainable South Bronx. Carter’s leadership role in her community expressed itself in sustainable initiatives like the community composting project, air pollution studies called “greening for breathing,” the South Bronx Green and Cool Roofs Demonstration Project, and others. She has earned numerous awards, including the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation “Genius” award. As the U.S. environmental movement matures it will include more cities and more women of color in leadership positions. Issues and advocacy postures could change. Sustainability and grassroots environmentally based community organization and mobilization may reshape some of the battlegrounds of environmentalism away from federal courts, legislation, and press conferences. When gifted young urban leaders like Majora Carter are given some support, their environmental work proves the necessity of their inclusion. Source: Sustainable South Bronx. Available at ssbx.org/. Accessed January 21, 2008.

Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas

|

221

The ability to adapt to climatic changes will depend on the integration of local land-use law with state and federal environmental law, on the accuracy and depth of knowledge of the local ecosystem, and on developments and applications of science and technology. There are rapid changes in all three areas around the world. The United States, with the relatively recent formation of the Environmental Protection Agency, faces entrenched and controversial policy challenges in the first two areas. Nonetheless, human populations continue to swell and surge into cities. Global climatic conditions are changing and may further increase the environmental vulnerabilities of cities. Battlegrounds of emergency preparedness, timely evacuation, flood insurance, and community relocation policies will flare up again.

MEXICAN–U.S. BORDER CITIES Maquiladora Communities, Environmental Vulnerability, and Health Cities in countries with little or no environmental protection that border on countries with environmental protection can be especially vulnerable to pollution. If the unregulated towns are near water, roads, or rail lines, they become very attractive as large industrial sites. Such is the case with the Mexico and U.S. border towns. The maquiladora industries, concentrated along the U.S.–Mexican border, are examples of business exploitation of the lack of environmental and occupational safety regulations. These industries have not incorporated the environmental protection or health promotion strategies required of U.S. industries north of the border. The continuing failure to build sufficient housing, water and sewage systems, or waste treatment facilities in these communities has created an environmental battleground.

See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Climate Change; Environmental Justice; Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters; Sprawl; Sustainability Web Resources Borden, Kevin Allen. “Comparing the Vulnerability of the Built Environment among U.S. Cities.” Available at www.cas.sc.edu/geog/hrl/borden_ths.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Natural Resources Institute. Environment, Vulnerability and Policy. Available at www.nri. org/research/ds-evp.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Pelling, Mark. 2003. The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London: Earthscan; Riddell, Robert. 2004. Sustainable Urban Planning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing; Takashi, Inoguchi. 1999. Cities and the Environment: New Approaches for Eco-societies. New York: United Nations University Press; Walter, Bob, Lois Arkin, and Richard Crenshaw. 1992. Sustainable Cities: Concepts and Strategies for Eco-city Development. Los Angeles: Eco-Home Media.

222

|

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters

EVACUATION PLANNING FOR NATURAL DISASTERS Environmental controversies concerning all types of natural disasters follow their impact on people and places. Survivors generally demand more notice and monitoring of potential natural disasters. All communities want better evacuation planning. Forced evacuations are controversial, especially where there are no clear evacuation routes. BACKGROUND: GETTING OUT! Natural disasters are just that—disasters. Loss and suffering of loved ones, terror, anger, great fear, confusion, and pain can last for days, and precede one’s own death. Natural disasters are large forces of nature like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, ice storms, avalanches, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. They pose great risk of catastrophic damage. They can often occur together. Hurricanes and floods often accompany each other. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and urban fires often accompany each other. Avalanches, landslides, and mudslides can follow earthquakes months afterwards. Wildlife, human life, and ecological order can be forever changed following significant natural disasters. With global warming and climate change some areas are predicted to have more severe weather of greater extremes. There is concern that the number of natural disasters will increase and that communities are not adequately prepared. There is a fundamental controversy about responsibility and solutions to natural disaster planning and relief. Most agree that the government has some responsibility, and there are laws to that effect in most places in the United States. However, the government includes municipal, state, and federal response levels. Intergovernmental relations are very poor in the United States, especially in environmental areas. In the context of a disaster, communications quickly become tangled at best. In communities where a large industrial or nuclear facility may be at risk in a natural disaster, that facility has some responsibility to help plan for evacuation in case of catastrophe. Some communities have resisted the siting of a nuclear facility because of the failure of the site to provide emergency evacuation routes. The question of individual responsibility also arises, especially in the battleground of mandatory evacuations. In mandatory evacuations police and other emergency personnel will go door to door evicting people from their homes. The amount of time to prepare or evacuate will depend on the natural hazard. If the event is a weather condition that can be monitored, then there is some time to evacuate beforehand if there are sufficient routes. However, many disasters can happen with no notice, such as earthquakes. Early warning systems for tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, and some avalanches help reduce the risks to humans to the extent that enough notice is given, that individuals know and can respond appropriately, and that evacuation routes remain moving. Early warning systems are part of planning ahead. But they are insufficient alone because they rely on notice and human behavior and adequate evacuation routes. Planning ahead for natural disasters now focuses on evacuation routes. This is often much more difficult than it appears because most roads are not built for a mass

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters |

223

exodus. Depending on the extent of the natural disaster, rail lines, waterways, and airports may be shut down. Most evacuation plans, if they exist at all, rely on the individual car. If you do not have access to a car and receive very little notice, then the options for evacuating from a natural disaster decrease. EVACUATION: TRADITIONAL EMERGENCY PLANNING Evacuations occur hundreds of times each year. Transportation accidents with hazardous chemicals and industrial accidents release toxic substances. This forces thousands of people to leave their homes. Fires and floods cause evacuations more frequently. In the western United States, fires cause hundreds to evacuate their homes every year. Almost every year, people along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts evacuate because of approaching hurricanes. The main battleground is evacuation. In the case of fire, an immediate evacuation to a predetermined area away from the fire may be necessary. In a hurricane, evacuation could involve the entire community and take place over a period of days. Controversy can follow emergency evacuation plans. Not everyone can be evacuated at the same time. Routes can quickly become completely clogged. Not only does this stop evacuees, it also prevents efficient use of emergency vehicles. A developing solution for application to hurricanes is to open up all lanes in one direction on federal and state highways. Which routes evacuees and emergency vehicles should use is a question that can prioritize certain neighborhoods over others.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND EVACUATIONS Timeline of an Unnatural Disaster: Hurricane Katrina Environmental justice refers to the unequal distribution of environmental benefits by the government based on race or income. The failure of federal, state, and local government to evacuate or provide relief for five to seven days for the primarily African American residents of New Orleans, in the face of the threat of two massive hurricanes, is considered a glaring example of environmental injustice. A basic chronology gives one view of the controversial and disputed series of events around Hurricane Katrina.

Friday, August 26 Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declared a state of emergency in the state. Gulf Coast states including Louisiana began requesting National Guard support and other federal assistance. As the United States is embroiled in a war with insurgents in Iraq and is employing the National Guard at a very high rate, many wonder if they will be available for their usual missions of firefighting and aiding communities in times of national emergency. Katrina confirmed the fear that a lack of National Guard troops would make U.S. cities more vulnerable to natural disasters.

224

|

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters

Saturday, August 27 At the request of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, President Bush declared a federal state of emergency in Louisiana, specifically authorizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate all disaster relief and to identify, mobilize, and provide, at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Some employees of FEMA allege that they began a series of increasingly desperate e-mails and telephone calls to director Michael Brown, a close friend of President Bush. Mr. Brown chose to ignore these e-mails and discussed getting a new suit as he went to dinner instead of activating emergency plans.

Sunday, August 28 New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ordered the first-ever mandatory evacuation of the city. President Bush, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff, and (FEMA) Director Brown were briefed about the danger of levee failure by the national hurricane director.

Monday, August 29 Hurricane Katrina made landfall as a category 4 storm. FEMA Director Brown requested that DHS send 1,000 FEMA employees into the area within two days. The 17th Street Canal levee was breached. When President Bush flew over the area in a helicopter a few days afterwards, citizens fired guns at him from the ground. What few evacuation plans existed were designed to get only private vehicles out. Low-income people and people of color in the New Orleans area relied heavily on public transportation when they had to travel anywhere. Many people in nursing homes and hospitals, and in many historically African American neighborhoods, either simply did not travel or walked. Post-Katrina mortality statistics bear this out. Elderly African American women died disproportionately. An interesting blip in the statistics indicates the difficulty with mandatory evacuations. The second biggest death rate was for elderly white men, primarily from a historically exclusive white community. For a complete description of the state of emergency planning, the problems with evacuation, the environmental justice implications, and the policy ramifications, see An Unnatural Disaster: The Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina by member scholars of the Center for Progressive Reform, http://www.progressivereform.org/Unnatural_Disaster_512.pdf.

To develop an evacuation policy and procedure it is necessary to: • • • •

Determine the conditions under which an evacuation would be necessary. Establish a clear chain of command. Identify personnel with the authority to order an evacuation. Designate evacuation wardens to assist others in an evacuation and to account for personnel. • Establish specific evacuation procedures. Establish a system for accounting for personnel.

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters |

• Consider employees’ transportation needs for community-wide evacuations. • Establish procedures for assisting persons with disabilities and those who do not speak English. • Post evacuation procedures. • Designate personnel to continue or shut down critical operations while an evacuation is under way. They must be capable of recognizing when to abandon the operation and evacuate themselves. • Coordinate plans with the local emergency management office. EVACUATION ROUTES AND EXITS Designate primary and secondary evacuation routes and exits. Have them clearly marked and well lit. Post signs. Install emergency lighting in case a power outage occurs during an evacuation. Ensure that evacuation routes and emergency exits are: • • • • •

Wide enough to accommodate the number of evacuating personnel Clear and unobstructed at all times Unlikely to expose evacuating personnel to additional hazards Evaluated by someone not in your organization Consider how you would access important personal information about employees (home phone, next-of-kin, medical) in an emergency

Given the overall lack of emergency preparedness in U.S. cities, it is likely that they will be battlegrounds for improved preparation, evacuation routes, and emergency responses. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY While no one opposes evacuation planning for natural disasters, very few come forward with the resources necessary to plan and implement realistic evacuation plans. Federal agencies and states are rapidly developing models for evacuation. It is not yet, however, a policy that is effectively implemented. It is clear that more research needs to be undertaken to investigate specifically the effects of a mass evacuation on current transport networks. With inadequate local knowledge of transportation and unimplemented policies, it is likely this controversy will continue from one natural disaster to the next. Some island nations, such as Barbados, that experience frequent hurricanes and wave surges have sophisticated evacuation plans that include a smooth transition from evacuation point to safety point. Family services, social services, religious services, and municipal services (fire, police, and sanitation) continue. Hurricanes trigger other disasters such as fires and floods. These can be mitigated with thorough transition planning. In the United States, FEMA lost its separate agency status and merged with Homeland Security under the Bush administration. In 2005 Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the surrounding area, leaving many to die slow deaths as federal assistance never came, even though federal resources were

225

226

|

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters

nearby. It was five days before meaningful federal help arrived, and more than 1,000 people were known dead at the time. During the hurricane the oil refineries along the Mississippi River and in Texas, which are allowed to use sulfuric acid to clean the refineries, released everything, as did all the large number of industries there. The Mississippi River there has long been known as “cancer alley” because of the pollution and is now a toxic stew spread as far as Hurricane Katrina could carry it. African Americans from New Orleans were referred to as refugees by FEMA and callously shunted from place to place. Many sought refuge in the New Orleans Superdome. Crowded and with no sanitation, some people died there and the bodies were not moved for days. Many communities and churches across the United States voluntarily came to the aid of the refugees. The bitterness of this controversy remains. The Bush administration has subsequently worked to relax already weakly enforced environmental cleanup laws. One of the largest private insurers of flood risk in the United States, State Farm Insurance Corporation, announced it was pulling out of Mississippi altogether because the risks are too high. The incidence of natural disasters has increased over the past 30 years. Coupled with an increase in the populations located in the path of these natural disasters, the imminent danger posed by naturally occurring phenomena has also grown. Given the potential dangers, most communities want appropriate emergency plans in place that minimize the negative environmental impacts from these disasters. Effective emergency planning and management should successfully combine the skills and knowledge of law enforcement agencies and transport planners as well as the knowledge and skills of emergency planning professionals. It has not yet done so in the United States.

EVACUATION PLANNING: HURRICANE KATRINA AND THE EVACUATION OF NEW ORLEANS FEMA has provided nearly $6 billion in assistance directly to Hurricane Katrina victims for housing and other needs through the Individuals and Households Assistance Program. The more than $6 billion provided to victims of Hurricane Katrina is the most ever provided by FEMA for any single natural disaster. In all, nearly 950,000 applicants were determined to be eligible for assistance under the Individuals and Households Assistance Program. • Housing—$4.2 billion: Housing assistance covers temporary housing, repair, replacement, and permanent housing construction. • FEMA has provided nearly $4.2 billion to nearly 950,000 applicants for housing assistance following Hurricane Katrina. • FEMA has paid out $1.3 billion to nearly 550,000 applicants in Louisiana and Mississippi under the DHS transitional housing program for homes that were inaccessible to inspectors due to persistent flooding.

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters |

227

• Other Needs Assistance—$1.9 billion: This money is used to cover medical, mental health, transportation, and other expenses related to disasters. • Assistance to nearly 420,000 households provided nearly $ 1.9 billion total for “Other Needs Assistance.” • Hotel Motel Program—85,000 households and $650 million • FEMA has paid more than $650 million for hotel/motel rooms to date; at its peak in October 2005, FEMA provided hotel/motel rooms for 85,000 households in need of short-term shelter. • Housing Inspections and Repair—1.3 million inspections • Since Hurricane Katrina 1.3 million housing inspections have been completed in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Travel Trailers and Mobile Homes—101,174 households (currently occupied) *Section revised on 8/25/06 • There are 101,174 travel trailers and mobile homes serving as temporary housing for Hurricane Katrina victims, outnumbering any housing mission in FEMA’s history. The following shows the number of units currently occupied as of August 17, 2006: • Louisiana Total—64,150 • Mobile Homes—3,169 • Travel Trailers—60,981 • Mississippi Total—36,127 • Mobile Homes—4,709 • Travel Trailers—31,418 • Alabama Total—897 • Mobile Homes—0 • Travel Trailers—897 Of those households occupying travel trailers and mobile homes, there are: • 15,000 households in group/commercial sites: • 9,344 in Louisiana • 5,507 in Mississippi • 149 in Alabama • 83,962 households in private sites: • 52,594 in Louisiana • 30,620 in Mississippi • 748 in Alabama • 2,212 households in industry sites located in Louisiana.

228

|

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters

Travel Trailers and Mobile Homes: 121,922 households (Cumulative Leases ) • 121,922 travel trailers and mobile homes have served as temporary housing for Hurricane Katrina victims, outnumbering any housing mission in FEMA’s history. The following shows the cumulative number of units used as of August 25, 2006. • Louisiana Total—71,134 • Mobile Homes—3,514 • Travel Trailers—67,620 • Mississippi Total—48,274 • Mobile Homes—6,300 • Travel Trailers—41,974 • Alabama Total—2,514 • Mobile Homes—0 • Travel Trailers—2,514 Of those households occupying travel trailers and mobile homes, there were: • 19,074 households in group/commercial sites: • 10,976 in Louisiana • 7,242 in Mississippi • 856 in Alabama • 99,959 households in private sites: • 57,269 in Louisiana • 41,032 in Mississippi • 1,658 in Alabama • 2,889 households in Industry Sites located in Louisiana. Cruise Ships—Housing over 7,000 households • For the initial six months after Hurricane Katrina, FEMA used cruise ships to house evacuees, workers from the City of New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish, and first responders and their families, totaling more than 7,000 workers and families. Public Assistance Projects—$4.8 billion • More than $4.8 billion has been “mission assigned” for public infrastructure projects, such as debris removal and restoration of roads, bridges, and public utilities. This total nearly doubles the combined total of $2.6 billion allocated for public assistance projects from the 2004 hurricanes across 15 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Debris Cleanup—99 million cubic yards • Since Hurricane Katrina, more than 99 million cubic yards of debris have been removed in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, costing out $3.7 billion to date.

Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters |

229

Crisis Counseling—$126 million • After Hurricane Katrina, all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia were eligible to apply for CCP grants to serve victims in the disaster area and displaced evacuees in other locations. Currently, more than $126 million in federal crisis counseling support has been approved thus far. This funding allows states to have the flexibility to develop service programs including outreach, counseling, support groups, and public education most appropriate for the hurricane evacuees within their state. Evacuation Reimbursement—$735 million to evacuee host states • FEMA public assistance reimbursed more than $735 million to 45 states and the District of Columbia for sheltering and emergency protective measures taken during the evacuation of the Gulf Coast and for ongoing sheltering initiatives directly following Hurricane Katrina. This is in addition to funds obligated to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama totaling nearly $1.75 billion for emergency sheltering operations. Expedited Assistance—$1.6 billion • Through expedited assistance, FEMA’s accelerated method of disbursing disaster assistance, FEMA provided more than $1.6 billion to 803,470 individuals and households to help the evacuees meet immediate emergency needs, such as housing, food, and clothing. Disaster Unemployment Assistance—$410 million • FEMA has obligated more than $410 million to support expenditures disaster unemployment assistance to Hurricane Katrina victims.

See also Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas; Floods; Global Warming; Hurricanes Web Resources Transportation Research Board. Framework for Modeling Emergency Evacuation. Available at trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=5023. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Department of Transportation. Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities. Available at www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/asp/emergencyprep.asp. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Balog, John N. 2004. Public Transportation Security: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board; Bullard, Robert D., ed. 2007. Growing Smarter: Achieving Livable Communities, Environmental Justice, and Regional Equity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Daniels, Ronald J., Donald F. Kettl, and Howard Kunreuther, eds. 2006. On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; Nicolet-Monnier, Michel, and Adrian V. Gheorghe. 1996. Quantitative Risk Assessment of Hazardous Materials Transport Systems: Rail, Road, Pipelines and Shipping. New York: Springer.

F FARMWORKERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE About 4.2 million seasonal and migrant farmworkers and their dependents work across most of the United States, although this is probably an undercounted population. This population is largely minority (90% Hispanic), medically underserved, and at risk for a variety of environmental health problems. Controversies ensue around illegal immigration and the cost of providing services to illegal immigrants. Environmental controversies involve the use of pesticides, labor camp conditions, and agricultural industrial practices. Mexicans come to the United States to work on large farms. Most farmwork is seasonal and temporary. Farmworkers are among the poorest of all workers. Nationally, the median annual income of a single worker is below $7,500 and, for families, between $10,000 and $14,000. Federal and state laws requiring overtime pay do not apply to agricultural workers. Part of the controversy around farmworker treatment is that many of them are not citizens but availing themselves of U.S. benefits. Although farmworkers are essential to the production of food in the United States, they have little power to control their work conditions. Farmworkers often make little more than minimum wage, seldom receive any employment benefits, and in many areas are not organized. Most farmworkers are immigrants to the United States. The national farmworker population has become increasingly Latino and Mexican during the past decade. In 1998, 81 percent of all migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the United States were foreign-born, and 95 percent of those were born in Mexico. Although some areas of the United States (e.g., California, Florida) have routinely employed large numbers of Latino seasonal and migrant farmworkers, other areas have recently experienced a dramatic increase

231

232

| Farmworkers and Environmental Justice

in these workers as family labor gives way to hired labor. In North Carolina, which ranks fifth in the size of its farmworker population, most farmworkers years ago were African American. Today only 10 percent are African American; most U.S. farmworkers are Latino. CESAR CHAVEZ Cesar Chavez was a courageous and powerful labor organizer for Mexican and Mexican American farmworkers. He was born in 1927 on a small farm outside of Yuma, Arizona. Later his family moved to California and worked as farmworkers. In 1942 he graduated from eighth grade and became a full-time farmworker to help support his family. He served in the U.S. navy from 1944 to 1946. In 1962 he founded the United Farmworkers with Dolores Huerta. He was also assisted by Dr. Marion Moses, a pesticide researcher and author. Cesar Chavez spoke out against injustices to all people but focused his activism and nonviolent approach on the conditions of farmworkers. His brave activism, inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, included farmworker strikes, targeted boycotts and picketing, media-grabbing fasts to bring attention to the condition of farmworkers, and a 340-mile protest march from Delano to the state capitol of Sacramento. Along the way he empowered thousands of oppressed farmworkers, who previously had little or no hope. He raised state and national public awareness of the labor conditions under which food was grown, harvested, and marketed. He got results in terms of forcing growers to contract with farmworker unions and state laws to help protect farmworkers. He improved the quality of life of oppressed people by improving working and living conditions for them. Cesar Chavez died on April 23, 1993. His family and friends created the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation and a model educational curriculum around nonviolent activism. For more information see the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation, www.cesarechavezfounda tion.org and United Farmworkers, www.ufw.org.

PESTICIDES Farmworkers, their families, and often their communities have large pesticide exposures and injuries. As pesticides are altered to have less environmental and public health impact on the consumer of the food, they become more acutely hazardous to the farmworker. They do this by releasing their chemicals on the plant in more intense dosages that do not last as long. Because farmworkers often live near the farm, they share water sources. As pesticide and other by-products of industrial agricultural processes run off the land and accumulate over time in the water, farmworker communities suffer disproportionate health risks due to their proximity to the ecosystems shared with the agricultural site. Contemporary U.S. agriculture uses large amounts of pesticides. Agricultural pesticides include those chemicals intended to kill insects, plants, fungi, rodents, and other organisms that interfere with the production, storage, and distribution of agricultural produce. Most agricultural pesticides now being used can have

Farmworkers and Environmental Justice |

233

detrimental effects on human health. The nature of farmwork exposes everyone who works on a farm to pesticides, farm owners and managers as well as farmworkers. However, farmworker pesticide exposure must be considered separately because of the extensive manual labor that most farmworkers perform and because farmworkers have limited power to influence workplace safety. The health effects of pesticide exposure can be immediate and include rashes, headaches, nausea and vomiting, disorientation, shock, respiratory failure, coma, and, in severe cases, death. Pesticide exposure can also have long-term effects on health in the form of cancer and neurologic and reproductive problems. FARMWORKERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF RISK: SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES Farmwork is risky business. Large agricultural business organizations use seasonal and migrant laborers to produce food. Pesticides, fertilizers, emissions from industrial equipment, and poor health care make it especially risky for farmworkers. There are important questions about the cultural and educational appropriateness of the farmworker regulations and the materials developed to implement them. In general these materials are prescriptive, telling farmworkers how to behave, but they fail to tell how such behaviors will reduce risk. A variety of theories have been developed to provide frameworks for understanding and predicting change in health behaviors. The health belief model (HBM) is particularly useful for the study of farmworker pesticide safety behavior because of its simplicity and parsimony. The relationship of perceived susceptibility to taking a health action is modified by perceived severity of the outcome, the perceived benefits of a health behavior to modify the risk of the outcome, and the perceived barriers to taking action. Beyond these, cues to action and self-efficacy can also modify the relationship of perceived susceptibility to action. Self-efficacy is confidence in one’s ability to reduce risk through behavior change. Most of the work to date on farmworkers has addressed the constructs of perceived risk and perceived control/self-efficacy without linking it to knowledge. Effective communication with farmworkers is necessary for their own protection, as well as protection of the food supply. Linking knowledge to perceived self-efficacy to reduce environmental risk is a very important perception that can differ greatly by race, gender, income, and education. These differences in risk perception can be the basis for controversies about public safety and emerging environmental controversies around sustainability.

The U.S. agricultural industry has always relied on marginalized workers to reduce labor costs. African American slaves in the Southeast built much of the infrastructure and some of the universities there (the University of Virginia, for example). Irish immigrants built much of the infrastructure of New York City and Boston. Chinese workers on the West Coast built the railroads. Mexican immigration began in the early twentieth century. It exploded around World War II when Congress passed the Labor Importation Program, known as the bracero program. This program brought about 4.8 million Mexican workers to the United States. It

234

|

Farmworkers and Environmental Justice

was specifically designed to bring in cheap labor for U.S. agribusiness interests. It was ended in 1964 as an official government program. However, many farmworkers and many farms came to rely on each other. The use and abuse of migrant and temporary labor is an issue of global proportions. Costa Rica is the country with the most illegal immigrants per capita. It is a prosperous country directly south of war-torn Nicaragua. As war and natural disasters affect whole regions, the search for food and work can emerge. Certain industrial sectors, such as technology and information systems, can use migrant and temporary labor less expensively in other countries. The concern is that these new workers do not have the same environmental protections or living conditions of U.S. workers. OREGON: AN EXAMPLE Each state approaches farmworker controversies in its own way. There are complex and dynamic relationships with federal and state agencies. Oregon’s elected leaders have proposed various guest-worker statutes over the years, and the practices toward farmworkers have been scrutinized. Although each state is different, some common themes in this controversy are exemplified by the experience in Oregon. Basic worker standards, initiated as federal reforms in the 1930s, excluded farmworkers. Agriculture argued that the industry needed to be protected from strikes and higher labor costs because of the importance of agriculture to the national economy and the need for food security. Others maintain racism against African American workers in the former confederate South was a strong factor in the exclusion of farmworkers from these laws. They argue that migrant laborers, now predominantly Mexican, are treated as African Americans were, in law, in the past. Many African Americans sharecropped farmland to live after the Civil War and emancipation from slavery. Others worked as farmhands. The primary farmworkers were African Americans in the eyes of the 1930s’ Congress. They were excluded from many of the sweeping reforms of the 1930s, and farmworker protection was one of them. Hispanic farmworkers do not identify as African American. Most Hispanics consider themselves white, when asked to choose between African American or white. They are counted as a community of color in the United States, although there are substantial differences between farmworker communities and many other diverse Hispanic cultures and communities. This can be the unspoken source of ethnic political tension between Latino and African American groups. African Americans may consider Latinos as white, meaning that African Americans are once again lower in status than the latest wave of immigrants. CURRENT FARMWORKER STATUS Farmworker designation is a work status defined by the U.S. government. The legal definition is “any person who works for pay in the production and harvesting of agricultural commodities, including crops, animals, and horticulture

Farmworkers and Environmental Justice |

235

specialties.” It is a broad definition that is refined by the following rules about other work-status definitions. These are current operating definitions for the U.S. government and most states: • Permanent workers have year-round jobs in agriculture for 150 days or more a year. • A migrant farmworker moves from his home location to one or more work locations. He is absent from his permanent residence for months at a time. • A seasonal worker works for part of the year in agriculture within driving distance of his home. These can be very long distances.

FARMWORKERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EPA INNOVATION: An internal Region 8 workgroup composed of members from Region 8 Technical Enforcement Program, Pesticides, Water, Geographic Information Systems, the Environmental Justice Program and the EPA laboratory developed a database of migrant farmworker camps to establish a structured resource for future use by EPA programs, state and federal agencies, and health organizations in a quest to improve the quality of life within migrant farmworker communities. The database contains information about camp sites, drinking water sources, size of the camps, and current addresses. The current database emerged from a list of fields the internal workgroup compiled as a guide for project research and is, consequently, the result of an extensive information search. Among the individuals and organizations contacted about farmworker camp information were community health centers, various state and federal departments, Farmworker Health, Farmworker Justice Fund, Clean Water Fund, university programs, local governments, and a number of U.S. EPA programs. Each contact was given a brief explanation of the project and then surveyed on the list of fields developed by the workgroup. Information from this database is currently being used by the Department of Labor and the Region 8 Pesticides Worker Protection Program. The environmental justice program has partnered with several state and federal agencies, other outside groups, and other EPA programs to begin collection of water samples from various camps throughout Colorado. The Region 8 lab trained Department of Labor (DOL) inspectors in water sampling techniques and chain-of-custody procedures. The DOL collected samples at several camps and shipped the results back to the lab. Results of those samples showed that one site was high in total coliform and another site was high in Escherichia coli (E. coli). Nitrates were elevated at several of the sites tested, but were not over the maximum contaminant level. Through various funding opportunities, two summer interns were also trained in sample collection and were able to accompany the DOL inspectors and take samples at additional camps. Analysis of the samples taken by the two summer interns is still in process. By accurate monitoring of the actual environmental conditions in the labor camps and fields, the EPA can better enforce safety conditions that benefit everyone.

236

|

Farmworkers and Environmental Justice

Average life expectancy for a migrant farmworker is 49 years as opposed to the average U.S. life expectancy of 73. Infant mortality is at least 25 percent higher than the national U.S. average. Farmworkers’ dental health is very poor. From their work farmworkers frequently have back and muscle problems as they grow older. Bilingual staff, community outreach, family health education, and free and accessible transportation to health services are all important in serving farmworkers. However, these services are controversial when provided to farmworkers. The farm owners and agribusiness managers do not like these services to interfere with work and are known to retaliate by evicting a whole family. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Given the reliance on migrant and seasonal labor for food production, the lack of effective implementation of environmental or worker protection law, and the increased knowledge of pesticides and their cumulative risks for farmworker populations this controversy will continue. It is enmeshed with another debate on immigration policy in the United States. Strict enforcement of immigration rules against employers and illegal immigrants would have big impacts in food production, nurseries, and other necessary work areas. It could also force the United States into greater reliance on foreign food producers, increasing cost and environmental impacts. The immigration debate does form the larger battleground for this controversy with economic and environmental undercurrents. Another crinkle in this controversy is that many environmentalists are concerned that farmworkers are being exploited to hide environmentally harmful practices. Farmworkers are reluctant to report illegal environmental practices for fear of retaliation against them and their family. Industrial agricultural practices are large in scope but often outside of public purview. Environmental justice proponents are concerned that farmworkers are carrying a disproportionate share of environmental burdens. As right-to-know laws move into the agricultural area, farmworkers could have more protection from retaliatory practices. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Pesticides; Toxic Waste and Race Web Resources Ecology Center. Cesar Chavez. Available at www.ecologycenter.org/chavez/environmental ism.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Marentes, Carlos. “Farm Workers Fight against Environmental Racism and Neo-liberalism.” Synthesis/Regeneration 33. Available at www.greens.org/s-r/33/33–06.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Bullard, Robert D., ed. 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston: South End Press; Hahamovitch, Cindy. 1997. The Fruits of Their Labor: Atlantic Coast Farmworkers and the Making of Migrant Poverty, 1870–1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; McWilliams, Carey. 2000. Factories in the Field: The Story of Migratory Farm Labor in California. Berkeley: University of California Press; Parks, Lisa Sun-Hee, and David Naguib Pellow. 2002. The Silicon Valley of Dreams: Environmental Injustice, Immigrant Workers, and the

Federal Environmental Land Use High-tech. New York: New York University Press; Thompson, Charles Dillard, and Melinda Wiggins. 2002. The Human Cost of Food: Farmworkers’ Lives, Labor and Advocacy. Austin: University of Texas Press; Weber, Devra. 1996. Dark Sweat, White Gold: California Farm Workers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE The United States is the owner of vast tracts of land. Many of the landholdings are for environmental or conservation purposes. Access to public lands also plays an increasing role in the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources and other uses such as recreation. Federal environmental land-use planning is extensive and will dictate which lands will be available for leasing and what kind of restrictions will be placed on use of those lands. Public lands are also leased to ranchers, loggers, and miners for natural resource use. These uses are considered harmful to the environment. Many tenants on public lands have sense of entitlement due to generations in a given profession, such as ranching or logging, in one place. Many environmentalists press for laws that force the federal government to use these lands sustainably with little or no environmental impact. PUBLIC LANDHOLDINGS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT The federal government owns about 29 percent of the land in the United States. There is a maze of federal agencies, and some landholdings are not public lands. Four federal agencies administer most of the 657 million acres of federal land. The National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture, make most of the environmental and land-use decisions. The majority of the federal lands (92%) are in 12 western states. The federal government owns more than half of the land in those states. CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY Land-use regulation is the United States is done mainly by local government with state oversight. Although the federal government has eminent domain power to control land it is not exercised at the local level. This view is wrong, according to Bruce Babbitt, former Secretary of the Interior and author. The federal government has long played a powerful role in local land-use decisions. Development has scarred U.S. landscapes and destroyed ecosystems, Babbitt argues. Much of the environmental damage has been done through the environmental land-use decisions of the federal government. He says we should gather the federal government’s resources to mitigate the problems that are the legacy of these decisions. Babbitt argues that federal policies have dispersed too many people into landscapes too sensitive to tolerate heavy use. People are allowed

|

237

238

|

Federal Environmental Land Use

to develop on federal lands in places that are subject to natural hazards such as fires and avalanches. They are allowed to mine, log, and graze livestock on federal lands in wildlife areas. The most damage is done by the construction of

SCIENTISTS RETALIATED AGAINST FOR RANGE MANAGEMENT REPORT A major part of federal land management is ranching. Ranches are leased to private corporations and individuals, and these leases are enforced by the landlord—the U.S. federal government. This federally owned land dominates the environment in many Western states. These leases cover vast tracts of land, and are often controlled by long term leases held for generations in some communities. Reports from government scientists on the environmental impact of ranching on federal lands are controversial because they stand up to powerful vested special-interest ranching industries. These government reports may be the only reliable information available about the environmental condition of our federal lands because ranchers treat this land as private property. Ranch management scientists work for the federal government and the ranchers to increase the productivity of the range for ranchers. Traditionally they have not focused on ecological preservation or accurate and cumulative environmental impacts. When the environment is rapidly degrading, the productivity of the range for ranchers goes down. These government reports are very powerful documents because they put limits on the abuse of natural resources in federal lands. Some government biologists say the George W. Bush administration is interfering with the science of range management to promote its pro-ranching agenda. In one internal report released to the media, scientists reported that “the cumulative effects . . . will be significant and adverse for wildlife and biological diversity in the long-term.” “The numbers of species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act will continue to increase in the future under this alternative.” According to the government range scientists, that language was removed from the scientific analysis that accompanied the new grazing regulations. There are many environmental controversies around government scientists about government censure and misrepresentation. In many environmental controversies scientists follow principles and ethics, often to their own personal detriment in terms of careers and professional black listing. Sometimes government scientists can find protection under a law called whistleblower protection. These are rules and laws designed to protect the independent professional judgment of scientists and other professionals such as lawyers, engineers, and accountants employed by the U.S. government. They coincide with the professional ethics of a given profession because exercising independent professional judgments is the essence of being a professional. The two previous scientists made their statements after they retired. Other scientists in government are laterally transferred. The effectiveness of the whistleblower protection laws is controversial. They only apply to government professionals. Scientists’ ability of scientists to exercise independent professional judgment is a very important battleground, especially in the context of federal environmental land-use planning. The manipulation of environmental facts for profit compounds the intensity of this battleground.

Federal Environmental Land Use

roads needed by the loggers, oil drillers, miners, and ranchers. Where the roads go, development often follows. Abuse and lack of federal enforcement of these uses creates, and continues to create, severe threats to wildlife and wilderness habitat. As examples, Babbitt cites the Everglades, farmlands where streams and grasses have been ravaged by farm policies, and watersheds degraded by abuse and pollution. “The notion that land use is a local matter has come to dominate the political rhetoric of our age,” and it is just wrong, Babbitt writes. He recommends congressional action to assess current federal landholdings and create a system of “permanent national-interest lands.” As secretary of the Department of the Interior, Babbitt had some success in this effort, through the protection of lands designated as national monuments. For 80 years, the federal government has regulated the ranchers that graze across millions of acres of federal land in the West. It has been a controversy between preserving a rural way of life and responding to a growing environmental concern that values watersheds and biodiversity. The recent federal land regulations make it easier for ranchers to use federal lands without concern for environmental impacts. The new rules give ranchers more time, up to five years, to reduce the size of their herds if the cattle are damaging the environment. Proving the herds are damaging the environment is a difficult proposition because the ranchers do not let people on the federal land, treating it as if it were their own private property. Without being able to access the environment it is impossible to discover abuses and ecological damage until it is severe. The George W. Bush administration gave shared ownership in the water rights and some structures on federal land to private ranchers. The regulations also decrease the opportunities for public involvement in deciding grazing issues on federal lands. Critics note that the mining, logging, and federal grazing program cost the United States because they are leased at below-market rates. It is a huge battleground to determine the cost to the United States of the subsidized industries operating on federal lands. Part of the cost is the mitigation and cleanup of their environmental impacts. It is a cost that the responsible industries will not voluntarily bear, that the small western communities cannot afford, and that western states allow. Over the last 80 years or so the cumulative environmental effects of large- and small-scale resource exploitation operations on federal lands may begin to undermine their mission of conservation and environmental protection.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONFLICT The battleground for these controversies is those states dominated by federal landowners. These agencies represent an employment base in many communities with an ebbing natural resource base, such as timber-or-mining dependent communities. These industries still want to continue logging and mining. Concessions in federal land areas such as national parks exert a strong voice in

|

239

240

|

Fire

these policy debates. On a national level, environmentalists and proponents of sustainability want the federal landholdings to lead the way in environmental policy development. They press for ecosystem risk assessment, environmental impact statements, and limited environmental impacts. Some demand wilderness areas and then press for the reintroduction of wolves and grizzly bears. Many other diverse federal land users want more access to federal lands. They include snowmobilers, hang gliders, mountain and rock climbers, hunters, and surfers. All these groups have different environmental priorities that will be debated in future federal land policies. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Endangered Species; National Parks and Concessions; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution Web Resources Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. Public Land Statistics 1998. Available at www.blm.gov/natacq/pls98/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Public Lands Foundation. Available at www.publicland.org/. Accessed March 2, 2008. Public Lands Information Center. Available at www.publiclands.org/home.php?SID=. Accessed January 21, 2008. The Wilderness Society. Available at www.wilderness.org. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Babbitt, Bruce. 2005. Cities in the Wilderness: A New Vision of Land Use in America. Washington, DC: Island Press; Davis, Charles, ed. 2001. Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics. Oxford: Westview Press; Nelson, Robert H. 1995. Public Lands and Private Rights: The Failure of Scientific Management. MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

FIRE Fire as a natural disaster often accompanies other disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis. Human causes of fire, intentional or unintentional, are also controversial. Humans are seven times more likely to start a wildlands fire than lightning. The environmental consequences of large fires can be farreaching. Controversy erupts about the appropriate intervention by humans, about salvaging the burned logs, and about fire as a technique for deforestation in rain forests. Fires are very powerful forces of nature. The context for fire to be a disaster is its impact on humans and the environment. It can be a natural and expected part of an ecosystem. In some ecosystems it is essential for regeneration of certain species of plants. Some trees actually require a fire to procreate. Some pinecones need the fire to burn off a resinous coating, and other tree seeds in the ground need a fire to germinate. Some communities use fires to clear fields and forests and gain direct economic benefits from doing so. Uncontrolled, large-scale fires can have large environmental and economic impacts. Many of the environmental controversies around fire as a natural disaster involve wildlands. Fires in towns and cities are handled by local fire departments.

Fire

|

241

In rural areas the only local fire protection may be a volunteer fire organization. The first wildland fire prevention program was established in the United States in 1885 in the Adirondack State Park. That first policy focused on stopping all fires. For a century this has been the dominant fire management strategy. Sometimes lightning-caused fires were not suppressed if the fuel load was high and it was an unpopulated area.

SMOKEY BEAR Smokey Bear is the longest-running advertising campaign in U.S. history. It began in 1944 to prevent forest fires. Part of the motivation for its creation was fear of enemy attack. In 1942 a Japanese submarine fired into an oil field outside of Los Padres National Forest in southern California. Some feared that such an attack could destroy a valuable natural resource, wood, when it was necessary for national defense, being used in ships, guns, and military transport packing. Although Bambi was the first antifire forest animal, Smokey Bear was the final choice. In a cooperative effort between the War Advertising Council and the U.S. Forest Service, Smokey Bear was created on August 2, 1944. It is officially Smokey Bear, not Smokey the Bear. Smokey Bear is a protected name under federal law. Misuse of the name can result in a prison term. The United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 33, s 711 states in part: Whoever, except as authorized under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Association of State Foresters and Advertising Council, knowingly and for profit manufactures, reproduces, or uses the character “Smokey Bear” originated by the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Association of State Foresters and Advertising Council for use in public information concerning the prevention of forest fires, or any facsimile thereof, or the name “Smokey Bear” shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. As one of the most recognizable images in the United States, Smokey Bear has been a success in conveying his message that “Only you can prevent wildfires!” Although Smokey Bear was born in an era when the primary fire policy was suppression, his message was an early one of prevention and personal responsibility. As recreational use of wilderness and other natural areas has increased since then the message still holds true, especially in the prevention of wildfires. Many people contributed to Smokey Bear’s creation. The first to paint a forest-fireprevention bear after Bambi was Albert Staehle. Then the Forest Service used their own artist, Rudy Wendelin, to produce and disseminate the Smokey Bear symbol. Mr. Wendelin emerged from retirement to paint the 40th anniversary Smokey Bear commemorative postage stamp. One of the last artists to work on Smokey Bear’s image was Charles Kuderna. Smokey Bear has a dedicated following of fans. There is a Smokey museum, many commemorative patches, books, tapes, and memorabilia. For further information, visit Smokey’s Vault, www.smokeybear.com/vault/default.asp. See also Ruthven Tremain, The Animals’ Who’s Who (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007).

242

|

Fire

U.S. WILDFIRES There are many federal agencies that have some jurisdiction over wildfires. The main ones are the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. States also have their own agencies with wildfire responsibilities. A minor battleground can develop when agencies contest jurisdiction over wildfires. For the most part firefighting agencies work hard to cooperate and allocate resources where they are needed. Fire suppression costs are expensive. Moving water, chemicals, people, and equipment around a wildfire requires split-second decision making and adequate resources. The number of acres consumed by wildfires has steadily risen, although this may in part be due to prescribed fires. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, there were 103,387 fires in 1960 and they consumed 4,478,188 acres. In 1980 there were 234,370 fires that consumed 5,260,825 acres. In 1990 the number of fires decreased to 122,763 but they consumed 5,452,874 acres. This trend continues. In 2005 there were 66,552 fires that consumed 8,686,753 acres.

WELCOME FOREST FIRES? Forest fires are not welcome in all ecosystems. In humid, tropical forests, fires play a minimal role in the natural process of the ecosystem. Dry tropical forests rely on them for species regeneration. Forest fires become controversial when they threaten wilderness, timber, mining, grazing, and residential development interests. The very human forces that are threatened by fire can also be the cause of it. Motorized equipment, dry conditions, and ignitable fuels can all unintentionally cause fires. Some locations in the United States periodically become so dry that fires become a constant threat. A single careless cigarette or campfire can start an inferno. When the grass on gravel and dirt roads is allowed to grow and then dies it creates a fire threat because the heat of engines and generators can ignite them. This is part of the battleground of permitting all-terrain vehicles and other motorized vehicles in wildlands. They increase fire risk by the vehicles themselves and their presence in fire-prone environments. Fire management presents many challenges. In the United States, most efforts have been to suppress fires. In some places this has increased the amount of fuel for fires, creating superfires. Some U.S. national parks are especially prone to this fire risk because old fire suppression policies actually increased the fuel load for decades. Fire suppression in now less automatically applied, and a decision is made about whether to let a fire burn or to control the fire to burn out in a certain manner. Fire has been used as a land management tool for centuries. It is very inexpensive, easy to apply, and works quickly and thoroughly.

Fire

|

243

OREGON FIELD BURNING Oregon is the grass seed capital of the world, growing large fields of grass to produce the seeds for sale worldwide. They specialize in the grass grown for golf course greens. As logging has declined, other industries such as agribusiness have grown in Oregon. An agricultural practice of burning the fields to clear the way for new growth was practiced there by indigenous people before European settlement. Today, the Oregon Department of Agriculture Smoke Management program determines the safe days to burn the fields. They keep track of smoke impact hours and enforce burn permits for open-field burns. They also permit stack burning but exert less control over that practice. Many people object to the field burning, and as population in the impacted communities has increased, so too has the profile of this battleground. In Oregon three types of field burning are permitted. All acreage proposed to be burned must be registered with the Oregon Department of Agriculture. In regular open fields burning perennial or annual grass and some cereal grain residue is permitted if the weather conditions are right. Some strains of grass seed cannot be profitably raised without burning. Industry clams that this thermal sanitation is necessary for at least three identified species, and this is another type of field burning. The last type of open-field burning is on steep terrain. Grass is grown there, but the land is too steep for anything but open-field burning. According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, 114,297 acres were registered for open-field burning in 2006. 2006 was the tenth year of operation of the smoke management program. Of this, 96,962 acres were classified as regular burns, 16,294 acres as identifiedspecies burns, and 1,041 acres as steep-terrain burns. State law only permits a maximum of 40,000 acres of regular burns a year so permits were allocated. The other categories were allocated 100 percent, so there is a temptation to maximize profits by moving burns into other categories. Some have questioned the strength of the enforcement efforts. They received 1,182 complaints in 2006 from 24 burn days. They made five enforcement contacts that resulted in warning letters and no penalty assessments. In the 1980s and 1990s field burning was so prevalent that the smoke caused car accidents on the interstate highways nearby. Although field burning has been continuously restricted since then, it is still permitted. Oregon has among the worst air quality in the United States, after New York and California. These other two states have huge populations, many more vehicle emissions, and a history of industrialization. By comparison Oregon is sparsely populated, with fewer roads per capita and much less industry. Part of the problem is that the smoke management program must rely on complex weather conditions to get the smoke up and out from communities. Mistakes are common, which means a community is filled up with additional pollution from field burning. Some communities and environmentalists claim that the grass seed agribusiness industrial complex is making a profit off their health and environment, and that no field burning should be permitted. Grass growers also use inefficient burn techniques, often incorporating propane burners. This increases smoke production. Oregon has been a battleground for several major environmental controversies, such as logging and protection of the endangered

244

|

Fire

spotted owl. Agricultural communities and agribusinesses resist environmental regulation of traditional methods such as field burning. They point out that field burning is pesticide free and may be ecologically sustainable with appropriate practices and advancements in agritechnology.

HOW THE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTS WITH FIRE Essentially, fire is a chemical reaction called combustion. It requires fuel, oxygen, and heat to the ignition point of the fuel. There are basically three types of wildfires. They are categorized as surface, crown, or ground fires. The intensity of the fire and the type of fuels consumed determine its type. Ground fires are the most intense, leaving nothing but dirt behind. They are large and suck in so much oxygen so quickly they create winds. They are rare but occur more frequently with high fuels loads. They can also cause a second category of fire called crown fires. These occur in the tops of trees. The last category of wildfire is a surface fire. These are the most common and cause the least damage to mature trees. The burn at lower heat and rates and tend to consume minimal fuel. Controlled fires are intended to deplete the fuel sources before they accumulate. The amount of fuel in a wildlands area is called the fuel load. This is measured in terms of weight of fuel, or vegetation. Vegetation can make a large difference in the fuel load of a given wildland. The more surface area the plant offers, the lower its ignition temperature. Leaves, forest floor debris, grasses, and resinous trees all increase the fuel load. If secondary timber growth is not thinned then it dramatically increases the fuel load. Many factors can affect a given fuel load. It is used to determine whether a preemptive burn is necessary, or whether to let a particular fire burn. This computation has recently created a battleground because timber companies argue that it is better to log an area that is scheduled for a preemptive burn. Environmentalists are very concerned about using preemptive burn rules to circumvent controversial logging. Another factor in wildfires is the moisture content of the vegetation and air. Dead plants have about 30 percent moisture at most. Live plants can hold three times their weight in water. Lower moisture in the fuel load causes the ignition temperature to decrease. Drought can greatly increase the risk of wildfires. With climate change certain areas could see more droughts, and wildfires could increase. An area that typically gets only small surface fires from lightning strikes will risk experiencing a more dangerous ground fire during a drought. Moisture in the air can have a dramatic effect on wildfire formation and activity. Dry, strong winds decrease the moisture in the vegetation. One example of these is the Santa Ana winds of California. These hot, dry winds blow west out of the deserts and to the Pacific Ocean, which is opposite of the prevailing wind patterns. When they do this wildfires increase in number and duration. Under these circumstances these fires can create their own weather systems, creating pyrocumulus clouds.

Fire

AFTER THE FIRE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Depending on the type of fire and the topography, fire can increase the risk of other natural disasters such as landslides and mudslides. Without vegetation, especially on steep mountainous slopes, soil quickly erodes. It goes into water flows and can affect the aquatic environment. If the fire was an intense ground fire it can actually burn the soil, leaving it unable to even absorb water. Intense ground fires are difficult to extinguish. They can follow tree roots down and smolder for days, reigniting if fuel and conditions are right. The smoke from a fire can have substantial environmental impacts. Scientists are still trying to determine the content of the smoke. While wildfires cannot be regulated, controlled burns can. EPA researchers have found many carcinogens in this smoke. As a fire burns it emits large amounts of particulate matter, or soot, which can affect the lungs. Fires also produce gases. Nitrogen oxides, ozone, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and carbon dioxide are all emitted as gases and may create risks. There is increased concern about carbon monoxide and mercury emissions. Atmospheric mercury is absorbed by vegetation. This mercury can come from many sources, and it is battleground as to how much of it comes from industrial emissions. When the vegetation burns as in a wildfire this mercury is converted to a gas and sent back into the atmosphere. It again falls as rain. The concern is that this mercury will fall as rain on the watershed and form methyl mercury. Methyl mercury is a deadly neurotoxin. Mercury requires interaction with certain microbes in the water to form methyl mercury. Carbon monoxide is a deadly gas. Big, intense ground fires emit large amounts of carbon monoxide. This gas will last in the atmosphere for weeks. BATTLEGROUNDS: SALVAGE LOGGING Salvage logging refers to salvaging timber after a fire. Logging itself is a controversial issue, especially on public lands. Harvest systems include tractor, cable, and helicopter logging. There are some emerging policy guidelines, but state and federal regulatory agencies present differing information. Some scientists contend that salvaging timber can eliminate or reduce future fire intensity by decreasing fuel load. Others disagree. Environmentalists claim that any impacts from salvage logging are not justified because of the impacts already created by the wildfire. Some claim that the remaining timber is necessary for ecosystem recovery. Others distrust the timber companies to log only suitable trees. Loggers claim it is necessary to quickly get the remaining timber out because delay causes a loss in the quantity, utility, and economic value of the dead trees. They claim that the length of time needed to do an environmental impact statement, often required for timber leases on public lands, decreases their profitability. As this battleground develops new policies are being developed on a sitespecific basis. Government agencies look to fees and leases for salvage logging as a source of revenue for other projects, and this can create additional battlegrounds. Some of the terms and conditions that shape this battleground are:

|

245

246

|

Fire

• What levels of snags and coarse woody debris should be kept in place. Snags are very hazardous for loggers but provide shelter for animals. • The size of the area. Salvage logging occurs in patches of fire-killed trees between 3 and 10 acres. Within each of these patches, a minimum of two to three acres is excluded from salvage. • Further environmental impact analysis prior to implementation of any restoration process. • They could include limited road improvements necessary to conduct salvage logging. • Only trees that are considered dead would be salvaged. A fire-killed tree is defined as “a tree with no apparent sign of green foliage.” The restoration projects could include fish habitat improvement, roads, culverts, and plantings. Environmentalists try to protect severely burned areas, fragile soils, riparian areas, steep slopes, or sites where accelerated erosion is possible. Salvage of fire-killed roadside trees that are or could be a hazard to drivers is usually encouraged. Trees felled within riparian areas or needed for wildlife habitat are excluded from salvage. Other areas excluded from logging can be negotiated. Salvage logging opens up old wounds in the logging controversies of the United States. Questions about how terms such as the previous list could actually be enforced are raised. SLASH-AND-BURN FOREST PRACTICES IN THE RAIN FOREST Rain forests present a different battleground for fire. Rain forests are thought to play an important role in combating global warming because they use carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen. Slash-and-burn techniques of land clearance have been used in many of these areas for centuries by indigenous people. Recently, the scale of slash-and-burn techniques has increased dramatically as plantation-style crop rotation and ranching grow and require more land. A battleground of traditional land rights for indigenous people can arise in these contexts. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Human population around wilderness and forested areas increased about 10 percent in the 1990s in the United States alone. Preventing the development of fuel loads in wooded areas is less possible with private property, which tends to increase as human populations increase. Although it is in the property owners’ interest to reduce fire risk, especially if they are far from fire services, some do not do so. Fire does not recognize political or property boundaries. Private property owners can be large timber, mining, and ranching corporations. They can also be subdivisions and mountain log cabins.

Floods

See also Acid Rain; Drought; Rain Forests Web Resources Firewise Communities. Risks in Fire Prone Areas of the United States. Available at www. Firewise.org. Accessed January 21, 2008. The Global Fire Monitoring Center. Available at www.gfmc.org. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Government Accounting Office Report on the Biscuit Fire Salvage Logging Operations. Available at www.gao.gov/htext/d06967.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Allison-Bunnell, Stephen, and Stephen F. Arno. 2002. Flames in Our Forest: Disaster or Renewal? Washington, DC: Island Press; Biswell, Harold. 1999. Prescribed Burning in California Wildlands Vegetation Management. Berkeley: University of California Press; MacLean, John N. 2003. Fire and Ashes: On the Front Lines of American Wildfire. New York: Henry Holt Publishers; Pyne, Stephen J. 2004. Tending Fire: Coping with America’s Wildland Fires. Washington, DC: Island Press; True, Alianor. 2001. Wildfire: A Reader. Washington, DC: Island Press.

FLOODS Rapidly rising water rushing through communities is a dreaded natural disaster. Water control systems such levees and dams evolve to mitigate floods. When these systems do not work and human environmental impacts mix with large water flows, controversy can ensue. HUMAN CAUSES OF FLOODING In many ecosystems seasonal flooding is a natural and anticipated event. In some tropical regions the forests remain flooded for months. Springtime flooding is common in many mountainous regions. Floods are also associated with other powerful natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and landslides. As unplanned or poorly planned development increases the amount of impervious surface areas (i.e., trading fields for roofs, roads, and parking lots) in our watersheds, the quantity and speed of stormwater runoff increase. As large parking lots associated with big-box retail development and shopping malls replace pervious surfaces with impervious surfaces, stormwater can mix with automobile emissions and wastes, and controversies around responsibility for water quality can develop. Climate change could also change the frequency and severity of inland flooding, particularly near the mouths of rivers. Some climate change models suggest that some regions of the United States may have more rainfall that would increase river and lake levels. Combined with rising sea levels vulnerability to inland flooding could drastically increase. Moreover, increased flooding could occur even in areas that do not become wetter: According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov) some of the impacts of climate change could be more flooding. The U.S. marine infrastructure—the docks,

| 247

248

|

Floods

piers, levees, canals, seawalls, sewer and water pipes, waste treatment plants, and port buildings—would be vulnerable. Because the costs of any infrastructure changes would be enormous, most places resist making these changes. That is one reason why the forecast of global warming, and rising sea levels, and more inland flooding is a battleground. The EPA’s climate change forecast vis-à-vis flooding is as follows. 1. Earlier snowmelt could worsen spring flooding while diminishing summer water availability; 2. Some climate models suggest wetter winters and drier summers; 3. The need to ensure summer/drought water supplies could lead water managers to keep reservoir levels higher, thereby limiting the capacity for additional water retention during unexpected wet spells; 4. Warm areas generally have a more intense hydrologic cycle and thus more rain in a severe storm; and 5. Many areas may receive more intense rainfall. The most flood-prone communities of the United States are partly protected by levees and reservoirs. However, the large continuing loss of wetlands increases the threat of floods particularly in these communities. The typical flood-control system is designed to prevent floods with at least a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. However, these computations of risk of future floods do not take into consideration rising water levels due to climate change. Not only do water levels rise, but the power of tidal surges and storms increase. These weak flood-control systems are not designed for a long-term, gradual rise in water or an increase in powerful storms. The cost of flood-protection infrastructure is very expensive. In the Netherlands, where much of the land is reclaimed from flooded sea plains, $14 billion a year is spent on just the pumps alone. Levees, levee maintenance, wetlands and wetlands preservation, dredging, and water monitoring are generally too expensive for small and medium-sized communities. The environmental impacts of flood-protection infrastructure can be significant. The wetlands and riparian areas that rely on the flood stage could be eliminated, which would dramatically affect species of plants and aquatic life dependent on these areas, such as salmon. Most communities are not prepared for a flood and have taken very few measures to prevent one. Most communities that have done anything for flood protection rely on land-use regulations to prevent flood damages. Almost 1,000 communities along rivers and lakes are part of the National Flood Insurance Program. This program is designed to preclude construction in most 100-year noncoastal floodplains. Again, however, these computations are made without incorporation of climatic change models, a small but continuing battleground. Changing climate will shift floodplain boundaries, so real estate and economic development may be taking place today in areas that will be in floodplains. Private property owners, developers, land speculators, and related finance industries all like to see building and growth. However, the risks are so high that private insurers will not accept them. When hurricanes hit, insurance compa-

Floods

nies may pay the insured for either wind or flood damage. When the damage is so devastating that it is difficult to separate wind and flood damage, bitter controversies ensue. The battleground for this controversy right now is the courts. Some Katrina (2005) victims have successfully sued their insurance companies for failure to pay for the damage. The insurance companies will not pay for flood damage if it is in a floodplain. High winds mark a hurricane but can also cause floods. Insurance and other industries seek relief from high judgments in state legislatures by supporting legislation that prevents juries from awarding high awards or awards for punitive damages. FLOOD PROTECTION: ARE WETLANDS WORTH IT? Wetlands are extremely important in most ecosystems. Water and soil meet to form the breeding grounds for plants, bacteria, and animals. Wetlands moderate water movement through ecosystems. They trap and slowly release surface water, rain, snowmelt, groundwater, and flood waters. Vegetation in riparian areas slows the speed of flood waters and distributes them more gradually over the floodplain. This combined water-storage and braking action moderates water flow, which can lower flood heights and flow rates and reduce erosion. The holding capacity of wetlands helps prevent waterlogging of crops. Another battleground in flood protection emerges with contrasting policy approaches. Can wetlands provide the level of flood control otherwise provided by dredge operations and levees? The problem is that these wetlands are owned by someone as private property. It can be a citizen, corporation, state, or arm of the federal government. Protecting their wetland functions often means no real estate development, agricultural use, economic development, or industrial development. The riparian wetlands along the Mississippi River once stored at least 60 days of floodwater, acting similar to a huge sponge. Now they store only 12 days’ worth because most of the wetlands have been filled or drained to develop their profit potential. THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE CONTROVERSY Historically, flooding has been the most common natural disaster in the United States, costing more in property damages and human life than any other natural disaster. Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968. The object was to reduce future flood losses through flood-hazard identification, floodplain management, and insurance protection. NFIP coverage is available to all owners and occupants of insurable property in a participating community. Not all communities that experience floods or could experience floods with rising water levels are participating communities. Property damage caused by flooding is explicitly excluded under most homeowner insurance policies sold in the private sector. Property insurance companies insist that flood insurance is not commercially profitable. As a general rule, property insurance markets will provide coverage when insurers are confident that they can identify the risk and set insurance rates that cover expected losses.

| 249

250

|

Floods

WHY NOT USE POROUS SURFACES? PRINGLE CREEK COMMUNITY According to the National Weather Service, Oregon experienced record-breaking rainfall throughout the month of November 2006. The Portland metro area received 11.61 inches while Salem alone received more than 15 inches. Yet while many regional streets and sidewalks flooded as a result of clogged storm drains, Pringle Creek Community, a 32-acre sustainable living community located in the Willamette Valley, had no flooding due to the success of its state-of-the-art porous pavement or green street system. With 7,000 feet of green streets and 2,000 feet of green alleyways, Pringle Creek is the nation’s first full-scale porous pavement project. The use of porous pavement within Pringle Creek retains at least 90 percent of the rainwater and returns it to an aquifer. These environmentally-conscious landscaping initiatives are a leading model of eco-conscious construction and design. Porous pavement retains stormwater runoff and replenishes local watershed systems. Pringle Creek’s porous pavement system is used to capture rainwater. Rain seeps from the pavement into nearby gardens of plants selected specifically for their water-retention qualities in this climate. The resulting rain gardens allow stormwater runoff to infiltrate into the underlying soil, creating a natural water-retention structure for the entire community. The water-retention structure uses retention ponds, bioswales, and soil berms throughout the community. The streets are narrower than conventional roads and use fewer materials to create roads, curbs, and gutters. “We are excited about the success of our green street system,” said Don Myers, president, Sustainable Development, Inc. “The use of these sustainable materials has allowed our project team the ability to design and build an elegant solution to a complex problem. The use of porous pavement emphasizes our ‘wholistic’ approach to maintaining ecological and aesthetic benefits to create healthy homes and healthy lifestyles for all residents of Pringle Creek.”

Repetitive Loss Problem: Controversial Solutions According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a small number of properties account for a large proportion of paid flood claims. A total of 112,540 properties nationwide have sustained repetitive losses, but only 50,644 of these properties had insurance, as of September 30, 2004. Of these 50,644 repetitive loss properties (RLPs), 11,706 are considered severe repetitive loss properties (SRLPs) that were placed in FEMA’s Target Group Special Facility. In total, there were 4,498,324 flood insurance policies, so RLPs are 1 percent of the total policies nationwide. Yet, according to FEMA, this 1 percent accounts for an annual average of 30 percent of amounts paid in claims. RLPs exist in all 50 states. The top 10 states accounted for 78 percent of all repetitive loss claims; and the top 25 states account for 96 percent of all repetitive loss claims. The majority of existing flood-prone structures are residences grandfathered into the National Flood Insurance Program when the program was created. These properties have been flooded and repaired multiple times.

Floods

Insurers generally lack the ability to spread flood risk sufficiently to safeguard their assets against catastrophic flood losses. The first step in assessing a community’s flood hazards is identifying and mapping the special flood-hazard areas. Flood maps provide the basis for establishing floodplain management ordinances (i.e., building standards), setting insurance rates, and identifying properties whose owners are required to purchase flood insurance. ACCURACY OF FLOOD MAPS: GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR? An important policy issue for state and local officials, insurers, mortgage lenders, and property owners is that many flood maps have not been updated with detailed topography or more accurate methodologies and do not reflect real estate growth. They also do not account for building codes that mitigate flood damage, climate changes that affect water levels, or drainage capacities. Growth tends to increase runoff and alter drainage patterns on floodplains and, thus, increase flood-hazard risk. FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION Flood map modernization is the focus of much scrutiny and some controversy. However, so little is known about the general environmental conditions of U.S. cities that until more is known this controversy will simmer. Accurate floodplain maps would show the true extent of development and real estate land use, including loss of wetlands and increase in impervious surfaces. An analysis of the local water systems could provide evidence to environmentalists who want to constrain growth, especially if they want to stop a particular project with large environmental impacts. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Flooding is part of many natural disasters, as well as being exacerbated by land development practices. The damage caused by floods is extensive and not always predictable or preventable. Controversies occur as a result of allocating liability for damage and for cleanup. Poor local land-use control and enforcement, inadequate local environmental knowledge, and insurance disputes mark the battleground for this controversy. Rising sea levels and inland water rises will also increase the intensity of flooding controversies. See also Climate Change; Sprawl Web Resources Link Claimed between Disease, Floods, and Global Warming. Available at www.sepp.org/ Archive/controv/controversies/linkclaim.html. Accessed January 21, 2008.

| 251

252

|

Floods Ottowa Riverkeeper. Canadian Flood Plain Approaches. Available at ottawariverkeeper.ca/ news/currents_of_controversy/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Heathcote, Isabel. 1998. Integrated Watershed Management: Principles and Practice. NJ: John Wiley and Sons; Marsalek, J. 2000. Flood Issues in Contemporary Water Management. New York: Springer; Newson, Malcolm David. 1997. Land, Water, and Development: Sustainable Management of River Basins Systems. UK: Routledge; William, J. Mitsch, and James G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

G GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD Plants that are used for food and medicine can be genetically modified and patented. WHAT ARE GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS? Genetically modified food results from a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of living organisms such as animals, plants, or bacteria. Biotechnology is a more general term and refers to using living organisms or their components, such as enzymes, to make products that include wine, cheese, beer, and yogurt. Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is called genetically modified, genetically engineered, or transgenic. Genetically modified products include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibers. Locating genes for important traits, such as those conferring insect resistance or pesticide receptivity, is the most challenging part of research in the process. Massive amounts of research are under way to set up genome characterization and sequencing for hundreds of different organisms and traits. They are creating detailed DNA maps. GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD Food is grown all over the world, although not all food can grow anywhere. In some places that would otherwise be good for food production enhanced

253

254

|

Genetically Modified Food

local biodiversity can decrease productivity. Insects, animals, weeds, and other environmental factors can make it impossible to grow crops of any kind. The appeal of GM crops in these places is very high and is often the context of both subsistence and economic development. In 2003, about 167 million acres cultivated by seven million farmers in 18 countries were planted with GM crops. The main GM crop choices were herbicide- and insecticide-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, and canola. Another crop grown commercially or field-tested is a sweet potato resistant to a common virus. Similar to the potato blight that swept Ireland and was never eliminated, the sweet potato virus could destroy most of the African harvest. GM rice with increased iron and vitamins may reduce chronic malnutrition in Asian countries. GM field testing of a variety of plants able to survive weather extremes continues. In 2003, six countries grew 99 percent of the global transgenic crops. They were the United States (63%), Argentina (21%), Canada (6%), Brazil (4%), China (4%), and South Africa (1%). The growing of GM food is expected to increase in developing countries. The scale of GM projects could increase quickly. Some environmentalists and public health experts fear that too much growth too quickly could overlook destructive environmental and human health effects. Global biotechnology crop acreage grew to 222 million acres in 2004. In 1996, when the first biotech crops were commercially grown, 7 million acres of biotech crops were grown worldwide. In 2004, a total of 222 million acres of biotech crops were planted in 21 countries by 8.5 million farmers. Of the 8.5 million farmers, 90 percent are resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Developing countries account for more than one-third of the global biotech crop acreage. Of the 21 countries growing biotech crops, five are in the European Union. Food security is very important in most parts of the world. In some countries, food security can lead to mass population migrations and armed conflict. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) also pose some risks, both known and unknown. Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation. Each one of these areas is a battleground in this controversy. GM PRODUCTS: BENEFITS AND CONTROVERSIES The researchers and manufacturers of GM products claim there are many benefits depending on the specific product. Here is a brief listing of them. • Crops • • • • •

Enhanced taste and quality Reduced maturation time Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides New products and growing techniques

Genetically Modified Food

• Animals • Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency • Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk • Improved animal health and diagnostic methods • Environment • • • • •

Friendly bioherbicides and bioinsecticides Conservation of soil, water, and energy Bioprocessing for forestry products Better natural waste management More efficient processing

• Community • Increased food security for growing populations CONTROVERSIES Others contest some of the claims made by GM product manufacturers. These are each a battleground and are briefly listed here. • Safety • Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects • Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity • Access and intellectual property • Domination of world food production by a few companies • Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries • Biopiracy: foreign exploitation of natural resources • Ethics • • • •

Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa Stress for animals

• Labeling • Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., the United States) • Mixing GM with non-GM crops confounds labeling attempts These controversies involve a trust in science to produce enough food safely. Our impacts on the environment are larger in scale then ever imagined. With profit as the primary goal of production, would the entire world have a safe food supply?

|

255

256

|

Genetically Modified Food

WHAT ARE THE CONTROVERSIES ABOUT GM FOODS? A large controversy exists as to whether genetically modified foods should be labeled as such. Some contest industry claims that GM foods are the equivalent of ordinary foods not requiring labeling. They claim there are many dangers, hazards, and problems, all controversial. What is the actual record of GM foods? Has profit motivation decreased morality in food production? Is labeling enough? Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of three billion years of evolution. Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms: animal and plant breeding. . . . All the earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. . . . Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. . . . this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics. (Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1967 Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University) About 25 percent of people in the United States have adverse reactions to foods. Eight percent of children and 2 percent of adults have food allergies. Genetically modified food manufacturers doing proprietary research may not want to find dangerous human health reactions after large financial investments. There is concern that they may know about them and compute the cost of death into their profit margins. Risk assessments become complicated and manipulated. Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers. (David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University)

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Appropriate biotechnologies offer considerable potential for food security, but given the risks and uncertainties about the effect of GMOs on human health and the environment, environmentalists are concerned. Genetically modified organisms present a hotbed of controversy with scientists, ethicists, activists, farmers, and industry all engaged in lawsuits, legislation, and environmental policy development. Population increases, will drive demand for food, which

Geothermal Energy Supply | 257

will push this controversy even further. If climate change decreases land available for food production in areas of population growth, practical realities of survival will form the contours of this controversy. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Hormone Disrupters: Endocrine Disruptors; Human Health Risk Assessment Web Resources The Campaign. Available at www.thecampaign.org/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Genetically Modified Food: News. Available at www.connectotel.com/gmfood/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Human Genome Project Information. Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms. Available at www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Readings: Lurquin, Paul F. 2002. High Tech Harvest: Understanding Genetically Modified Food Plants. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; McHughen, Alan. 2000. Pandora’s Picnic Basket. Oxford: Oxford University Press; National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; Toke, Dave. 2004. The Politics of GM Food. New York: Routledge.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY SUPPLY Geothermal energy supplies are themselves fairly noncontroversial given their current low usage. However, as citizens and environmentalists demand more clean power, alternative energy sources such as this will be used. WHAT IS GEOTHERMAL ENERGY? Our earth’s interior provides heat energy from deep within its core. This heat is called geothermal energy. At Earth’s center 4,000 miles deep, temperatures may reach over 9,000°F. The heat from the earth’s core continuously flows outward and transfers to the surrounding layer of rock near the surface called the mantle. The mantle rock can melt and become magma. The magma rises slowly toward the earth’s crust. Sometimes magma can reach the surface as lava. Usually the magma remains below earth’s crust, heating nearby rock and water. Some of this hot geothermal water travels up through faults and cracks in the rocks and reaches the earth’s surface as hot springs or geysers. Most of it stays deep underground. This natural collection of hot water is called the geothermal reservoir. The size of the geothermal reservoir is unknown. Its role in the ecosystem is also unknown. This uncertainty makes environmentalists and others reach for more information. HOW GEOTHERMAL ENERGY IS ATTAINED Wells are drilled through the rock into the geothermal reservoirs to bring the hot water to the surface. Locating underground areas that contain these

258

|

Geothermal Energy Supply

geothermal reservoirs takes a team of experts. The hot water and/or steam is used to generate electricity in geothermal power plants. In geothermal power plants, steam, heat, or hot water from geothermal reservoirs spins the turbine generators and produces electricity. Ideally, the used geothermal water is returned to the reservoir. BENEFITS Geothermal power is considered a renewable energy source, as opposed to petrochemical energy sources. Geothermal plants do not have to burn fuels, such as coal, to manufacture steam to turn the turbines. Because they do not have to burn coal or other fuels, they pollute less. Geothermal power plants are very efficient and designed to run 24 hours a day, all year. A well-designed geothermal power plant sits directly over its energy source and therefore is more reliable than other energy sources. Other energy sources can be interrupted by weather, natural disasters, or political controversies that can stop transportation of fuels. Geothermal energy is also relatively inexpensive to set up and operate. Environmentalists hope that geothermal projects can help developing countries economically develop without reliance on nonrenewable energy sources. HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY IS GEOTHERMAL? The use of geothermal energy for electricity has grown worldwide to about 7,000 megawatts in 21 countries. The United States produces 2,700 megawatts of electricity from geothermal energy. That is comparable to burning sixty million barrels of oil each year. HOW CLEAN IS GEOTHERMAL ENERGY? One battleground for all energy sources is the amount of pollution they generate. Coal, gas, and oil as energy sources all generate powerful pollutants. According to the Geothermal Energy Trade Association, emissions of nitrous oxide, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide are extremely low, especially when compared to fossil fuel emissions. The geothermal plant produces nearly zero air emissions.

Lake County, California, has met all federal and state ambient air quality standards for 18 years. It is downwind of the geysers, which normally cause poor air quality because of natural sulfur emissions. Since geothermal power has tapped into the heat source for the geysers, air quality has improved, because hydrogen sulfide passes through an abatement system at the geothermal plant that reduces hydrogen sulfide emissions by 99.9 percent. In nature, it would be released into the air by the numerous geysers, hot springs, and fumaroles.

Geothermal Energy Supply | 259

Geothermal power plants emit very low levels of one of the most significant gases known to induce global warming: carbon dioxide. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), carbon dioxide accounts for 83 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Geothermal power plants emit only a small fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted by traditional power plants on a permegawatt-hour basis and can help reduce the overall release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, geothermal energy uses less land than other energy sources, both fossil fuel and renewable. No transportation of geothermal resources is necessary, because the resource is tapped directly at its source. In terms of land impacts, a geothermal facility uses 404 square meters of land per gigawatt hour, while a coal facility uses 3,632 square meters per gigawatt hour. There are different types of geothermal plants, with different emissions. Geothermal plants use five gallons of freshwater per megawatt hour, while binary air-cooled plants use no freshwater. This compares with 361 gallons per megawatt hour used by natural gas facilities. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY This controversy, similar to many alternative energy controversies, is only starting to play out because of the extreme dependence of the United States on oil. Many view the current political and financial structure of utilities as exclusionary and oppressive of alternative energy entrepreneurs. If government acquisition of geothermal wells results in taking of private property, there could be those controversies as well. Some sector of society, public or private, needs to assist in the development of alternative and renewable energy sources. Fundamental relationships between utilities, communities, and the states may change. These are all powerful stakeholders with long-term interests. Not all communities will have the option of geothermal energy. Of those that do, some may not want it. Some communities with deep geothermal reservoirs could seek to export the electricity for

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY AND HEALTH CARE SAVINGS? Geothermal energy can reduce health impacts and health care costs. A recent analysis assesses the health impacts related to power plant emissions. Reducing power plant nitrogen emissions by one million tons and sulfur emissions by four million tons as of 2010 would mean: • The number of related deaths would be reduced by 8,714, with an associated health care savings of almost $53 million. • The number of related cases of chronic bronchitis would be reduced by 5,997, with an associated health care savings of almost $2 million. • The number of related heart attacks would be reduced by 13,924, with an associated health care savings of almost $2 million.

260

|

Global Warming

profit. The same could be said of private property owners. There are many unanswered questions about energy policy generally. Environmentalists are uncomfortable with the lack of information about environmental impacts. The powerful stakeholders, lack of policy formation, and uncertainty about environmental impact information all contribute to an uneasy battleground. Geothermal energy production may be the first type of energy production that will challenge the status quo. The rising concern about sustainability will also renew many aspects of this battleground, especially local control of environmental decisions. See also Mining of Natural Resources; Sustainability; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution Web Resources Geothermal Energy Association. Available at www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/basics.asp. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Geothermal Power. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/ kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/geothermal.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Chandrasekharam, D., and J. Bundschuh. 2002. Geothermal Energy (Resources) for Developing Countries. Oxford, UK: Taylor Francis; Elliott, David. 2003. Energy, Society and Environment. New York: Routledge; European Renewable Energy Council. 2004. Renewable Energy in Europe: Building Markets and Capacity. London: James and James/Earthscan; Smeloff, Ed, and Peter Asmus. 1997. Reinventing Electric Utilities: Competition, Citizen Action, and Clean Power. Washington, DC: Island Press; Sterrett, Frances Sterrett S. 1994. Alternative Fuels and the Environment. New York: CRC Press; Tester, Jefferson W. 2005. Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options. Boston: MIT Press.

GLOBAL WARMING The topic of global warming is one that engenders intense controversy. The controversy has shifted from whether it exists to its extent and what to do about it. The concept of global warming is controversial in its inception. The scale of human impact has never been so large and dangerous. The rising ocean levels will put many coastal communities and natural areas under water. Whole ecosystems and cultures are at risk. The extended reach of a range of natural disasters combined with ever-increasing human population increases the cost of disasters and creates more controversy. The cost of natural disasters can be large, and controversies ensue regarding emergency planning; federal, state, local, and private responsibility; and cleanup. Insurance companies, governmental agencies, energy industries, and impacted communities all have a large stake. In the global context, the industrialized nations of the north, such as the United States, Germany, and Japan, are considered to have reaped the benefits of the type of industrial economic development that is partially the cause of global warming. The less-developed nations want the same economic benefits

Global Warming |

and want to use polluting energy sources to attain them. In the U.S. context, global warming will affect where we farm, fish, live, and work. Some of the Arctic nations have begun to work collaboratively on the issue because of the dramatic effect it has on them. As the ice caps melt, the salinity of the water decreases, which affects the entire aquatic ecosystem. The permafrost begins to melt. Some, including former vice president Al Gore, believe that there are large methane pockets in the Arctic tundra, and that once they melt they will release much larger amounts of methane than previously assumed in all climate change models. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than does carbon dioxide. The concern is that climate change could occur much more rapidly than predicted. The Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1°F in the past century. There is accelerated warming in the past two decades in the context of centuries. Most of the global warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases. Much is unknown about exactly how Earth’s climate responds to them. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is the result of human activities, although this is an early historic battleground. There are other sources of methane emissions. Ungulates such as cattle and horses generate about 16 percent of global emissions of methane. Some environmentally leaning farmers and the University of Wales in Aberysywyth are experimenting with feeding their sheep and cattle garlic. Early reports are that methane emissions are down 50 percent. There are other natural sources of carbon dioxide emissions. An estimated 60 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are released globally from the soil to the air, much of it facilitated by microbes, bacteria, and insects. A particular species of worm in the tropics is attracting current attention. Pontoscolex corethrurus is a small earthworm that is rapidly spreading through many equatorial forests. It seems to thrive in areas that have recently been deforested. Some researchers estimate that it can release carbon dioxide from the soil 20 to 30 percent faster than other worms. Humans do exert powerful control over the environment, and these can result in increases in nonindustrial emissions from these activities, such as cattle grazing and deforestation of equatorial forests with the loss of trees and the increase in aggressive composting worms. Scientific understanding of these and other factors remains incomplete. One battleground is the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols. The political world voiced its strong concern when, in 1987, many countries signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer to limit the production and importation of a number of CFCs. The United States and other countries renewed their pledges to phase out ODSs by signing and ratifying the Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal Protocol in 1992. Under these amendments, these countries committed to ending the production and importation of halons by 1994 and of CFCs by 1996. The Kyoto Treaty was not signed by the United States partially because of controversy around global warming.

261

262

|

Global Warming

Many controversies in science are related to uncertainty and the proof necessary to show causality. These controversies can become magnified in politics, especially when the interests of vested and powerful stakeholders are threatened. Early scientific controversies concerned whether global warming was actually occurring. These controversies were later echoed in political circles. In exploring issues of global warming, scientists gathered data from what sources were available about greenhouse gases in a way that allowed them to evaluate their impact. Scientists and engineers developed the concept of a global warming potential (GWP) to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The dynamic interaction of gases in the atmosphere is still an area of cutting-edge scientific research and controversy. The definition of a GWP for a particular greenhouse gas is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the greenhouse gas to that of one unit mass of carbon dioxide over a specified time period. HISTORICAL RECORDS OF WEATHER AND GLOBAL WARMING The historical record of weather and climate is based on analysis of air bubbles trapped in ice sheets. By analyzing the ancient air trapped in these bubbles trends in climate change can be observed over very long time periods. This record indicates that methane is more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years. Since 1750, average global atmospheric concentrations of methane have increased by 150 percent from approximately 700 to 1,745 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1998. Over the past decade, although methane concentrations have continued to increase, the overall rate of methane growth has slowed. In the late 1970s, the growth rate was approximately 20 ppbv per year. In the 1980s, growth slowed to 9–13 ppbv per year. The period from 1990 to 1998 saw variable growth of between 0 and 13 ppbv per year. An unknown factor, and developing battleground, is the amount of methane in the polar ice caps. It is unknown how much methane in a currently inert form could be released as a gas into the atmosphere if the ice caps melt into water. If a large amount of polar methane gas is released faster than current models predict, then global warming could accelerate. ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT DATA: GOOD ENOUGH FOR GLOBAL WARMING MEASURES? As international concern over global warming has mounted, pressure on the scientific community to come up with useful answers has increased. Governments have responded with an increase in monitoring and analysis of meteorological data. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has identified as a priority research activity the development of global monitoring sites to measure atmospheric methane levels. The USGCRP provides access points to atmospheric measurement data related to methane. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Monitoring and

Global Warming |

Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases group also makes ongoing atmospheric measurements from land and sea surface sites and aircraft, as well as continuous measurements from baseline observatories and towers. Measurement records from international laboratories are integrated and extended to produce a globally consistent cooperative data product called GLOBALVIEW. The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) also provides access points to atmospheric measurement data related to methane. CDIAC’s data holdings include records of the concentrations of carbon dioxide and other radioactively active gases in the atmosphere and the role of the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans in the biogeochemical cycles of greenhouse gases. These government sources are often publicly available. In providing the public with access to these data, the government has included the community as a stakeholder. As the global warming controversy heated up after the U.S. refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty many U.S. towns and cities adopted and ratified the principles behind the treaty, in the United States and all over the world. Global warming as a battleground expanded the environmental slogan “Think globally, act locally” to include many communities. As such, the battleground for global warming controversies often developed locally, especially around air pollution and nuclear radiation issues. EMISSIONS INVENTORIES: DO THEY ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS IN THE AIR? Most U.S. environmental policy is relatively young, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forming in 1970. With many new pollution laws and a blank slate to work from, the EPA and state environmental agencies began by taking an inventory of emissions sources. Emissions inventories have evolved into policy uses of many types. They are used to help answer the question of what is in our air. With the rise in concern about global warming and scientific research into the dynamic properties of atmospheric gases proceeding, emissions inventories have increased in significance and specialization. Generally, an emissions inventory is an accounting of the amount of air pollutants and chemicals discharged into the atmosphere. It is generally characterized by the following factors. • • • • •

the chemical or physical identity of the pollutants included the geographic area covered the institutional entities covered the time period over which emissions are estimated the types of activities that cause emissions

Emission inventories are developed for a variety of purposes. Inventories of natural and human emissions are used by scientists as inputs to air quality models, by policy makers to set standards, and by facilities and regulatory agencies to establish compliance records with allowable emission rates. Because they can be used for purposes of a permit approving air emissions, industries have a vested

263

264

|

Global Warming

interested in their accuracy. Many small industries remain under the radar, and large industries often complain they unfairly bear the brunt of environmental regulation. Some industries are known to keep emissions per facility just beneath the regulatory threshold and to move or build another facility that is also just under the regulatory radar rather than be regulated. If they expanded a current facility they would reach an emissions level that would require a permit. Most permits do not limit emissions substantially; some even allow them to increase. This is a persistent complaint from environmentalists about government enforcement of environmental law. The emissions inventories can often be incomplete, but they do provide valuable information in evaluating environmental impacts on the climate. Longitudinal emissions inventories can point to areas where accumulated environmental impacts can occur. Environmental impacts with human health consequences can occur when emissions form a sink. WHAT ARE SINKS: ECOSYSTEMS AND GLOBAL WARMING A sink is a reservoir that uptakes a chemical element or compound from another part of its cycle. For example, soil and trees tend to act as natural sinks for carbon—each year hundreds of billions of tons of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide are absorbed by oceans, soils, and trees. When sinks form in urban areas, as in air pollution, serious human health consequences can result. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Rising global temperatures are expected to raise the sea level and alter the climate. Changing regional climates alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. The most recent reports from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization indicate that wheat harvests are declining because of global warming. Some experts have estimated that there will be a 3–16 percent decline in worldwide agricultural productivity by 2080. Population is expected to rise, however. In a study by environmental economist William Cline for the Centre for Global Development and Petersen Institute for International Economics, released September 12, 2007, concern was raised because the poorest nations may receive the most environmental impact from global warming. Many of these countries will not have the capacity to feed their populations or to adequately control pollution. This is a bitter point of controversy because the poor nations believe that the rich northern nations developed a high quality of life at the expense of the global environment. Some countries will be dramatically affected. India is projected to lose 29–38 percent of its agricultural productivity due to global warming. Cline states that Poor countries already have average temperatures near or above crop tolerance levels and, assuming no adequate reduction in greenhouse gases, seem to suffer an average 10–25 percent decline in agricultural productivity by the 2080s. Most of the United States is expected to warm. This report predicts that U.S. agricultural productivity could decline as much as 6 percent or increase up to

Good Neighbor Agreements |

8 percent. There is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils. Many of the most important environmental impacts depend on whether rainfall increases or decreases, which cannot be reliably projected for specific areas. The political controversies around global warming focus on the results of climate changes. Equity, value clashes, and uncertainty all promise to make climate change controversial. Some may gain and others will lose. There may be geopolitical shifts in world power. All efforts toward sustainability will be affected by global warming. Closer attention to environmental conditions of the climate, earth, land, air, and water is required to accommodate increasing population growth and concomitant environmental impacts. International treaties, such as Kyoto, will again seek accord. Both the effects and causes of global warming promise to be a continuing controversy. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Climate Change; Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters; Rain Forests Web Resources Global Warming International Center. Available at globalwarming.net/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Natural Resources Defense Council. Issues: Global Warming. Available at www.nrdc.org/ globalWarming/default.asp. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change. Available at www.epa.gov/climate change/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Comby, Jacques, and Marcel Leroux. 2005. Global Warming—Myth or Reality? New York: Springer; Drake, Frances. 2000. Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change. New York: Oxford University Press; United Nations Environment Programme. 1997. Global Environment Outlook. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; Victor, David G. 2001. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS Many communities want to make certain any industry in their neighborhood does not harm them with pollution. Some communities seek only green or sustainable industries. Environmental controversies exist in terms of the enforceability of such agreements. Communities are now aware of the environmental impact of industries. There is little corporate accountability for decisions that affect local communities once an industry is allowed to set up operation. Industries self-report their emissions to the state environmental agency. Some of the larger industries are listed on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which has mobilized community groups. The TRI, as well as increasing concerns about cumulative impacts, push communities to increase industrial environmental accountability. Community control over its health and environment includes land use and zoning, permits, and nongovernmental organization (NGO)-company contracts.

265

266

|

Good Neighbor Agreements

Good neighbor agreements are a form of flexible, community-based environmental protection. Agreements are formally negotiated; although some remain voluntary and without legally binding language, others are incorporated as a condition of formal permitting processes and can be legally enforced. Technically, a good neighbor agreement is an enforceable contract that details a set of commitments that the industry is required to make in order to reduce its environmental impacts on the community. There are few judicial challenges so far. Some agreements also focus on jobs that are promised and on labor conditions. Usually, an agreement contains specific commitments. Some of the commitments, for example, are • no polluting discharge to groundwater • oversight committee comprised of community, employee, and company representatives provided with funds for independent technical review • some shared monitoring of emissions • community notice of employment opportunities, youth apprenticeship, and training

CONTROVERSY AND GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS Good neighbor agreements usually come out of local controversy about pollution and job loss. They are relatively new, and some question their validity in the courts. It is not easy to obtain such agreements. Communities must be well organized and focused and should forge an alliance with the workers in the plant and their unions. While some industries may be willing to sign a voluntary nonbinding agreement with a well-organized and active community organization in order to defuse public agitation, an enforceable contract is much more difficult to obtain. In addition to community mobilization, some form of catalyst is usually needed to leverage corporations to move toward a meaningful agreement. This community point of intervention is usually an environmental or land-use permit requirement, which gives communities the opportunity to intervene. For example, a change in environmental regulations requiring a permit change for an incinerator in a Rhone-Poulenc chemical plant in Manchester, Texas, followed by a sulfur dioxide release that sent 27 people to the hospital, gave the local citizens the leverage to get a good neighbor agreement. The catalyst for an agreement with several oil refineries in California was the need for a permit to modify the plant to meet new requirements. With increased citizen monitoring of environmental decisions, there are more opportunities for citizen engagement. Leverage can also be a lawsuit. After the city of Philadelphia cited the Sun Oil Company for violations of local community health standards and violations of the federal Clean Air Act, a coalition of citizens, a labor union, and an environmental organization sued Sun and won a good neighbor agreement and a $5 million upgrade of the plant as a settlement.

Good Neighbor Agreements |

267

THE UNOCAL AGREEMENT Communities formed a working coalition in California to address neighborhood issues with UNOCAL. The outcome of the project was a negotiated good neighbor agreement that addressed a number of areas of concern including the following: • There will be an independent safety and environmental audit paid for by UNOCAL. A community-based committee provides oversight for the audit, which includes internal safety management as well as emergency response and notification systems; • The company will disclose several documents including health risk assessments and pollution monitoring results; • UNOCAL agreed to implement a sulfur-monitoring station, develop a database of health effect information for chemicals used at the facility, and provide for appropriate landscaping on its property; • The company agreed to provide $4.5 million to the county for transportation infrastructure and $300,000 a year to a community benefits fund for 15 years, for local citizen groups to utilize on projects that they designate to address local needs. The community groups secured these commitments from UNOCAL by a concerted campaign in which state, local, and county officials were held accountable to withhold all approvals until a good neighbor agreement was signed. UNOCAL needed a local land-use approval to expand its plant; this and other government approvals were blocked in anticipation of a good neighbor agreement responding to community concerns. In other instances, various forms of public regulatory authority have been exercised in order to secure good neighbor–type commitments. The ability of the community organizations to assess potential environmental, health, and safety issues and to make recommendations is often a critical part of a good neighbor agreement. Numerous arrangements across the country have been reached between local industries and local community members to allow citizens to evaluate plants along with their experts and to ensure to their own satisfaction that state-of-theart technologies and management practices are being applied.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Good neighbor agreements are relatively new. In a way they are an expression of community-based environmental planning. Communities now have a rapidly expanding knowledge base about environmental pollution and public health consequences. Technology, such as the Toxics Release Inventory, help disclose industrial emissions in the face of resistant state and federal environmental agencies. Some states protect industries from disclosure with secret audit privileges for industry. Cumulative impacts, environmental injustice, the environmental vulnerability of urban areas, and a new push for sustainability motivate communities to organize and use whatever power they have in whatever process they can. Good neighbor agreements generally arise from clusters of controversies, but do not have to.

268

|

Good Neighbor Agreements

As good neighbor agreements move to more formal contracts and heightened legal enforceability, more controversy will ensue. An industry cannot evade environmental responsibilities under the law with these agreements but is free to contract to do more. However, the question then becomes, who is the other contracting party? Often it is a community organization, or group of grassroots organizations. There are some difficult and publicly unasked questions. Industry is concerned that they may still be liable to citizen suits from environmentalists, especially once all their information is public or if the community changes its mind. Communities do want to be able to alter their priorities once all the environmental information is in, and as community leadership and environmental capacity evolve. Environmentalists do not want communities waiving statutory rights to sue. Unasked questions about industry enforcement of the contract against the community could also create controversy. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Community-Based Environmental Planning; Public Participation/Involvement in Environmental Decisions; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources Macey, Gregg P. “Seeking Good Neighbor Agreements in California.” Available at http:// www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/annual-project-reports/cbi-casestudy-good-neighbor-california.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Boyce, James K., and Barry G. Shelley. 2003. Natural Assets: Democratizing Ownership of Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press; Gready, Paul. 2004. Fighting for Human Rights. New York: Routledge; Martello, Marybeth Long, and Sheila Jasanoff. 2004. Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Ryder, Paul. 2006. Good Neighbor Campaign Handbook: How to Win. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

H HEMP Hemp is a renewable plant that it is criminally illegal to grow in the United States. Proponents tout hemp as a substitute for paper or wood and a source of clothing and a biodegradable form of plastic. Hemp is in the same general family as marijuana, which is illegal. Some fear legalizing hemp is a way to legalize marijuana. Hemp has a long history of use all over the world. Ropes, clothes, and paper often came from hemp in the colonial United States. The recent increase in interest in sustainability has prompted an increased interest in legalizing hemp. Hemp is considered a renewable and organic crop with many uses. The environmental impacts of growing large amounts of hemp have not been fully explored, but some say these impacts can negate the environmental benefits of hemp. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF HEMP Hemp is used for clothes and paper. Unlike cotton, hemp does not need pesticides. So far it is naturally resistant to pests. Hemp can grow so fast it crowds out other weeds. In many places, hemp is considered a weed. To make paper, trees must grow for many years, be logged, transported, skinned, and stored. It is a risky, labor-intensive process. All through this lengthy process the tree and then wood is subject to risks from fire, insects, and other natural disasters. It may take months and years from harvesting the tree to paper processing. Then this wood is chemically treated. Very powerful chemicals, including dioxin, are used to bleach the wood into paper. Paper mills are known for their large discharges of chemicals into waterways. Hemp, in contrast, can be harvested in a few months. Proponents claim that hemp can yield more paper with lower

269

270

| Hemp

production costs and environmental impacts than it takes to make paper from trees. Some environmentalists note that there are other renewable sources of paper, such as banana leaves. Overall, most environmentalists would like to reduce paper usage because of its environmental impacts from creation to waste disposal. Some have principled objections to logging, or to logging old-growth timber. The creation and use of paper is an environmental battleground that facilitates hemp controversies. HEMP IS ILLEGAL In 1970 the U.S. Congress designated hemp, along with its relative marijuana, as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act. This makes it a criminal act to grow it without a license from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Most scientists concede that industrial hemp does not contain enough psychoactive ingredients to make a user high, but it is still criminally illegal. Some do argue that legalizing hemp will allow marijuana to become legal. Marijuana is illegal because the effects these psychoactive ingredients can have on human behavior. Medical marijuana is a large controversy but not a hemp battleground. The United States is the only developed country that does not allow hemp as an agricultural crop. The European Union has subsidized hemp production since the 1990s. Canadian farmers have been exporting huge amounts into the United States. This is not illegal. In 2005, the Canadian hemp industry tripled the amount of acreage dedicated to hemp production to meet rising U.S. demand. HEMP: THE CONTINUING CONTROVERSY State legislatures have become a battleground for hemp legalization. Advocates for hemp legalization come from a variety of backgrounds and often form effective coalitions in state legislatures. Farmers, and to a lesser extent agribusiness interests, have been actively involved. Many states with strong agricultural interests want the federal government to decriminalize it. State legislatures in Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia have all passed laws that would make hemp legal if the U.S. government were to allow it. Nationally, resistance to hemp decriminalization remains dominant. A hemp farming bill introduced into Congress in 2006 by Texas Republican Ron Paul failed due to opposition from the DEA and the White House. The DEA maintains that allowing U.S. farmers to grow hemp would undermine the so-called war on drugs, as “marijuana growers could camouflage their illicit operations with similar-looking hemp plants.” Even if hemp production were legalized it would be difficult for U.S. farmers to compete in current world markets. World hemp production is dramatically down from the early 1980s and is dominated by low-cost producers. China, India, and Russia produce 70 percent of the world supply of hemp. Market risk to the U.S. farmer may be prohibitive, even if it were legal, because of these cheaper international growers.

Hormone Disruptors | 271

Critics of the agricultural production of hemp point out that hemp farming is very demanding on the environment. Large areas of cultivated fields would be necessary. Irrigation would become necessary in some areas for best production. Hemp requires large amounts of nutrients. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The history of hemp use, its presence in global markets, and its potential use in sustainable programs all make its current illegality controversial. Hemp has many applications as food, clothing, paper, oils, ropes, and even soap. Each area of hemp potential will be controversial as government regulatory agencies struggle with enforcement of its illegality. The environmental impacts of growing hemp will also be controversial. Proponents claim that it can help reduce global warming because it takes out large amounts of carbon dioxide per acre, more than most plants. Hemp can be grown in many soils, but its impact on the soil depends on the type of soil. Hemp growing does require water. To the extent it takes necessary water away from other parts of the ecosystem it could have negative environmental impacts. Cotton, one of hemp’s main fiber competitors on the world market, may overcome its current pesticide issues with genetically modified crops. See also Pesticides; Sustainability Web Resources Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance. Available at www.hemptrade.ca/. Accessed January 21, 2008. North American Industrial Hemp Council. Industrial Hemp Research Index. Available at naihc.org/IndustrialFibers.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Vantreese, Valerie. “Industrial Hemp: Global Markets and Prices.” Available at www.industri alhemp.net/pdf/abs_hemp.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Allen, James Lane. 2004. Hemp: The Reign of Law: A Tale of the Kentucky Hemp Fields. MT: Kessinger Publishing; MacAllister, William B. 1999. Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century: An International History. UK: Routledge; Ranalli, Paolo. 1999. Advances in Hemp Research. New York: Haworth Press.

HORMONE DISRUPTORS: ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS The issue of hormone disruption is a large environmental controversy with many emerging environmental battlegrounds. Some scientists believe that a large number of the chemicals currently found in our air, water, soil, and food supply, or added to livestock to increase growth, have the ability to act as hormones when ingested by human beings and wildlife. Estrogen-mimicking growth hormones in chicken have been linked to early onset of menses and an increase in female attributes in male humans. The decrease in human sperm counts over the last 50 years may be due to hormone-disrupting chemicals. These chemicals increase profits for livestock producers and chemical manufacturers but also

272

|

Hormone Disruptors

increase food security and provide public health protection from other environmental risks. HUMAN REACTIONS TO CHEMICALS IN THE ENVIRONMENT There are many potentially dangerous chemicals in the environment, both manmade and naturally occurring. There is also a range of human reactions to environmental stressors such as these chemicals. The human body has many exposure vectors, such as skin absorption, ingestion, and breathing. There is a large variation in response to chemicals in heterogeneous populations like in the United States. This makes it very difficult to predict what dose of a chemical is safe enough for use in different applications, adding fuel to the overall controversy. Children take in more of their environment as they grow than they do when they reach adulthood. Once in the body, chemicals travel and interact with various bodily systems before they are excreted. Throughout the body there are hormone receptor sites designed specifically for a particular hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone. Hormones are produced primarily in the pituitary gland. Once attached, the hormone controls cell maturation and behavior. The controversy about endocrine disruption begins because many common chemicals have molecular shapes that are similar to the shapes of many hormones. This means that these chemicals can fit themselves into cellular receptor sites. When this happens, the chemical either prevents real hormones from attaching to the receptor or alters the cell behavior and/or maturation. The cell growth is highly disrupted. Which chemicals have this effect, and in what dosages, is a battleground for every chemical in commerce in the United States. However, only about 2 percent of the chemicals sold in the United States are tested for public health safety. Even these tests are industry controlled, critics claim, and their results not based on vulnerability (children) or dose-response variations. Of particular concern are chemicals that contain chlorine. Chlorine-containing chemicals are themselves part of a larger class called persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which are also believed to be potential hormone disruptors. They pose a greater risk because they persist, or last, in the environment a long time, taking longer to break down into nondangerous components. Because they take longer to break down, they increase exposure times and vectors to humans. Because exposure is increased, the risk from these chemicals, especially endocrine disruptors, is considered greater. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS: HOW DO THEY DISRUPT? Endocrine disruptors are externally induced chemicals that interfere with the normal function of hormones. Hormones have many functions essential to human growth, development, and functioning. Endocrine disruptors can disrupt hormonal function in many ways. Here are some of them. 1. Endocrine disruptors can mimic the effects of natural hormones by binding to their receptors.

Hormone Disruptors | 273

2. Endocrine disruptors may block the binding of a hormone to its receptor, or they can block the synthesis of the hormone. Finasteride, a chemical used to prevent male pattern baldness and enlargement of the prostate glands, is an antiandrogen, since it blocks the synthesis of dihydrotestosterone. Women are warned not to handle this drug if they are pregnant, since it could arrest the genital development of male fetuses. 3. Endocrine disruptors can interfere with the transport of a hormone or its elimination from the body. For instance, rats exposed to polychlorinatedbiphenyl pollutants (PCBs; see following) have low levels of thyroid hormone. The PCBs compete for the binding sites of the thyroid hormone transport protein. Without being bound to this protein, the thyroid hormones are excreted from the body. Developmental toxicology and endocrine disruption are relatively new fields of research. While traditional toxicology has pursued the environmental causes of death, cancer, and genetic damage, developmental toxicology/endocrine disruptor research has focused on the roles that environmental chemicals may have in altering development by disrupting normal endocrine function of surviving animals.

ENVIRONMENTAL ESTROGENS There is probably no bigger controversy in the field of toxicology than whether chemical pollutants are responsible for congenital malformations in wild animals, the decline of sperm counts in men, and breast cancer in women. One of the sources of these pollutants is pesticide use. Americans use some two billion pounds of pesticides each year, and some pesticide residues stay in the food chain for decades. Although banned in the United States in 1972, DDT has an environmental half-life of about 100 years. Recent evidence has shown that DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) and its chief metabolic by-product, DDE (which lacks one of the chlorine atoms), can act as estrogenic compounds, either by mimicking estrogen or by inhibiting androgen effectiveness. DDE is a more potent estrogen than DDT, and it is able to inhibit androgen-responsive transcription at doses comparable to those found in contaminated soil in the United States and other countries. DDT and DDE have been linked to such environmental problems as the decrease in the alligator populations in Florida, the feminization of fish in Lake Superior, the rise in breast cancers, and the worldwide decline in human sperm counts. Others have linked a pollutant spill in Florida’s Lake Apopka (a discharge including DDT, DDE, and numerous other polychlorinated biphenyls) to a 90 percent decline in the birthrate of alligators and to the reduced penis size in the young males. Dioxin, a by-product of the chemical processes used to make pesticides and paper products, has been linked to reproductive anomalies in male rats. The male offspring of rats exposed to this planar, lipophilic molecule when pregnant have reduced sperm counts, smaller testes, and fewer male-specific sexual behaviors. Fish embryos seem particularly susceptible to dioxin and related

274

|

Hormone Disruptors

compounds, and it has been speculated that the amount of these compounds in the Great Lakes during the 1940s was so high that none of the lake trout hatched there during that time survived.

TIPS ON AVOIDING HORMONE DISRUPTORS Many people, especially concerned parents, do not know where to turn to deal with fears of exposure to these chemicals. If the situation is severe enough they may be able to find some medical expertise in this area. In terms of what people themselves can do, there are some basic, commonsense steps. To help prevent hormonal disruption, here are some steps some have recommended. 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Do not use conventional chemical cleaners or pesticides of any type because many contain chlorinated chemicals and other persistent organic pollutants. Do not consume food that is processed and eat organic food. Wash all conventional produce well before you prepare it to clean off any pesticide residues, preservatives, or waxes. Wash your hands afterwards because pesticide residues on skins are easily transferred from the fruit to your hands. Do not heat food in any type of plastic container. Many plastics contain hormonedisrupting chemicals that affect food, especially when heated. Microwave foods in glass or ceramic containers. Avoid fish and shellfish from waters suspected of being polluted. Hormone-disrupting chemicals generally accumulate in animals’ fatty tissues and expose people when those animal products are ingested. Some parts of a fish may have very high concentrations of mercury, for example. Cultures that eat the whole fish and who fish for subsistence are particularly exposed. Most health risk assessments of food levels that are safe for consumption are based on eating the fillets of fish. This is a large battleground. Reduce consumption of high-fat dairy products and other high-fat foods like meat (especially beef ). Many hormone-disrupting chemicals including dioxins accumulate in animal fatty tissues. Some milk is tainted with a dairy growth hormone, which is not currently labeled. Choose unbleached or nonchlorine-bleached paper products. Chlorine bleaching is a major source of dioxin, a particularly toxic POP. Bleached paper, including coffee filters, can pass its dioxin residues into food with which it comes into contact. Women should use nonchlorine-bleached, all-cotton tampons. Most tampons are made from rayon, a wood pulp product bleached with chlorine. Scientists have detected dioxins in these products.

Some individuals have very sensitive endocrine systems and can tolerate very little chemical exposure. They claim their immune systems start breaking down and they get progressively sicker if left exposed to many common chemicals. These individuals take further precautions. They move to the areas with the cleanest air. All water is purified. All food is organic, and even some of that may be limited. Carpets, glues, curtains, drapes, and cloth-

Hormone Disruptors | 275 ing are all limited. The material must be organic, without any chlorine-based processing. The items must be produced, stored, and shipped in a pesticide-free environment, which is difficult to do. Combustion motors, such as in cars, are not allowed because of the chemicals in their emissions and maintenance. Soaps and other toiletries are all organic and can be limited.

Some estrogenic compounds may be in the food we eat and in the wrapping that surrounds them, for some of the chemicals used to set plastics have been found to be estrogenic. The discovery of the estrogenic effect of plastic stabilizers was made in an unexpected way. Investigators at Tufts University Medical School had been studying estrogen-responsive tumor cells. These cells require estrogen in order to proliferate. Their studies were going well until 1987, when the experiments suddenly went awry. Then the control cells began to show high growth rates suggesting stimulation comparable to that of the estrogen-treated cells. Thus, it was if someone had contaminated the medium by adding estrogen to it. What was the source of contamination? After spending four months testing all the components of their experimental system, the researchers discovered that the source of estrogen was the plastic tubes that held their water and serum. The company that made the tubes refused to tell the investigators about its new process for stabilizing the polystyrene plastic, so the scientists had to discover it themselves. The culprit turned out to be p-nonylphenol, a chemical that is also used to harden the plastic of the plumbing tubes that bring us water and to stabilize the polystyrene plastics that hold water, milk, orange juice, and other common liquid food products. This compound is also the degradation product of detergents, household cleaners, and contraceptive creams. A related compound, 4-tert-pentylphenol, has a potent estrogenic effect on cultured human cells and can cause male carp (Cyprinus carpis) to develop oviducts, ovarian tissue, and oocytes. Some other environmental estrogens are polychlorinated biphenyls (mentioned earlier). These PCBs can react with a number of different steroid receptors. PCBs were widely used as refrigerants before they were banned in the 1970s when they were shown to cause cancer in rats. They remain in the food chain, however (in both water and sediments), and have been blamed for the widespread decline in the reproductive capacities of otters, seals, mink, and fish. Some PCBs resemble diethylstilbesterol (DES) in shape, and they may affect the estrogen receptor as DES does, perhaps by binding to another site on the estrogen receptor. Another organochlorine compound (and an ingredient in many pesticides) is methoxychlor. This would severely inhibit frogs’ fertility, and it may be a component of the worldwide decline in amphibian populations. Some scientists, however, say that these claims are exaggerated. Tests on mice have shown that litter size, sperm concentration, and development were not affected by concentrations of environmental estrogens. However, recent work has shown a remarkable genetic difference in the sensitivity to estrogen among different strains of mice. The strain that had been used for testing environmental estrogens, the CD-1 strain, is at least 16 times more resistant to endocrine

276

|

Hormone Disruptors

disruption than the most sensitive strains, such as B6. When estrogen-containing pellets were implanted beneath the skin of young male CD-1 mice, very little happened. However, when the same pellets were placed beneath the skin of B6 mice, their testes shrank, and the number of sperm seen in the seminiferous tubules dropped dramatically. This wide range of sensitivities has important consequences for determining safety limits for humans. This is sometimes known as the variance in the dose response to a given chemical. ENVIRONMENTAL THYROID HORMONE DISRUPTORS The structure of some PCBs resembles that of thyroid hormones, and exposure to them alters serum thyroid hormone levels in humans. Hydroxylated PCB was found to have high affinities for the thyroid hormone serum transport protein transthyretin, and it can block thyroxine from binding to this protein. This leads to the elevated excretion of the thyroid hormones. Thyroid hormones are critical for the growth of the cochlea of the inner ear, and rats whose mothers were exposed to PCBs had poorly developed cochleas and hearing defects. DEFORMED FROGS: PESTICIDES MIMICKING RETINOIC ACID? Throughout the United States and southern Canada there is a dramatic increase in the number of deformed frogs and salamanders in what seem to be pristine woodland ponds. These deformities include extra or missing limbs, missing or misplaced eyes, deformed jaws, and malformed hearts and guts. There is speculation that pesticides (sprayed for mosquito and tick control) might be activating or interfering with the retinoic acid pathway. The spectrum of abnormalities seen in these frogs resembles the malformations caused by exposing tadpoles to retinoic acid. CHAINS OF CAUSATION Whether in law or science, establishing chains of causation is a demanding and necessary task. In developmental toxicology, numerous endpoints must be checked, and many different levels of causation have to be established. For instance, one could ask if the pollutant spill in Lake Apopka was responsible for the feminization of male alligators. To establish this, one has to ask how the chemicals in the spill might contribute to reproductive anomalies in male alligators and what would be the consequences of that happening. After observing that the population level of the alligators had declined, at the organism level, unusually high levels of estrogens in the female alligators, unusually low levels of testosterone in the males, and a decrease in the number of births among the alligators were reported. On the tissue and organ level, the decline in birthrate can be explained by the elevated production of estrogens from the juvenile testes, the malformation of the testes and penis, and the changes in enzyme activity in the female gonads. On the cellular level, one sees ovarian abnormalities that correlate with unusually elevated estrogen levels. These cellular changes,

Human Health Risk Assessment

in turn, can be explained at the molecular level by the finding that many of the components of the pollutant spill bind to the alligators’ estrogen and progesterone receptors and that they are able to circumvent the cell’s usual defenses against overproduction of steroid hormones. HUMAN IMPACTS It is a large battleground right now to prove the effects of environmental compounds on humans. Scientists claim that genetic variation in the human species, the lack of controlled experiments to determine the effect of any particular compound on humans, and a large range of other multiple intervening factors make any causality difficult to prove. Evidence from animal studies suggests that humans and natural animal populations are at risk from these endocrine disruptors. It may be that the damage is greater than thought because most risk assessments do not compute cumulative effects. Because of the many exposure vectors of chemicals, the cumulative impacts and risks could be far greater and have far-reaching effects on many people. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As chemical emissions accumulate in the environment, and bioaccumulate in humans, more controversy will ensue. Loss of fertility, cancer, and other health issues may not be worth the price of increased profits for industries that use or manufacture these chemicals. As more of these chemicals are used and more of their effects become known, this controversy will escalate. See also Children and Cancer; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Pesticides Web Resources Natural Resources Defense Council: Hormone Disruptors—Emerging Evidence of a Future Threat. Available at www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap5e.asp. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endocrine Disruptors Research Initiative. Available at www.epa.gov/endocrine/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Guillette, L. J., and D. Andrew Crain. 2000. Environmental Endocrine Disruptors: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Taylor and Francis; Hester, R. E., and Roy M. Harrison. 1999. Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. London: Royal Society of Chemists; Naz, Rajesh K. 1999. Endocrine Disruptors: Effects on Male and Female Reproductive Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Wittcoff, Harold A., Jeffery S. Plotkin, and Bryan G. Reuben. 2004. Industrial Organic Chemicals. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Many controversial decisions about the environment involve issues of human health risks. Reducing human health risks can affect the cost of business. Individuals seek to reduce environmental exposures that can cause cancer, asthma,

| 277

278

|

Human Health Risk Assessment

and other environmentally facilitated risks. How any particular risk is actually assessed is a controversial part of many environmental decisions, and the basis for standards in environmental regulation. BACKGROUND: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ROOTS OF MODERN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT The basis for the current approach to health risk assessment was established in the 1800s, when cities began to industrialize and urban populations increased dramatically. Industrialization and urbanization created an awareness of public health due to the outbreak of diseases like cholera, yellow fever, dysentery, and others. During the early decades of the twentieth century (1900–1940), qualitative understanding of health risk assessment improved as increases in labor efficiency were examined. The hazards of occupational exposure to the hundreds of chemicals that were then frequently used in the workplace impaired the strength of the labor force. Occupational exposure in this time period was much more than it is now for most people in most occupations. Work hours were long, work began in childhood, workplace health regulation did not exist, and workers were responsible for their health. Occupational exposures were large and long term. There was little to no governmental regulation and little to no knowledge about the damaging effects of chemicals on humans, except mortality. The emergence of modern health risk assessment as an applied public policy developed about 1975, five years after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed. The Food and Drug Administration had used these assessments to a limited extent before that time. As more and more chemicals entered into U.S. commerce, regulators wanted to make sure they were safe for people and the environment. These environmental regulators now take a lead role in developing various risk assessment methods. Risk assessment methods have changed since earlier years. They now include other stakeholders, like communities, state governments, environmentalists, and labor unions. Risk assessment is used to predict the likelihood of many events. Health risk assessment is a different approach that uses toxicology data collected from animal studies and human epidemiology. Health risk assessment combines information about the degree of exposure to quantitatively predict the likelihood that a particular adverse response will occur in a specific human population. It focuses on a single chemical in a single vector or modality (like air or water) and its impact on a single endpoint. The assessment of toxicology data to predict health risks is an early basis for modern risk assessment. The difference between early risk assessments and those developed in the 1980s is the application of computers and massive data sets of exposure information. Computer programs like Geographic Information Systems tie human health risk assessments to environmental issues specifically. They allow large amounts of data to be developed into environmental information. This technological development allows for consideration of more factors and more complete environmental systems.

Human Health Risk Assessment

Emerging technologies like nanotechnology may increase the ability of human health risk assessments to accommodate even larger data sets, as would be necessary to study cumulative impacts. Since 1980, environmental regulations and some occupational health standards have been based on human health risk assessments. This increased their level of controversy because many stakeholders attack regulatory standards as either being too strict or too lax. Risk-assessment methodologies were used to set some of the first standards for pesticide residues, food additives, pharmaceutical products, drinking water, soil, and ambient air. They were also used to set some of the first threshold and exposure limits for contaminants found in indoor air, consumer products, as well as all the previous categories. Environmental agencies at the state and federal level required their risk managers to use risk assessments. These are very powerful decision-making tools then and now. They are used to help decide whether a given environmental risk is significant or insignificant. Risk assessments have been used to prevent more stringent regulation of known carcinogens. In 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court used risk assessments to conclude that more stringent regulation of benzene by the Environmental Protection Agency was unwarranted unless it lowered significant risks. Benzene was among the first chemicals regulated by the EPA in the early 1970s; it is a well-known carcinogen. With the increase in citizens’ environmental literacy and continued industrial and population growth, human health risk assessment controversies will intensify. KNOWLEDGE IN RISK PERCEPTION An important part of environmental literacy is knowledge about the environment. Perceptions about the environment, and about risks, can vary widely depending on age, race, gender, and income. When the question becomes whose knowledge is used to make an environmental decision, a decision that could affect everyone, controversies flare. COMPARING RISKS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT (CRA) Comparing risks is very difficult. Whenever analysts, agencies, communities, or interested parties decide to juxtapose different hazards and compare their severity, they invite controversy. Setting standards often entails a risk comparison. When and How CRA Is Currently Undertaken CRAs are a recent policy development that involve the comparison of categories of risks. The most prominent examples of large CRAs have come from the EPA. Reports in 1987 and 1990 both tried to show that if we would set our priorities with a more rational risk-based mindset, we could save more lives and provide greater ecological protection without increasing our total environmental

| 279

280

|

Human Health Risk Assessment

budget. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer has published extensively on how budgets should be allocated based on risks they handle. POTENTIAL AREAS OF FUTURE CONTROVERSY The environmental controversies around human health risk assessment are methodological and value laden. They are also very powerful because they set the standards by which government measures pollution. The standard human health risk assessment methodology misrepresents actual exposure in several ways. Total exposure does not always equal average daily exposure times days exposed. The distribution of toxic concentrations, the different exposure vectors per individual, and the distribution of individuals’ body weights all vary in uneven intervals. They may vary substantially over a lifetime. The foundational human health risk assessment formulation is appropriate only if exposure events are perfectly correlated to individual variances, and they generally are not in the real world. But this approach to human health risk assessment is the basis for almost all governmental and industry risk assessments. Environmental justice communities tend to challenge the risk assessments because they do not reflect real-world multiple exposures, at many different times and levels. Many of these risk assessments cannot measure or note chemical synergy reactions because they focus on a single chemical in a single vector with one endpoint. Industry often challenges these risk assessments, contending that risks are inflated. Another battleground for this controversy is the use of this information to aid communities in making decisions about industry. Some communities are able to exercise political power to avoid environmentally dangerous land uses, whereas other communities are forced into the science of human health risk assessment. Both involve public hearings. Environmental justice proponents and sustainability advocates use these risk assessments to compare the environmental benefits and burdens of a given environmental decision. State and federal environmental agencies have used them for years to inform their rule making. Because of their increased use, more controversy will focus on some of the methodological flaws, especially if they are relied on in litigation. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Nanotechnology Web Resources California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Assessing Human Health Risk. Available at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/risk/riskassessment.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. California Environmental Protection Agency. A Guide to Health Risk Assessment. Available at www.oehha.ca.gov/pdf/HRSguide2001.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Human Health Risk Assessment. May 2006. Available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d06595.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Cutter, Susan. 1993. Living with Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards. New York: Routledge, Chapman, and Hall; Finkel, Adam, and Dominic Golding, eds. 1994. Worst Things First? The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental

Hurricanes Priorities. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; Krimsky, Sheldon, and Dominic Golding, eds. 1992. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.

HURRICANES Most hurricane disasters provoke controversies that center around emergency preparation, accurate monitoring of environmental conditions, emergency response, emergency warnings, and evacuation. Post disaster controversies occur around cleanup liability, rebuilding decisions, and insurance coverage. Hurricanes often bring wind and flood damages. Some climate change models predict that we will encounter more hurricanes of greater power in the years to come. WHAT IS A HURRICANE? A hurricane is more than a powerful storm. A hurricane is a severe tropical storm that forms in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Northeast Pacific Ocean east of the dateline, or the South Pacific Ocean east of 160°E. To create a hurricane, warm tropical oceans, moisture in the air, and light winds are necessary. A hurricane can produce violent winds, long series of big waves, torrential rains, and floods. In other regions of the world, these types of storms are called: Typhoon: the Northwest Pacific Ocean west of the dateline Severe tropical cyclone: the Southwest Pacific Ocean west of 160°E or Southeast Indian Ocean (east of 90°E) Severe cyclonic storm: the North Indian Ocean Tropical cyclone: the Southwest Indian Ocean Hurricanes rotate in a counterclockwise direction around a calm center, called the eye. A tropical storm becomes a hurricane when winds reach 74 miles per hour (mph). There are on average six Atlantic hurricanes each year; over a three-year period, approximately five hurricanes strike the U.S. coastline from Texas to Maine. The Atlantic hurricane season begins June 1 and ends November 30. The East Pacific hurricane season runs from May 15 through November 30, with peak activity occurring during July through September. In a normal season, the East Pacific would expect 15 or 16 tropical storms. Nine of these would become hurricanes, of which four or five would be major hurricanes. The prediction of these storms is a major task of some federal and military agencies. When hurricanes move onto land, the heavy rain, strong winds, and heavy waves can damage buildings, trees, and cars. The heavy waves are called a storm surge. Storm surge is very dangerous. It can come in a high tide that occurs with a hurricane. It can block transportation routes after the main body of a storm has passed. Hurricanes are classified into five categories based on their wind speed, central pressure, and damage potential (see the following list). Category 3 and higher hurricanes are considered major hurricanes, although categories 1 and 2 are still extremely dangerous and warrant full attention.

| 281

|

282

Hurricanes

Table H.1 Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale Sustained Scale Winds Number (Category) (MPH)

Damage

1

74–95

2

96–110 Moderate: All mobile homes, roofs, small crafts, flooding.

Minimal: Unanchored mobile homes, vegetation, and signs.

Storm Surge (feet) 4–5 6–8

3

111–130 Extensive: Small buildings, low-lying roads cut off.

9–12

4

131–155 Extreme: Roofs destroyed, trees down, roads cut off, mobile homes destroyed. Beach homes flooded.

13–18

5

More than Catastrophic: Most buildings destroyed. Vegetation 155 destroyed. Major roads cut off. Homes flooded.

Greater than 18

Hurricanes can produce widespread torrential rains as bands of rainstorms sweep around the eye along the path of the hurricane. Floods are the deadly and destructive result. Slow-moving storms and tropical storms moving into mountainous regions tend to produce especially heavy rain. Excessive rain can trigger landslides or mudslides, especially in mountainous regions. Flash flooding can occur due to intense rainfall. Flooding on rivers and streams may persist for several days or more after the storm. The amount of state, federal, or local assistance before, during, and after hurricanes is currently a large controversy. Some maintain that overreliance on government is part of the problem and people need to be more self-sufficient. The majority of stakeholders that have been through a hurricane maintain that coordinated and effective monitoring, communication, emergency services, and a transportation plan are better then relying on self-sufficiency. This is what voluntary evacuations tend to do. RACIST POLICE BLOCKED BRIDGE: HURRICANE KATRINA Hurricane Katrina left many people homeless and in desperate need of shelter. People were fleeing the flood-ravaged city any way they could. A Louisiana police chief has admitted that he ordered his officers to block a bridge over the Mississippi River and force escaping evacuees back into the chaos and danger of New Orleans. Witnesses said the officers fired their guns above the heads of the terrified people to drive them back and protect their own suburbs. Two paramedics who were attending a conference in the city and then stayed to help those affected by the hurricane said the officers told them they did not want their community becoming another New Orleans. Many read this statement to mean that they did and want African Americans to come into their police jurisdiction. The police blocked off the road on the Thursday and Friday after Hurricane Katrina struck on Monday, August 29. According to newspaper accounts, the evacuees left as a group of up to 800 people walking across the bridge when they heard shots and saw people running. They saw a chain of armed police officers blocking the route. When they asked about the

Hurricanes

| 283

buses, they were told there was no such arrangement and that the route was being blocked to avoid the parish becoming another New Orleans. Parishes are similar to counties in other states. They identified the police as officers from the city of Gretna, a suburb of New Orleans. The following day the evacuees tried to cross again. The police turned them away with the threat of gunfire. Police shot live ammunition over the heads of a middle-aged white couple, who were also turned back. Arthur Lawson, chief of the Gretna police department, said he had not yet questioned his officers as to whether they fired their guns. He confirmed that his officers, along with those from Jefferson Parish and the Crescent City Connection police force, sealed the bridge and refused to let people pass. This was despite the fact that local media were informing people that the bridge was one of the few safe evacuation routes from the city. He offers little explanation for why he denied desperate people the evacuation route necessary for their survival. Gretna is a white suburban town of around 18,000 inhabitants. In the aftermath of Katrina, three-quarters of the inhabitants still had electricity and running water. But Chief Lawson told UPI news agency: “There was no food, water or shelter in Gretna City. We did not have the wherewithal to deal with these people. If we had opened the bridge our city would have looked like New Orleans does now—looted, burned and pillaged.” Police later said they blocked the evacuees because there were no supplies or services for them on the other side of the river. The case raised widespread allegations of racism and spurred two marches across the bridge by national civil rights organizations in the months after the hurricane. Gretna Police Chief Arthur Lawson has acknowledged that his officers fired shots into the air during the blockade in an attempt to quell what he described as “unrest among the evacuees.” Denial of evacuation routes because of race harkens back to the days of slavery and Jim Crow. Many brave and unknown civil rights activists and lawyers fought for African Americans’ right to ride public transportation as one of the first affirmative acts of the United States to proactively establish equality. The famous case of Rosa Parks was about transportation equality. At that time African Americans were forced to ride in the back of the bus and give up front-row seats to whites. The racist denial of evacuation routes has sparked national controversy. National representatives want to cut off all federal monies to Gretna, and some have been arrested while marching across the bridge without a permit. Both state and federal prosecutors are examining evidence in the case, but many do not have any confidence in local investigations. The American Civil Liberties Union wants to make these investigations as public as possible, but the investigating authorities are not communicating about it with the public.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As climate change from global warming is increasing the temperature of the oceans where hurricanes develop, the forecast is for more controversy around

284

|

Hurricanes

hurricanes. For hurricane warnings to be effective with the general public they have to be accurate; otherwise, they are ignored. Issues of mandatory versus voluntary evacuation also require good public notification. Many people are not able to leave once a hurricane hits. Emergency fire, police, and medical services may not be available, increasing mortality. After the hurricane, the liability for cleanup costs is enormous. Many industries hit by a hurricane release everything into the environment as part of the devastation. This can have severe environmental impacts that can threaten public health. Should cleanup standards be lessened posthurricane to aid economic recovery? Should cities that are in the path of hurricanes be rebuilt? Private insurance companies will not insure flood- or hurricane-prone areas. Residences are required to have government flood insurance. Should the government underwrite decisions to economically develop in areas prone to hurricanes? This is an issue of debate and is also part of the controversies around hurricanes. In February 2007 one of the largest private insurers in Mississippi, State Farm, withdrew its coverage. Stating that it will honor existing contracts, the company maintained that court judgments holding them liable for postKatrina damage are too risky. Others criticize State Farm for underestimating the risk from natural disasters. Large insurance companies are financial centers of economic development, underwriting risk for projects that otherwise might not be able to attract enough capital. They can also make loans and influence the financial attractiveness of a business location. When they leave a state, it can impact other measures of financial soundness, such as bond ratings. GAPING HOLE IN U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: LACK OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS In the United States, the intergovernmental relations between local, state, and federal government levels on most land-use and many environmental decisions are poor. There is very little communication, which often benefits industry and hampers citizens’ access. When a disaster strikes and decisions must be made quickly, the emergency response function of government exposes the weakness of these poor intergovernmental relationships. Important life-saving decisions about deploying urgent resources and giving essential public information are delayed when the lines of intergovernmental communication and control are unclear. Hurricanes will occur again. Some models of climate change have them occurring more frequently in the United States than now. Many controversies still remain. Should we rebuild hurricane alleys? Should the federal government continue to offer flood insurance to these areas? Can technology mitigate some of the human and environmental impacts of hurricanes? Just how much can planning and technology do in hurricane alleys? These difficult questions remain, and so too will controversies about hurricanes.

Hurricanes

See also Climate Change; Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters; Floods; Global Warming Web Resources American Association of Insurance Services. 2005. Wind or Water? Voices Call for a Restructuring of Coverage. Viewpoint 30. Available at www.aaisonline.com/viewpoint/05fall2. html. Accessed January 21, 2008. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. Noteworthy Records of the 2005 Hurricane Season. Available at www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540b.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Elsner, James B., and A. Birol Kara. 1999. Hurricanes of the North Atlantic: Climate and Society. New York: Oxford University Press; Liu, Kam-biu, and Richard J. Murnane. 2004. Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Potential. New York: Columbia University Press; Mulcahy, Matthew. 2005. Hurricanes and Society in the British Greater Caribbean, 1624–1783. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; Tufty, Barbara. 1987. 1001 Questions Answered about Hurricanes, Tornadoes and Other Natural Air Disasters. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Dover Publications.

| 285

I ICE Controversies around ice revolve around the accurate prediction of ice storms, responsibility for cleanup and power restoration, and responsibility for keeping ports and harbors clear of ice. With the coming climatic changes, natural disasters and controversies due to ice could increase. WHAT IS ICE? Ice is frozen water. Its environmental impact is intrinsic to ecosystems and damaging to human systems. Ice can reach anywhere water can reach. When water becomes ice, it generally expands with force. Ten percent of the land surface is currently covered with ice, although global warming is shrinking the ice caps. In human habitation, ice can have a very destructive impact on the built environment—roads, bridges, buildings, pipes, and sewers. Water and ice are also very heavy. When ice coats objects they become very heavy. Tree limbs break and fall on buildings and power lines. Power lines themselves become heavy and fall, often leaving live electrical currents on the ground. Roads, rail lines, and airports shut down. Without electricity many heating systems as well as food and medical refrigeration systems fail, often at a time they are most needed. The eastern United States and Canada can experience freezing rain any time between late October and early May; however, trends in global warming and climate change may extend the season and geography for ice storms. Ice storms in North America develop along a line stretching from northern Texas and western Mississippi through the Midwest and mid-Atlantic states and throughout the northeastern states. Most of eastern Canada is subject to

287

288

|

Ice

ice storms. They usually require a substantial, slow-moving low-pressure system with a large temperature difference between the warm Gulf air and cold Arctic air. Ice storms can last as long as these two air systems persist with temperature differentials and moisture. If they clash around the Great Lakes they can accumulate ice for a long time. The temperature of freezing will vary with the size of the water droplet and the concentration of any impurities in it. If the water has formed around pollutants and particulate matter, then it is very difficult to assess the actual freezing point, which many current weather models rely on for forecasting these events. This is a point of scientific controversy. Very small droplets of pure water may not freeze spontaneously until the temperature has fallen to around –40°C (–40°F). Many scientists and most communities want more monitoring of weather for use in many cases, ice disasters being one of them. Governmental agencies have typically been slow to respond with adequate or accurate monitoring that would be necessary for the level of certainty that current scientific models of proof require for causality. Ice storms are fickle and very dynamic. FREEZING RAIN IMPACTS Even small amounts of freezing rain can increase car accidents and impair overall mobility. Ice can impair the ability of animals to get food and shelter. A thickly iced field will provide little escape for deer, elk, caribou, sheep, and cattle from predators and also little food for herbivores because of the ice coatings. Tree branches and trunks collect ice in vast quantities, called ice loading. Conifers are resistant to ice loading because of their flexibility, tapered shape, and lack of trunk branching. A 50-foot conifer tree can accumulate 99,000 pounds of ice during a severe storm. Deciduous trees cannot hold as much ice and break more frequently. Some trees are more fragile than others. Indigenous trees usually have a stronger resistance to regional weather patterns, including ice storms. Generally, the more large branches a tree has, the more likely it is to break from ice loading. Ice also seals off food for winter animals such as deer, elk, and rabbits. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Given global warming impacts, a strong reliance on modern technology, and inadequate monitoring of environmental conditions, it is likely that natural disasters and more controversies involving ice will continue. The battleground for this controversy is first subsumed in the larger controversies of global warming and climate change. Another battleground for this controversy is the use and production of electrical energy. Is the technology failing us, or is nature creating the disaster? Environmentalists and large business interests are lined up in opposing positions in both these battlegrounds. Communities and governments have a range of positions from none at all to complete engagement with environmental quality and/or economic development. Ice storms may be one of

Incineration and Resource Recovery

the first indicators of climate change and may change some of the positions of communities and their governments. That could radically shift the battleground, and controversy in courts and legislatures would ensue. See also Climate Change; Floods; Global Warming Web Resources Ice Storms: Environmental Impacts. Available at kyclim.wku.edu/BRADD/icestorms/envi ron.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Statistics Canada. The Ice Storm 1998: Maps and Facts Activity. Available at www.statcan. ca/english/kits/storm.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Natural Disasters and Weather Emergencies: Snow and Ice. Available at epa.gov/naturalevents/snow-ice.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Doheny-Farina, Stephen. 2001. The Grid and the Village: Losing Electricity, Finding Community, Surviving Disaster. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Kaplan, Laura G. 1996. Emergency and Disaster Planning Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; MacGuire, Bill, Ian M. Mason, and Christopher R. J. Kilburn. 2002. Natural Hazards and Environmental Change. New York: Oxford University Press; Stoltman, Joseph P., John Lidstone, and Lisa M. Dechano, eds. 2005. International Perspectives on Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation, and Consequences. New York: Springer.

INCINERATION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY Burning waste for energy purposes is controversial because it may increase the toxicity of the emissions in the form of ash. This is waste that would otherwise go to full U.S. landfills. Many incineration corporations claimed they were making energy to get status as a utility. At that time utilities were exempt from the right-to-know laws. INCINERATION: MORE THAN JUST BURNING THE TRASH Burning the trash is an old custom in many rural areas in the United States. Even today, the EPA estimates that private residential trash burning is a major source of pollution in the upper Midwest. Historically, burning trash and waste was an improvement over leaving it around or just placing it in heaps. Burning the trash reduced its volume and risk. Waste can be a vector for many public health risks, and it can attract vermin. Rats, mice, and other rodents can become vectors for diseases such as bubonic plague and spread the risk of deadly disease deep into human populations. Waste can also be fuel and shelter. U.S. pioneers in the Midwest used buffalo chips (waste) to build sod houses. Dried, this waste could be burned for fuel and heat. This type of waste was the main type of waste, as opposed to today’s chemically enriched, multisubstance, and potentially toxic waste stream. An estimated 14–16 percent of the U.S. waste stream is incinerated. It could be more because many industrial and military wastes are incinerated. Generally, waste is delivered to the incinerator. The movement of waste itself is peppered

| 289

290

|

Incineration and Resource Recovery

with battlegrounds. The waste may have come from long distances, from cities and waste transfer stations. As U.S. environmental consciousness has increased, more people are interested in where their waste goes and what environmental impact it has. Waste transfer stations can become a local land-use battleground and sometimes an environmental justice battleground. When landfills become full, waste must wait in waste transfer stations. The waste can be hazardous. Many communities fear that the transfer station will become a permanent waste site, as some have done. The waste is delivered by truck, ship, and railroad. Sometimes there are spills of hazardous wastes with severe environmental and community repercussions. Environmental justice communities may have an overconcentration of poorly regulated waste transfer sites. These sites are where many spills occur. When energy is to be used from the incineration, the waste is taken to an energy recovery facility where it is burned in combustion chambers or boilers. High combustion temperatures can help most of the waste burn thoroughly. This is one goal of incineration, less ash for disposal. Environmentalists are very concerned with air emissions from incinerators. They have large emissions that can accumulate quickly around the site as heavier particulate matter such as metals falls to the ground. Metals are difficult to burn completely. Much of what the incinerators put out reflects what is put into them. Waste stream control is difficult at best, although improvements in recycling have benefited other waste streams. Older, pre-1970 incinerators burned everything they could fit into them. Older buildings painted with lead paint are still burned as hazardous wastes. The lead does not burn and drops down as particulate matter, creating a risk of toxicity, as it did in Flint, Michigan. Combustible, explosive, illegal, and other dangerous materials inhabit the waste stream. Evidence of a crime or environmental impact that is burned is usually less recognizable than when placed in a landfill. Medical wastes can include all sorts of waste, including trace amounts of radioactive material. Many older municipal incinerators in the southeastern United States were placed in African American communities, exposing generations to decades of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium. Battlegrounds such as this surround the movement of waste generally, and incineration of it specifically. Industry claims that modern air pollution control devices include electrostatic precipitators, dry and wet scrubbers, and/or fabric; and that these get out everything dangerous. Cumulative emissions are not measured, although their human and environmental impacts can be large. CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES To say that waste is managed is an overstatement. The main characteristic of the U.S. waste trends is the massive increase in volume. Enormous progress in regulating the waste stream is a primary characteristic of the U.S. waste management approach. Federal government financing of the expensive infrastructure, sometimes inclusive of modern pollution-control and abatement technologies, made it possible for local governments to treat solid wastes. The waste stream of the 2000s is very different than 50 years ago. It contains inorganic materials that may create risks for people and for the environment. This has increased

Incineration and Resource Recovery

| 291

the overall controversy of siting and permit renewals for incinerator facilities. It has also moved the battleground into the courts. Recently, incinerators in the African American community of urban north Florida from the 1920s until the 1970s provided the basis for a successful $76 million tort settlement, for wrongful deaths and other environmental impacts. The plaintiffs are quick to point out that money does not replace lost lives of loved ones. These bitter victories only increase the rancor of this controversy. THE BENEFITS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY THROUGH INCINERATION Industry claims that by burning the solid wastes into ash, incineration reduces the volume of waste entering the landfill by approximately 90 percent.

ENERGY VALUE OF PLASTICS, MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES, AND NATURAL RESOURCES Plastic Material Energy Value When material is incinerated it gives off different levels of energy useful in resource recovery. Emissions from burning these materials, their amount, toxicity, and the remaining ash are not considered. Polyethylene terephthalate Polyethylene Polyvinyl chloride Polypropylene Polystyrene

9,000–9,700 19,900 7,500–9,000 18,500–19,500 17,800

Municipal Solid Waste Material Energy Value Newspaper Textiles Wood Yard wastes Food wastes Average for municipal solid waste

8,000 6,900 6,700 3,000 2,600 4,500

Natural Resources Energy Value Fuel oil Wyoming coal

20,900 9,600

Plastics are pervasive in U.S. society. They are used all over the world in agriculture in large amounts. Incineration of wastes such as plastic to create electrical energy could be sustainable depending on the environmental impacts of the ash and air emissions.

292

|

Incineration and Resource Recovery

Recovering some of the energy from burning waste can produce electricity. This can help offset any potential cost of environmental mitigation. Resource recovery by incineration of wastes is considered so efficient that old landfills are being opened up and that waste then incinerated for its energy potential. RESOURCE RECOVERY OF PLASTICS Plastics have a higher energy value and heat content than most municipal solid waste materials. While making up 7 percent of the waste stream by weight and 20 percent by volume, plastics provide incinerators with 25 percent of the recoverable energy from municipal solid wastes. A pound of polyethylene supplies 19,000 btu, but corrugated paper packaging provides only 7,000 btu. Incinerating plastics produces more energy. Another major battleground around incinerating plastics is the environmental impacts of the emissions. Many plastics contain heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, which might increase the toxicity of the incinerator ashes. The metal content could cause the ashes to be hazardous wastes. If they are emitted into the air, then they may fall as particulate matter on nearby land and waterways. Currently, incinerator ashes are not categorized as hazardous wastes and can usually be disposed of in landfills. In some communities this can be a large battleground. When this happens, this ash can back up in waste transfer stations. The waste transfer stations are not designed or sited as a terminal place for waste of any kind, much less hazardous wastes. A small incineration plant processes approximately 300 tons of waste each day while a large plant can process about 3,000 tons. Incinerators can produce enough energy to run an industrial facility or a small community, depending on volume and kind of waste stream. WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES AND THEIR OPERATIONS The cost of building a waste-to-energy incinerator is very high. The volume of truck traffic will increase. Depending on the facility’s permit to operate, it may not be approved to accept all wastes. Trucks delivering wastes are required to display signs that indicate the hazards of their waste loads. Economically, resource-recovery incinerators need a reliable, steady stream of high-energy waste or else processing the waste material will cost more energy than it produces. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Incineration is a waste treatment method sanctioned by the government because the research is inadequate to prove it unsafe. This lack of science allows potentially dangerous emissions to enter the environment and community. The effect of the quantity and types of pesticides in the incineration process has yet to be determined, and may present a presently unaccounted exposure vector to nearby populations and environments. Many communities feel that the burden should be on industry to prove an emission is safe before it is allowed. Currently the burden is on those harmed to prove it is unsafe to a scientific level of certainty,

Incineration and Resource Recovery

| 293

INCINERATION AS A METHOD FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY FROM INEDIBLE BIOMASS IN A CONTROLLED ECOLOGICAL LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM In research published by the NASA Ames Research Center Advanced Life Support Division, Regenerative Systems Branch, Moffett Field, California, waste recovery is serious business. Resource recovery from waste streams in a space habitat is essential to minimize the resupply burden and achieve self-sufficiency. In a controlled ecological life support system (CELSS) human wastes and inedible biomass will represent significant sources of secondary raw materials necessary for support of crop plant production (carbon, water, and inorganic plant nutrients). Incineration, pyrolysis, and water extraction have been investigated as candidate processes for recovery of these important resources from inedible biomass in a CELSS. During incineration carbon dioxide is produced by oxidation of the organic components, and this product can be directly utilized by plants. Water is concomitantly produced, requiring only a phase change for recovery. Recovery of inorganics is more difficult, requiring solubilization of the incinerator ash. The process of incineration followed by water solubilization of ash resulted in the loss of 35 percent of the inorganics originally present in the biomass. Losses were attributed to volatilization (8%) and non–water-soluble ash (27%). All of the ash remaining following incineration could be solubilized with acid, with losses resulting from volatilization only. The recovery for individual elements varied. Elemental retention in the ash ranged from 100 percent of that present in the biomass for Ca, P, Mg, Na, and Si to 10 percent for Zn. The greatest water solubility was observed for potassium, with recovery of approximately 77 percent of that present in the straw. Potassium represented 80 percent of the inorganic constituents in the wheat straw and, because of slightly greater solubility, made up 86 percent of the water-soluble ash. Following incineration of inedible biomass from wheat, 65 percent of the inorganics originally present in the straw were recovered by water solubilization and 92 percent by acid solubilization. Recovery of resources is more complex for pyrolysis and water extraction. Recovery of carbon, a resource of greater mass than the inorganic component of biomass, is more difficult following pyrolysis and water extraction of biomass. In both cases, additional processors would be required to provide products equivalent to those resulting from incineration alone. The carbon, water, and inorganic resources of inedible biomass are effectively separated and output in usable forms through incineration.

which is quite high. This controversy reopens a more basic question of whether science should control policy. If the scientific methods are underfunded, slow, and not accessible, then environmental policy stagnates. However, political pressure often forces the government to develop new controversial policies without waiting for the science to catch up. Incineration as an environmental practice by itself may be limited as environmental policy expands to include concepts of sustainability. However, because it uses the energy from waste and diverts waste from landfills, resource recovery from incineration may see new applications. The larger question is what to do with all the waste, how to stop the generation of waste, and how to clean up the waste already here. Controversies will follow each of these questions along the way.

294

|

Indigenous People and the Environment

See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water; Sustainability; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources Biocrawler.com. Waste Incineration. Available at www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/ Incineration. Accessed January 21, 2008. Eco. Waste. Available at www.ecozine.co.uk/Waste.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Dhir, Ravindra, Thomas D. Dyer, and Kevin A. Paine, eds. 2000. Sustainable Construction: Use of Incinerator Ash. London: Thomas Telford Publishing; Hamerton, Azapagic, Emsley, Adisa Azapagic, and Alan Emsley, eds. 2003. Polymers: The Environment and Sustainable Development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; Holly, Hattemer-Frey, Janos Szollosi, Lajos Tron, and Curtis C. Travis, eds. 1991. Health Effects of Municipal Waste Incineration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Niessen, Walter R. 2002. Combustion and Incineration Processes: Applications in Environmental Engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker; Smith, D. Clayton, Rex H. Warland, and Edward J. Walsh. 1997. Don’t Burn It Here: Grassroots Challenges to Trash Incinerators. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT Indigenous people have a long-term and ancient relationship with the environment. Nonindigenous relationships with the environment can conflict with these traditions, and cause controversy. Indigenous people have many of the same controversies around the environment as do other communities. Throughout history, indigenous peoples have maintained a strong connection with the environment, a connection that is integral to the survival of their physical, social, economic, cultural, and spiritual ways of life. Because of this connection, they will likely be disrupted by climate change impacts more severely than many other citizens. In the United States, many indigenous people were forced to move to reservations as a condition of tribal recognition by the U.S. government. Those that did not are called bands. Most bands were hunted and destroyed by European settlers. Tribes in the United States have some sovereignty over their lands and therefore control of the environment. Some tribes pursue status as states to issue their own water regulations. Most often, tribes were driven and coerced into places no one else wanted. There are about 500 tribes in the United States, of which only about 10 percent have any casino revenue. In terms of environmental controversies, they include the following. • Toxic contaminants, agricultural pesticides, and other industrial chemicals that disproportionately impact indigenous peoples, especially subsistence and livestock cultures. • Inadequate governmental environmental and health standards and regulations. • Cleanup of contaminated lands from mining, military, and other industry activities.

Indigenous People and the Environment | 295

• Toxic incinerators and landfills on and near indigenous lands. • Inadequate solid and hazardous waste and wastewater management capacity of indigenous communities and tribes. • Unsustainable mining and oil development on and near indigenous lands. • National energy policies at the expense of the rights of indigenous peoples. • Climate change and global warming. • Coal mining and coal-fired power plants resulting in mercury contamination, water depletion, destruction of sacred sites, and environmental degradation. • Uranium mining developments and struggles to obtain victim compensation for indigenous uranium miners, millers, processors, and those downwind of past nuclear testing experiments. • Nuclear waste dumping in indigenous lands. • Deforestation. • Water rights, water quantity, and privatization of water. • Economic globalization putting stress on indigenous peoples and local ecosystems. • Border justice, trade agreements, and transboundary waste and contamination along the U.S./Mexico/Canada borders and other indigenous lands worldwide. • Failure of the U.S. government to fulfill its mandated responsibility to provide funding to tribes and Alaskan villages to develop and implement environmental protection infrastructures. • Backlash from U.S. state governments giving in to the lobbying pressure from industry and corporations against the right of tribes to implement their own water and air quality standards. • Protection of sacred, historically and culturally significant areas. • Biological diversity and endangered species. • Genetically modified organisms impacting the environment, traditional plants and seeds and intellectual rights of indigenous peoples—biocolonialism. • Economic blackmail and lack of sustainable economic and community development resources. • Just transition of workers and communities impacted by industry on and near indigenous lands. This can refer to training and educational programs. • Urban sprawl and growth on and near indigenous lands. • Failure of colonial governments and their programs to adequately consult with or address environmental protection, natural resource conservation, environmental health, and sacred/historical site issues affecting traditional indigenous lands and indigenous peoples. • Decolonization and symptoms of internalized oppression/racism/tribalism. This can refer to self-destructive behaviors and loss of cultural identity. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND ENGAGEMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSY Indigenous people all over the world engage in environmental struggles. The environmental battleground is diverse. Here is a short, partial list of some

296

|

Indigenous People and the Environment

indigenous organizations and the environmental controversies they focus on, as reported by the Indigenous Environmental Network. The Midwest Treaty Network is an alliance of Indian and non-Indian community groups that support the sovereign rights of Native American nations. While founded in the context of the Chippewa (Ojibwe) treaty struggle, it is concerned generally with defending and strengthening native cultures and nationhood, protecting Mother Earth, and fighting racism and other forms of domination throughout that region. The network has taken a stand against economic and political pressure on indigenous nations to give up their rights. The mission of the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force (HETF) is to assist Haudenosaunee nations in their efforts to conserve, preserve, protect, and restore their environmental, natural, and cultural resources; to promote the health and survival of the sacred web of life for future generations; to support other indigenous nations who are working on environmental issues; and to fulfill responsibilities to the natural world as the creator instructed without jeopardizing peace, sovereignty, or treaty obligations. The leaders of the Haudenosaunee have always considered three principles when making decisions: will a decision threaten peace, the natural world, or future generations? The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is the national representative/lobby organization of First Nations in Canada. There are over 630 First Nations communities in the country. The AFN Secretariat is designed to present the views of the various First Nations through their leaders. The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) is a grassroots alliance of indigenous peoples whose mission is to protect the sacredness of Mother Earth from contamination and exploitation by strengthening, maintaining, and respecting the traditional teachings and the natural laws, as well as by building sustainable communities. The IEN is not simply a combination of the Native American movement with environmental activism. IEN has popularized a new perspective on native sovereignty that includes appropriate technology and the defense of natural resources. IEN’s perspective on environmentalism includes “supporting the survival of endangered cultures and putting the protection of nature in a larger social, cultural and economic context.” The goals of the National Environmental Coalition of Native Americans (NECONA) are: • To educate Indians and non-Indians about the health dangers of radioactivity and the transportation of nuclear waste on America’s rails and roads. • To network with Indian and non-Indian environmentalists to develop grassroots counter-movement to the well-funded efforts of the nuclear industry. • To declare tribal nuclear-free zones across the nation. The Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB) is organized to assist indigenous peoples in the protection of their genetic resources, indigenous knowledge, and cultural and human rights from the negative effects of biotechnology.

Indigenous People and the Environment | 297

The Coalition for Amazonian Peoples and Their Environment is an initiative born out of the alliance between indigenous and traditional peoples of the Amazon and groups and individuals who share their concerns for the future of the Amazon and its peoples. The 80 nongovernmental organizations from the north and the south that are active in the coalition believe that the future of the Amazon depends on its indigenous and traditional peoples and the state of their environment. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY All groups of indigenous people have their own unique environmental controversies. However, the environment knows no human political boundary, and ecosystem pollution can affect everyone in contact with the land, air, and water. As long as global warming, climate change, and cumulative ecosystem effects continue, it is likely that environmental controversies will engage indigenous people. As the U.S. population rises and uses more natural resources, such as water, conflict with indigenous people may increase as they seek to enforce their rights under various treaties and agreements. Tribes can get status as states and develop their own water-quality standards. This can affect the number of industries getting permits to emit chemicals into the water, even if they are off reservation. The battleground for this type of controversy now is the southwestern United States and other areas with scarce water. See also Climate Change; Cultural vs. Animal Rights; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal; Genetically Modified Food; Sacred Sites Web Resources Amazon Watch. 2003. Project Profile: The OCP Pipeline. Available at www.rainforestinfo. org.au/ocp/background.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Indian Country. 2004. Nature Conservancy Efforts Disregard Indigenous Peoples. Available at www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096409914. Accessed January 21, 2008. Indigenous Environmental Network. Available at www.ienearth.org/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Fixico, Donald Lee. 2003. The American Indian Mind in a Linear World: American Indian Studies and Traditional Knowledge. New York: Routledge; Gedicks, Al. 1993. The New Resource Wars: Native and Environmental Struggles against Multinational Corporations. Boston: South End Press; Harkin, Michael Eugene, and David Rich Lewis. 2007. Native Americans and the Environment: Perspectives on the Ecological Indian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; Johnson, Troy R. 1999. Contemporary Native American Political Issues. MD: Rowman Altamira; Krech, Shepard, III. 2000. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: W. W. Norton and Company; Selin, Helaine. 2003. Nature across Cultures: Views of Nature and the Environment in Non-Western Cultures. New York: Springer.

298

|

Industrial Agricultural Practices and the Environment

INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND THE ENVIRONMENT Industrial agricultural practices can have large impacts on the environment and entire ecosystem. Environmentalists, small family farmers, downstream communities, and environmental justice communities object to these impacts. Historically, humans as hunter-gatherers would hunt in an area and move on. Gradually, a human community would farm a given location. When the game was gone and the soil infertile, the community would move to another location. Human population was so small then, and the environmental impacts of the technology so low, that this allowed the used-up region to regenerate. This method was sustainable only so long as there were new places to move to and environmental impacts remained within the period of time necessary for regeneration of natural systems. This method was used by European colonial powers all around the planet. In the United States this method was used by European farmers who moved to the New World. Many European settlers to North America felt a manifest destiny to colonize the continent from coast to coast. E. COLI IN FOOD AS A RESULT OF INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES? E. coli is everywhere in the environment. Some strains can be deadly. At the Lane County Fair in Eugene, Oregon, about 140 children contracted a severe strain of E. coli. All the children survived, but some were hospitalized for an extended period. All of them now have that strain within them. The cause of this contact was the failure of children to wash their hands after petting the goats and sheep. Another recent concern is that some strains of E. coli could be the result of agricultural industrial practices. It has been found in the soil and vegetables from Californian’s central valley. As these farms are not rigorously regulated for these risks, there is much controversy about who is to blame for them.

INDUSTRIALIZED AGRICULTURE Industrialized agriculture can have several meanings. It can mean substituting machines for people in the food production process, increasing the scale of production beyond the regenerative capacity of the land, and using chemicals instead of natural organic materials. In the case of chemicals, when farmers discovered that certain chemicals can replace the older way of fertilizing, they realized they could save time. The old process of fertilizing was called manuring. It took a large amount of time. Farmers in search of higher productivity industrialized in order to compete on world markets. They use more machines, increase the scale of production, and rely on technology for time-saving efficiency in food production and preparation. Unfortunately, these machines can emit environmentally damaging pollutants, the land can give out, and the chemicals can create public health risks. Each category of industrialization of agriculture is a battleground within this controversy and is of concern to environmentalists and others because of its potential environmental impacts and human health risks.

Industrial Agricultural Practices and the Environment

|

299

The contours of this controversy are shaped by rapidly developing technology that thrives on large-scale applications and a growing scientific consensus and mobilization of community concern about health risks. Mainstream agriculture faces enormous controversies and dynamic changes driven in part by environmental issues. The battleground for this controversy is affected by the following changing conditions. • Climate change will have a major impact on agricultural practices in many areas. • Agriculture will have to find alternative energy sources to sustain productivity because of current high reliance on nonrenewable energy. • Environmental waste sinks are increasing in size. The hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico increased to 8,200 square miles in 2002. Most scientists attribute this to runoff from agricultural activities all along the Mississippi River watershed. The same is true for most coastal outlets in industrialized nations. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Sustainable agriculture is defined as the ability to maintain productivity of the land. In general terms, sustainable agriculture includes the following principles. • Ecologically restorative • Socially resilient • Economically viable This shifts the emphasis from managing resources to managing ourselves. Agricultural corporations and associated trade groups view this as increased governmental intrusion and do not embrace these ideals in their entirety. The small farmer is a part of the settlement of the United States. Many laws were written to protect the small family farmer. Currently, many of these laws are used by agribusiness. Some environmentalists think they do so to hide environmental impacts. It has been very difficult to get right-to-know legislation passed in agricultural areas in agricultural states. Agribusiness resists the increased reporting requirements because of the added cost and decreased profitability, especially in regard to pesticides. ANATOMY OF CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC) RESPONSE TO E. COLI On Friday, September 8, 2006, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) officials were alerted by epidemiologists in Wisconsin of a small cluster of E. coli serotype O157:H7 infections of unknown source. Wisconsin also posted the DNA fingerprint pattern of the cluster to PulseNet, thus alerting the entire network. Separately, the state health department of Oregon also noted a very small cluster of infections that day and began interviewing the cases. On September 13, both Wisconsin and Oregon reported to CDC that initial interviews suggested that eating fresh spinach was commonly reported by cases in both clusters of E. coli serotype O157:H7 infections in those states. PulseNet showed that the patterns in

300

|

Industrial Agricultural Practices and the Environment

the two clusters were identical, and other states reported cases with the same PulseNet pattern among ill persons who also had eaten fresh spinach. CDC notified the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the Wisconsin and Oregon cases and the possible link with bagged fresh spinach. The CDC and FDA convened a conference call on September 14 to discuss the outbreak with the states. Quick sharing of information among the states, CDC, and FDA led to the FDA warning the public on September 14, 2006, not to eat fresh bagged spinach. On September 15, the number of reported cases approached 100. Cases were identified by PulseNet and interviewed in detail by members of OutbreakNet. Leftover spinach was cultured at the CDC, FDA, and in state public health laboratories. The epidemiologic investigation indicated that the outbreak was from a single plant on a single day during a single shift. Coordination with the FDA was important for investigating this outbreak. Frequent conference calls relayed the data on spinach purchases and sources to FDA, guiding the ongoing investigation of possible production sites of interest. Between August 1 and October 6, a total of 199 persons infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 were reported to the CDC from 26 states. Among the ill persons, 102 were hospitalized, 31 had hemolytic (risking kidney failure), and 3 persons died. Eighty-five percent of patients reported illness onset from August 19 to September 5. Among the 130 patients for which a food consumption history was collected, 123 (95%) reported consuming uncooked fresh spinach during the 10 days before illness onset. In addition, E. coli O157:H7 with the same DNA matching the tainted strain was isolated from 11 open packages of fresh spinach that had been partially consumed by patients. This outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 is one of 3,520 different E. coli O157:H7 patterns reported to CDC PulseNet since 1996. Infections with this strain have been reported sporadically to CDC’s PulseNet since 2003, at an average of 21 cases per year from 2003 to 2005. This finding suggests that this strain has been present in the environment and food supply occasionally, although it had not been associated with a recognized outbreak in the past. Parallel laboratory and epidemiologic investigations were crucial in identifying the source of this outbreak. Rapid collection of standard case exposure information by epidemiologists in affected states led to rapid identification of the suspected food source and public health alerts.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The farmer and cowboy are classical figures in U.S. history and culture. However, they do not fit well with modern industrialization of agriculture. Modern agribusiness is a group of large powerful corporations and banks. One battleground in this controversy is the cultural clash of old and traditional cultures with new ways of producing food. The industrialization of agricultural practices is not new. Agricultural research at U.S. land grant colleges and universities helped to create the green revolution. The green revolution modernized many agricultural practices and

Industrial Agricultural Practices and the Environment

|

301

WHAT IS E. COLI? E. coli is the abbreviated name of the bacterium in the Family Enterobacteriaceae named Escherichia (genus) coli (species). Approximately 0.1 percent of the total bacteria within an adult’s intestines (on a Western diet) is represented by E. coli. although, in a newborn infant’s intestines E. coli, along with lactobacilli and enterococci, represent the most abundant bacterial flora. The presence of E. coli and other kinds of bacteria within our intestines is necessary for us to develop and operate properly and to remain healthy. The fetus of an animal is completely sterile. Immediately after birth, however, the newborn acquires all kinds of different bacteria that live symbiotically with the newborn and throughout the individual’s life. A rare strain of E. coli is E. coli O157:H7, a member of the EHEC—enterohemorrhagic E. coli group. Enterohemorrhagic means that it causes internal bleeding. This strain of E. coli and all of its progeny produce a toxin. The toxin is a protein that causes severe damage to intestinal cells on the wall of the intestine. Internal bleeding occurs if left untreated and could lead to complications and death.

pushed them into greater productivity. Now some of the long-term results are more evident. Many people were fed. But some of the long-term consequences may be risky to public health and the environment. This is a large battleground in this controversy. These practices may also not be sustainable, especially with rapid climate change and urban population increases. This is an emerging battleground. The technological modernization of food production is continuing. Food can now be produced without soil. Although only in the research stage, the implications for food production are enormous. Food production would no longer have to be tied to the land. The new change in technology will face the same battlegrounds. It could also open environmental possibilities for former farmland. See also Climate Change; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Farmworkers and Environmental Justice; Genetically Modified Food; Organic Farming; Pesticides; Sustainability Web Resources Lettington, Robert J. L. “A Place for Agriculture at the Trade and Environment Table.” Available at www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2001-07-30/Lettington.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. Plant Physiology. “Agricultural Ethics.” Available at www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/ full/132/1/4. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. Societal Impacts of Adoption of Alternative Agricultural Practices. Available at www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/qb93–01.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Douglass, Gordon K. 1984. Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Gliessman, Stephen R., Eric W. Engles, and Robin Krieger. 1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Singapore: CRC Press; Kimbrell, Andrew. 2002. The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. MO: Island Press; Loomis, R. S., and D. J. Connor. 1992. Crop Ecology: Productivity and Management in Agricultural Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge

302

|

Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals University Press; Manno, Jack P. 2000. Privileged Goods: Commoditization and Its Impact on Environment and Society. Singapore: CRC Press; Wojcik, Jan. 1989. The Arguments of Agriculture: A Casebook in Contemporary Agricultural Controversy. Ashland, OH: Purdue University Press.

INDUSTRIAL FEEDING OPERATIONS FOR ANIMALS Animal agriculture is switching to industrial practices to meet the needs of a growing world population and increase profits by replacing small to midsize animal farms with large, industrial-scale animal feeding operations (AFOs) that maximize the number of livestock confined per acre of land. Confinement of large numbers of animals in such operations can result in large discharges of animal feed- and waste-related substances (animal residuals) to the environment. The implications of waste management practices at AFOs for ecosystem viability and human health are very controversial. Potential effects of AFOs on the quality of surface water, groundwater, and air and on human health pose controversial issues. CATTLE Cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, and other animals have been raised for food all over the world for many years. Their environmental impacts are different based on the animal and the particular environment. Goats and hogs can have big impacts on ground cover and do long-term damage to sensitive ecotones like mountains. Cattle take large amounts of grassland to grow to market maturation. Environmentalists often object to eating beef because the environmental footprint of cattle raising is so large. Some have argued that rain forest deforestation from slash-and-burn techniques is motivated by a desire to expand grazing ranges for cattle. Cattle production is big business. There are about 500,000 concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), about 20,000 of which are regulated under the pollution laws. Three states dominate feedlot cattle production: Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska account for two-thirds of all feedlot production of beet cattle in the United States. Ranchers are important political constituencies in these states around this issue. Cattle feedlot operations are financially dominated by large corporations. Industrial feeding operations have refined the process of raising calves to slaughterready weight with industrial production methods. These focus on cost-to-profit measures and often prioritize size and weight gain, and time to market. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Large feedlot operations have provoked controversy in their communities, focused on the environmental damage caused by waste runoff and air pollution. Feedlot waste can be found in a watershed up to 300 miles away depending on the hydrology of that particular watershed.

Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals

|

303

MAD COW DISEASE AND OPRAH WINFREY Oprah Winfrey Sued for Defaming Cattle in Texas Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is a fatal disease that affects the central nervous system of cattle. The United States does not import cattle from countries with reported cases of BSE nor do many other countries such as Japan. Texas cattle ranchers sued TV talk-show host Oprah Winfrey for defamation in 1996. One of her guests stated that the cattle industry had potentially exposed Americans to mad cow disease by feeding cows the remains of live animals. The cattle ranchers requested money damages totaling $11 million. After Oprah’s alleged crime of airing a show examining mad cow risks in the United States, Texas’s State Agriculture Commissioner Rick Perry asked the attorney general to use the state’s new food-disparagement law to file a lawsuit against the Oprah show. When the attorney general declined, beef feedlot operator Paul Engler and a company named Cactus Feeders stepped in to shoulder the burden, hiring a powerhouse Los Angeles attorney to file a lawsuit that sought $2 million in damages plus punitive fines. “We’re taking the Israeli action on this thing,” Engler said. “Get in there and just blow the hell out of somebody.” The lawsuit, filed on May 28, 1996, complained as follows: “The defendants allowed anti-meat activists to present biased, unsubstantiated, and irresponsible claims against beef, not only damaging the beef industry but also placing a tremendous amount of unwarranted fear in the public. . . . Defendants’ conduct in making the statements contained herein and allowing those statements to be aired without verifying the accuracy of such statements goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” Oprah claimed victory after spending millions of dollars and years of her life battling the lawsuit. However, some feel that the real victors were Rick Perry and the cattle industry since they succeeded, as intended, in squelching news media coverage of mad cow risks in the United States, allowing to this day the continual feeding of hundreds of millions of pounds a year of cattle blood and fat to cattle, continuing the very practices that spread mad cow disease. Now Governor Perry presides over the first U.S. state to discover a home-grown case of the deadly animal and human dementia. To this day, the real feed-ban firewall necessary to stop mad cow disease in the United States has not been constructed. Some contend that officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture simply lie to the press and public when they say that a “ruminant to ruminant feed ban” prevents cattle protein from being fed to cattle in the United States, cutting off the spread of the disease. In reality, U.S. animal feed regulations allow hundreds of millions of pounds of cattle blood and fat to be fed back to cattle each year, including the widespread weaning of calves on cattle-blood protein in calf milk replacer and milk formula. In addition, one million tons a year of poultry litter is shoveled from barn floors at chicken factories and fed to cattle, although the spilled and defecated chicken feed in the litter can contain up to 30 percent mammalian meat and bone meal.

304

|

Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals

CAFOS IN OREGON EPA’s Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Enforcement: The Case of Oregon With an estimated 1.5 million head of cattle in Oregon, dairy and beef operations produce at least 7.5 million tons of manure per year that must be accounted for and kept out of Oregon’s waters. Animal waste in water represents an environmental issue and a human health issue. For instance, animal waste is high in nutrients. When it enters a water body, oxygen can be depleted, preventing the breakdown of nutrients that can impact fish survival rates. Animal waste can also contain bacteria and viruses that are harmful to humans, including E. coli and Salmonella. Additionally, if cattle are allowed into streams, they can trample the streamside vegetation, which reduces shade cover and increases water temperature. It also increases erosion, that is, sediment deposition, which can severely impact the aquatic biota. A number of trout and salmon species found in Oregon are listed or have been proposed for listing as endangered species. The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972; however, some cases remain where CAFO owners have done little or nothing to keep animal waste from Oregon waters. CAFOs are defined as point sources under the NPDES program, and a discharge of animal waste to surface waters is illegal. These discharges often result from overflowing waste storage ponds, runoff from holding areas and concrete pads, or animals having direct access to surface waters. There have been many efforts to educate the CAFO owners by state and EPA regulators, yet violations persist. EPA’s initial efforts began with dairies and have now included cattle feedlots as well as other CAFO operations, for example, hog farms, race tracks, and so on. The direct involvement of the EPA in the regulation of CAFOs in Oregon is not new. In fact, the EPA has been involved in enforcing against dairy operations since 1994. The controversy that exists at this time is the result of the EPA expanding enforcement beyond the Oregon dairy industry to include beef cattle operations, which are a segment of the Oregon CAFO population that has received limited compliance inspections over the last several years, even though they have been subject to the regulations since 1972. During the past year 2007, the EPA directed some attention toward feedlots in eastern Oregon. The EPA’s objectives in taking federal enforcement actions against CAFOs in Oregon are as follows : • Reduce the environmental and public health threat. • Level the playing field among CAFOs by eliminating the economic advantage that violators have enjoyed over those who have invested capital to comply with the law. • Encourage compliance and deter others from violating the law through education and public notice of penalties, thus supporting local efforts. • Encourage the state of Oregon to reassume its lead role in CAFO enforcement. • Use the authorities of the Clean Water Act as part of the salmon restoration efforts. The EPA is required by law to use these authorities under Section 7(a)1 of the Endangered Species Act.

Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals

|

305

The EPA has been directly involved in the regulation of Oregon CAFOs since 1994. In that time, the EPA has been involved in several activities that have resulted in the education of CAFO owners. These activities include the following: 1.

2.

3. 4.

Fact sheets, describing the EPA CAFO requirements and enforcement strategy, mailed annually to producers, assistance providers (NRCS), and industry associations such as the Oregon Dairy Association and the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. Public meetings to discuss EPA requirements and enforcement strategy. These meetings were held in 1999–2000 in Pendleton, LaGrande, Enterprise, Baker City, Portland, Tillamook, Boise, and Tri-cities that were attended by both producers and assistance providers. Several meetings with assistance providers (e.g., local conservation districts) to discuss EPA requirements and enforcement strategy. Public notice of EPA enforcement actions against CAFO operations in Region 10.

What Types of CAFO Operations Are Being Enforced Against? The EPA is targeting the worst cases first. In the cases filed to date, enforcement actions have been undertaken against operations with the confinement areas literally in the stream or where streams run directly through the confinement area with no attempt to keep manure out of the water and sites that have a direct discharge of waste to surface waters. Penalty assessments in Oregon have ranged from $11,000 to $50,000. The EPA supports voluntary and community efforts to correct these problems, and EPA has supported many of these efforts with grant funds and people in the field. However, it is now the inspection year 2000–2001, and some recalcitrant operators remain who seem to need an incentive to do what others have done without enforcement actions being filed against them.

Lagoons are pools of water used to treat waste from animal feeding operations. They are an older, low-volume, low-cost waste treatment process but require maintenance. Waste treatment lagoons are often poorly maintained. They have broken, failed, or overflowed. They are prone to natural disasters like floods and hurricanes. When they overflow or break, the waste enters the watershed. Often the waste mixes with high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural runoff. This can have major environmental impacts. LAGOONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH One major battleground of industrial feeding operations is the surrounding community. Gases are emitted by lagoons, including ammonia (a toxic form of nitrogen), hydrogen sulfide, and methane. These are all greenhouse gases and pollutants. The gases formed in the process of treating animal waste are toxic and potentially explosive. Water contaminated by animal manure contributes to human diseases, potentially causing acute gastroenteritis, fever, kidney failure, and even death. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, nitrates seeping from lagoons have contaminated

306

|

Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals

groundwater used for human drinking water. Nitrate levels above 10 mg/L in drinking water increase the risk of methemoglominemia, or blue baby syndrome, which can cause deaths in infants. THE LAGOONS HARM WATER QUALITY There are also often cumulative effects from runoff within local watersheds because multiple large-scale feedlots cluster around slaughterhouses. Watersheds far away are also affected by the atmospheric emission of gases from industrial feeding operations’ lagoons, so that the environment is affected by both air and water pathways. Lagoons are often located close to water, which increases the potential of ecological damage. In many places, lagoons are permitted even where groundwater can be threatened. These communities have strong concerns, especially if they use well systems as many rural residents do. If water quantity is a local concern, then lagoons pose another battleground. The lagoon system depletes groundwater supplies by using large quantities of water to flush the manure into the lagoon. As water quantity decreases, pollutants and other chemicals become more concentrated. This decreases the quality of the remaining water dramatically. THE HOG FARM CONTROVERSY One of the biggest controversies over animal feeding operations occurred in South Carolina. Legislation introduced to accommodate hog-farming and hogbutchering operations created some of the controversy. Introduced under the title of a Right to Farm bill, the legislation passed the State House of Representatives without close scrutiny. Controversy began to build during the fall when it became clear the legislation would deprive local governments of some power to control land use. National media stories of environmental problems with large-scale hog farms in North Carolina started to get public attention. Those interested in economic development saw large-scale hog operations as a possible substitute for tobacco. Many of the objections to bringing the hog industry into South Carolina have to do with environmental degradation. One factor in the South Carolina hog controversy was how much waste the waterways could absorb. South Carolina water pollution permits have limited availability for waste. They did not want to use that remaining water-pollution capacity for lowreturn economic development. South Carolina decided that if they lose the hog industry, they do not lose many economic benefits, and if they get it, it will come with difficult environmental problems that could hamper economic development over the long run. EPA ATTEMPTS AT REGULATION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that animal feeding operations (AFOs) pose a variety of threats to human health and the environment. According to the EPA, pollutants from livestock operations include nutrients, organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, hor-

Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals

mones, antibiotics, dust, and ammonia. In response to increasing community complaints and the industrialization of the livestock industry, the EPA developed water-quality regulations that affect AFOs directly and indirectly, and it is a running battle. The focus of these actions is on the control of nutrient leaching and runoff. The development of this new set of rules is a large battleground. Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are defined as point sources under the Clean Water Act. They are required to obtain a permit to discharge treated and untreated waste into water. Effluent guidelines establish the best available technology economically achievable for CAFOs over a certain size threshold. A threshold is the maximum amount of a chemical allowed without a permit. Thresholds pervade U.S. environmental policy and allow industries that self-report their thresholds to escape environmental scrutiny. A constant regulatory battleground is lowering the threshold to expand the reach of the regulations to include all those with environmental impacts. Many communities and environmentalists complain that the thresholds for water discharges from industrial feeding operations are much too high, thereby allowing risky discharges into water. Industry wants to remain unregulated as much as possible because it perceives these regulations as decreasing profitability. The battleground about effluent thresholds for CAFOs is a major battleground. The new permitting regulations address smaller CAFOs and describe additional requirements such as monitoring and reporting. HOW DO WE KEEP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM INDUSTRIALIZED FEEDING OPERATIONS FROM HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT? Total Maximum Daily Load of Waste The proposed total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulations and the development of nutrient water-quality criteria will impact AFOs indirectly. States are required to develop TMDLs for water bodies that do not meet the standards for nutrients or other pollutants. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water-quality standards. Through the TMDL process, pollutant loads will be allocated among all permit holders. Animal feedlot operations may have to be slowed down if there is no room for their waste in the water. AFO management practices will be more strictly scrutinized in any event, creating a battleground for enforcement of environmental protection rules. This controversy will include the TMDL controversy when implemented at this level. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Industrial feed lot operations provide an efficient means of meat production. Communities and environmentalists are very concerned about their environmental impacts. They want to know more about these operations and usually ask for records on effluent discharges, monitoring systems for air and water, feed management, manure handling and storage, land application of

|

307

308

|

Industrial Feeding Operations for Animals

manure, tillage, and riparian buffers. New federal regulations, growing population, community concern over environmental and public health impacts, and emerging environmental lawsuits are part of the battlefield for this controversy. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Fire; Industrial Agricultural Practices and the Environment; Rain Forests; Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water Web Resources The Legal Trend to Shift Liability for Environmental Damage. Available at www.rafiusa.org/ programs/CONTRACTAG/Integrator_Liability.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. Natural Resources Defense Council. America’s Animal Factories: How States Fail to Prevent Pollution from Livestock Waste. Available at www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/ stwyo.asp. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Clay, Jason W. 2004. World Agriculture and the Environment: A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices. Washington, DC: Island Press; MacLachlan, Ian. 2001. Kill and Chill: Restructuring Canada’s Beef Commodity Chain. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Sara J. Scherr. 2003. Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Feed the World and Save Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press; Pfeffer, Ernst, and Alexander N. Hristov, eds. 2006. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Nutrition of Cattle: Reducing the Environmental Impact of Cattle Operations. Sydney, Australia: CABI Publishing; Yam, Philip. 2003. The Pathological Protein: Mad Cow, Chronic Wasting, and Other Deadly Prion Diseases. New York: Springer.

L LAND POLLUTION Controversies around land pollution abound. There are many types of waste and many governmental regulations at local, state, and federal levels. Waste sites, transfer stops, and routes all engender their own controversies. Communities do not want to be exposed to the risk waste may pose. Waste is broadly defined as unwanted material left over from manufacturing processes or refuse from places of human or animal habitation. Within that category are many types of waste, including municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, and radioactive waste, which have properties that may make them dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect on human health and the environment. Waste and contaminated lands are particularly important to environmental health because they may expose land and living organisms to harmful material. National, state, tribal, and local waste programs and policies aim to prevent pollution by reducing the generation of wastes at their source and by emphasizing prevention over management and subsequent disposal. Preventing pollution before it is generated and poses harm is often less costly than cleanup and remediation. Source reduction and recycling programs often can increase resource and energy efficiencies and thereby reduce pressure on the environment. When wastes are generated, the EPA, state environmental programs, and local municipalities work to reduce the risk of exposures. If land is contaminated, cleanup programs address the sites to prevent human exposure and groundwater contamination. Increased recycling protects land resources and extends the life span of disposal facilities.

309

310

| Land Pollution

HOW MUCH AND WHAT TYPES OF WASTE ARE GENERATED The types of waste generated range from yard clippings to highly concentrated hazardous waste. Only three types of waste—municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste (as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]), and radioactive waste—are tracked with any consistency on a national basis. Other types of waste, for which no or very limited national data exist, are not. This is a gaping hole is U.S. environmental policy. These other types of waste contribute a substantial amount to the total waste universe, although the exact percentage of the total that they represent is unknown. Municipal solid waste, commonly known as trash or garbage, is one of the nation’s most prevalent waste types. In 2000, the United States generated approximately 232 million tons of MSW, primarily in homes and workplaces—an increase of nearly 160 percent since 1960. During that time, the population increased 56 percent, and gross domestic product increased nearly 300 percent. In 2000, each person generated approximately 4.5 pounds of waste per day—or about 0.8 tons for the year—a per-capita increase from 2.7 pounds per day in 1960. For the last decade, per-capita waste generation has remained relatively constant, and the amount of MSW recovered (recycled or composted) increased more than 1,100 percent, from 5.6 million to 69.9 million tons in total. Combustion (incineration) is also used to reduce the volume of waste before disposal. Approximately 33.7 million tons (14.5 percent) of MSW were combusted in 2000. Of that amount, approximately 2.3 million tons were combusted for energy recovery. The phrase RCRA hazardous waste applies to hazardous waste (waste that is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic) that is regulated under the RCRA. In 1999, the EPA estimated that 20,000 businesses generating large quantities— more than 2,200 pounds each per month—of hazardous waste collectively generated 40 million tons of RCRA hazardous waste. Comparisons of annual trends in hazardous waste generation are difficult because of changes in the types of data collected (e.g., exclusion of wastewater) over the past several years. But the amount of a specific set of priority toxic chemicals found in hazardous waste and tracked in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is declining In 1999, approximately 69 percent of the RCRA hazardous waste was disposed of on land by one of four disposal methods: deep well/underground injection, landfill disposal, surface impoundment, or land treatment/application/farming. In 2000, approximately 600,000 cubic meters of different types of radioactive waste were generated, and approximately 700,000 cubic meters were in storage awaiting disposal. By volume, the most prevalent types of radioactive waste are contaminated environmental media (i.e., soil, sediment, water, and sludge requiring cleanup or further assessment) and low-level waste. Both of these waste types typically have the lowest levels of radioactivity when measured by volume. Additional radioactive wastes in the form of spent nuclear fuel (2,467 metric tons of heavy metal) and high-level waste glass logs (1,201 canisters of vitrified high-level waste) are in storage awaiting long-term disposal.

Land Pollution

WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF LAND USED FOR WASTE? Between 1989 and 2000, the number of municipal landfills in the United States decreased substantially from 8,000 to 2,216. The combined capacity of all landfills, however, remained relatively constant because newer landfills typically have larger capacities. In 2000, municipal landfills received approximately 128 million pounds of MSW, or about 55 percent of what was generated. In addition to municipal landfills, the nation had 18,000 surface impoundments—ponds used to treat, store, or dispose of liquid waste—for nonhazardous industrial waste in 2000. Excluding wastewater, nearly 70 percent of the RCRA hazardous waste generated in 1999 was disposed of at one of the nation’s RCRA treatment, storage, and land-disposal facilities. Of the 1,575 RCRA facilities, 1,049 are storage-only facilities. The remaining facilities perform one or more of several common management methods (e.g., deepwell/underground injection, metals recovery, incineration, landfill disposal). The United States also uses other sites for waste management and disposal, but there are no comprehensive data sets that assess those additional sites or the extent of land now used nationally for waste management in general. Before the 1970s, waste was not subjected to today’s legal requirements to reduce toxicity before disposal and was typically disposed of in open pits. Early landdisposal units that still pose threats to human health and the environment are considered to be contaminated lands and are subject to federal or state cleanup efforts. WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATED LAND? Many of the contaminated sites that must be managed and cleaned up today are the result of historical contamination. Located throughout the country, contaminated sites vary tremendously. Some sites involve small, nontoxic spills or single leaking tanks, whereas others involve large acreages of potential contamination such as abandoned mine sites. To address the contamination, federal and state programs use a variety of laws and regulations to initiate, implement, and enforce cleanup. The contaminated sites are generally classified according to applicable program authorities, such as RCRA Corrective Action, Superfund, and state cleanup programs. Although many states have data about contaminated sites within their boundaries, the total extent of contaminated land in the United States is unknown because few data are aggregated for the nation as a whole and acreage estimates are generally not available. A nationally accurate assessment would require both more detailed information on specific sites and consistent aggregation of those data nationally. To assess the full nature would require data on specific contaminants, as well as an assessment of risks, hazards, and potential for exposure to those contaminants. The most toxic abandoned waste sites in the nation are listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). Thus, examining the NPL data provides an indication of the extent of the most significantly contaminated sites. NPL

|

311

312

|

Land Pollution

sites are located in every state and several territories. As of October 2002, there were 1,498 final or deleted NPL sites. An additional 62 sites were proposed to the NPL. When a proposed site meets the qualifications to be cleaned up under the Superfund program, it becomes a final NPL site. Sites are considered for deletion from the NPL list when cleanup is complete. Of the 1,498 sites, 846 sites are construction-completion sites, which are former toxic waste sites where physical construction for all cleanup actions is complete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats are under control. This is up from 149 construction completes in 1992. The EPA also estimates that approximately 3,700 hazardous waste management sites may be subject to RCRA Corrective Action, which would provide for investigation, cleanup, and remediation of releases of hazardous waste and constituents. Contamination at the sites ranges from small spills that require soil cleanup to extensive contamination of soil, sediment, and groundwater. In addition, 1,714 of these 3,700 potential corrective action sites are highpriority sites that are targeted for immediate action by federal, state, and local agencies. Other types of contaminated lands, for which data are very limited, include areas contaminated by leaking underground storage tanks and brownfields. Brownfields are lands on which hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants may be or have been present. Brownfields are often found in and around economically depressed neighborhoods. Cleaning up and redeveloping these lands can benefit surrounding communities by reducing health and environmental risks, creating more functional space, and improving economic conditions. WHAT HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CONTAMINATED LANDS? People who live, work, or are otherwise near contaminated lands and waste management areas are more vulnerable than others to the threats such areas might pose in the event of accident or unintended exposure to hazardous materials. Depending on factors such as management practices, the sources of contamination, and potential exposure, some waste, contaminated lands, and lands used for waste management pose a much greater risk to human health than others. Some areas, such as properly designed and managed waste management facilities, pose minimal risks. Determining the relationship between types of sites and human health is usually complicated. For many types of cancer, understanding is limited by science and the fact that people usually are exposed to many possible cancer-causing substances throughout their lives. Isolating the contributions of exposure to contaminants to incidence of respiratory illness, cancer, and birth defects is extremely difficult—impossible in many cases. Nonetheless, it is important to gain a more concrete understanding of how the hazardous materials associated with waste and contaminated lands affect human populations.

Land Pollution

|

313

Although some types of potential contaminants and waste are not generally hazardous to humans, other types can pose dangers to health if people are exposed. The number of substances that exist that can or do affect human health is unknown; however, the TRI program requires reporting of more than 650 chemicals and chemical categories that are known to be toxic to humans. EPA’s Superfund program has identified several sources of common contaminants, including commercial solvents, dry-cleaning agents, and chemicals. With chronic exposure, commercial solvents such as benzene may suppress bone marrow function, causing blood changes. Dry-cleaning agents and degreasers contain trichloroethane and trichloroethylene, which can cause fatigue, depression of the central nervous system, kidney changes (e.g., swelling, anemia), and liver changes (e.g., enlargement). Chemicals used in commercial and industrial manufacturing processes, such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury, may cause various health problems. Long-term exposure to lead may cause permanent kidney and brain damage. Cadmium can cause kidney and lung disease. Chromium, beryllium, arsenic, and cadmium have been implicated as human carcinogens. WHAT ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE AND CONTAMINATED LANDS? Hazardous substances, whether present in waste, on lands used for waste management, or on contaminated land, can harm wildlife (e.g., cause major re-

CLEANUP OF THE EAGLE MINE SUPERFUND SITE The Eagle Mine, southwest of Vail, Colorado, was used to mine gold, silver, lead, zinc, and copper between 1870 and 1984. After the mine closed, several contaminants, including lead, zinc, cadmium, arsenic, and manganese, were left behind, and they spread into nearby groundwater, the Eagle River, and the air, posing a risk to people and wildlife. Colorado filed notice and claim in 1985 against the former mine owners for natural resource damages under Superfund. In June 1986, the site was placed on the National Priorities List, and shortly thereafter the state and the previous owners agreed to a plan of action. Cleanup operations included constructing a water treatment plant to collect mine seepage and other contaminated water sources; relocating all processed mine wastes and contaminated soils to one main, on-site tailings pile; capping that pile with a multilayer clean soil cap; and revegetating all disturbed areas with native plant species. The water quality in the Eagle River began to show improvements in 1991; as zinc concentrations in the river dropped, the resident brown trout population grew. An October 2000 site review concluded that public health risks had been removed and that significant progress had been made in restoring the Eagle River. Today, biological monitoring is undertaken to evaluate the Eagle River’s water quality, aquatic insects, and fish populations.

314

|

Land-Use Planning in the United States

productive complications), destroy vegetation, contaminate air and water, and limit the ability of an ecosystem to survive. For example, if not properly managed, toxic residues from mining operations can be blown into nearby areas, affecting resident bird populations and the water on which they depend. Certain hazardous substances also have the potential to explode or cause fires, threatening both wildlife and human populations. The negative effects of land contamination and occasionally of waste management on ecosystems occur after contaminants have been released on land (soil/sediment) or into the air or water. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The extent of land pollution is unknown at this time. Cleanup costs are enormous, which results in complex and expensive litigation to determine liability for these costs. In the United States, cities have only recently been included in the environmental protection policy umbrella. Controversies about land pollution generally focus on cleanup of the most serious wastes and/or relocation of the community. These controversies will increase. See also Brownfields Development; Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Industrial Agricultural Practices and the Environment; Sprawl; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources CSIRO. Land Pollution. Available at www.csiro.au/csiro/channel/pch21.html. Accessed March 2, 2008. Pollution. Land Pollution. Available at www.botany.uwc.ac.za/sci_ed/grade10/ecology/ conservation/poll.htm#land. Accessed March 2, 2008. Saving Our Environment. Dealing with Land and Water Pollution. Available at library.thinkquest.org/C0111401/dealing_land_and_water_pollution.htm. Accessed March 2, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Priorities List (NPL). Available at www.epa. gov/superfund/sites/npl/status.htm. Accessed March 2, 2008. Further Reading: Cairney, Thomas, and D. M. Hobson. 1998. Contaminated Land: Problems and Solutions. London: Spon Press; Genske, Dieter D. 2003. Urban Land: Degradation, Investigation, Remediation. New York: Springer; Nathanail, C. Paul, and R. Paul Bardos. 2004. Reclamation of Contaminated Land. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Owens, Susan E., and Richard Cowell. 2002. Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process. New York: Routledge; Randolph, John. 2004. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

LAND-USE PLANNING IN THE UNITED STATES Local land-use decisions are often at the heart of local environmental controversies. Local government makes most of these decisions. Residents are often surprised by the environmental impacts allowed. The ability of the federal government to preempt state governments, and the ability of state govern-

Land-Use Planning in the United States | 315

ments to preempt local land-use controls, is often the mechanism that allows for environmentally undesirable land uses placed over local resistance. CONTEXT: LAND AND ENVIRONMENT Land use is constrained by environmental factors such as soil characteristics, climate, topography, and vegetation. It also reflects the importance of land as a key and finite resource for most human activities, including agriculture, industry, forestry, energy production, settlement, recreation, and water catchments and storage. Land is a fundamental factor of production and is tightly coupled to economic growth. As a result, control over land and its use is often involved in environmental controversy. The control over how land is used has deep environmental implications when the ability to permanently damage the environment puts it at risk of irreparable loss. Land, dirt, soil, earth, and its inhabitants play an important and holistic role in all ecosystems. From an environmental perspective, control of the impact on land is necessary. This is especially true now as sustainability is an environmental goal. Political, economic, and social aspects of land use dominate how land is used. Land can be a door to wealth, power, and status. Environmental considerations of actual human impacts over time were not a value. Concentrations of urban population and industrial growth developed in U.S. cities at the turn of the century. This created public health concerns from overcrowded, unsanitary conditions and cities turned to exerting control over land for the public health. Before it was known how disease can spread, many of these overcrowded areas were inhabited by immigrants from western Europe on the East Coast, and Chinese on the West Coast. When germ theory became accepted by the medical establishment, more city resources went into improving the sanitary conditions of some of these areas. Building codes, land-use zones, and other measures to improve the quality of life become law. OVERVIEW OF U.S. LAND-USE LAW U.S. land-use law is defined by the U.S. Constitution and its limits on the taking of private property. (See “Takings” of Private Property.) As private property is equated with liberty in the United States, governmental intervention in landuse control is recent and developing. In the 1921 Supreme Court case of Euclid v. Ambler the legitimacy of zoning was upheld as a legitimate exercise of government power and not a taking of private property. U.S. courts generally require a complete loss of value by a governmental land-use action for it to be a taking, although this is becoming more controversial. When it is declared a taking of private property, and assuming it is a legitimate public purpose, all the government needs to do is pay the fair market value for it. This is the right of the state to exercise its historic and modern right of eminent domain. U.S. courts and the Constitution do not recognize givings. This happens when the state performs a governmental function, inclusive of environmental protection and economic

316

|

Land-Use Planning in the United States

development, which accrues to the property-value benefit of nearby property owners. A commercial example of this is when a commuter rail stop and park/ ride lot is put near commercially zoned property. Because of the increased pedestrian traffic, nearby commercially zoned property will increase in value. This giving of value is recognized in many commonwealth nations. A residential example of this is that when a park is developed by a city, the nearby residential property values will generally increase. This property-value increase is the giving of value by an act of the government. LAND-USE CONTROLS There are many types of land-use controls. The primary public method communities use to control their land use is zoning. The primary private method of land-use control is through covenants, or promises, that run with the land and homeownership agreements. Most land-use controls are directed to the owner of the property, not the tenants. Residential, commercial, and industrial rental properties are still controlled by land-use laws, and the owner is responsible for their compliance with environmental laws. Residential neighborhoods with low homeownership rates and high rental rates may be more vulnerable to environmentally undesirable land uses. Zoning refers to the categorization of land into zones with different and incompatible uses. Agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses were generally separated from residential uses. In the first zoning laws communities were specified which the races and ethnicities they excluded and where they could live, go to school, and work. One of the roots of U.S. zoning is in codifying this exclusion. The first big zoning case, Euclid v. Ambler, allowed a city to exclude multifamily rental properties from single-family detached zoned areas. The lower court decisions of Euclid are specific about the fact that immigrants inhabited multifamily rental housing. The city had a legitimate interest in protecting the private property values of single-family detached residential units. The zones are roughly divided into residential, commercial, and industrial. There can be many categories within each zone. Zoning was controversial everywhere it was enacted, but slowly became the norm. Zoning protects private property values and adds to the long-term wealth of the community. As property values increase so too does the tax base. This allows for the provision of more public services. The U.S. system of zoning is not based on environmental considerations. It is based on keeping the noise and traffic of industrial activities away from homes and children. The homes are spread out, located at a distance from work, and generally not effectively served by mass transit options. The land-use system of zoning in the United States assumes unlimited environmental impacts. Residential zones include the highest and best use, the most desirable use, the single-family detached home. They can include group homes, planned unit developments, and prisons. Commercial land uses can have large environmental impacts. They can range from small bakeries and beautician shops to large meat-rendering plants.

Land-Use Planning in the United States | 317

Industrial zones tend to be catchall zones with uses no one else wanted because of their risk. They include waste sites, chemical manufacturing plants, and former military bases. They are often the site of brownfields. THE U.S. URBAN LANDSCAPE Many of the early zoning schemes incorporated a doctrine of lesser included uses. A higher use could locate in a lower use, such as building a residence in a commercial area. This can sometimes explain a mix of uses in a given zone. Modern land-use zoning codes may intentionally have mixed-use zones, usually to decrease the trip generation of cars. This is an environmental consideration given the effect of vehicle emissions. Usually the primary consideration in enacting traffic laws is traffic flow and safety. Since cities did not want to pay for the taking of private property, zoning proceeded slowly. It was not retroactively applied. Land uses that were in existence before zoning were generally allowed to continue until the property was sold or the use stopped. These are called prior nonconforming uses. Some of these uses can continue long after they are popular. Billboards can be one. Special-use permits are given to property owners to allow otherwise prohibited uses of the land. Conceptually they cease when the use ceases or the owner changes. Variances are changes to the zoning that run with the land and continue indefinitely. They both generally increase the value of real property. BATTLEGROUND: LAND-USE HEARINGS Land-use hearings shape this battleground. Usually the local government makes these decisions. It can be a city council or a county board of supervisors. Sometimes, the applicant for a permit or variance must first go through a citizen planning commission. The decisions of these commissions are seldom binding but do create a record for any subsequent litigation. There are developers, teachers, consultants, professors, clergy, and sometimes environmentalists appointed to these commissions. These commissions will hold public hearings for citizens, often about environmental issues. It is in these hearings that many controversial environmental issues are first made public. After the citizen planning commission decision, it goes to the first elected level of government. They may also have hearings that can be focused on controversial environmental issues. Prior to litigation, the battleground for environmental land-use issues is developed in these types of hearings. It can be difficult to find out about these hearings. Notice and public participation in environmental decisions often start here and are controversies themselves. The enforcement of land-use law tends to be very weak. There are no zoning police. Most zoning enforcement is complaint driven. City planners do not like neighborhood disputes to enmesh them in zoning disputes, although this occurs. High levels of citizen frustration often occur around environmental landuse issues. As noted above, a city can be preempted by the state to put a waste

318

|

Landslides and Mudslides

site in a given community. The citizens want action from their local government, and often there is not much they can do if they wanted to do so. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY At the national level, the failure of local land-use law to fully consider environmental impacts apart from human impacts continues the idea that environmental impacts can be unlimited. The gulf between the political domination of land-use control and the need to control environmental impacts on the land is large. Internationally, how human land-use controls affect global land cover is a big issue. Deforestation of tropical rain forests, overgrazing, and desertification are all land-use control issues. They also affect global systems of air and water. There is a large potential for future controversy and for new environmental policy. As cumulative emissions, population, and waste all increase, and concern about sustainability mounts, citizens become more aware of their surroundings. They may be concerned about their health. Citizens, planning commissioners, and local elected officials face many environmental controversies and seek protection from environmental risks from their government. Land-use planning is one avenue for this. See also Brownfields Development; Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions; Rain Forests; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution Web Resources National Environmental Health Association. Land Use Planning and Design. Available at www.neha.org/research/landuseplanning.html. Accessed March 2, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Recommended EPA Land Use Resources. Available atoaspub.epa.gov/webimore/aboutepa.ebt4?search=16,200,867. Accessed March 2, 2008. Further Reading: Freyfogle, Eric. 2003. The Land We Share: Private Property and the Common Good. Washington, DC: Island Press; Meltz, Robert, Dwight H. Merriam, and Richard M. Frank. 1999. The Takings Issue: Constitutional Limits on Land-Use Control and Environmental Regulation. Washington, DC: Island Press; Platt, Rutherford H. 2004. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press; Randolph, John. 2004. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Washington, DC: Island Press; Silberstein, Jane, and Chris Maser. 2000. Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Development. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Thomas, June Manning, and Marsha Ritzsdorf. 1997. Urban Planning and the African American Community: Planning in the Shadows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

LANDSLIDES AND MUDSLIDES Controversies around landslides and mudslides deal with issues of monitoring, evacuation, and human causes such as overdevelopment and logging. Liability for building in a landslide-prone area is a large legal controversy.

Landslides and Mudslides | 319

Mudslides and landslides can occur alone or with other natural disasters like hurricanes and floods. They can be human caused, as when an industrial mining-waste treatment lagoon bursts. They disrupt electric, water, sewer, and gas lines. Sewer, water, gas, and electric lines can also contribute to site destabilization, especially if there is any leakage on a slope composed mainly of soft material. They wash out roads and create health problems when sewage or floodwater spills down hillsides, often contaminating drinking water. Power lines and fallen tree limbs can be dangerous and can cause electric shock. Mudslides are also associated with volcanoes and earthquakes and can result in respiratory problems due to breathing of ash, fumes, heat, or gases. There is no question they are a natural disaster with large environmental impacts in the United States and in most other countries. Landslides occur when masses of rock, earth, or debris move down a slope. Debris flows, also known as mudslides, are a common type of fast-moving landslide that tends to flow in channels. Landslides are caused by disturbances in the natural stability of a slope. They can accompany heavy rains or follow droughts, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions. Mudslides develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground and results in a surge of water-saturated rock, earth, and debris. Mudslides usually start on steep slopes and can be activated by other natural disasters. Areas where wildfires or human development have destroyed vegetation on slopes are particularly vulnerable to landslides during and after heavy rains. HEALTH THREATS FROM LANDSLIDES AND DEBRIS FLOWS In the United States, landslides and debris flows cause 25 to 50 deaths each year. The number is much higher worldwide. Many major world cities are surrounded by large communities of squatters. Uncounted, unregulated, densely packed, unsanitary, and often on defoliated, hilly landscapes, these communities are very vulnerable to landslides and mudslides. Health hazards associated with landslides and mudflows include: • Rapidly moving water and debris that can lead to trauma • Broken electrical, water, gas, and sewage lines that can result in injury or illness • Disrupted roadways and railways that can endanger motorists and disrupt emergency services Some areas are more likely to experience landslides or mudflows, including: • Areas where wildfires or human modification of the land have destroyed vegetation • Areas where landslides have occurred before • Steep slopes and areas at the bottom of slopes or canyons • Slopes that have been altered for construction of buildings and roads

|

320

Landslides and Mudslides

• Channels along a stream or river • Areas where surface runoff is directed Debris flows start on slopes steep enough to make walking difficult. Once started, debris flows can even travel up and over gently sloping ground. The most hazardous areas are canyon bottoms, stream channels, areas near the outlets of canyons, and slopes excavated for buildings and roads.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM A LANDSLIDE While human warning systems for landslides are just beginning to work their way into an implemented environmental policy, careful observation of the land itself can alert potential home buyers, hikers, and others to a possible landslide. Observations before, during, and after a heavy rain can detect likely areas of landslides. Before intense storms and rainfall: • Assume that steep slopes and areas burned by wildfires are vulnerable to landslides and debris flows. • Develop emergency and evacuation plans for your family and business. • Develop an emergency communication plan in case family members are separated. • Be aware of any sudden increase or decrease in water level in a stream or creek that might indicate debris flow upstream. A trickle of flowing mud may precede a larger flow. • Look for tilted trees, telephone poles, fences, or walls, and for new holes or bare spots on hillsides. • Listen for rumbling sounds that might indicate an approaching landslide or mudflow. • Be alert when driving. Roads may become blocked or closed due to collapsed pavement or debris. • Stay away from the site. Flooding or additional slides may occur after a landslide or mudflow. The following list indicates where you can get additional information on landslide and mudflow hazards. 1.

2. 3. 4.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a fact sheet (www.fema. gov/hazards/landslides/landsli.shtm) containing information on landslides and mudflows in the United States, as well as recommendations on how to prepare and behave during and after a landslide. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a fact sheet (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0071– 00/fs-0071–00.pdf.) containing information on landslide hazards and characteristics. The American Red Cross (ARC) has a Web site (www.redcross.org/services/disaster/ keepsafe/landslide.html) containing information on landslides and mudslides. The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) landslide news Web site (http://land slides.usgs. gov/html_files/landslides/newsinfo.html) provides up-to-date information on recent and past landslide events.

Landslides and Mudslides | 321

Debris flows (also referred to as mudslides, mudflows, or debris avalanches) generally occur during intense rainfall on water-saturated soil. They usually start on steep hillsides as soil slumps or slides that liquefy and accelerate to speeds as great as 35 miles (56 km) per hour. Multiple debris flows that start high in canyons commonly funnel into channels. There, they merge, gain volume, and travel long distances from their source. Debris flows commonly begin in swales (depressions at the top of small gullies) on steep slopes, making areas downslope from swales particularly hazardous. Roadcuts and other altered or excavated areas of slopes are particularly susceptible to debris flows. Debris flows and other landslides onto roadways are common during rainstorms and often occur during milder rainfall conditions than those needed for debris flows on natural slopes. Areas where surface runoff is channeled, such as along roadways and below culverts, are common sites of debris flows and other landslides. After landslides many controversies occur about any human-related cause. Should homeowners have known it was a dangerous place to build their houses? If they knew and built them anyway is it their fault? Should the real estate agent who sold houses to them be liable for failure to warn them of a prospective threat of landslide? If the government had a duty to warn them and did not, are they liable in any way? If a neighboring piece of property has a road built on it that funnels a landslide to another, who is liable? If a timber corporation cuts logging roads on steep mountain slopes and the roads slide out and down the mountain, are they responsible for any damage, including loss of human lives? What about landslide impacts from overdevelopment of concessions in national parks? Courts and insurance companies are very concerned about who is liable because they ultimately may have to pay for the damage. Communities want to avoid this disaster and want better monitoring. Developers, land speculators, and the real estate industry view landslide concerns as interfering with private property and economic development. The more regulation about landslides, the lower the value of surrounding property, and the less profit they make. Economic development around ecotourism and other types of outdoor recreation also declines when people fear landslides. Yet, landslides continue to occur with many environmental impacts. Given the many unanswered questions about liability for damages due to human-induced landslides and current land-development practices and sprawl in the United States, it is likely some of these questions will be answered in the courts and legislatures. Other questions about policy development around landslides also create some controversy. FLOWS AND SLIDES RESULTING FROM VOLCANOES Pyroclastic Flows Fast-moving flows of hot ash, rock fragments, and gas can move down the sides of a volcano during explosive eruptions or when the steep side of a growing lava dome collapses and breaks apart. These pyroclastic flows can be as hot as 1,500°F and move at speeds from 100 miles (160 km) per hour to 150 miles

322

|

Landslides and Mudslides

(240 km) per hour. Such flows tend to follow valleys and are capable of knocking down and burning everything in their path. Lower-density pyroclastic flows, called pyroclastic surges, can easily overflow ridges hundreds of feet high. The climactic eruption of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington on May 18, 1980, generated a series of explosions that formed a huge pyroclastic surge. This so-called lateral blast destroyed an area of 230 square miles (368 square km). Trees six feet in diameter were sheered down as far as 15 miles from the volcano. Volcano landslides range in size from small movements of loose debris on the surface of a volcano to a massive collapse of the entire summit or sides of a volcano. Steep volcanoes are susceptible to landslides because they are built partly of layers of loose volcanic rock fragments. Some rocks on volcanoes have also been changed to soft, slippery clay minerals by circulating hot, acidic groundwater. LAHARS Mudflows or debris flows composed mostly of volcanic materials on the sides of a volcano are called lahars. These flows of mud, rock, and water can rush down valleys and stream channels at speeds of 20 to 40 miles per hour and can travel more than 50 miles. Close to their source, these flows are powerful enough to rip up and carry trees, houses, and huge boulders miles downstream. Farther downstream they cover everything in their path with mud. They can occur both during an eruption and when a volcano is quiet. The water that creates lahars can come from melting snow and ice, torrential rainfall, or glacial and mountain lakes. Large lahars are a potential hazard to many communities downstream from glacier-clad volcanoes, especially under some climate change scenarios. Following the 1982 eruption of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington, melting snow and ice triggered a lahar that traveled down the north flank of the mountain, following the channel of the North Fork of the Toutle River. Jammed with torn-up full-sized trees, it scoured the ground of everything.

HUMAN CAUSATION OF LANDSLIDES Water, soil composition and bedrock, slope, vegetation, and previous land use, including road building, clear-cuts, and housing development, all play a role in creating a landslide risk. Some of the risk can be reduced. Poor management practices, such as clear-cutting and road building on steep slopes, can be avoided. Shoddy land-use planning practices, overdevelopment, and lack of environmental enforcement can increase the risk of landslides. DOES LOGGING CAUSE LANDSLIDES? One battleground is whether logging causes landslides. Most studies do find a higher incidence of slides in clear-cuts and logged areas than in unlogged forest. Some scientists question the methods used in the studies because they claim that landslides in uncut areas were undercounted because they were less visible. Others question the core geologic assumptions regarding slope stability. The differing results of landslide studies, and the general lack of clarity about how and

Landslides and Mudslides | 323

why landslides occur, leads to a battleground. Those who wish to restrict activity on a slide-prone slope need to know which slopes are slide-prone. It is very difficult and expensive to accurately classify which slopes are slide-prone. Another difficult question and battleground is if logging, mining, and other road building and natural resource extraction activities do cause landslides, what is the policy about this? Should they be prevented from creating this risk, and if so, how? Should they be responsible for mitigation of any past risks created? THE NATIONAL LANDSLIDE HAZARDS MITIGATION STRATEGY The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy provides a framework for reducing losses from landslides and other ground failures. Although the strategy is national in scope, it is not exclusively federal or even exclusively governmental. Mitigation, defined as any sustained action taken to reduce and eliminate long-term risk to life and property, generally occurs at the state and local levels, and the strategy is based on partnerships with stakeholders at all levels of government and in the private sector. The term landslide describes many types of downhill earth movements, ranging from rapidly moving catastrophic rock avalanches and debris flows in mountainous regions to more slowly-moving earth slides and other ground failures. In addition to the different types of landslides, the broader scope of ground failure includes subsidence, permafrost, and shrinking soils. The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy provides a framework that can be applied to other ground-failure hazards. Landslides and other ground failures impose many direct and indirect costs on society. Direct costs include the actual damage sustained by buildings and property, ranging from the expense of cleanup and repair to replacement. Indirect costs are harder to measure and include business disruption, loss of tax revenues, reduced property values, loss of productivity, losses in tourism, and losses from litigation. The indirect costs often exceed the direct costs. Much of the economic loss is borne by federal, state, and local agencies that are responsible for disaster assistance and highway maintenance and repair. Landslides have a significant adverse effect on infrastructure and threaten transportation corridors, fuel and energy conduits, and communications linkages. Ground-failure events have devastating economic effects on federal, state, local, and private roads, bridges, and tunnels every year. Railroads, pipelines, electric and telecommunication lines, dams, offshore oil and gas production facilities, port facilities, and waste repositories continually are affected by land movement. Road building and construction often exacerbate the landslide problem in hilly areas by altering the landscape, slopes, and drainages and by changing and channeling runoff, thereby increasing the potential for landslides. Landslides and other forms of ground failure also have adverse environmental consequences, such as dramatically increased soil erosion, siltation of streams and reservoirs, blockage of stream drainages, and loss of valuable watershed, grazing, and timber lands.

324

|

Landslides and Mudslides

Before individuals and communities can reduce their risk from landslide hazards, they need to know the nature of the threat, its potential impact on them and their community, their options for reducing the risk or impact, and methods for carrying out specific mitigation measures. Achieving widespread public awareness of landslide hazards will enable communities and individuals to make informed decisions on where to live, purchase property, or locate a business. Local decision makers will know where to permit construction of residences, businesses, and critical facilities to reduce potential damage from landslide hazards. DIFFERENT KINDS OF LANDSLIDES Landslide is a general term for a wide variety of perceptible downward and outward movements of soil, rock, and vegetation under the influence of gravity. The materials may move by falling, toppling, sliding, spreading, or flowing. Some landslides are rapid, occurring in seconds, whereas others may take hours, weeks, or even longer to develop. Although landslides usually occur on steep slopes, they also can occur in areas of low relief. Landslides can occur as ground failure of river bluffs, cutand-fill failures accompanying highway and building excavations, collapse of mine-waste piles, and slope failures associated with quarries and open-pit mines. Underwater landslides usually involve areas of low relief and small slope gradients in lakes and reservoirs or in offshore marine settings. Landslides can be triggered by both natural changes in the environment and human activities. Inherent weaknesses in the rock or soil often combine with one or more triggering events, such as heavy rain, snowmelt, changes in groundwater level, or seismic or volcanic activity. Long-term climate change may result in an increase in precipitation and ground saturation and a rise in groundwater level, reducing the shear strength and increasing the weight of the soil. Erosion can remove the toe and lateral slope support, potentially causing landslides. Storms and sealevel rise often exacerbate coastal erosion and landslides. Earthquakes and volcanoes often trigger landslides. The downward movement of land is generally classified as follows. Falls—Abrupt movements of materials that become detached from steep slopes or cliffs, moving by free fall, bouncing, and rolling. Flows—General term including many types of mass movement, such as creep, debris flow, debris avalanche, lahar, and mudflow. Creep—Slow, steady downslope movement of soil or rock, often indicated by curved tree trunks, bent fences or retaining walls, and tilted poles or fences. Debris flow—Rapid mass movement in which loose soils, rocks, and organic matter combine with entrained air and water to form a slurry that then flows downslope, usually associated with steep gullies. Lahar—Mudflow or debris flow that originates on the slope of a volcano, usually triggered by heavy rainfall eroding volcanic deposits, sudden

Landslides and Mudslides | 325

melting of snow and ice due to heat from volcanic vents, or the breakout of water from glaciers, crater lakes, or lakes dammed by volcanic eruptions. Mudflow—Rapidly flowing mass of wet material that contains at least 50 percent sand, silt, and clay particles. Lateral spreads—Often occur on very gentle slopes and result in nearly horizontal movement of earth materials. Lateral spreads usually are caused by liquefaction, where saturated sediments (usually sands and silts) are transformed from a solid into a liquefied state, usually triggered by an earthquake. Slides—Many types of mass movement are included in the general term landslide. The two major types of landslides are rotational slides and translational landslides. In the rotational landslide the surface of rupture is curved concavely upward (spoon-shaped), and the slide movement is more or less rotational. A slump is an example of a small rotational landslide. In a translational landslide the mass of soil and rock moves out or down and outward with little rotational movement or backward tilting. Translational landslide material may range from loose, unconsolidated soils to extensive slabs of rock and may progress over great distances under certain conditions. Types of submarine and subaqueous landslides include rotational and translational landslides, debris flows and mudflows, and sand and silt liquefaction flows that occur principally or totally underwater in lakes and reservoirs or in coastal and offshore marine areas. The failure of underwater slopes can result from rapid sedimentation, methane gas in sediments, storm waves, current scour, or earthquake stresses. Subaqueous landslides pose problems for offshore and river engineering, jetties, piers, levees, offshore platforms and facilities, and pipelines and telecommunications cables. Topple—A block of rock that tilts or rotates forward and falls, bounces, or rolls down the slope. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service is a land-management agency with responsibility for natural resources in national forests. Most of the national forest lands are located in the mountainous areas of the western United States, including large parts of Alaska. The road system in national forests is comparable in size to state road systems. Consequently, designing low-volume roads to avoid landslide problems and repairing the damage to them from landslides are major tasks. Additionally, interstate and major state highways, railroad lines, oil and gas pipelines, and electric transmission corridors pass through the national forests. Assessing landslide hazards along such projects is increasingly important. National forests generally occupy the headwaters of major rivers, increasing the importance of watershed management, especially for those watersheds where anadromous fisheries and significant inland fisheries are present.

326

|

Landslides and Mudslides

Increased landslide activity can produce sediment loads that degrade water quality and adversely affect fish habitat. Landslide hazard can be a more localized, but equally important, problem in national forests where development of large ski resorts, mines, or hydroelectric facilities takes place. Major wildfires can denude watersheds and lead to short-term landslide activity. The potential for loss of life and damage from debris flows initiated by precipitation events on burned watersheds must be considered in national forests, especially those having developed, private inholdings and adjacent urban areas. A primary landslide hazard–related activity conducted by Forest Service personnel is evaluating landslide potential in environmental assessments or reviewing environmental assessments prepared by forestry project proponents. Environmental or engineering geologists, as one of their primary duties; minerals geologists, as a related duty; or other earth scientists, where geologists are unavailable, carry out these evaluations. Engineering geologists and geotechnical engineers carry out environmental assessments and participate in designs to address landslide hazard to system roads. Another activity is assessing damage from landslides following major natural disasters. The most formalized of these assessments is the Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation procedure instituted during major wildfires. This activity also includes participating in development of stabilization and restoration projects to counter wildfire damage. A national geographic information system (GIS) network of national forest lands and a database that includes landslide information is under development. The landslide hazard information for this GIS is generated from U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) and State Geological Survey information and mapping by FOREST SERVICE GEOLOGISTS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Weather Service (NWS) are involved in landslide mitigation through their roles in the Federal Response Plan and its mission of providing services for the protection of life and property. The National Weather Service works with other federal, state, and local agencies by providing forecasts of hydrologic and meteorological conditions for landslide prediction and mitigation efforts. This assistance may include on-scene meteorological personnel to assist in emergency -response activities at landslides. The NOAA Weather Radio and other NWS dissemination systems broadcast civil emergency messages concerning landslide warnings and response and recovery efforts at the request of local, state, and federal emergency management officials. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ mission includes planning, designing, building, and operating water resources and civil projects in the areas of flood control, navigation, environmental quality, coastal protection, and disaster response, as well as the design and construction of facilities for the army, air force, and other federal agencies. In forming this broad mission, the corps has addressed a full range of technical challenges associated with landslides and ground failure. The Corps’ engineering geologists, geotechnical engineers, and geophysicists have been involved in the assessment, monitoring and analysis, and mitigation

Landslides and Mudslides | 327

of landslides in a wide range of settings at locations around the world, as well as basic and applied research on topics directly related to the analysis and mitigation of landslides and ground failures. Landslide assessment activities by corps scientists and engineers have included investigations of landslides of various mechanisms and scales along navigable waterways such as the Mississippi and Ohio rivers that result in serious navigation hazards and threats to or loss of flood-protection works. Landslides also play an important role in the erosion of the shoreline; the protection of shoreline is a major responsibility of the corps. Many corps damsite investigations have involved the identification and assessment of past and potential landslides. Corps have been involved in monitoring active landslides and ground failure in both natural and engineered soils and earth materials. These tasks have focused on identifying the temporal and spatial variability of earth movements and identifying causal factors. Monitoring data have been used along with detailed site information to analyze the stability of a landslide in terms of initial movements, present conditions, and conditions after mitigation actions. As an engineering agency, the corps has a significant role in the planning, design, and construction of landslide-mitigation measures associated with the protection of its civil and military projects. Specific methods for reducing landslide hazards and increasing slope stability have been developed and implemented by corps engineers at sites around the world. The corps’ role in initial engineering geological investigation, engineering analysis, remedial design, implementation, construction, and postproject monitoring is of particular value to the nation and the international community. The corps has an important national mission in disaster response. This mission has involved the corps in responding to landslides, especially those resulting from floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. The corps’ role in international disaster response has become a major focus in landslide engineering. Recent landslide assessments, analysis, and mitigation efforts have been conducted in Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru, Haiti, Puerto Rico, South Korea, and the Philippines. Research at the Corps Engineering Research and Development Center includes the development and testing of analytical tools and assessment methods and approaches for landslide mitigation. Basic research in soil and rock mechanics, geomorphology, hydrogeology, remote sensing, geophysics, and engineering geology has resulted in advancements in the understanding of the causative factors and mechanics of landslides and ground failures. The Bureau of Land Management is a federal agency that manages multiple uses of approximately 264 million surface acres of federal land located primarily in 12 western states. A relatively small portion of this land is located in steep mountainous terrain with geologic and climatic conditions resulting in high landslide hazards, such as in western Oregon, northern California, and northern Idaho. Many landslides on public land are the result of natural disturbance events, but land-management activities, including road building, timber harvest, historic mining, and water impoundments, can contribute to their occurrence. The Bureau of Land Management does not have an agency-wide

328

|

Landslides and Mudslides

landslide hazards program or specialized personnel. Landslide hazards prevention activities conducted by the bureau’s local field offices include identification of unstable slopes by using aerial photograph interpretation, landslide hazards guides, on-site indicators, predictive models, and limited inventory and monitoring of landslides. Prevention and mitigation of landslides are accomplished by using a variety of methods. Existing roads may be closed and obliterated, rerouted, or kept open and stabilized with additional runoff-control structures, subsurface drainage control, or other techniques. Routine road maintenance is an important factor in helping to reduce landslide hazards. Prudent route analysis and design to minimize landslide hazard are employed for new roads in landslide-prone areas. Hazardous-fuels management can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires that could increase landslide hazards. Timber management silvicultural practices are employed to maintain root strength where needed for slope stability. Sites that are a threat to human health and safety, roads and recreational facilities, water quality, fisheries and aquatic habitat, and other valued resource are stabilized, and sediment is controlled with revegetation and structural means. Many national parks are geologically active, exposing park visitors, staff, and infrastructure to geologic hazards. Landslides, including slope failures, mudflows, and rockfalls, adversely affect parks, causing deaths and injuries, closing roads and trails, and damaging park infrastructure. Recent examples include several rockfalls in Yosemite Valley, each resulting in one fatality; damaging landslides in Shenandoah National Park triggered by torrential rains; repeated slope failures fed by artificial aquifers at Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument; landslides that closed roads in Zion and Yellowstone National Parks; and the threat of large debris flows at Mt. Rainier. USGS scientists have provided insights essential to effective response to landslide hazards at these and other national parks. Because it is a natural process, landslide activity is generally allowed to proceed unimpeded in national parks unless safety is a concern. However, where people have destabilized the landscape (e.g., by logging, mining, and road building), disturbed lands are restored where practical to their predisturbance condition. To reduce risk from landslides and other geologic hazards, park planners must incorporate information from hazard assessments and maps into decisions about appropriate sites for facilities such as campgrounds, visitor centers, and concession areas. Planners face difficult choices as they attempt to balance risks from different hazards, such as floods and rockfalls in confined valleys, with at the same time providing public access to popular but potentially hazardous areas. When a landslide or other hazard occurs, park personnel must quickly rescue people, stabilize structures, and clear debris from roads and other public areas. Then park personnel must work with experts to assess the nature and extent of the event and the risk of recurrence. Short-term studies are required to help managers decide whether and when to reopen affected areas; then more detailed research is often needed to make informed decisions about future use of the immediately affected area and other areas that may face similar hazards.

Lead Exposure

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Given current land-development trends and land-use planning processes, it is likely that more controversies about landslide liability will develop. Many currently feel it is an individual responsibility to know whether a site is a landslide hazard. Others point out that in fact most people do know whether they are in a landslide risk area or not. State intervention is necessary, they argue, because people need protection. The scientific information around landslide monitoring and assessment has grown rapidly as this controversy has heated up. Arguments about whether a specific act of clear-cutting timber or building a ski highway on a steep mountain caused a specific landslide will be in courts and state agencies for years to come. Because many factors can cause a landslide, and because landslides can occur over a long time, this will be difficult to prove in court. However, the new wave of scientific information will inform state and local policy makers empowered with the authority to make environmental decisions. See also Climate Change; Environmental Vulnerability of Urban Areas; Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters; Federal Environmental Land Use; Logging; Mining of Natural Resources; Sprawl; Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation Web Resources Forecasting the Collapse and Runout of Giant Catastrophic Landslides. Available at www. benfieldhrc.org/landslides/Landslides.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. Guidelines on Logging Practices for the Hill Forest of Peninsular Malaysia. Available at www. fao.org/docrep/W3646E/w3646e0d.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Logging and Landslides: A Clear-Cut Controversy. Available at www.wildfirenews.com/for ests/forest/index.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Baldwin, John H. 1985. Environmental Planning and Management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Glade, Thomas, ed. 2005. Landslide Hazard and Risk. New York: John Wiley and Sons; MacGuire, Bill, Ian M. Mason, and Christopher R. J. Kilburn. 2002. Natural Hazards and Environmental Change. New York: Oxford University Press; Matthias, Jakob O. 2005. Debris-Flow Hazards and Related Phenomena. New York: Springer; Rybář, Jan, Josef Stemberk, and Peter Wagner. 2002. Landslides: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Landslides, Prague, Czech Republic. Oxford: Taylor Francis; Stoltman, Joseph P., John Lidstone, and Lisa M. Dechano, eds. 2005. International Perspectives on Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation, and Consequences. New York: Springer.

LEAD EXPOSURE Environmental exposure to lead can cause life-impairing if not deadly consequences. Lead is a metal that can harm humans and the environment and is present in many pollutants and consumer goods. Many of the controversial issues surrounding lead exposure relate to scientific disagreement over the extent and severity of exposure. Other controversies relate to political disagreements over

|

329

330

|

Lead Exposure

who is exposed, when to test for lead exposure, and who will pay for diagnosis and treatment. WHAT IS LEAD? Lead is essentially a mineral. Minerals are formed by hot solutions working their way up from deep below the earth’s rocky crust, and crystallizing as they cool near the surface. From early history to the present, mining lead is part of human culture. Lead was a key component in cosmetic decoration as a pigment; a spermicide for informal birth control; a sweet-and-sour condiment popular for seasoning and adulterating food; a wine preservative for stopping fermentation or disguising inferior vintages; the malleable and inexpensive ingredient in pewter cups, plates, pitchers, pots and pans, and other household artifacts; the basic component of lead coins; and the material of children’s toys. Most important of all was lead’s suitability as inexpensive and reliable water pipes. Lead pipes are still used in many parts of the world and are still present in the United States. Lead pipes kept the Roman Empire supplied with water. From then until now lead has been part of our society. Human exposure to lead is a serious public health problem. Lead adversely affects the nervous, hematopoietic, endocrine, renal, and reproductive systems of the body. Of particular concern are the effects of relatively low levels of lead exposure on the cognitive development of children. Since the 1970s, federal environmental regulations and abatement efforts have mainly focused on reducing the amount of lead in gasoline, paint, and soldered cans. In addition, some federal programs have supported screening for lead poisoning in children by state and local health departments and physicians, as well as lead abatement in housing. Currently, lead exposure usually results from lead in deteriorating household paint, lead at the workplace, lead used in hobbies, lead in some folk medicines and cosmetics, lead in children’s toys, and lead in crystal or ceramic containers that leaches into water or food. Since the late 1970s, the extent of lead exposure in the U.S. population has been assessed by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). These national surveys have measured blood lead levels (BPb) of tens of thousands of children and adults and assessed the extent of lead exposure in the civilian population by age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, and degree of urbanization. The surveys have demonstrated an overall decline in BPbs since the 1970s, but they also have shown that a large number of children continue to have elevated blood lead levels (10 μg/dl). The U.S. EPA claims that due to environmental regulations, airborne lead amounts have decreased by 90 percent from 1980 to 2005. Sociodemographic factors associated with higher blood lead levels in children were non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, low income, and residence in older housing. The prevalence of elevated blood lead levels was 21.9 percent among non-Hispanic black children living in homes built before 1946 and 16.4 percent among children in low-income families who lived in homes built before 1946. Overall, blood lead levels continue to decline in the U.S. population. The

Lead Exposure

disproportionate impact on urban people of color makes it an environmental justice issue, although lead can work its way through ecosystems and affect other groups downwind or downstream. Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes, schools, and workplaces. Lead can cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death. Children six years old and under are most at risk, because their bodies are growing quickly. The EPA is playing a major role in addressing these residential lead hazards. In 1978, there were nearly three to four million children with elevated blood lead levels in the United States. By 2002, that number had dropped to 310,000 children, and it continues to decline. Since the 1980s, the EPA has phased out lead in gasoline, reduced lead in drinking water and in industrial air pollution, and banned or limited lead used in consumer products, including residential paint. States and cities have set up some programs to identify and treat lead-poisoned children and to rehabilitate deteriorated housing. Parents have greatly helped to reduce their children’s lead exposure by eliminating lead in their homes, having their children’s blood lead levels checked, and learning about the risks of lead for children. Some population groups continue to be at disproportionately high risk for elevated lead exposure. In general, these are people with low income, people of non-Hispanic black race, and people who live in older housing. Residence in a central city with a population of more than one million people was also found to be a risk factor for lead exposure. These high-risk population groups are important to recognize for targeting of public health efforts in lead-poisoning prevention. Leaded paint, especially in older homes, is a continuing source of lead exposure. In the United States, approximately 83 percent of privately owned housing units and 86 percent of public housing units built before 1980 contain some lead-based paint. Commercial and industrial structures often have much more lead paint. Bridges are often constantly being painted and use large amounts of lead paint. The areas under the bridges are often contaminated with lead. If the area under a bridge is land, the lead accumulates on the ground and in the dirt. Many bridges of this type are older and in urban areas. Between 5 and 15 million homes contain paint that has deteriorated to the point of being a health hazard. Lead hazard control and abatement costs are highly variable, depending on the extent of the intervention, existing market conditions, type of housing, and associated housing rehabilitation work. Because of the high cost of abatement, the scarcity of adequately trained lead-abatement professionals, and the absence (until 1995) of federal guidelines for implementing less-costly methods of leaded paint hazard containment, residential lead-paint-abatement efforts have focused on homes in which there is a resident child with an elevated BPb, rather than on homes that have the potential to expose a child to lead. Similarly, publicly funded lead-poisoning prevention programs have focused on screening children to identify those who already have elevated BPbs so that they may receive interventions, rather than on preventing future lead exposure among children without

|

331

332

|

Lead Exposure

elevated levels. This is a battleground in the public health arena. At least some of the adverse health effects that occur even at relatively low levels of lead may be irreversible. Lead exposure prevention efforts through screening are important to ensure that children with elevated BPbs receive prompt and effective interventions to reduce further lead exposure and minimize health consequences. These types of programs are not consistently well funded. One source of lead in many countries is vehicle emissions. In the United States these emissions are much lower because of leadfree gasoline in cars. However, other airborne vehicle emissions such as from diesel may have a detrimental effect on children. In urban areas near congested roads, exposure to lead via air may be a large exposure vector. A controversial issue is whether ambient air quality standards are adequate to protect the health of children. Currently a few state environmental agencies are working to identify toxic air contaminants that may cause infants and children to be especially susceptible to risks. In many cases, children may have greater exposure than adults to airborne pollutants. Children are often more susceptible to the health effects of air pollution because their immune systems and developing organs are still growing. Lead that is inhaled is more easily lodged in the fast-growing bones of children. It may take less exposure to airborne lead to initiate an asthma attack or other breathing ailment due to the smaller size and greater sensitivity of a child’s developing respiratory system. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As a pervasive material in civilization, lead is ubiquitous. Lead in the water pipes and drinking vessels may have poisoned the people of Rome and contributed to its downfall. Lead is still in plumbing systems throughout the United States. In Washington, D.C., some of the leaded sewer and water pipes dead end. This means that there is no way to flush them clear of corrosive wastes and debris. This increases the rate of corrosion of these pipes and leaches lead into the water. When the pipe breaks it may slowly seep lead-contaminated water into the surrounding ground. The ground could be anywhere the pipe is found, near a road, river, school, factory, or any place connected to or near the break. This is a matter of great concern in chemically polluted older communities and can develop into a land-use battleground or a battleground around the environmental permits necessary, if any. Refining methods to assess health risks from lead that may exist at proposed and existing school sites is under way. Because lead is found in so many places where vulnerable populations exist, from children’s toys to hospitals, controversy around lead exposure and cleanup will increase. The disposal of lead as hazardous waste is also a controversial issue. Demolition of lead contaminated houses, factories, and infrastructure creates hazardous waste. If burned in an incinerator the lead could be spread in the air as particulate matter. The disposal of this type of toxic ash can also become a controversy. If the lead-contaminated structure simply stays in place, the lead can affect the soil and nearby water. The reluctance to expend the resources necessary to protect the most exposed people from lead contamination ensures a

Litigation of Environmental Disputes

continuing controversy. This controversy may not necessarily diminish even as science removes uncertainty about lead contamination. See also Air Pollution; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Human Health Risk Assessment; Mining of Natural Resources; Toxics Release Inventory; Transportation and the Environment Web Resources Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Lead Toxicity Cover Page. Available at www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/lead/expo sure_pathways.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Breen, Joseph J., and Cindy R. Stroup. 1995. Lead Poisoning: Exposure, Abatement, Regulation. Singapore: CRC Press; Centers for Disease Control. 1991. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children: A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; Moore, Colleen F. 2003. Silent Scourge: Children, Pollution, and Why Scientists Disagree. New York: Oxford University Press.

LITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTES The use of litigation to resolve environmental policy disputes is itself controversial. A hybrid type of lawsuit is created by environmental citizen suits, which allow environmental legal defense groups to bring certain kinds of environmental disputes into federal courts. The prevailing party gets attorneys’ fees. Industry strongly resists most laws allowing citizen suits, and many frustrated communities and almost all environmentalists support them. The use of courts to make environmental policy is a sign of how important this is to society. Courts give the most final of judgments in the United States, with the force of law behind them. Courts are also one way citizens can petition their government with grievances, but federal court jurisdiction is very limited and expensive. Federal judges are appointed for life by the president, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. This process is very political and controversial itself. Courts are also very limited in their ability and expertise to resolve environmental disputes. They are limited to the cases before them, which are limited to two parties to the dispute. Occasionally, a third party may enter as an intervener. At issue in a given case are the facts, the issues, the law applied to them, and the judgment. The environment is not directly represented in any way. Contiguous property owners may never know what judicial actions are occurring in regard to the environment. There are some emerging exceptions that will be battlegrounds. In New Mexico, a third party outside the sale of land from a buyer to a seller can challenge the transaction on environmental grounds. State and noninvolved federal agencies, other communities, or anyone else generally will not know anything about the case if it is settled because industry generally settles on the condition that it remain undisclosed and that no admission of any wrongdoing is made. Many environmentalists feel the federal courts are stacked in favor of industry because federal judges are chosen from larger law

|

333

334

|

Litigation of Environmental Disputes

firms and other conservative groups. Also, the confidential aspect of judicial decision making is generally not transparent enough to provide a sound basis for environmental policy. Federal judges are known to seal records and depositions without notice, examine evidence in camera, and give decisions with opinions on the express provision that they not be used as precedent. Some federal jurisdictions now expressly do not allow their decisions to be used as precedent. While the implications of this are deeply controversial, its net effect on environmental policy is to make judicial environmental decisions inconsistent and political. Judicial decision making is, however, relied upon for setting the parameters of U.S. environmental policy, and therefore sets some of prominent contours of this battlefield. In the 1970s, when the EPA was formed, several environmental laws had powerful citizen suit provisions attached. These basically allow environmental defense groups to sue for citizens if the EPA is not enforcing water and air laws. The EPA and industrial site must receive a letter of intent to sue if the EPA does not enforce the law at least 60 days before the action is filed in court. If the case goes forward, the prevailing side gets attorneys’ fees. These have been very important cases that forced the EPA, then a new and small federal agency, to move quickly in advancing a defensible legal basis for environmental protection. Without environmental groups advocating in court the basic standards for clean air would have taken much longer to develop, as one example. However, lawsuits also engender ill will that can last after a court makes an environmental decision. No matter what any court decides, the environment will always act independently. Unlike many other judicial decisions, environmental decisions can be measured by a standard of environmental condition to determine the soundness of that judicial decision on environmental policy. Many lawsuits could have been classified as environmental before passage of the Clean Air Act and the formation of the EPA. Without clear statutory support courts were reluctant to intervene in land-use or environmental decisions and often denied standing for such suits for failing to state a recognizable cause of action. Without judicial intervention people lacked a legal remedy for environmental or land-use cases. The environment continued to worsen until the states and the federal government reacted to the will of Congress and formed environmental agencies and passed environmental laws that clearly gave citizens the right to sue in federal court. POTENTIAL CITIZEN SUIT EXPANSION On January 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. The 7–2 opinion, delivered by Justice Ginsburg, marked a reversal toward a narrow reading of standing requirements in environmental citizen suits. This decision is important to citizen suits. Friends of the Earth and other plaintiff-petitioners filed a citizen suit against Laidlaw Environmental Services in 1992, alleging noncompliance with the water permit at Laidlaw’s wastewater treatment plant in Roebuck, South Carolina. In 1997, the district court had assessed a civil penalty of over $400,000 against Laidlaw. On appeal, the court held that since Laidlaw had come into compliance with its

Litigation of Environmental Disputes

|

335

permit before the judgment by the district court, the case had become moot. That meant no penalty could be assessed. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision, rejecting Laidlaw’s mootness claim and allowing the civil penalty to stay. This landmark decision encourages future citizen suits. In the majority opinion of the Court, plaintiffs’ concern that water was polluted, and a belief that the pollution had reduced the value of their homes, was deemed sufficient for standing. PRECLUSION OF CITIZEN SUITS AND GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY Because the object of citizen-suit provisions is increased levels of enforcement, citizen suits may be filed as long as an enforcement action is not already under way by the relevant agency. That a citizen suit is under way, however, does not necessarily preclude an agency enforcement action. The question many have is why allow an agency action to follow a citizen suit and not also the other way around? Citizen lawsuits allows plaintiffs to prevail for discovering and initiating suits based on unpunished, current violations only. It is a complex question that forms one of the many layers in the battleground on the use of litigation to resolve environmental disputes. ATTORNEYS’ FEES One controversial area of the use of litigation to solve environmental issues is the battleground of attorneys’ fees. The prevailing party generally gets attorneys’ fees. The rationale is that the environmental laws are premised on citizen suits and their use in enforcement. In litigation-intensive cases with many appeals, attorney fees can be expensive because of the long hours. In some of the endangered species litigation around the spotted owl in Oregon, the attorneys, Western Environmental Law Center, were awarded one million dollars in attorneys’ fees. This reimbursement can be helpful for plaintiffs, because rates are based on the market rate for for-profit, private attorneys, not the rates charged by the public-interest lawyers such plaintiffs typically use. Both government and industry generally have their own in-house lawyers.

AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CITIZEN SUIT? U.S. environmental law is a relatively new field; other branches of law have historically been used to remedy environmental problems. Nuisance actions were the most popular, because they allow a successful claimant not only to receive compensation but also a court order to abate the nuisance, such as a smell or smoke. Historically, however, tort law, based as it is on the protection of individual rights and the need to prove specific injury, has not been a significant means of preventing environmental degradation. It was, and is, difficult to access judicial resources. Decisions were unpredictable and sometimes took years. For many years of U.S. history, courts were for the privileged. Generally

336

|

Litigation of Environmental Disputes

one had to own property and be over 21 years old, white, and male. Courts were not good places to decide environmental issues that spread across many classes and races of people. The litigation convinced local and state governments to adopt measures to tackle the most pressing environmental problems. Most of these early measures were, in fact, enacted after sporadic crises that endangered public health.

Modern Environmental Law Since the 1970s, environmental law has experienced an unprecedented growth in many countries. This was made possible through the enactment of new statutes and regulations that provide for higher standards of environmental protection. The level of government that has enacted these instruments varies from one country to another. In the United States, the federal government has adopted most of the important environmental statutes, but their implementation is delegated to the states through a complex system of incentives and responsibilities. Citizens can sue the EPA if the EPA is failing to react to violations of environmental law.

Environmental Citizen Suits in the United States Currently, sixteen states have environmental citizen-suit statutes on the books. In general, these statutes give citizens, or any person, the right to sue the state, a private party, or both, to protect the state’s environment. Some citizen-suit statutes provide only for injunctive relief to stop harmful activity or to force the state to act, while others authorize the award of money damages as well. Whether the citizen filing the lawsuit can recover her or his attorneys’ fees and litigation costs is another variation, and battleground, among the statutes. Finally, different meanings for the term environment exist. Almost all of the states with citizen-suit statutes allow suits against any party, though some are limited to actions against only the state. Half of the statutes do not require a violation of law for a suit to be filed. Half allow equitable relief only, while two others also provide for penalties and money damages, and the rest are silent on this issue. Only a very few provide for costs to the prevailing party. Finally, only two states actually define the words environment or natural resources.

Federal Citizen-Suit Provisions Nearly every major environmental statute provides for citizen suits. In general, these provisions allow any citizen to sue any person to enforce the specific requirements or limitations of the environmental protection statute.

Questions and Answers about Using Citizen Suits to Achieve Environmental Justice There has been substantial legislative activity around the failure of the EPA to obey presidential executive orders on environmental justice. Executive Order 12898 is now reported out of the House of Representatives Environment Committees as a proposed law, specifically because the EPA refuses to obey this order in spite of numerous requirements and decisions. During legislative caucusing around this bill the issue of an environmental justice

Litigation of Environmental Disputes

|

337

citizen was debated, but ultimately not included. Some of the questions that went back and forth during these debates include the following.

When Do We Need Citizens to Enforce the Law? When government cannot be relied on to enforce the law. The EPA has shown this time and again with its resistance to complying with the Office of Inspector General reports, which are minimal and required by law. Some have argued that a citizen-suit provision is needed to bring cities into the national environmental policy arena in order to comply with increasing global demands for clean air. The United States has only recently incorporated cities into environmental regulations, yet that is where most of the pollution and people exist. Global warming and climate change concerns among other nations and in some industries will require the United States to enforce stricter environmental laws in all areas. Citizen suits are policy tools that bring in more resources to influence complex decisions that affect citizens in salient ways.

Aren’t They Counterproductive to the Orderly and Rational Development of Policy? No, without them and environmental organizations suing we would not have clean air standards. Most hard environmental decisions in the United States, with its 37-year-old baby of an environmental agency were hammered out in the adversarial world of the judiciary. Urban areas need to be brought into the maturing and more inclusive environmental agency of this century. British environmental programs all start with human habitation, as do most UNESCO and World Bank environmental programs. Global warming issues require the United States to deal with U.S. cities, in some way no matter who lives there. Treaty issues like Kyoto may arise.

Won’t They Clog the Courts? No. This is what courts do. When the EPA was formed it was designed to litigate, and it has litigated. Courts now have experience with aspects of environmental law like NEPA and so forth. Also, agencies are quickly self-righting when faced with a judicial order, so the cases against the U.S. agency would quickly decline.

ARE THE COURTS TOO POLITICAL WHEN DECIDING ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTES? Current trends in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) litigation in the federal courts show stark political polarization. Empirical research is being done to determine whether NEPA cases are being brought at the same rate as in the past; whether cases are being won more or less frequently; and whether the party affiliation of the presiding judge is correlated with the case outcome. The results are controversial and have opened up a battleground.

338

|

Litigation of Environmental Disputes

A 2001 report by Environmental Law Institute’s Endangered Environmental Laws Program (Judging NEPA: A “Hard Look” at Judicial Decision Making under the National Environmental Policy Act, by Jay E. Austin, John M. Carter II, Bradley D. Klein, and Scott E. Schang) found that the rate of new NEPA litigation has increased significantly, in contrast to the general declining trend in NEPA litigation since 1974. This recent spike in litigation may be due to a number of factors, including an increase in environmentally significant actions by federal agencies, the above-mentioned U.S. Supreme Court decision, and a corresponding increase in challenges to those actions, or environmental parties’ reported perception of the current administration as hostile to the values NEPA was designed to protect. Despite the increase in the number of new filings, the overall win rate for NEPA litigants has remained stable over 30 years of litigation. There is a dramatic correlation between the outcome of NEPA cases and the political party affiliation of the presiding judge, using the party of the president who nominated that judge as a proxy. In 325 NEPA cases decided from January 21, 2001, to June 30, 2004, • federal district court judges appointed by a Democratic president ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs just under 60 percent of the time, while judges appointed by a Republican president ruled in their favor less than half as often, 28 percent of the time; • district judges appointed by President George W. Bush have an even less favorable attitude toward environmentalists’ NEPA suits, ruling in their favor only 17 percent of the time; • when industry or pro-development interests sue under NEPA, the results are almost exactly reversed: judges appointed under a Democratic administration rule in favor of pro-development plaintiffs 14 percent of the time, while Republican-appointed judges rule in favor of such plaintiffs almost 60 percent of the time. • a striking pattern can be found in the federal circuit courts, in which threejudge panels decide appeals from the district courts. Circuit court panels with a majority of judges appointed by a Democratic president (those with two or three such judges) ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 58 percent of the time. In contrast, Republican-majority panels ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 10 percent of the time, only one-sixth as often. These results suggest that judges’ political affiliations often have an impact on their decisions about NEPA claims. This is significant given the federal judiciary’s central role in defining and enforcing NEPA’s obligations. The results call into question whether NEPA is meeting its core purpose of providing a transparent environmental impact assessment process that generates information about proposed federal actions regardless of which administration proposes them, who objects to them, or who hears any dispute about them. Litigation of environmental issues under NEPA was written into the law. Nonetheless, the political polarization about the environment may have tainted the independence of the U.S. federal judiciary.

Logging

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The foundation of modern environmental policy in the United States is a framework of court cases. The EPA was designed to handle litigation; many environmental laws have citizen-lawsuit provisions, and states may have separate citizen-suit provisions. This framework continues to this day. As long as environmental controversies continue, controversies about litigation as sound environmental policy making will continue. See also Collaboration in Environmental Decision Making; Different Standards of Enforcement of Environmental Law; Environmental Audits and Environmental Audit Privileges; Environmental Justice; Environmental Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Web Resources Florio, Kerry D. Attorneys’ Fees in Environmental Citizen Suits: Should Prevailing Defendants Recover? Available at www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/27_4/03_ FMS.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. States Environmental Resource Center. State Citizen Suits. Available at www.serconline.org/ citizensuits/background.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Brooks, Richard O. 1996. Green Justice: The Environment and the Courts. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Chen, Jim, and Jonathan H. Adler, eds. 2003. The Jurisdynamics of Environmental Protection: Change and the Pragmatic Voice in Environmental Law. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute; Collin, Robert W. 2006. The US Environmental Protection Agency: Cleaning Up America’s Act. Westport, CT: Greenwood; Lazarus, Richard J. 2004. Making of Environmental Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Schoenbrod, David. 2005. Saving Our Environment from Washington: How Congress Grabs Power, Shirks Responsibility, and Short Changes the People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Wilkinson, David. 2002. Environment and Law. New York: Routledge.

LOGGING Logging trees has severe environmental impacts. Attempts at sustainable logging are considered monoculture production, not ecosystem preservation. The U.S. government permits its land to be harvested for timber, with the profit going to private corporations. Permits for cutting trees, salvage logging, and fire-reduction cuts are all controversial. TREES AND LOGGING: HISTORIC DUAL PURPOSE, MODERN-DAY RAW MATERIAL Historically, clearing land of trees was necessary for human settlement. The land itself was necessary for growing crops. The trees provided cover for wildlife, which most pioneers tried to keep away from the house and livestock. Today, clearing trees by centuries-old slash-and-burn techniques continues. One big difference is that today, with modern technology and monocultural pesticide-supported

|

339

340

|

Logging

growing techniques, the scale of the deforestation is much larger and faster. The deforestation controversy combines with logging controversies. Today, the land-clearing function of logging is a smaller, though still controversial, part of logging. Logging now treats trees as raw materials for the production of other products such as wood, paper, and others. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LOGGING Logging has environmental impacts in both the short and long term. It affects many components of the ecosystem. Trees are essential components in many ecosystems, retaining water, providing shade over land and water, as well as providing food and shelter to wildlife. There are many types of trees, although only some are logged. In many ecosystems trees fill unique ecological niches. One example is the Port Orfid cedar growing on Oregon’s coast. Having adapted to the wet, windy conditions of its ecosystem, it flourished. When it was plentiful, it was logged. In the 1980s a deadly virus attacked the tree. Port Orfid cedars grow and communicate through their roots, and the virus moves from tree to tree, wiping out whole groves. State biologists scrambled for preventative solutions, and environmentalists became very concerned. The U.S. Forest Service permitted logging in and near a wilderness area with some of the last stands of Port Orfid cedar. The loggers transmitted the virus to these trees although they were not logging the Port Orfid cedars. Intense environmental litigation ensued. Among other issues the court ruled that the loggers were to wash off their logging vehicles when entering and leaving the wilderness area. They do not do this, and this battleground simmers. This is an example of the environmental impact of logging on other parts of the ecosystem, including endangered species like the spotted owl. Making roads into natural or manmade wilderness areas creates ecosystem-threatening risks. LOGGING AND SOIL EROSION A big battleground in logging is whether and how much soil erosion it causes. Soil erosion has a bad environmental impact in most places because it lowers the ecological productivity of a region. Plants and animals depend on soil or on the plants and animals the soil feeds. When roads are built and heavy loads of logs are moved on them, the impact on the stability of the soil on any type of slope is enormous. Since many trees are in mountainous areas, logging roads are often built along the sides of valleys or canyons. Some states have more miles of logging roads than paved roads. At the bottom of these valleys and canyons are usually creeks, streams, and rivers. When the soil becomes unstable it can cause landslides. These landslides can occur months or years after the logging operation ceases because the trees are no longer there to hold the water and soil in place. Forests provide a buffer that filters water and holds soil in place. They sustain water and soil resources by recycling nutrients. In watersheds where forests are environmentally impacted by logging, the soil erosion results in siltation of

Logging

the waterways, which, combined with the loss of shade from trees, increases the temperature of the water, affecting the ability of aquatic life to exist. It can also affect the ability of humans to use the water downstream. This affects agribusiness users, cities, and natural systems. One impact that overlogging caused in Salem, Oregon, in the late 1990s is the closure of the public water supply. Clearcutting trees on steep slopes had caused siltation of the water in the watershed. This particular battleground developed in the state legislature, which is a common battleground for logging issues. LOGGING AND CLIMATE IMPACTS Local changes in precipitation are direct and immediate when the forest cover is removed. Trees and forests engage in a natural process of transpiration that modifies water flow, softening the impact of highs and lows in water volume. Changes in transpiration increase both runoff and erosion. LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY Logging Often Destroys Natural Habitats for Long Periods of Time Environmentalists claim that logging destroys natural habitats, resulting in the loss of biodiversity. They fear that that this could lead to the extinction of species, such as the spotted owl. The logging industry has developed some replanting and selective-resulting harvesting techniques to minimize habitat degradation and soil erosion. Some logging corporations say they try to keep a protected strip of land next to the waterways, called riparian protection. They limit the amount of trees they take from steep slopes to prevent soil erosion. They buy land and plant their own trees and engage in logging there, as opposed to in national parks, wilderness areas, and other federally owned land. Logging corporations also prepare environmental impact statements when trying to cut trees on federal land. Each one of these environmental mitigation techniques and best practices is a battleground contested by environmentalists who say logging corporations do minimal mitigation, create far more impact than they self-report, and take trees illegally from federally owned lands. Many rural western communities are dependent on logging as the only source of income. Since the spotted owl litigation, about 60 logging mills closed down in Oregon alone, leaving some communities with no economic base. Sustainable Logging Sustainable forestry epitomized the ideal that the land would never be depleted of its trees. As early as 1936, Weyerhaeuser practiced sustained-yield logging, a practice it continues in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. By logging the forest of its timber and replacing a variety of tree species with a single commercial species timber companies create a continuing supply of timber. There may also be less environmental impacts than when logging virgin or secondary-growth forests. Environmentalists accuse logging companies of planting monocultures, with additional environmental impacts because of pesticide use and susceptibility to disease. They point out that simply planting your own trees does not necessarily

|

341

342

|

Logging

lessen the environmental impacts, especially to the soil. Many small property owners in some of the timber states have stands of timber they have planted to harvest as a future investment. Some of these stands can contain unique and irreplaceable old-growth forest. When environmentalists pursue state legislative changes that alter expectations for use of this timber, private property activists get involved and open up another battleground in the logging controversy. When loggers cut old-growth forest, environmental activists increase protest activities such as tree sitting. When timber corporations begin sustainability programs, it is in the context of this bitterly entrenched, litigation-heavy controversy.

ROADLESS AREAS AND LOGGING Many environmental laws protect federal lands as well as control multiple uses on them. Roads are a major concern because they erode forever-wild status in wilderness areas and have large environmental impacts. Other recreational users, such as all-terrain vehicles, mountain bikers, and packhorses, all begin to use the road. In this way, building roads so that corporations can mine, log, or graze animals opens up that area to a longer term, much more pervasive environmental impact. Roadless areas cover approximately 50 to 60 million acres, or about 25 to 30 percent of all land in the national forests; another 35 million acres are congressionally designated wilderness. The rest of the national forests contain 380,000 miles of roads. The vast majority of these rough-cut roads are built to provide access for logging and, to a much lesser extent, mining. Public opposition to subsidized logging of public lands by building roads, bridges, and aqueducts in parks and wilderness areas resulted in budget cuts for the Forest Service. Watershed protection and restoration, or timber production, became the outlines for this battleground. Environmentalists have long accused the Forest Service of simply managing the profits for industry, not protecting the environment. The arena of public funding of roads in these areas is a narrow but well-defined battleground. There is substantial public and political support for permanent protection of the roadless areas. Historically, many conceived of national parks and wilderness areas as being without any roads. With the increased reliance on the car, roads were developed everywhere. Roads greatly impact pristine natural areas, so much so that the need to protect roadless areas is well known. A driving need in environmental policy is to establish a long-term policy that protects all roadless national forest areas from road building, logging, mining, grazing, and other environmentally degrading activities. In 2004 the Bush administration proposed a new plan to open up national forests to more logging. It focuses on road building. Under Bush’s plan, governors would have to petition the federal government to block roads needed for logging in remote areas of national forests. It covers about 58 million of the 191 million acres of national forest nationwide. Since 2002, the George W. Bush administration has been studying the roadless rule, which blocks road construction in nearly one-third of national forests to prevent logging and other commercial activity. The timber industry supports the proposal, maintaining that these decisions are far better made by the local community and state than through federal policy.

Logging

|

343

But New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson, said the Forest Service was walking away from environmental protection. Richardson said he would ask that all 1.1 million acres of roadless land in his state remain protected and planned to urge other western governors to do the same. Environmental groups were also critical. “This is a roadblock to roadless protection. To take it down to the state level like this really undermines having a national forest system,” added the Wilderness Society. National Environmental Trust called the proposal “the biggest single giveaway to the timber industry in the history of the national forests.” Without a national policy against road construction, environmentalists maintained, forest management would revert to individual forest plans that in many cases allowed roads and other development on most of the 58 million acres that are now protected by the roadless rule. Environmentalists say it is unlikely that governors in pro-logging states, such as Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah, will seek to keep the roadless rule in effect. Several Republican governors in the West have strongly criticized the rule, calling it “an unnecessary restriction that has locked up millions of acres from logging and other economic development.”

LOGGING, ENDANGERED SPECIES, AND SNAGS The environmental impacts of logging often threaten endangered species such as the spotted owl, which spawned a decade of political and legal controversy in Oregon. In San Francisco, a federal district court granted an environmentalist’s request for a halt to a logging project that would cut thousands of very large dead trees (called snags) from a burn area that includes critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. This area of snags is part of an old-growth forest reserve in the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. The controversy swirls around the Sims Fire Salvage timber sale. According to federal government reports, the Sims Fire Salvage timber sale would cut an estimated 6.1 million board feet from 169 acres, an average of more than 36,000 board feet per acre. The average tree to be cut is nearly three feet in diameter and many are larger. The Six Rivers National Forest has designated Sierra Pacific Industries the high bidder for the Sims sale but has not yet awarded a contract to the company. Of the 169 acres that would be cut, 124 are part of a late successional reserve, which environmentalists contend was to be set aside to provide old-growth habitat. The sale area also includes 57 acres of designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, critical habitat for the marbled murrelet and critical habitat for the coho salmon. All three species are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Environmentalists charge that the federal agency is emphasizing logging projects at the expense of its responsibility to protect fish and wildlife habitat in the public forests. Dead trees provide important wildlife habitat, and may serve other functions in ecological processes. Snags hold fragile soils in place and provide critical wildlife habitat. Environmentalists have scientists and law on their side. This court case, and others like it, will continue to define the ragged edges

344

|

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

of U.S. environmental policy around logging. This is also one of the primary battlegrounds of this environmentally controversial issue. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY With the fate of the roadless areas in doubt and industry scientists, environmentalists, and federal agencies intensely studying these issues, the logging controversy will continue. As timber supplies dwindle, governmental agencies may need to take private property to control ecosystem impacts from logging. Some logging communities live and die based on local mill operations. Other communities are concerned that their watershed could be contaminated from runoff or spraying from logging. Logging is also an international environmental issue, and global developments around logging may affect the U.S. controversy. See also Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Federal Environmental Land Use; Fire; State Environmental Land Use; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution; Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation Web Resources Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. Ethics and the Spotted Owl Controversy. Available at www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Knickerbocker, Brad. With Oregon Timber Sale, Controversy Flares. Christian Science Monitor, June 14, 2006. Available at www.csmonitor.com/2006/0614/p02s01-usgn.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Roadless Area Conservation. Available at www.roadless.fs.fed.us/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Alverson, William Surprison, Walter Kuhlmann, and Donald M. Waller. 1994. Wild Forests: Conservation Biology and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press; Goble, Dale, and Paul W. Hirt. 1999. Northwest Lands, Northwest Peoples: Readings in Environmental History. Seattle: University of Washington Press; Keiter, Robert B. 2003. Keeping Faith with Nature: Ecosystems, Democracy, and America’s Public Lands. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Knott, Catherine Henshaw. 1998. Living with the Adirondack Forest: Local Perspectives on Land Use Conflicts. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; Marchak, M. Patricia. 1995. Logging the Globe. Kingston, Ontario: McGillQueen’s Press; Rajala, Richard A. 1998. Clearcutting the Pacific Rain Forest: Production, Science, and Regulation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE The transportation, shipment, storage, and disposal of low-level radioactive materials may cause people to come into contact with them. States and communities actively resist these types of exposures. Industry maintains that low levels of exposure are not risky. WHERE DOES RADIOACTIVE WASTE COME FROM? Nuclear power and research generate low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Twenty percent of U.S. energy comes from nuclear energy, and other countries are increasingly dependent on nuclear energy. As environmental controversies such

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

|

345

as global warming and climate change drive a search for more alternate energy sources, demand for nuclear energy is likely to increase. Low-level radioactive waste production may also increase. Radioactive materials can present risk to all life-forms for many years. The term low level does not mean that LLRW is relatively harmless, nor does it not mean low hazard to human health. There has been little consideration of the synergistic relationships of radiation and other environmental contaminants upon an individual recipient. The uncertainty of the exposure to this dangerous and increasing material increases concern and controversy.

WHO WILL TAKE THE WORST WASTE? THE CASE OF SKULL VALLEY, UTAH Utah is a dry western state in which much of the land is owned by the federal government. There are also many Indian reservations there. The Goshutes people have inhabited that part of the land for many years. They were there before the Mormons, the Mexicans, and the Spaniards. At their peak the Goshutes numbered about 20,000. Today there are fewer than 500 Goshutes, of which 124 belong to the Skull Valley Band (http://skullvalleygoshutes.org). The Goshutes were recently issued a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to accept radioactive and other hazardous wastes. Today, the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation comprises approximately 18,000 acres. South of Skull Valley on traditional Goshute territory is now the Dugway Proving Grounds. This is where the U.S. government developed and tested chemical and biological weapons. In 1968 chemical agents leaked into the environment from Dugway, and approximately 6,000 sheep and other animals died. At least 1,600 of those contaminated sheep were buried on the Goshutes’ reservation by the U.S. government.

Dumping Grounds Skull Valley is the middle of a toxic donut. It is surrounded by dangerous and toxic land uses. East of Skull Valley in the area known as Rush Valley, there is a nerve gas storage facility for the federal government. The world’s largest nerve gas incinerator has recently been built to destroy thousands of tons of these deadly chemicals. To the south of Skull Valley is the Intermountain Power Project, which provides coal-fired electrical power primarily for California. It also produces air pollution that affects the Skull Valley Reservation. Northwest of Skull Valley is the Envirocare Low-Level Radioactive Disposal Site. This corporation buries radioactive waste for the United States. Close by are also two hazardous waste incinerators and one hazardous waste landfill. North of the reservation is the Magnesium Corporation plant, a large magnesium-production plant. This is the most polluting plant of its kind in the United States. Chlorine gas releases from Magnesium Corporation also affect the Skull Valley Reservation. In the siting of all these facilities on the aboriginal territory of the Goshutes, the Skull Valley tribal government and people were never once consulted (http://skullvalleygoshutes.org).

346

|

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Current Controversy Native people are well aware of their environmental conditions and, like most communities, seek economic development. Many reservations have high unemployment rates and lack economic opportunity. The band considered a variety of economic ventures, including the storage of spent nuclear fuel. The Skull Valley Band of Goshutes leased land to a private group of electrical utilities for the temporary storage of 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. The proposition to store spent nuclear fuel on Native American reservations began with a controversial proposal in 1990 by the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator to communities nationally. The federal government sought a voluntary candidate site to consider the temporary storage of spent fuel as provided by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the amendments of 1987. The storage program was known as monitored retrievable storage or MRS. When the executive committee of the Goshute Band became aware of this proposal, they submitted a grant application and began gathering data. The $100,000 grant was awarded in 1992 for the band to investigate the benefits and impacts of siting an MRS at Skull Valley. From 1992 until 1995, the leaders of the band carefully studied the facts. They made site visits to examine firsthand all aspects of storage of spent nuclear fuel under the MRS program.

Why Can the Goshutes Not Voluntarily Take Deadly Waste for Disposal? The opposition to this project has been intense and politically charged. Some of the foremost nuclear scientists have decided to intervene in the proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). They represent Scientists for Secure Waste Storage (SSWS). These scientists seek to provide objective scientific evidence in the NRC proceedings. Their intervention does not constitute an endorsement or opposition to this project. SSWS is represented by the Atlantic Legal Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit law firm that brings scientific clarity to important national cases. They are concerned that the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) facility could cause radioactive contamination of the groundwater. The Goshutes have been saying that their storage casks will be raised above the anticipated floodwater, and floodwater and rainwater will not enter the storage site. Regular monitoring can help prevent this before any groundwater is contaminated, before it leaves the reservation, and before it reaches other people. The Goshutes have agreed to accept 10,000 pounds of hazardous and toxic waste from Kobe, Japan, as a first shipment. The site will eventually hold 700 tons of low-level radioactive wastes, attracting radioactive waste streams from all around the world. It will have to be shipped, trucked, delivered, and stored all along the way, presenting long-term risk if spilled or leaked. Environmentalists are very concerned by a process that was fast and noninclusive, and by a result that sets a dangerous precedent. Some are questioning whether this is an abuse of Native American sovereignty by industry. Others claim that it is an environmental justice issue because the Goshutes were already disproportionately affected by other risky and environmentally degrading uses.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

|

347

Battleground: Risk to Public Health and Environmental Impacts There are more than 2,500,000 shipments of low-level radioactive waste per year in the United States by highway, railroad, and air. During the 10-year period of 1971–1981, there were 108 accidents involving the transport of that waste. Four of these accidents involved spent fuel casks. The waste site is very large. Some waste may come via ports to roads and railroads. Many communities express concern about these materials around them. Some cities designate certain routes for vehicles carrying hazardous materials. Utah’s Senator Orrin Hatch has publicly expressed concern that much of this radioactive waste is coming from foreign countries. Many elected officials and state agencies in Utah now claim they were unaware of this fact when approvals were sought. This battleground currently involves the Utah Attorney General and will involve many courts and public hearings.

In the United States, regulation of radioactive waste is divided into two major categories, high-level radioactive waste and low-level radioactive waste. There are two other very narrowly defined special categories, which will be discussed further on. Low-level waste is generally defined as any radioactive waste that does not belong in any of the other categories. As a result, low-level waste is a very broad catchall category comprising many different types of waste and a wide range of concentrations of radioactive materials. Low-level waste is further divided into four classes of waste with specific regulations for the disposal of each class. DEFINITION OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Low-level radioactive waste is defined by law and enforced by federal agencies in the US. This itself can be a matter of controversy because the lowest level of radioactive waste is often the least regulated. The regulatory thresholds for public safety from exposure to low level radioactive waste do not consider issues of cumulative impacts or human differences in vulnerability. According to law, low-level radioactive waste is defined as any radioactive waste that does not belong in one of three categories. Again, according to law, those other three categories are 1. high-level waste (spent nuclear fuel or the highly radioactive waste produced if spent fuel is reprocessed), 2. uranium milling residues, and 3. waste with greater than specified quantities of elements heavier than uranium. Spent nuclear fuel means fuel from nuclear power plants. Spent fuel sometimes contains some reusable material that may be recovered in a process called reprocessing. Basically, everything left over after the reusable material has been recovered is classified as high-level radioactive waste. The United States is not reprocessing spent nuclear fuel at this time. This too can be a controversial

348

|

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

flashpoint because some claim that more efficient reprocessing can lessen environmental impacts and reduce human risks from exposure. Low-level radioactivity often exists in mine tailings. Uranium milling leaves behind rock and soil that remain after uranium has been removed from the ore. These milling residues are also known as tailings. Radioactive waste that contains more than a specified concentration of elements heavier than uranium is called transuranic. It is not classified as low-level radioactive waste. All other radioactive waste is low-level radioactive waste. In this manner, the category of low-level radioactive waste is a catch all term. Low-level radioactive waste is generated by commercial operations, Department of Defense activities and U.S. Department of Energy operations. The federal government is responsible for disposal of low-level waste generated by the Department of Energy. The states are responsible for disposal of low-level waste from (1) commercial operations such as utilities, industries, hospitals, and research institutions, and (2) government facilities such as veterans’ hospitals and nonweapons-related government facilities. CLASSES OF COMMERCIAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Commercial low-level radioactive waste is further divided into three classes, again by law. Three classes of commercial low-level radioactive waste are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61. Those classes are Class A, Class B, and Class C. These regulations list the limits on concentrations of specific radioactive materials allowed in each low-level waste class. Radioactive waste not meeting the criteria for these classes falls into a fourth class, known as Greater Than Class C. According to the law, class A low-level radioactive waste contains the lowest concentration of radioactive materials, and most of those materials have half-lives of less than five years. Class B contains the next lowest concentration of radioactive materials, and it contains a higher proportion of materials with longer half-lives. Class C low-level waste has the highest concentration of radioactive material allowed to be buried in a low-level waste disposal facility. The concentration of radioactive materials in Greater Than Class C exceeds the limits for Class C waste. This is the beginning of another environmental controversy. All Greater Than Class C waste is the responsibility of the federal government and must be disposed of in a geologic repository such as the high-level waste repositories planned for Nevada and Utah. AMOUNT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PRODUCED The amount of low-level radioactive waste produced is usually described in one of two ways. One way is by volume of the waste (in cubic feet or cubic meters). The other way is to give the activity. Activity is the rate at which radiation

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

is given off by the material in the waste; it is measured in curies. These methods of measurement are prescribed by law. The volume and activity of low-level radioactive waste generated and shipped in the United States each year can vary significantly. Nuclear power plants, industries, medical facilities, research institutions, defense agencies, military installations, and universities generate low-level radioactive waste. This low-level radioactive waste must be shipped to a specially designed facility for permanent disposal. Government regulations define the three classes of low-level radioactive waste that may be placed in a low-level waste disposal facility. The definitions of these classes are based on the specific radioactive isotopes present, their concentrations, and their half-lives. Any low-level waste with a concentration of radioactive material greater than that specified for these three classes is a federal responsibility. This means that it must be disposed of in a deep geologic repository like Yucca Mountain in Nevada, or Skull Valley, Utah. Again, this is where another environmental controversy begins. METHODS OF DISPOSAL Historically, two methods of low-level radioactive waste disposal have been used: (1) near-surface land disposal and (2) ocean disposal. Near-surface land disposal involves confining low-level waste either at or below the earth’s surface. Ocean disposal, employed by the Atomic Energy Commission prior to 1970, involved depositing waste containers on the ocean floor. The Atomic Energy Commission was a federal agency that helped the young nuclear energy industry regulate itself. This method is no longer used. Other disposal options such as mine disposal, deep well injection, and beneath-seabed disposal are used or being considered around the world but are not currently used or under consideration in the United States. All these methods are very controversial. The technology of radioactive waste disposal remains experimental. Stability of waste forms remains controversial. A June 1996 report on microbial degradation of cement issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission states: Testing conducted with the developed biodegradation test has convincingly demonstrated that cement-solidified LLW waste forms can be attacked and degraded by the action of ubiquitous microorganisms that are present at LLW disposal sites. It was shown that during the degradation process, large percentages of those elements composing the cement matrix of waste forms were removed. In addition, it was conclusively shown that the ability of cement-based waste forms to retain or retard the loss of encapsulated radionuclides was compromised [emphasis added] due to the action of microorganisms. While this form of research does show some potential, it does not prove that low-level radioactive waste is biodegradable.

|

349

350

|

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Concern about low-level radioactive waste among communities and environmental advocates shows no sign of decreasing. State and city governments are engaged in resisting these sites in many places. They can do so by fighting site selection and limiting transportation options through their communities. Other communities have chosen to accept this waste, such as the Skull Valley Band of the Goshutes. Communities that oppose low-level radioactive waste in their midst generally have a local battleground, with state and local legislators often involved in local zoning and land-use boards. Communities that seek low-level radioactive waste have a federal battleground in both legislative and judicial forums. Nearby communities, the host state, environmentalists, sustainability advocates, and others strongly oppose low-level radioactive waste anywhere. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Environmental Justice; Human Health Risk Assessment; Precautionary Principle; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Goshutes Land. Available at skullvalleygoshutes.org. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Low-Level Waste. Available at www.nrc.gov/waste/ low-level-waste.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Berlin, Robert E., and Catherine C. Stanton. 1989. Radioactive Waste Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Burns, Michael E., ed. 1988. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulation: Science, Politics and Fear. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers; Cooper, John R., Keith Randle, and Ranjeet S. Sokhi. 2003. Radioactive Releases in the Environment: Impact and Assessment. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Gershey, Edward L., et al. 1990. Low-Level Radioactive Waste from Cradle to Grave. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; Weber, Isabelle P., and Susan D. Wiltshire. 1985. The Nuclear Waste Primer: A Handbook for Citizens. New York: The League of Women Voters Education Fund, Nick Lyons Books.

M MINING OF NATURAL RESOURCES Mining is the process of extracting ores and other substances from the earth. It can have enormous and irreparable environmental impacts, especially with technological improvements in the industry. These impacts affect national parks, indigenous peoples, and nearby communities. In the United States, many large mines are on land leased from the government to private corporations. Some communities are dependent on the mining industry, such as those around some coal mines. BACKGROUND The 1872 Mining Law allowed the mining of valuable minerals on federal land with minimal payments to the U.S. government. Its purpose was to encourage westward expansion of European settlement. Some of the oldest roads in the west are old mining roads. Mining for gold, silver, and other minerals was extremely dangerous work in the late 1800s. The mines were very warm, collapsed frequently, were subject to fires and floods, and were filled with toxic gases. Long-term leases, low-cost sales, and other arrangements allowed mining interests to develop a basic natural resource in the west. While doing so, some of the basic road infrastructure was developed. The profits for these governmentprotected risks is one of the battlegrounds. Critics of the 1872 Mining Law contend that the profits generated by mining federal lands are very large and no longer need any government subsidization. Environmental concerns about roads generally, and about the increasing scale and environmental impacts of mining and loss of habitat, enter the battleground.

351

352

|

Mining of Natural Resources

SPECULATION ON FEDERAL LANDS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CONTROVERSIES Mining is restricted by local land-use regulations, state environmental laws, and federal environmental rules and regulations. Many more restrictions are imposed on the timing of mining activities on federal land. Generally, environmentalists would like to see more mitigation and cleanup of environmental degradation. Many environmentalists would like to see absolutely no mining in areas where there are endangered species. In terms of land speculation with federal mineral rights leases, the issue is how long the lease can be held without mining. This makes it difficult for things such as conservation easements, or any private property owner wishing to simply not develop his or her mineral right. It is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition that works to increase mining and the environmental impacts of mining. Diligence requirements in the leases limit how long a lease can be held without any development and how long it can be held after production is shut down. Moreover, regular expenditures are required by the terms of the lease. Environmentalists and others maintain that those restrictions are not CHILD LABOR IN MINING According to the second Global Report on Child Labor prepared by the International Labor Organization (ILO) the end of child labor could occur in our lifetime. Prepared under the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights and Work and the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, the new report, titled “The End of Child Labor—Within Reach,” says there is a reduction in child labor in many parts of the world. If current trends continue, they claim, child labor in its worst forms may be eliminated within the next decade. Some of child labor’s worst forms occur in mining. The report indicates that the number of child laborers globally has fallen by 11 percent over the last four years, that is, 28 million fewer than in 2002. The sharpest decrease is in the area of hazardous work by children. There has been a 26 percent reduction overall, and 33 percent fewer children between the ages of 5 and 14 who are endangering their lives in hazardous work. The numbers can be hard to obtain for this issue because employers often hide children laborers. Children who work in the mining sector are at particular risk, the report noted. Mining in many parts of the world is still low tech. It is very risky in the short and long term. The ILO estimates that some one million children work in small-scale mining and quarrying around the globe. In an area as complex as child labor and mining it is likely that these numbers could be much worse in regions where counting does not occur. Cultural differences about “childhood” and “work” abound, as do gender differences within and between cultures. Children are small and energetic. They can reach and go places in mining an adult could not reach. They can be subject to life-threatening situations because of both work and poverty. Other cultures may teach the value of work by assigning chores of increasing responsibility. In mining, technology has played a major role in decreasing worker exposure and increasing worker safety. It also decreased the need for miners.

Mining of Natural Resources

rigorous enough to constrain development. Others think that restrictions are a good idea but that existing restrictions are more than adequate. SHARING THE WEALTH: WHAT TO DO WITH MINING REVENUES Mining fees are distributed primarily to residents of sparsely populated western states because Congress allocates half of gross mining receipts to the state in which the mining occurs. That is one reason many state environmental agencies and communities in these states support the mining industry. Many environmentalists would like to use some of that money to restore the ecology to its premining ecological condition. SUSTAINABILITY AND MINING Many question whether mining can be described as sustainable. Of all the earth and ore disturbed for metals extraction, only a small amount is actual ore. For example, in 1995 the gold industry moved and processed 72.5 million tons of rock to extract 7,235 tons of gold. The rest, 99 percent, was left as waste. Mine tailings can be hazardous and build up quickly in the host community. Cleanup of radioactive uranium tailings is an environmental battleground. Some Native American environmental justice issues revolve around the cleanup of low-level radioactive waste, often piles of mine tailings. These aspects of this controversy form its battlefield. An early environmental battleground is whether it is acceptable to mine. For example, in some instances, even an operation with state-of-the-art environmental design should simply not be built because it is planned for a location that is not appropriate for mining. Environmental critics claim that mining companies want to engage sustainability only in terms of how to mine, not whether to mine. COMMUNITY CONCERN While nations and multinational corporations profit from mining operations around the world, local communities face the resulting environmental impacts. Mining communities have begun to exercise their right to prior informed consent to mining operations. The concept of prior informed consent is the right of a community to be informed about mining operations on a full and timely basis. It allows a community to approve an operation prior to commencement. This includes participation in setting the terms and conditions and addressing the economic, social, and environmental impacts of all phases of mining and postmining operations. Some environmentalists oppose this type of community rule because communities’ short-term economic interests may outweigh long-term environmental conditions. They wonder how well all the terms and conditions in the prior informed consent would really be enforced.

|

353

354

|

Mountain Rescues

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Communities, environmentalists, mining companies and their employees, and government all decry the environmental impacts of mining. Yet consumer demand for products made from mined materials and a rapid increase in technology allow the scope and scale of mining to increase. This will increase environmental impacts and also controversy. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Environmental Impact Statements: International; Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal; Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Sustainability; Water Pollution Web Resources The 3rd World View. Canary in the Coal Mine: What the Deaths in Phulbari Mean to Bangladesh. August 29, 2006. Available at rezwanul.blogspot.com/2006/08/canary-in-coalmine-what-deaths-in.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Environmental Assessments. Available at www.osmre.gov/pdf/streambufferea.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Crowder, Ad’aele A., Earle A. Ripley, and Robert E. Redmann. 1996. Environmental Effects of Mining. Singapore: CRC Press; Hartman, Howard L., and Jan M. Mutmansky. 2002. Introductory Mining Engineering. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Hester, Ronald Ernest. 1994. Mining and Its Environmental Impact. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.

MOUNTAIN RESCUES When hikers, climbers, and boaters need emergency assistance, the rescue is often performed by local government. With powerful cell phones, the ability to call in a rescue request is increased. Rescuers are often put at risk looking for lost and injured people. A controversial issue is whether to make those rescued pay for their rescue. Mountain rescue refers to search-and-rescue activities that occur in mountains, although the term is sometimes also applied to search and rescue in other wilderness environments. The increase in cell phones, geographic positioning systems, and other technology has allowed recreational mountain hiking, climbing, and skiing to increase. Many have always assumed that if you could communicate with help, you could get help. With modern technology this may not be the case, and it forms the contours of the battleground. The difficult and remote nature of the terrain in which mountain rescue often occurs makes it extremely risky for rescuers. Often rescues occur during bad weather conditions, increasing risks to all involved. Mountain rescue services may be professional or volunteer. Professional services are more likely to exist in places with a high demand such as the Swiss Alps, national and provincial parks with mountain terrain, and many ski resorts. The labor-intensive and sporadic nature of mountain rescues, along with the specific techniques and local knowledge required for some environments, means that mountain rescue is often by voluntary teams. These are frequently

Mountain Rescues | 355 RACISM AND RESCUES? What if you are lost in the mountains and your car gets stuck in a two-day snowstorm? You hope to be rescued. The usual advice is to stay with the vehicle until help arrives. But what if it does not? How long do you wait? Two contrasting mountain rescues have unleashed a storm of controversy. In December 2006, three mountaineers from Texas and New York attempted a very dangerous ascent of Mt. Hood in a blizzard, outfitted for a quick ascent. They were experienced, strong, white males in the prime of their lives. When the 130-mile-per-hour winds tried to blast them off the mountain, they built snow caves to survive. The local sheriff, the National Guard, other military resources, the Oregon State police, and many volunteers surrounded the mountain until the weather broke four days later. Using heat-seeking devices and unmanned small aircraft they tried to find the men. They did not. Using rescuers on the ground, dropped by helicopter, they eventually found the snow caves and the body of one climber. The bodies of the other two have not been recovered. This was an expensive search. The families flew to Timberline Lodge, the nearest location, and worked closely every day with the teams of rescuers. No other people were lost in this search, a major accomplishment given the weather conditions, number of people involved, and intense media scrutiny. This was preceded by another mountain-rescue search in Oregon. James and Kati Kim and their two young daughters got lost the night of November 25, 2006, trying to drive a backcountry route known as Bear Camp Road through the Siskiyou National Forest during a snowstorm. They were headed for a coastal hotel where they had reservations. They were not reported missing for four days, and the initial search stretched more than 300 miles between Portland and the coast. After being stranded a week on a remote logging road that branches off Bear Camp Road, James Kim hiked for help on December 2. He left the road to follow a creek, where he was found dead of exposure four days later. Two days after he left, his wife and two young daughters were found by a local private helicopter pilot who was following a hunch and was not involved in the formal search. The Kims’ family hired its own helicopters to join the search. Two Edge Wireless engineers parsed cell-phone records and found that a text message to the Kims had bounced off a cell-phone tower near Glendale and been received somewhere to the west of the tower. They notified authorities the night of December 2. Oregon sheriffs did not respond to this very important clue until more than 24 hours later, and this is one aspect of the current debate. The Oregonian newspaper suggested officials in Josephine County did not make effective use of tips about what road the Kims might have taken. A critical point in this critique is finding out when the search came under the control of one county. In the early stages everybody thought it was in a different county. The San Francisco father and CNET editor died of exposure to the wet and cold, bravely trying to get help for his family. The Oregonian reported the emergency services coordinator for the area felt overwhelmed and waited two days to call for National Guard helicopters. The paper also said the coordinator’s phone call was ignored by a supervisor who was at home watching football on his day off.

356

|

Mountain Rescues

The key to finding them, police said, was a “ping” from one of the family’s cell phones that helped narrow down their location. James Kim died of exposure with hypothermia while trying to walk for help, according to the Oregon state medical examiner. Helicopter search crews hired by James Kim’s father found the body in a ravine in the Oregon wilderness. His body was found at the foot of the Big Windy Creek drainage, a half-mile from the Rogue River, where ground crews and helicopters had been searching for days. It was less than a mile from where his family’s car got stuck in the snow. James Kim, 35, was a senior editor for San Francisco–based technology media company CNET Networks Inc. He was an Asian American married to a white woman with small children. He broke down in a part of Oregon noted not only for scenic beauty but also the possible presence of controversial groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. He and his family were found by privately hired rescuers paid for by the family. If the local sheriff had reacted to the cell-phone pings with the same alacrity as the sheriffs did on Mt. Hood, many feel that Mr. Kim could be alive. Others are incredulous that they could not find a family of four on a paved road in a location where others have required rescue, especially since they burned their tires to attract attention. It is very difficult to infer intentional acts of racism from the failure of a governmental official, such as a sheriff, to act. Yet, these two searches are starkly different. The Kim rescue is the subject of several continuing investigations by different agencies. No court cases have been filed to date, but there is still time to do so.

made up of local climbers, hikers, and guides. Often private services work in cooperation with voluntary services. For instance, a private helicopter rescue team may work with a volunteer mountain-rescue team on the ground. Mountain rescue is often still free, although more and more states and localities are considering charging for it. In Switzerland mountain rescue is highly expensive and will be charged to those rescued. In many remote or less-developed parts of the world, organized mountain rescue services do not exist. Oregon has a charge-back law that allows localities to recover costs of a rescue. Rescue teams typically oppose such laws. The premise of such laws is deterring risky behavior by making those who get lost pay for their rescue or making their families pay for recovery of their bodies. At least five states, including Oregon and California, have “charge-for-rescue” laws on the books. But the Mountain Rescue Association, which represents about 100 volunteer groups in the United States, Canada, and Britain, strongly objects to the concept. Their concern is based on the behavior of lost hikers. If people believe they are going to be charged, especially a big charge, they are going to be afraid to summon help. They will try and get themselves out of the problem. They will delay, which can make the difference between life and death. Wilderness advocates, however, argue that the purpose and values of the national park system encourage selfreliance. Climbing accidents are decreasing. In 2005 the average annual number of reported climbing accidents had declined from a peak of 168 in the 1980s to 159 in the 1990s and 139 so far this decade. Injuries fell from 146 to 128 to 117 in those

Multicultural Environmental Education

decades. Average annual deaths peaked at 34 in the 1970s, then dropped to 29 in the 1980s, 27 in the 1990s, and 26 so far this decade. Mountain rescues do not cost much, in comparison to other outdoor emergencies. Most climbing rescues are performed by highly skilled volunteer rescue units who do not charge, or by specialized park rangers whose costs are often subsidized by climbing use fees. This makes climbing rescues less of a cost on taxpayers than rescues of other recreational users. When military helicopters are used, the rescue operations can double as training exercises and be covered under existing programs. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As population increases and recreational trips to mountains and other dangerous natural places increase, more rescues are foreseeable. Technology in terms of locators, personal early warning systems, and communication systems help decrease mortality and allow corpse recovery. This technology is also expensive, with helicopters costing about $10,000 a day. As costs increase because of those who may be taking unnecessary risks in nature, there is a strong push to make them pay for their own rescues. See also Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity; Federal Environmental Land Use Web Resources American Alpine Club. National Policy Issues. Available at position www.americanalpine club.org/pages/page/32. Accessed January 21, 2008. Oregon Mountaineering Association. Don’t Put a Price on Rescue. Available at www.i-world. net/oma/news/rescue/oregonian-2002–06.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Types of Rescues. Available at www.answers.com/topic/search-and-rescue. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Salkeld, Audrey. 2005. World Mountaineering. New York: Sterling Publishing.

MULTICULTURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION Environmental education is a process that promotes the analysis and understanding of environmental issues and questions as the basis for effective education, problem solving, policy making, and management. It has also been the focus of a growing number of state and federal environmental policies. The purpose of environmental education is to educate individuals so they possess the knowledge and skill to effectively communicate knowledge to both children and adults. In the broader context, environmental education’s purpose is to assist in the development of a citizenry conscious of the scope and complexity of current and emerging environmental problems and supportive of solutions and policies that are ecologically sound. To impart the capacity to engage in public participation is also a civic goal, and part of the emerging civic environmentalism. The controversies of the environment, as unresolved as they are today, need to be taught in a multicultural context with many different perceptions of “environment.”

|

357

358

|

Multicultural Environmental Education

The perception of environment, and risk from external experiences with the environment, varies greatly by gender, race, income, and education. White males have the lowest perception of risk; all females and all nonwhite people share about the same perception of risk. Urban children of color count the built environment and everything around them as “environment,” while suburban white children tend to view open fields lined with forests as “environment.” The failure to appreciate these differences in perception of risk from environment underlies many of the controversies in U.S. environmental policy. This is especially noted in the area of public involvement and participation, and increased citizen involvement in environmental and land-use decisions. The vast majority of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agency personnel and industry environmental managers are white males. White males have been shown to have an aura of invincibility about environmental risk perception. In some research in this controversial area of risk perception by race and gender, the greater the education and income of the white male the more likely they were to agree with putting communities at risk without disclosure. Many of the older risk models were based on a 150-pound white male, one of the healthiest and least vulnerable segments of U.S. society. Risk perception and risk models were skewed to one demographic, one that is not characteristic or shared by an increasing majority of people. Multicultural educators often see no choice for environmental education to be anything but multicultural because of their teaching environments. Experiential learning activities in the environment of urban areas can expose areas of toxic waste accumulation, environmental injustice, and pollution. This is also a battleground within this controversy. Is it risky for children to engage in these activities? What if they find out some controversial environmental information? Environmental education in the culture of a rural logging community with mill closures, of Native American lands and reservations, of farmworkers, and around military bases faces different contextual battlegrounds, and the clash of cultures around environmental issues. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ACT (NEEA) OF 1990 The NEEA was a controversial piece of legislation that created a national policy of environmental education. It helped environmental education gain a foothold in the curriculum of universities and education generally. It also represented the merger of environmental and educational policies. Some object because they contend that the students are too young to decide complicated issues and are misled into one-sided and anti-industrial views. Many educators like to use environmental education to spark interest in its scientific foundations. Students, like citizens, now have the right to public information that was never before available, such as the Toxics Release Inventory. The following findings led to the historic passage of this act and also laid the foundation for state approaches.

Multicultural Environmental Education

FINDINGS 1. Threats to human health and environmental quality are increasingly complex, involving a wide range of conventional and toxic contaminants in the air and water and on the land. 2. There is growing evidence of international environmental problems, such as global warming, ocean pollution, and declines in species diversity, and these problems pose serious threats to human health and the environment on a global scale. 3. Environmental problems represent as significant a threat to the quality of life and the economic vitality of urban areas as they do to the natural balance of rural areas. 4. Effective response to complex environmental problems requires understanding of the natural and built environment, awareness of environmental problems and their origins (including those in urban areas), and the skills to solve these problems. 5. Development of effective solutions to environmental problems and effective implementation of environmental programs requires a well-educated and trained professional workforce. 6. Current federal efforts to inform and educate the public concerning the natural and built environment and environmental problems are not adequate. 7. Existing federal support for development and training of professionals in environmental fields is not sufficient. 8. The federal government, acting through the Environmental Protection Agency, should work with local educational institutions, state educational agencies, not-for-profit educational and environmental organizations, noncommercial educational-broadcasting entities, and private-sector interests to support development of curricula, special projects, and other activities, to increase understanding of the natural and built environment, and to improve awareness of environmental problems. 9. The federal government, acting through the coordinated efforts of its agencies and with the leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency, should work with local educational institutions, state educational agencies, not-for-profit educational and environmental organizations, noncommercial educational-broadcasting entities, and private-sector interests to develop programs to provide increased emphasis and financial resources for the purpose of attracting students into environmental engineering and assisting them in pursuing the programs to complete the advanced technical education required to provide effective problem-solving capabilities for complex environmental issues. 10. Federal natural resource agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service have a wide range of environmental expertise and a long history of cooperation with educational institutions and technology transfer that can assist in furthering the purposes of the act.

|

359

360

|

Multicultural Environmental Education

POLICY It is the policy of the United States to establish and support a program of education on the environment, for students and personnel working with students, through activities in schools, institutions of higher education, and related educational activities, and to encourage postsecondary students to pursue careers related to the environment. Because schools are the first to show changing demographics in education they are more multicultural. Relating to learners on their own terms in ways they understand is fundamental to the pedagogic mission of elementary and secondary education. For environmental education, itself sometimes controversial, to be effective in its mission, it must adapt to a multicultural society. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION The following are guiding principles for environmental education. • Consider the environment in its totality, both natural and built: biological and physical phenomena and their interrelations with social, economic, political, technological, cultural, historical, moral, and aesthetic aspects. • Integrate knowledge from the disciplines across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. • Examine the scope and complexity of environmental problems and develop critical-thinking and problem-solving skills and the ability to synthesize data from many fields. • Develop awareness and understanding of global problems, issues, and interdependence, helping people to think globally and act locally. • Consider both short-and long-term futures in matters of local, national, regional, and international importance. • Emphasize the role of values, morality, and ethics in shaping attitudes and actions affecting the environment. • Stress the need for active citizen participation in solving environmental problems and preventing new ones. • Enable learners to play a role in planning their learning experiences and provide an opportunity for making decisions and accepting their consequences. • Develop the need for lifelong learning beginning at preschool level and continuing throughout formal elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels and utilize nonformal modes for all age and education levels. Environmental education does not advocate a particular viewpoint or course of action. Rather, environmental education teaches individuals how to weigh various sides of an issue through critical thinking, and it enhances their own problem-solving and decision-making skills. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As U.S. society becomes more multicultural, and as populations generally increase, our environmental impacts also accumulate. Solutions to some environmental problems can come from shared and collective perceptions of the

Multicultural Environmental Education

environmental problem at hand. These can come from scientists, community activists, government officials, and industry leaders. Our children will see and suffer from environmental impacts we have ignored. The consequences of environmental actions from the past now can occur within a lifetime. Drastic, controversial, and rough actions may be necessary for environmental sustainability. The scientists, community residents, government officials, and industry leaders of the future are the children of today. Multicultural environmental education will continue as a controversy because it teaches about environmental controversies, and because of the clashes and differences in perceptions of the environment by class, race, and gender. Because of the experiential character of environmental education, some educators may find themselves embroiled in environmental controversy. Some schools themselves may be dangerous to children if the water is polluted, or if the school was built on top of a landfill. When communities discover an environmental risk through their children, they quickly react. This increases the citizen involvement in environmental decision making and public participation if available. It may also increase the ultimate transparency in environmental reporting and decision making. The new multicultural generation of environmentalists asks questions that challenge the accountability of both government and industry. That challenge will also be a battleground. See also Community-Based Science; Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions; Sustainability; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources Association for Environmental and Outdoor Education. Diversity in Outdoor/Environmental Education. Available at aeoe.org/resources/diversity/index.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Multicultural Education Internet Resource Guide. Available at jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/Multi. html#3. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education: Guidelines and Assessment Tools. Available at www.epa.gov/enviroed/guidelines.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: National Environmental Education Advisory Council. 2005. Setting the Standard, Measuring the Results, Celebrating Successes: A Report to Congress on Environmental Education in the US. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

|

361

N NANOTECHNOLOGY Both environmental controversy and hope are attached to emerging nanotechnology. Promises of fast and thorough cleanups, highly efficient water purification systems, and very low emissions and pollution from industrial manufacturing processes accompany concern that there may be too much unregulated risk. WHAT IS NANOTECHNOLOGY? Nanotechnology is difficult to define in terms of policy, practices, fields, or disciplines. Fundamentally, it is the manipulation of atoms at the molecular level. The molecules can come from different elements. They are very, very small, between 0.1 and 100 nanometers. One nanometer is one billionth of a meter. One result of this small size is that some of the fundamental properties of materials can change. Clusters of gold and silver show catalytic properties when otherwise inert, for example. Many smaller molecules have much greater surface area and reactivity. HOW DO YOU MAKE MATERIALS AT THE NANOTECHNOLOGICAL LEVEL? This is where many current research efforts are focused. Science has done basic research, and engineering applications are being explored. There are three ways to produce nanomaterials currently. They can be put together one molecule at a time. Some nanoparticles are easier to work with than others. Another

363

364

| Nanotechnology

method, one that fuels research interest in self-replication, is the ability of some molecules to self-assemble. Carbon nanotubes of 60 atom carbon molecules can form much like snowflakes do. The third method is to remove nanomaterials from larger particles. All these methods are experimental. The search is on for useful applications of this technology, and some of them are explicitly environmental. APPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY Nanotechnology is touted as the next paradigm shift in human technological advancement. It is currently used in some computer components, car parts and catalytic converters, scratch-resistant coatings and paints, antibacteriological bandages and socks, sunscreens and other cosmetics, and self-cleaning windows. Possible future nanotechnological applications are to dramatically increase the efficiency of solar energy cells, quickly and efficiently clean up toxic wastes and pollution, find and destroy inoperable cancers, and develop combat suits that morph camouflage and absorb bullet impacts, more efficient fuel cells, highly efficient water-purification processes, and self-replicating nanobots. Nanotechnology will revolutionize many aspects of current life, its advocates say. It does offer a very broad platform for applications in industry, biomedicine, and the environment. It has also altered the political economy of scientific research by reversing a trend toward hyperspecialization. International interest in nanotechnology is very high. More than 60 countries have invested in research and development on nanotechnology, expending roughly eight billion dollars in 2005. The rate of research and development is so fast that it is outpacing the ability of government to regulate it. There has been little assessment of short-or long-term public health or environmental impacts. Proponents of the precautionary principle would argue that this is an excellent case against its application because the risk is powerful and could be irreversible. Nanotechnology advocates claim that devices using nanotechnology will be lighter, smaller, and faster in their applications and will use less raw materials and energy. The decrease in environmental impacts at the manufacturing stage and the decreased waste indicate a decreased overall environmental impact. Others vehemently disagree and want the industry regulated to prevent negative environmental impacts. BATTLEGROUNDS: NOT ENOUGH REGULATION FOR THE RISK? Environmentalists and others fear that commercialization of nanotechnology is outpacing knowledge about possible risk to public health and the environment. There is national and international concern about this, and battlegrounds are forming. The concern is that these tiny molecules could enter the human body via ingestion, inhalation, or dermatological absorption. If they are powerful they could also be dangerous once inside the human body. Small particulate matter and soot in air pollution is known to cause damage to the developing lungs of children. What if the nanotubes are carcinogenic? There are very few animal studies on that point. A study in 2003 suggested that nanotubes may damage the lungs of exposed rats and mice. Another study in 2004 suggested that nanotubes

Nanotechnology

can accumulate in some organs, in this study causing brain damage in exposed fish. Nanotechnology industry proponents point out that these are animal, not human studies. They suggest that these particles are too small to be damaging. When germ theory was first introduced to medicine, some doctors rejected it outright. How could something as small as a germ cause so much damage and death, they reasoned at that time. The industry has proposed to regulate itself, creating one of the first large battlegrounds. The federal government has also created a nanotechnology initiative. In 2007, a group called Environmental Defense, a self-described conservation group, and Dupont Corporation developed a framework for industry selfregulation. The Dupont Corporation manufactures chemicals and many other products, and has done so for many years. Together they developed the Nano Risk Framework. Environmentalists and others point out that this is a private industry initiative proposing self-regulation. Nuclear energy was self-regulated until major accidents threatened the public. Industry is concerned that they will lose a competitive advantage due to overcautious environmental regulation. The U.S. nanotechnology initiative has promoted the development of the technology and identified unresolved occupational safety research needs. One major concern is how workers in the industry would be exposed. With many toxic materials, the workers are the most exposed. There is also concern about impacts and risks of nanotechnology. Another safety research issue is how would nanotubes contaminate an environment? They can be made from different materials. Are some materials better in terms of safety? Are some so dangerous they should be banned? These enormous gaps in knowledge challenge all stakeholders. There is also a battleground brewing internationally around nanotechnology. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is concerned about the ethics of scientific research around nanotechnology. They believe that the rate of development is so rapid that an anticipatory approach to ethical questions is necessary. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY There is a large controversy brewing about regulation of nanotechnology. U.S. industries do not want to lose any competitive edge, nor does any nation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is just beginning to examine some of the possible risk scenarios. Releasing a powerful, self-replicating technology into the environment creates uneasiness among environmentalists and some citizen and labor groups. They recall when the United States allowed the nuclear energy industry to be self regulated and major accidents, such as Three Mile Island, threatened people. See also Precautionary Principle; Solar Energy Supply; Sustainability Web Resources Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University. Available at http://cnst.rice.edu/cben/. Accessed January 21, 2008.

|

365

366

| National Parks and Concessions National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Available at www.nano.gov/. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Center for Environmental Research: Nanotechnology: Sensors. Available at es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/research/nano_sensors.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Goldman, Lynn, and Christine Coussens. 2005. Implications of Nanotechnology for Environmental Health Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; National Science and Technology Council (U.S.) Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology. 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. New York: Springer; Roco, Mihail C., and William Sims Bainbridge. 2006. The Nanotech Pioneers: Where Are They Taking Us? Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH; Schwarz, James A., Cristian I. Contescu, and Karol Putyera. 2004. Dekker Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Sung Hee, Joo I., and Francis Cheng. 2006. Nanotechnology for Environmental Remediation. New York: Springer.

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONCESSIONS The U.S. national park system has been controversial since its inception and is often involved in cutting-edge environmental controversies. An historic and modern controversy is the extent to which concessions are granted to businesses to operate in the park. Concessions include many uses that have environmental impacts. Some environmentalists do not want any concessions to business operations in national parks. National parks are predominantly in the western United States, part of the vast tracts of public lands there. Significant national parks and monuments exist in every state. An old park service policy of granting concession monopolies, without open bidding, turned the minds of many against national parks in general. Some of the parks also operated their own concessions in the form of lodging, guides, and so forth at that time. In many areas the national parks provided needed jobs and tourist revenue, especially during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The national parks still do provide this function as a revenue corridor to the local economy as long as they offer what tourists want in an accessible way. Tourist activities like using all-terrain vehicles and off-road driving in general, snowmobiling, river rafting, and skiing all impact the environment and may therefore conflict with the overall mission of the national park system. In the many jurisdictional controversies around the fear of federal encroachment on states’ rights, the issue of concessions to local residents and their businesses was one of the compromises necessary for the acceptance of a strong federal presence. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Colorado, California, and Oregon have ceded jurisdiction over their national parks to the federal government. With a mission to protect the species and ecosystems within their boundaries, as part of strong federal land-use planning in general, national parks are still a battleground for concessions. One example of some of these dynamics is Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. One of the oldest national parks and long a battleground for

National Parks and Concessions

concessions, this park has beautiful mountains. This makes it attractive for the lucrative ski market that Colorado is noted for. Rocky Mountain’s problems with winter sports development stemmed from several sources. Park Service philosophy maintained that all outdoor sports, including winter sports, should be encouraged. Also, some powerful park administrators believed that to get appropriations from a parsimonious Congress they had to publicize the recreational potential of the park system. Others contended that visitors should be allowed to use their parks to the fullest no matter what the environmental impacts. As a result, ski lifts were eventually built in Mt. Rainier, Sequoia, Yosemite, Lassen Volcanic and Olympic national parks. To implement these directives in Rocky Mountain, without marring the scenery, became the special problem of more than one superintendent, but the fact that a winter sports complex was built gave evidence of Park Service appeasement of local political pressures. CAMPGROUNDS As in several other parks, Rocky Mountain officials in Rocky Mountain have been bothered by the presence of inholdings and campgrounds. The existence of both was considered ecologically unsound, since the environment for wildlife was irrevocably altered. Thus it was a sound practice to buy out privately developed lands in the park. To replace them with campgrounds was a politically realistic policy around this type of concession. Pressures from politicians and chambers of commerce demanding more campgrounds, roads, and trails are an ever-present concern to the park administrators at Rocky Mountain. Car travel had already greatly changed the character of concessions required by the public. No longer could hotels within the park compete profitably with campgrounds within and motels outside of the park’s boundaries. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONCESSIONS: NOISE Human-made noise in national parks and public lands is a battleground. Controversy and litigation have increased in parks where recreational park users hear touring planes and helicopters, snowmobiles, watercraft, off-road vehicles, and even the National Park Service’s own equipment and concessions. Members of environmental groups, off-highway-vehicle groups, the air-tourism industry, tribal nations, and some of the major government agencies that oversee public lands all have major issues with noise control, but not always the same ones. Large recreational vehicles often need to run generators, so large campgrounds have more noise impact. Some communities want to expand their airports to take economic advantage of the presence of a national park. Larger airports mean bigger planes and more tourist revenue. It also means extending the environmental impacts of noise and air pollution in the surrounding vicinity. Some wonder what the land-use limits with concessions will be in the future. Will the national parks allow racecar driving, manufacturing industries, or tall office buildings? Noise issues with concessions are a developing battleground.

| 367

368

|

National Parks and Concessions

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As outdoor recreationists and many different types of park users increase their demand for the experience of a national park, conflict and controversy ensue. Added to this strong economic and political pressure are rich logging, mining, and ranching opportunities that could exist once concessions are granted. The strong environmental mission of the park clashes with many of these interests that drive economic pressure for concessions. National parks also clash with surrounding communities on other environmental controversies. Some surrounding ranching communities resent reintroduction programs for wolves and grizzly bears, for example. Another emerging battleground is the designation of electric transmission corridors through national parks and through private property. The U.S. Secretary of Energy has authority to designate public and private lands as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). Two areas have been proposed as of September 2007, although more could develop quickly. The NIETC designated in the southwestern United States passes through southern California, Arizona, and Nevada. The NIETC on the East Coast goes through Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Environmentalists are very concerned because weaker environmental impact assessments are allowed for projects within these designations. They also pass through five national parks, at least 13 national wildlife refuges, and many other environmentally preserved areas. Environmentalists also claim that the designations clash with the coverage of the National Wildlife Act. Landowners from surrounding communities may object to these designations because any electrical transmission project could be approved anywhere, superseding state and local land-use controls. There are environmental concerns about electromagnetic radiation and its effect on people and the environment. This aspect of the concession controversy will expand as more projects are proposed and begun in designated areas. Concessions almost always need electrical power, and as they expand so too will the need for electrical energy. If the source of the electrical energy is a coal-fired power plant, then environmentalists also have concerns about supporting nonrenewable energy sources that pollute the environment. It is likely that national parks will continue to have strong and controversial issues around concessions. Ecosystem risk assessments, endangered species, and cumulative impacts are themselves all environmental controversies that are heightened within the confines of a national park. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity; Endangered Species; Federal Environmental Land Use; Ski Resort Development and Expansion; Wild Animal Reintroduction Web Resources National Park Service Concessions Assessment. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/ expectmore/detail.10003716.2005.html. Accessed January 21, 2008.

Nuclear Energy Supply | 369 National Park Service. History. Available at www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/ timeline_annotated.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Bowersox, Joe. 2002. The Moral Austerity of Environmental Decision Making. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; Buckley, Ralf, Catherine Pickering, and David Bruce Weaver. 2003. Nature-Based Tourism, Environment and Land Management. London: CABI Publishing; Machlis, Gary E., and Donald R. Field. 2000. National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and Policy in the United States. Washington, DC: Island Press; O’Brien, Bob R. 1999. Our National Parks and the Search for Sustainability. Austin: University of Texas Press.

NUCLEAR ENERGY SUPPLY Nuclear energy has always been controversial because of its long-term environmental impacts and community concerns about the safety of nuclear plants. In addition, its use, and threat of use, in war creates a powerful aura of fear around this energy source. Other controversial issues related to environmental regulation of industry, such as disclosure of chemicals and audit privileges, attract much more attention from the public when the industry is nuclear power. Many countries such as France increasingly rely on it. It is ready to grow in the United States. Oil prices are high, as they were in the early 1970s when the Arab Oil Embargo on the United States facilitated the development of many current nuclear power plants. No nuclear plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s. Nuclear plants have opened in other nations since then, and more are planned in the near future. U.S. utilities have become much more commercially aggressive about nuclear energy. Some environmental groups have supported nuclear energy as less environmentally harmful than petrochemical energy sources. Owners of existing plants are seeking renewal of operating licenses and are getting ready to upgrade power output or restart closed reactors. Some observers predict that during the next few years there could be applications for 30 new U.S. reactors producing approximately 40,000 megawatts of energy. That will open old battlegrounds in the nuclear energy controversy. Several events form the battleground for this controversy. They shaped the public’s image of risk and of the credibility of the nuclear risk assessments and assessors. • During the 1970s, Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island experienced an overheated reactor core. • During the 1980s, the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl plant experienced an uncontained meltdown. The Chernobyl nuclear accident was the worst nuclear power plant accident to have occurred anywhere in the world. The human impact alone was enormous. At least 31 persons died quickly from acute radiation exposure or other injuries. Between 5,000 and 45,000 fatal cancers may result over the next 40 years from radiation released during the accident. It is unknown how many other human impacts, such as miscarriages and nonfatal cancers, will affect the population as

370

|

Nuclear Energy Supply

a result of this accident. The range of environmental impacts of the Chernobyl meltdown is a battleground. It is involved with ecosystem risk assessment, faulty long-term monitoring, and the cleanup priorities and practices. The catastrophic risk of a nuclear meltdown with an unknown and controversial range of human and ecological impacts underscores modern tension around nuclear energy. THE UNITED STATES TODAY Today, about 103 nuclear reactors are operating in 31 states. They generate about one-fifth of the nation’s electricity. Major expansions are planned, and each will be a battleground for this controversy. With this growth comes a much closer scrutiny of the environmental costs and benefits of nuclear energy by environmentalists, government agencies, and competing energy sources. One battleground for alternative energy sources is the marketplace. Today’s market forces support nuclear power. The electricity industry is being deregulated, allowing consumers and their cities to avoid the forced contracts of hydroelectric power companies. Existing nuclear plants appear to be a low-cost, alternative energy source. Many power plants run on coal or petrochemicals, with high levels of emissions into the air. This has a powerful impact on global warming and climate change. A main cause of climate change, global warming, air pollution, and acid rain is carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear reactors do not emit any carbon dioxide. Industry proponents tout the new and improved safety of modern plants to alleviate regulator and consumer fears. In the United States, electricity from nuclear power plants was greater than that from oil, natural gas, and hydropower. Coal accounts for 55 percent of U.S. electricity generation. Nuclear plants generate more than half the electricity in at least six states. According to industry statistics, average operating costs of U.S. nuclear plants dropped substantially during the 1990s. Expensive downtime, for maintenance and inspections, has been steadily reduced. Licensed commercial reactors generated electricity at a record-high average of more than 87 percent of their total capacity in 2000, which indicates increasing demand. In the battleground of the marketplace, nuclear energy is gaining international and domestic appeal. However, environmentalists and site communities remain concerned. They are concerned about human and environmental impacts due to exposure from employment, transit of nuclear waste, spills, and other environmental sources. Nuclear environmental impacts are some of the most powerful ones humans can create, and they can destroy any resiliency in a given ecosystem. They last a very long time and can move through the soil and water to contaminate other parts of an ecosystem. Radiation may remain unstable and lethal for 100,000 years. Nuclear waste is currently stored in holding pools and casks alongside the power plants. Some have expressed concern with leaking casks. Radiation is a potential problem in every phase, from mining the uranium, to operating the plant, and finally disposing of the waste. Low-level radioactive waste is also a pressing environmental controversy. Cleaning up severe environmental problems at U.S. nuclear weapons production facilities alone is expected to cost at least $150 billion over the next several decades. Cleaning up old nuclear energy

Nuclear Energy Supply | 371

plants is another large expense. Each is followed by community controversy about exposure and adequacy of cleanup. NEW POWER PLANTS: NEW BATTLEGROUNDS Because of the powerful environmental impacts of nuclear energy this controversy will persist. There is as yet no solution to the waste problem. Old power plants generate public concern about safety. Building new plants will be expensive. If recent history is a reliable indicator, cost overruns can be expected that will impact the price of electricity. Also expect community resistance that can effectively block new nuclear power generators. Community resistance can take the form of refusing to finance any aspect of design, construction, or operation. When the Washington Public Supply System tried to build five nuclear power plants during the mid-1970s, environmental lawsuits for violations of the required environmental impact statements, and community resistance to take or pay contracts from the Bonneville Power Administration, led to the plan’s collapse. More than $3 billion of default on taxpayer bonds then occurred, resulting in 43 lawsuits in five states. Many investors lost substantial sums of money. The courts were clogged with long, complicated cases about municipal finance, as well as the environmental lawsuits that followed the project. THERMAL POLLUTION CONTROVERSY Thermal pollution, the addition of heated water to the environment, is a type of pollution that recently has come to public attention. In England the largest single industrial use of water is for cooling purposes, while in the United States in 1964, 49,000 billion gallons of water were used by industrial manufacturing plants and investor-owned thermal electric utilities. Ninety percent, or 44,000 billion gallons, of this amount was used for cooling or condensing purposes primarily by electric utilities. With the increased demand for greater volumes and less expensive electric power, the power companies are rapidly expanding the number of generating plants, especially nuclear-powered plants. To them, nuclear plants offer many advantages over conventional plants but have one major drawback seriously affecting the environment, which is excessheat losses. These plants are only 40 percent as efficient as conventional plants in converting fuel to electricity; that and loss of efficiency manifests itself as waste heat. As the number of nuclear power plants and other industrial plants increase, an estimated ninefold increase in waste-heat output will result. Nuclear plant liquid releases fall into the following categories: • Nonradioactive • Slightly radioactive Water that has been used to cool the condenser and various heat exchangers used in the turbine-generator support processes, or that has passed through the cooling towers is considered nonradioactive. The cooling towers remove heat

372

|

Nuclear Energy Supply

from the water discharged from the condenser so that the water can be discharged to the river or recirculated and reused. What water goes through the cooling towers differs from plant to plant. Some nuclear power plants use cooling towers as a method of cooling the circulating water that has been heated in the condenser. Nuclear powers plants also differ in when they emit hot water into the environment. During colder months, the discharge from the condenser may be directed to the river. Recirculation of the water back to the inlet to the condenser occurs during certain fish-sensitive times of the year, during which the nuclear power plant is supposed to limit its thermal emissions. Many environmentalists contend that they do not do so and that even when they do the environmental impacts of hot water on the aquatic ecosystem are too severe. The thermal emissions of a nuclear plant are powerful and can heat up large bodies of water. They can heat the circulating water as much as 40°F. Some nuclear power plants have placed limits on the thermal differential allowed in their coolant water emissions. For example, they may have limits of no more than 5°F difference between intake and outflow water temperatures. Cooling towers essentially moderate the temperature to decrease the thermal impact in the water but also decrease power plant efficiency because the cooling-tower pumps consume a lot of power. Some or all of this water may be discharged to a river, sea, or lake. One way to reduce thermal pollution is to make use of the hot water and steam using cogeneration principles. Usually water released from the steam generator is also nonradioactive. Less than 400 gallons per day is considered low leakage and may be allowed from the reactor cooling system to the secondary cooling system of the steam generator. This can be a battleground because it creates concern that radioactivity will seep out. By law, where radioactive water may be released to the environment, it must be stored and radioactivity levels reduced below certain levels. These levels themselves can be another battleground. Citizens frequently challenge experts over nuclear risk issues. In terms of the environmental impacts of thermal pollution, much remains unstudied. Water that is too warm can damage endangered species, such as some types of salmon. This thermal pollution causes a variety of ecological effects in the aquatic ecosystem. More must be learned about these effects to ensure adequate regulation of thermal discharges. Industry proponents claim that the small amounts of radioactivity released by nuclear plants during normal operation do not pose significant hazards to workers, the community, or the environment. What concerns many communities is the potential for long-term hazardous waste disposal. There could be deadly cumulative effects. There is scientific uncertainty about the level of risk posed by low levels of radiation exposure. Problems inherent in most risk assessments, such as failing to account for population vulnerability or dose-response variance, do little to assure communities they are safe. Human health effects can be clearly measured only at high exposure levels, such as nuclear war. Other human health effects are generalized from animal studies. In the case of radiation, the assumed risk of low-level exposure has been extrapolated from health

Nuclear Energy Supply | 373

effects among persons exposed to high levels of radiation. Industry proponents argue that it is impossible to have zero exposure to radiation because of low levels of background radiation. There is public and community concern about the cumulative impacts of radiation generally. INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY Because of the high level of public concern, there are strict protocols for safety. Responsibility for nuclear safety compliance lies with nuclear utilities that run the power plants and self-report most of the environmental information. By law, they are required to identify any problems with their plants and report them to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). These reports, and the lack of them, have been battlegrounds. Nuclear power plants last about 40 years and then must be closed in a process called decommissioning. The NRC requires all nuclear utilities to make payments to special trust funds to ensure that money is available to remove all radioactive material from reactors when they are decommissioned. Several plants have been retired before their licenses expired, whereas others could seek license renewals to operate longer. Some observers predict that more than half of today’s 103 licensed reactors could be decommissioned by the year 2016. There may be a battleground looming as to whether there is enough money in the trust funds to clean up the sites adequately. The decommissioning of these power plants will be a battleground because of the controversies surrounding the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. It will also be very expensive and fraught with scientific uncertainty. By law, the federal government is responsible for permanent disposal of commercial spent fuel and federally generated radioactive waste. Choosing sites for this waste is a battleground. States have the authority to develop disposal facilities for commercial low-level waste. This is a battleground for many states. The siting process for these types of waste sites is itself a battleground on the local level, often engaging strong community protests. Generally the federal government can preempt state authority, which can preempt local authorities. In this battleground, lawsuits are common. NUCLEAR WASTE: IS THERE A SOLUTION? One of the battlegrounds of nuclear power is the disposal of the radioactive waste. It must be sealed and put in a place that cannot be breached for thousands of years. It may not be possible to make warning signs that last long enough. Thousand-year timescales are well beyond the capability of current environmental models. A whole range of natural disasters could ensue and breach the waste site. Few sites can withstand an earthquake or volcanic eruption. Wastes are stored on-site, then moved to a waste transfer station, then to a terminal hazardous waste site. There are battlegrounds at each step in the process. Each nuclear reactor produces an annual average of about 20 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel and 50–200 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste. Over the usual 40 year permits granted to nuclear power plants by the NRC, this

374

|

Nuclear Energy Supply

amounts to a total of about 800 tons of radioactive spent fuel and 1,000–8,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste. There are additional hazardous materials used in the operation of the power plant. Upon decommissioning, contaminated reactor components are also disposed of as low-level waste. When combined with any hazardous waste that was stored on the site, the waste produced can be quite large. The cradle-to-grave exposure to radiation, the increased regulation of hazardous vehicle routes in cities, and the likely expansion of nuclear energy to more community sites all portend a larger controversy. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As climate change becomes a more salient political issue, the push for nuclear energy becomes stronger. There is still no policy to deal with the dangerous waste this energy process produces, which is a source of growing controversy. Scientific controversies about dose-response levels with radiation exposure, cancer causation, and effects on vulnerable populations close to communities all continue. Environmentalists have traditionally opposed nuclear energy as a source of power, but some groups have recently begun to question this in light of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions from coal and oil sources. See also Acid Rain; Cancer from Electromagnetic Radiation; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Low-Level Radioactive Waste; Sustainability; Toxic Waste and Race Web Resources Environmental Literacy Council. Energy. Available at www.enviroliteracy.org/category. php/4.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Reaching Critical Will. Nuclear Energy. Available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/ factsheets/energy.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Bodansky, David. 2004. Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects. New York: Springer; Collin, Robert W. 1989. “Creditors’ Remedies in Municipal Default: The Washington Public Power Supply Cases.” In State and Local Government Debt Financing, ed. M. David Gelfand. New York: Callahan and Co. Publishing; Garwin, Richard L., and Georges Charpak. 2002. Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Hodgson, Peter Edward. 1999. Nuclear Power, Energy and the Environment. London: Imperial College Press; Kuletz, Valerie L. 1998. The Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West. New York: Routledge; Zwaan, B.C.C. van der, C. R. Hill, and A. L. Mecheynk, eds. 1999. Nuclear Energy: Promise or Peril? Singapore: World Scientific.

O ORGANIC FARMING As concern over the safety of pesticides increases, more people turn to organic foods. Food is considered organic when it is grown in soil without chemical or pesticide contamination, not treated with pesticides while growing, and not treated with preservatives after harvest. Each stage of the food process is a battleground. The array of labels changes, confusing consumers and contributing to this controversy. WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT ORGANIC? As new rules and laws develop new battlegrounds over what is organic, consumers seek organic produce because they distrust chemicals. The idea is that by growing a natural product as close to how nature intended it as possible consumers will decrease their risk of chemical exposure. The increased consumer demand for organic products is in part a market representation of the level of distrust of chemicals, especially preservatives and pesticides. The raging battleground is how much unsafe chemical exposure results from vectors like residues and crop treatments. Thorough pesticide-residue testing done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that conventional fresh fruits and vegetables are: • three to more than four times more likely on average to contain residues than organic produce; • 8 to 11 times more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than organic samples; and

375

376

| Organic Farming

• shown to contain residues at levels 3 to 10 times higher, on average, than corresponding residues in organic samples. Providing organic fruits and vegetables gives a choice proven to significantly reduce dietary exposure to pesticides. Some nonorganic foods in the United States are heavily contaminated with pesticides. Some of these foods are frequently consumed by infants and children: Fruits

Vegetables

Apples Cherries Peaches Pears Nectarines Strawberries

Celery Spinach Sweet Bell Peppers

According to the USDA, multiple pesticide residues are commonly found in these nine fruits and vegetables. The pesticide risk reduction benefits of consuming organic apples, pears, peaches, strawberries, cherries, celery, spinach, and sweet bell peppers were found to be particularly significant, especially for woman of childbearing age and infants and children. Some of the chemicals used in nonorganic foods can cross the placental barrier and negatively affect the fetus. It is a scientific battleground as to which chemicals create specific harm, and which ones can migrate to the fetus. Industry claims that many of these chemicals pose no actual risk to humans, especially if the fruit and vegetables are washed prior to consumption. They point out there are only animal studies and that the doses were far larger than humans are exposed to via food. Public health advocates claim mothers and unborn children are very vulnerable and that mothers would prefer to err on the side of caution with their child. Public health advocates also point out that industry claims ignore the environmental reality of human exposure by failing to account for cumulative risks. The importation of organic goods raises another battleground. Agricultural industries are very sensitive to trade tariffs and import/export controls. They want to control their markets and protect their crops. Many nations have no environmental controls on the fruits and vegetables they produce. They can use pesticides that are illegal in the United States, and in quantities that persist a long time. The pesticide residues found by the USDA in imported organic samples show that they are six times riskier than the pesticide residues found in domestic organic samples. This battleground eventually produced federal legislation designed to control these risks. The National Organic Program (NOP) requires all imported produce to meet the requirements of the NOP in order to be sold as organic in the United States. One major and persistent battleground is the certification process. Standards change and are often contested.

Organic Farming | 377

ORGANIC CERTIFICATION Organic food consumers are very discerning about food content. The label organic can open new markets for farmers and grocers, as well as increase the prices. Food certified as organic can have different meanings. Organic certification establishes and confirms standards. Consumers want to know everything they can about what they consume. Organic certification gives consumers confidence in the food they purchase and consume. Shifting standards only add to organic farming controversies but are necessary as science, technology, and consumer demand bear down on food. These standards are specific to land, produce, and animals. Land that has been used for industry or agriculture may have chemical loads in the soil and water. This is called conventional land. The land itself must be organic for the products to be organic. To be certified as organic the land used to grow the produce must be free of chemicals for at least three years before the LABELS AND THEIR MEANING Tags on organic fruits and vegetables start with a nine and have five numbers whereas conventional ones have four numbers. Genetically modified crops also have five numbers but start with the number eight. The main terms are defined as follows. Conventional—product or produce is made conventionally with commonly used pesticides or chemicals. Transitional—producer is working toward certification and is in the three-year period where they are meeting organic standards in practice but cannot be certified until the land has been in transition to organic status for at least three years. 100 percent organic —exclusively organic ingredients or single-ingredient products. Organic —95 percent of the product is made of organic ingredients (excluding salt and water). Made with organic ingredients—ingredients are 70–95 percent organic; organic ingredients are specified on the label. Less than 70 percent organic —product has some organic ingredients but less than 70 percent. Natural—There are no artificial flavors, colors, or preservatives in that product and it is minimally processed. Free-range —This means that the animals have some space to roam. This does not always mean outdoor pasture. Hormone-free —The animals were not given hormones, e.g., growth hormones; usually applies to dairy cows and cattle. Currently, many hormones, additives, and warehouse exposure vectors are not included in the label. Labeling is also a regulatory act that needs enforcement when neglected, violated, or misleading.

378

|

Organic Farming

crops are grown. If there is still a chemical presence after a three-year period, then another two years may generally be required. During the three-year period, the land is considered transitional. Animals are likewise strictly controlled. Organic animal husbandry often uses free-range animal production. The animals are allowed to walk freely as they grow. One question is how free do they have to be to be free range? Many nonorganic commercial meat-production operations have no minimum required space per animal. Pigs, chickens, goats, cattle, and others all require a minimum amount of land, depending on food sources. Organic poultry and beef are raised on organic feed or organic pastures. Organic cows and chickens cannot be given growth hormones, stimulants, or antibiotics. Organic dairy pasteurization must meet hygienic standards. There is a subbattleground with the sale of whole, unpasteurized milk. Some consumers want it, but it is illegal to sell it for public health reasons. Some organic farmers sell it anyway. Dairy cows may not be sold for meat. Beef is processed in a certified plant where organic cows are separated from conventional cattle. In all these categories, organic standards are still evolving. This can cause controversy. To add to the confusion, labeling requirements differ. The general trend is to include all the ingredients on the label. Organic food consumers have a higher expectation of this. Battlegrounds around labeling of organic foods include organic as well as the content listings. Should organic food have to list ingredients that conventional foods do not? Should conventional foods list trans fat? Should milk labeling disclose whether the cow that produced it was given growth hormones? CONTROVERSIES IN ORGANIC FARMING OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Although much of the battle between conventional food and organic food is fought in the marketplace, it is also fought in the arena of regulations and their enforcement. It is a competitive advantage to have food labeled as organic, but if farmers are increasing productivity through pesticides and also labeling it organic, they are competing unfairly. Enforcement of the rules is very difficult in agricultural operations and promises to be a contentious issue. Pesticides sometimes drift in the air from a nonorganic field to an organic field. Pesticide drift can be an intense and costly battleground between neighboring agricultural operations. Organic crop fields are vulnerable to pesticides in the environment from other sources. Once a field is retainted with chemicals, it could take years to bring it back into production with the organic certification. In agribusiness industrial operations, drift losses less than 10 percent are rare. The pesticide operations are large, delivered by airplanes (crop dusters) over large areas. Pesticide drift has been so bad at times that it has closed interstate highways. Farmworkers and the environment are also affected. Irrigation water is another potential source of pesticide drift onto organic farms. There is some scientific controversy on this point. Scientists maintain that because of the dilution in water it is unlikely that pesticide contamination of organic crops by

Organic Farming | 379

irrigation water is a significant problem. Organic farmers contend that dilution is not as effective as theoretically thought when drought, other sources of water pollution, and increasing numbers of other water users impede dilution. Environmentalists have long argued that dilution of chemicals in the environment is not a solution if there is environmental damage along the way to dilution.

NATURAL PESTICIDES? A second cluster of controversies surround the use of natural pesticides on organic farms. There is concern over the risks they may pose the consumer. The National Organic Program has approved a number of pesticides containing natural ingredients for use by certified organic farmers. Residues of some of these natural substances are common whether produced on an organic or conventional farm. This small battleground in this controversy will continue to fester.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY With the rapid expansion of food-production efficiency after World War II came the rise of large agricultural corporations. Combined with grants of land given to universities for agricultural research (known as land grant colleges), the green revolution produced large amounts of food where there was none before. The scale was larger, the use of chemicals extensive, and the distribution networks longer. The environmental impact is enormous, the mixture of chemicals in the soil now unknown, and the energy costs of shipping goods long distances expensive. Organic farmers are much more than gardeners with an environmental conscience. As concern about long-term sustainability emerges as a societal goal, organic farming emerges as a way to practice what one preaches. This controversy has potential to grow. Demand for organic produce increases as the cost of conventional produce increases. Those who can afford to, buy organic over nonorganic when given the choice. As more land comes into production for organic food, more efficient distribution networks will develop. Organic food is already a big business. Part of its value lies in full and complete labeling of food. Labeling requirements and rule enforcement will grow as consumers, public health advocates, and organic food industries seek more accurate and accessible food information. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Farmworkers and Environmental Justice; Hormone Disruptors: Endocrine Disruptors; Pesticides; Sustainability Web Resources California Certified Organic Farmers. Available at www.ccof.org/. Accessed January 21, 2008.

380

|

Organic Farming World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms. Available at www.wwoof.org/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Degregori, Thomas R. 2004. Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing; Lipson, Elaine Marie. 2001. The Organic Foods Sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2003. Organic Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets, and Policies. Washington, DC: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

P PERMITTING INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS: AIR The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires large emitters of some chemicals to get permits to do so. Permits are required only if the emissions exceed a certain threshold. Emissions are self-reported by industry. Once a permit is issued, it places limits on the chemicals that can be emitted into the air. There are many exceptions, weak governmental enforcement, and many lawsuits. Early lawsuits by environmental groups were successful in forcing the EPA to develop clean air standards. REGULATORY BACKGROUND The Clean Air Act gave authority to the EPA to issue clean air standards, which it did for some emissions after environmental groups sued them under special provisions called citizen suits. Controversies involve weak enforcement of environmental regulations that allow too many emissions. Much of this controversy occurs in the courts and at the EPA. The rules and regulations around industrial air emissions are complex but do allow for citizen input. Courts require many plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. Therefore, it is necessary to know how permits basically work in the regulation of industrial emissions into the air. Congress established the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program as part of the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. The NSR is a preconstruction permitting program that serves two important purposes. First, it ensures that air quality is not significantly degraded from the addition of new and modified factories, industrial boilers, and power plants. In areas with unhealthy air, NSR

381

382

|

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air

assures that new emissions do not slow progress toward cleaner air. In areas with clean air, especially pristine areas like national parks, NSR assures that new emissions do not significantly worsen air quality. Second, the NSR program assures people that any large new or modified industrial source in their neighborhoods will be as clean as possible, and that advances in pollution control occur concurrently with industrial expansion. The NSR permits are legal documents that the facility owners/operators must abide by. The permit specifies what construction is allowed, what emission limits must be met, and often how the emissions source must be operated. There are three types of NSR permitting requirements. A source may have to meet one or more of these permitting requirements. They are: • Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits that are required for new major sources or a major source making a major modification in an attainment area; • Nonattainment NSR permits that are required for new major sources or major sources making a major modification in a nonattainment area; and • Minor source permits. WHAT ARE PERMITS? Permits are legal documents that the industry must follow. They specify what construction is allowed, what emission limits must be met, and often how the source must be operated. They may contain conditions to make sure that the source is built to match parameters in the application that the permit agency relied on in their analysis. For example, the permit may specify stack heights that the agency used in their analysis of the source. Some limits in the permit may be there at the request of the source to keep them out of other requirements. For example, the source may accept limits in a minor NSR permit to keep the source out of PSD. To assure that sources follow the permit requirements, permits also contain monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements. WHO ISSUES THE PERMITS? The EPA issues the permit in some cases. State and local air pollution control agencies may have their own permit programs that are approved by the EPA in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), or they may be delegated the authority to issue permits on behalf of the EPA. Most NSR permits are issued by state or local air pollution control agencies. The EPA establishes the basic requirements for an NSR program in its federal regulations. States may develop unique NSR requirements and procedures tailored for the air quality needs of each area as long as the program is at least as stringent as EPA’s requirements. A state’s NSR program is defined and codified in its SIP. In some cases, state or local air pollution control agencies have not developed a unique NSR program and rely completely on EPA’s NSR program. These states are delegated the authority to issue permits on behalf of the EPA and

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air | 383

are often referred to as delegated states. Finally, the EPA is the permitting authority in some areas. In both delegated programs and where the EPA issues permits, the rules and procedures followed in issuing NSR permits are specified in EPA regulations. PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) Prevention of significant deterioration applies to new major sources or major modifications at existing sources for pollutants when the area where the source is located is in attainment or unclassifiable with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires the EPA to set NAAQS for widespread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The Clean Air Act requires periodic review of the science upon which the standards are based and the standards themselves. This process can be controversial within the scientific community. The EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called criteria pollutants. Prevention of significant deterioration permits require the following: 1. Installation of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). BACT is an emissions limitation that is based on the maximum degree of control that can be achieved. It is a case-by-case decision that considers energy, environmental, and economic impact. BACT can be add-on control equipment or modification of the production processes or methods. This includes fuel cleaning or treatment and innovative fuel combustion techniques. BACT may be a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard if imposition of an emissions standard is infeasible. 2. An air quality analysis. The main purpose of the air quality analysis is to demonstrate that new emissions from a proposed major stationary source or major modification, in conjunction with other applicable emissions increases and decreases from existing sources, will not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS or PSD increment. Generally, the analysis will involve an assessment of existing air quality, which may include ambient monitoring data and air quality dispersion modeling results, and predictions, using dispersion modeling, of ambient concentrations that will result from the applicant’s proposed project and future growth associated with the project. 3. An additional impacts analysis. The additional impacts analysis assesses the impacts of air, ground, and water pollution on soils, vegetation, and visibility caused by any increase in emissions of any regulated pollutant

384

|

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air

Table P.1

Pollution Emissions and Trading Them

Pollutant

Primary Stds.

Averaging Times

Secondary Stds.

9 ppm (10 mg/m3)

8-hour(1)

None

35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

1-hour(1)

None

Lead

1.5 μg/m

Quarterly Average

Same as Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide

0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3)

Annual (Arithmetic Mean)

Same as Primary

Particulate Matter (PM10)

Revoked(2)

Annual(2) (Arith. Mean)

150 μg/m3

24-hour(3)

15.0 μg/m3

Annual(4) (Arith. Mean)

35 μg/m3

24-hour(5)

0.08 ppm

8-hour(6)

Same as Primary

0.12 ppm

1-hour (Applies only in limited areas)

Same as Primary

0.03 ppm

Annual (Arith. Mean)

-------

0.14 ppm

24-hour(1)

-------

-------

3-hour(1)

0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)

Carbon Monoxide

3

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Ozone

Sulfur Oxides

(7)

Same as Primary

Not to be exceeded more than once per year. Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, the agency revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006 (effective December 17, 2006). (3) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three years. (4) To attain this standard, the three-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3. (5) To attain this standard, the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006). (6) To attain this standard, the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. (7) (a) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is ≤ 1, as determined by appendix H. (b) As of June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 14 eight-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas. (1) (2)

from the source or modification under review and from associated growth. Associated growth is industrial, commercial, and residential growth that will occur in the area due to the source. 4. Public involvement. Prior to issuing a permit, permitting authorities generally follow these steps: 1. The state agency determines whether the permit application is complete enough to begin processing it. 2. They publish a notice to inform the public of the public comment period (usually 30 days), and the deadline for requesting a public hearing on the draft permit.

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air | 385

The notice can be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the source is located or in a state publication, like a state register. Some agencies also post the public notice and other information on their Web site. They decide whether to revise the draft permit based on the comments received. In some cases the permitting authority may publish a notice and seek comments on the revised permit. They then usually issue the permit. WHAT IS PSD’S PURPOSE? Prevention of significant deterioration does not prevent sources from increasing emissions. Instead, PSD is designed to: 1. protect public health and welfare; 2. preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value; 3. ensure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources; and 4. assure that any decision to permit increased air pollution in any area to which this section applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences of such a decision and after adequate procedural opportunities for informed public participation in the decision-making process. There can be controversy at this juncture.

COMMUNITY ACTIONS Many communities turn to their government for help in fighting air pollution, for example, enforcement actions against sources that are not complying with their permits. Is there anything a citizen can do? You can notify the permitting authority or the EPA if you believe a facility did not obtain an NSR permit before construction or is not complying with its permits. The EPA may refer you to the appropriate state or local agency that handles the type of violation you are reporting. An environmental violation occurs when an activity or an existing condition does not comply with an environmental law or regulation. Environmental violations can include (but are not limited to): • • • • • • •

Smoke or other emissions from local industrial facilities; Tampering with emission control or air conditioning systems in automobiles; Improper treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes; Exceedances of pollutant limits at publicly owned wastewater treatment plants; Unpermitted dredging or filling of waters and wetlands; Any unpermitted industrial activity; Late-night dumping or any criminal activity including falsifying reports or other documents.

386

|

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air

An environmental emergency is a sudden threat to the public health or the well-being of the environment, arising from the release or potential release of oil, radioactive materials, or hazardous chemicals into the air, land, or water. Examples of environmental emergencies include: • Oil and chemical spills • Radiological and biological discharges • Accidents causing releases of pollutants Section 304 of the Clean Air Act allows citizens to sue to enforce many of the Clean Air Act’s requirements. Lawsuits may be filed against the source, the state permitting authority, and the EPA. Suggested Strategy for Reviewing a Title V Permit • Step One: Identify and Locate the Underlying Source for Any Requirement Mentioned in the Permit Application or Draft Permit • Step Two: Review the Permit Application for Helpful Information • Step Three: Review the Statement of Basis • Step Four: Review General Conditions • Step Five: Check to See if Source-Specific Air Quality Requirements Are Correctly Applied to the Facility • Step Six: Check to See Whether Any Federal Requirements Are Incorrectly Identified as State-Only Requirements Many communities also get involved at permit-renewal and permit-modification phases. Some additional conditions in permits required by some states include records of any compliance actions taken against them. Even though many environmental advocates complain that actual notice of permit changes is poor, the issue is increasingly important to communities. Public computers make public access to notices better.

HOW CAN I COMMENT ON NSR PERMITS? As a member of the public, you can use the NSR program to ensure that sources are complying with the requirements that apply to them. NSR gives you the opportunity to: 1. Comment on and request a public hearing on permits before they are issued. 2. Appeal permits issued pursuant to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The appeal procedures will depend on the state the source is located in. For state-specific information, get in touch with the appropriate contact listed on your state’s permit contact page, which is available by clicking on your state on the Where You Live page U.S. map (www.epa.gov/epahome/ whereyoulive.htm).

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air | 387

3. Appeal or permits issued by the EPA or by state or local agencies that are issuing the permit on behalf of the EPA to the Environmental Appeals Board and the federal courts. Normally one must have commented on the draft permit to appeal it. Communities and environmentalists complain that this notice is often ineffective in reaching people and the process is ineffective in listening to people. Industry is often concerned that public participation in these forums exposes them to potential citizen lawsuits. The Clean Air Act specifically allows citizen lawsuits. Communities and environmentalists often want to monitor plant emissions. Industry strongly discourages this because of fear of exposure to liability. Citizen monitoring often begins in these controversial cases. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Industrial air emissions are an important controversy that evokes strong emotions from communities. They are concerned about the health of their families. Now, due in part to the Toxics Release Inventory, communities are more empowered with knowledge. Environmental organizations have a long history of successful litigation against the EPA in enforcing the Clean Air Act and show no signs of letting up. Industry is incompletely regulated based on self-reported data. Emissions from all sources are unknown. Concerns about cumulative effects and societal interest in sustainability mean that industrial air emissions will continue to be controversial. See also Air Pollution; Childhood Asthma and the Environment; Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Incineration and Resource Recovery; Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading; Toxics Release Inventory Web Resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compliance and Enforcement. Available at www. epa.gov/compliance/. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New Source Review (NSR): Where You Live. Available at www.epa.gov/nsr/where.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Transfer Network: Clean Air Technology Center. Available at cfpub1.epa.gov/rblc/htm/bl02.cfm. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Where You Live: Environmental Violations. Available at www.epa.gov/epahome/violations.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Bradstreet, Jeffrey W. 1996. Hazardous Air Pollutants: Assessment, Liabilities, and Regulatory Compliance. New York: William Andrew Inc; Gonzalez, George A. 2005. The Politics of Air Pollution: Urban Growth, Ecological Modernization, and Symbolic Inclusion. New York: SUNY Press; Greenway, A. Roger. 2002. How to Obtain Air Quality Permits. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; Trzupek, Richard. 2002. Air Quality Compliance and Permitting Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

388

|

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water

PERMITTING INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS: WATER Some industries and cities discharge wastes and chemicals into the water. This discharge is mixed with nonpoint sources of pollution such as runoff from paved areas. Many cities have old sewage overflow systems that were supposed to discharge directly into the water when it stormed. Populations grew, but infrastructural maintenance did not keep up. Population and pavement increases have increased the flow and toxicity of urban wastewater streams. Communities blame industry, past and present, for water pollution, but industry blames to nonpoint sources. Meanwhile, the EPA is very slow at issuing some of the standards like the total maximum daily load of chemicals a given watershed can carry. Environmentalists can sue under the Clean Water Act and do so, claiming weak enforcement of the law by the EPA. All the while, some of the discharges are accumulating as sediment, citizens are increasingly monitoring the water quality themselves, and water quantity and quality are decreasing. The water controversies spill over to every area of environmental policy, especially if ecosystem or ecological risk assessment approaches are used. All approaches to sustainability must include water. The focus of this environmental controversy is industrial discharges into water. The pollution of water has a serious impact on all living organisms and can negatively affect the use of water for drinking, household needs, recreation, fishing, transportation, and commerce for a long time. Pollution can accumulate on river bottoms from the beginning of industrialization. The EPA enforces federal clean water and safe drinking water laws, provides support for municipal wastewater treatment plants, and takes part in pollution-prevention efforts aimed at protecting watersheds and sources of drinking water. CLEAN WATER ACT HISTORY The Clean Water Act dominates water pollution control. It is a fairly recent policy development and is strewn with battlegrounds at almost every point of implementation. Growing public awareness and concern about water pollution led to enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. As amended in 1977, this law became known as the Clean Water Act. It gave the EPA the authority to implement pollution-control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry. The Clean Water Act also continued to set standards for all regulated contaminants in surface waters. There is an ongoing dispute as to whether all contaminants are included in the regulatory reach. The act made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions. Once a permit is obtained they may discharge the pollution into the water as long as they do not exceed the limit in the permit. However, discharges are often averaged out with a rolling average that can be used to keep water discharges within the limit. Environmentalists and some downstream communities strongly challenge this practice because it allows degradation of the aquatic environment to occur. The Clean Water Act also funded the construction of

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water | 389

many sewage treatment plants. Without this help, many communities would be without wastewater treatment. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many diffuse sources. NPS pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water. These pollutants include: • Excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; • Oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production; • Sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding streambanks; • Salt from irrigation practices and acid drainage from abandoned mines; and • Bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty septic systems. Atmospheric deposition and hydromodification are also sources of nonpoint source pollution. States report that nonpoint source pollution is the leading remaining cause of water quality problems. The effects of nonpoint source pollutants on specific waters vary and may not always be fully assessed. These pollutants have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife. Nonpoint source pollution results from a wide variety of human activities on the land. Some activities are federal responsibilities, such as ensuring that federal lands are properly managed to reduce soil erosion. Some are state responsibilities, for example, developing legislation to govern mining and logging and to protect groundwater. Others are handled locally, such as by zoning or erosion-control ordinances. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Federal laws require government approval prior to beginning any work in or over navigable waters of the United States that affects the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters, or prior to discharging dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. Regulatory programs that implement these laws are administered through permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but it shares responsibility with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). WETLANDS Wetlands are very important parts of ecosystems that often have suffered large environmental impacts. Although many states have their own wetland regulations, the federal government bears a major responsibility for regulating wetlands. Each federal agency has a different mission that is reflected in

390

|

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water

the agency’s legal authority for wetland protection. The Army Corps’ duties to wetlands are related to navigation and water supply; they control activities like dredging, channelizing large rivers, and constructing levees. All these activities can become site-specific battlegrounds, often ending in federal court. The EPA’s legal responsibilities are related to protecting wetlands primarily for their contributions to the quality of water for drinking and swimming. Only 20 percent of surface water is even monitored at all, and it has experienced a steady drop in water quality. More watersheds are being monitored. Community awareness of water monitoring and testing methods has increased. The Toxics Release Inventory has further strengthened citizens and their participation in water-permitting processes. The Fish and Wildlife Department’s legal duties are related to managing fish and wildlife-game species and threatened and endangered species. They have a very strong interest in the ecological integrity of wetlands. States are becoming more active in wetland protection. Many states have adopted programs to protect wetlands beyond those programs enacted by the federal government. Conflicting interests of state and federal agencies, and with private property owners, create many site-specific battlegrounds with permitting industrial uses of water. In a 2000 report to Congress, the EPA cited nonpoint sources of pollution as the top factors making the remaining 40 percent of the nation’s waterways too polluted for swimming or fishing. The Clean Water Act only regulates point sources. As scientists and environmental activists recognized the value of wetlands in mitigating pollution, the EPA began to emphasize wetlands protection under the Clean Water Act. PROVISIONS CREATE CONTROVERSY Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA sets national water quality criteria and specifies levels of various chemical pollutants that are allowable under these criteria. The discharge of regulated chemicals into surface waters is controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires polluters to obtain federal permits for every chemical they discharge. The permits, which can be issued by the EPA or by state government agencies, give a business or municipality the right to discharge a limited amount of a specific pollutant. The NPDES has been criticized by industry groups for ambiguous regulatory policies and long delays in granting permits. Environmentalists and some community groups counter that the delays are because the pollution is a great concern. They do not want it. The EPA also took steps toward cleaning up polluted waterways and regulating nonpoint source pollution in 2000. The agency introduced new rules that encouraged individual states to identify dirty waterways and establish standards to help eliminate sources of pollution. The states were required to come up with a maximum amount of pollution that each waterway could absorb. This measurement was known as the total maximum daily load (TMDL). Then the states had to decide which local landowners or businesses needed to

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water | 391

reduce their pollution levels to meet the TMDL. The states were also required to evaluate future development plans near the waterways to make sure they would not increase pollution levels. It soon became clear that the TMDL program would be very controversial, as it has been every time it has come close to implementation. Some cities seeking industrially based economic development and industry trade groups maintain that that these provisions discourage development along already-polluted waterways and restrict the rights of property owners. Others were concerned that compliance with the new regulations would be too expensive in terms of time and cash outlays for new equipment. Often, if there is no room left in a water permit, the waste must be shipped to a hazardous waste landfill. It may have to be treated before it can go there. This is a very expensive process. WATER PERMITS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permits of the Clean Water Act created a special permitting program to regulate discharge of dredged and fill material into wetlands and other waters of the United States. The Army Corps of Engineers is principally responsible for issuing permits under this program. Many of the controversies over 404 permits involve whether the discharge area qualifies as a wetland. In addition, the act exempts some discharges of dredge and fill material from the regulations. Exempt activities can each be a battleground and include: • normal farming, forestry, and ranching activities; • maintenance and reconstruction of many water structures (dams, dikes, etc.); • construction and maintenance of farm and forest roads; and • activities associated with certain state-approved programs. WETLANDS After a Supreme Court decision in 2001 cut back federal jurisdiction over wetlands, federal agencies under the George W. Bush administration in January 2003 proposed new rules to follow up on and carry out that decision. Wetlands provide many benefits: flood control, water purification, groundwater recharge, migratory resting areas for birds and butterflies, feeding and breeding habitat for fish and wildlife, erosion control, and recreation. They mitigate the impacts of many natural disasters. The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations estimated that almost $79 billion per year was generated from wetlanddependent species in 1997, or about 71 percent of the nation’s entire $111 billion commercial and recreational fishing industry. Wetlands are environmentally degraded by many human activities. Commercial and residential development is one of the human activities that destroy wetlands. Wetlands produce rich soil and are often cleared and drained for farmland. Road construction, river channelization, and dams can destroy wetlands. Earlier attitudes toward wetlands revolved around draining them for the public health (especially because of mosquitoes), treating them as

392

|

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water

garbage and waste sites, and letting all uses develop there no matter what their environmental impact. Other wetlands are lost to natural resource extraction like mining, logging, and grazing. The nature of wetlands varies according to area, as do the environmental impacts and risks to them. The sea-level rise expected to accompany global warming will also destroy some coastal wetlands. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As concern over water quality and quantity increases so too will controversy over how the government protects the water from environmental impacts. Concern about cumulative effects will force examination of all known sources. Industries with permits stand out although other sources of pollution exist, such as sewage from cities and runoff from land development. Waste is increasing as populations increase, and land development and paving continue unabated. At the same time social concern over cumulative effects, sustainability, and global warming is increasing. Industries that are currently required to be permitted and many cities will try to resist permit requirements. Much of the information is self-reported by industry to government. Environmentalists complain that enforcement of law is weak and advocate in court. Industry complains that the federal agencies vacillate in their interpretation of the law. Communities want strict enforcement of the law, transparent environmental transactions, and complete accountability for any and all discharges. The battleground for this controversy will move back and forth between legislatures and the courts as policy makers grapple with the thorny issues of clean water.

MERCURY EXPOSURE FROM THE FISH IN THE GREAT LAKES The primary means of human exposure to mercury is consumption of fish containing methyl mercury, so groups who eat Great Lakes fish as a major source of nutrition are the most atrisk populations. These groups include low-income African Americans, Native Americans, and non-English speakers such as some Hmong immigrants. The benefits and burdens to these stakeholders are complicated. Reduction of mercury levels is a benefit because it provides access to clean air, water, and food. Stakeholders also face significant burdens because strict regulation of fishing could cut off a major source of sustenance. One concern is that present and future generations lack social and environmental education. Specifically, many are unaware of the undetectable dangers of toxic chemicals and how to recognize the health effects of contamination. Even if the knowledge would not benefit fishers, women, and children, who perceive and experience different levels of risk, need information about mercury concentrations in fish and the risks of contamination. Individual stakeholders may assess their risks in different ways, depending on physical and socioeconomic variables as well as acceptance or awareness of the problem. Benefits

Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water | 393 and burdens may not be entirely clear without individual stakeholders speaking for themselves, and total informed consent is integral to fair decision making. Total informed consent is impossible if stakeholders are not properly educated about the present and future effect of social and environmental issues. For example, the community needs to understand that the state of Michigan’s standard regulating point-source discharge of mercury assumes a fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams per person per day, which is inadequate, because it fails to represent consumption levels of some minority groups. This lack of information increases the likelihood of mercury poisoning in groups who consume more fish due to lack of warning. Lack of information about contaminated fish and lack of access to uncontaminated fish jeopardizes the community’s health and culture as well as the health of future generations. Groups such as environmentalists and evangelicals also have an interest in the mercury issue. For example, the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals is eager to reframe mercury regulations as a pro-life issue because “curbing mercury emissions protects children from learning disabilities and unborn children from brain damage—that gets people’s attention.” Environmental groups are interested stakeholders, speaking on behalf of silent stakeholders such as flora and fauna in the Great Lakes basin. There is no formal program for collecting data on the impacts of mercury on the ecology of the Great Lakes basin; however, risks have been clearly identified for birds, fish, and mammals. Mercury has had a documented effect on birds, such as loons and birds of prey in eastern North America; at least one loon death in Nova Scotia has been linked directly to the toxin. Mercury-related deaths and illnesses indicate that the flora and fauna in the basin would benefit from decreased levels of mercury in their environment. Coal-fired power plants account for about 40 percent of total U.S. human-made mercury emissions. The Clean Air Mercury Rule is specifically targeted at power plants because of their large share of overall emissions. The utility industry has a stake in the EPA’s mercury rule because it determines the timeframe and extent of industry’s compliance. The benefits and burdens to the coal-based power industry are reflected by trade associations, which exist solely to pursue the greatest good for their members. According to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the benefits of the Clean Air Mercury Rule are ease of implementation, economic security, energy security, environmental gains, flexibility, and technology incentives. The organization lists no burdens. The potential burdens to industry of stricter controls include the cost of implementing more efficient technologies or the threat of economic losses due to a switch to alternative energy sources. However, because of the EPA’s calculations, these burdens have been mitigated. One benefit of stricter controls, based on the EEI’s list, is that they are more likely to receive environmental gains.

By Monica Patel, JD Lewis and Clark Law School, 2006

394

|

Persistent Organic Pollutants

See also Climate Change; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Global Warming; Sustainability; Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water; Water Pollution Web Resources National Council for Science and the Environment. Controversies over Redefining “Fill Material” under the Clean Water Act. Available at www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract. cfm?NLEid=218. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts Data Warehouse: Water. Available at www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_overview.html#PCS. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Greenway, A. Roger. 2004. How to Obtain Water Quality Permits. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; Ryan, Mark. 2004. The Clean Water Act Handbook. Chicago: American Bar Association; Wiersma, Bruce G. 2004. Environmental Monitoring. Washington, DC: CRC Press.

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS Persistent organic pollutants present environmental and health risks despite their effectiveness in their uses and applications. There is a strong international movement to ban them from food sources, but some countries still use them, and chemical manufacturing corporations still produce them for profit.

WHY ARE PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS A CONTROVERSY? These chemicals cause controversy because they last a long time in the environment. Their presence can be damaging to other parts of the soil and water. Since they persist, or last, in the environment, annual reapplication of pesticides increases cumulative exposures dramatically. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are several groups of chemicals. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are industrial chemicals. The two remaining groups are dioxins and furans. POPs have one common characteristic, their persistence in the environment. Some early pesticide applications wanted this characteristic because it was presumed that stronger chemicals that lasted longer performed their task better. They last longer than required for their intended use, however, and it is always a battleground as to exactly how long they do last. Over time the accumulation of POPs eventually made the case that they do persist. All 12 POPs listed are chlorinated compounds, nine of them having been developed as pesticides. Their use is decreasing, but controlling international use is controversial. Farmworkers and others who live near POP applications can suffer from overexposure. This can cause acute poisoning. If acute poisoning occurs, no antidotes are available for the internationally banned POPs. POP exposure can follow other vectors of exposure because they are so persistent in the environment. They eventually reach the top of the food chain—humans.

Persistent Organic Pollutants | 395

HUMAN EXPOSURE The greatest part of human exposure to the listed POPs comes from the food chain. The contamination of food, including breast milk, by POPs is a worldwide controversy. In most of the world, breast milk is the sole source of food for most infants. Edible oils and animal products are most often involved in case of POP contamination. Food contaminated by POPs can pose chronic health risks, including cancer. The long-term implications of low-level exposure are not known. There is controversy on this point on the scientific battlegrounds about POPs. Some researchers are concerned that long-term low-level exposure to POPs may have more cumulative impacts because of their persistence. Others maintain that low-level exposures do not cause any risk but do not engage the cumulative-risk concerns. Vectors for food contamination by POPs occur through environmental pollution of the air, water, and soil, or through the use of organochlorine pesticides. Food contamination by POPs can have a significant impact on food exports and imports. At the international level, limits for residues of persistent organochlorine insecticides have been established for a range of commodities. They are recognized by the World Trade Organization as the international reference in assessing nontariff barriers to trade. Because of this, international bodies are major players in the controversies over POPs. DISPOSAL OF POPs Most countries are facing the problem of disposal of some remaining POPs. This is a large controversy because of the cost of doing so and the environmental and public health risks of not doing so. The strict requirements for proper disposal of these chemicals create an enormous burden for a developing country and their industries, both economically and technologically. Legal aspects of transboundary movement of POPs are very specialized and time-consuming. The temptation to illegally dispose of POPs can be strong. DO POPS EVER DEGRADE NATURALLY? There have been recent claims that POPs can degrade naturally. Some say it is a type of bioremediation. If this is the case, the cost of cleanups decreases dramatically because POPs can be left to degrade in place. Environmentalists generally prefer bioremediation because it usually has lower environmental impacts. The controversy over whether POPs can be naturally degraded by microbial action is a long-standing one. New research indicates that this occurs for DDT. Research also indicates that naturally occurring organisms in sediments play an important role in breaking down the chlorinated compounds. The finding that DDE, a toxic by-product of the pesticide DDT, can naturally degrade comes from laboratory experiments performed by researchers from Michigan State University’s Center for Microbial Ecology. They used marine sediments collected from a Superfund site off the coast of southern California. Their research samples came from the Palos Verdes Shelf, the subject of one of the largest

396

|

Persistent Organic Pollutants

Natural Resources Damage Assessment cases in the United States. More than 20 years after they were deposited, DDT compounds are still present in surface sediments at levels harmful to life. But according to the Michigan State University microbiologist, the experiments do not prove dechlorination is taking place at a significant rate in the sediments at the site. They do demonstrate that there are sediment microbes that can dechlorinate what was previously considered a terminal product. The EPA’s most likely plan for the Superfund site is to cover part of the ocean floor with a cap of thick sand, a project that could cost as much as $300 million. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The POPs list is likely to expand as our use and knowledge of them increases. So too will the list of potential alternatives to some POPs. Eliminating them from food chains and human breast milk will be a big first step when it eventually happens, but other more inclusive policy approaches will be more controversial. Waste disposal, bioremediation, cost of cleanup and who pays for it all remain debated and growing areas of environmental policy. The battleground for the POPs controversy will remain in the international environmental community via treaties and international bodies like the United Nations. The battleground for mandatory disposal is just beginning and could shape the cleanup policies of the host country. Environmentalists fear an increase in illegal ocean dumping. PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Hudson River, New York General Electric (GE) is responsible for PCBs on the river bottom of the Hudson River in New York. It is an old company that existed well before any environmental regulation. GE contends that natural processes, including reductive dechlorination, have substantially reduced the risk to humans and the environment and that these processes should be allowed to continue. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a Superfund cleanup of the contaminated sediments, which would make GE a primary responsible party. They can then either clean it up according to EPA specifications, or the EPA will do it and charge them for the expense. Environmentalists have several lawsuits engaged in this controversy. Community groups along the historic Hudson River are very concerned. The EPA concluded that dechlorination will not naturally remediate contaminated sediments. According to GE a number of natural processes, when viewed together, dramatically reduce the risk from contaminated sediments: “Anaerobic dechlorination reduces toxicity; aerobic degradation reduces the overall mass; and sorption onto organic particles reduces bioavailability.” Hudson River PCBs are a serious health risk, according to community and environmental groups.

Persistent Organic Pollutants | 397 • PCBs can damage the immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems. They can impair children’s physical and intellectual development. • PCBs cause cancer in animals and are strongly linked to human cancer, according to studies by leading health agencies. • GE says PCBs do not hurt people, citing a study it commissioned on workers at its Hudson Falls plant. The New York State Department of Health and many independent scientists critiqued the research and said it does not support GE’s claims. • According to the EPA, cancer risks from eating upper-river PCB-contaminated fish are 1,000 times over its goal for protection and 10 times the highest level generally allowed by Superfund law. Hudson River PCBs will not go away naturally. There is deep distrust from the community that they are safe from harm from these PCBs. • PCBs were designed not to break down. They are persistent organic pollutants that remain in the environment indefinitely. • GE claims river microbes eliminate PCBs naturally, but the EPA found that less than 10 percent have broken down. After breakdown, PCBs remain toxic and are more readily spread throughout the ecosystem. • GE claims Hudson River PCB pollution has dropped 90 percent, a deceptive statistic because the drop occurred when discharges were banned in the late 1970s. Since the mid-1980s, levels have remained quite constant and well above acceptable limits. The EPA’s independent, peer-reviewed science predicts the problem will last into the foreseeable future without remediation. • GE’s PCBs are responsible for eat-none health advisories for women of childbearing age and children for all fish from all Hudson River locations. Hudson River PCBs are not safely buried by sediments, contend community members and scientists. This is a pervasive controversial issue in environmental cleanups. Does disturbing the site cause more environmental damage? Often this question is complicated by costcutting measures that affect the environmental decision. The early days of “don’t ask, don’t tell” environmental policy are replaced by ecosystem risk assessment at Superfund sites. In the case of the Hudson River and GE, • Of the estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs dumped by GE, about 200,000 pounds remain in upper-river sediments. Every day, through resuspension by currents, boats, bottom-dwelling animals, and so on, the sediments release PCBs. About 500 pounds wash over the Troy Dam annually. • The EPA’s peer-reviewed science has found that PCBs are not being widely buried by sediments.

Current Dredging Technology Is Safe, Effective, and Efficient • Dredging will cut in half the flow of PCBs over the Troy Dam, and the EPA forecasts safe fish levels 20 years earlier after dredging.

398

|

Pesticides

• The EPA’s proposal does not rely on a local landfill. • Under the EPA’s worst-case scenario, dredging might stir up 20 pounds of PCBs annually. However, the cleanup will immediately and dramatically reduce the 500 pounds moving downstream already. In the long term, dredging can virtually eliminate upriver sediment releases of PCBs. • A recent Scenic Hudson national study of 89 river cleanup projects found dredging was preferred 90 percent of the time. Dredging reduced PCB levels in rivers and fish in locations such as the Fox River (Wisconsin), Manistique Harbor (Michigan), Cumberland Bay (New York) and Waukegan Harbor (Illinois). • Dredge operations at rivers nationwide were minimally disruptive to lifestyle and recreation. • River ecosystems will not be devastated and will quickly re-establish in a clean and healthy environment. The EPA’s PCB-removal plan combines plan-site source control with removing 100,000 pounds of PCBs from the river. Dredging will reduce cancer and noncancer dangers by up to 90 percent compared with just stopping contamination from GE’s old plants.

See also Childhood Asthma and the Environment; Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks Web Resources The Center for Environmental International Law. WTO “Supremacy Clause” in the POPs Convention, working paper. Available at www.ciel.org/Publications/pops2.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. International Indian Treaty Council. Indigenous Environmental Network, press release. Available at www.treatycouncil.org/new_page_5213.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Bargagli, Roberto. 2005. Antarctic Ecosystems: Environmental Contamination, Climate Change, and Human Impact. New York: Springer; Downie, David. 2002. Northern Lights against POPs: Toxic Threats in the Arctic. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press; Harrad, Stuart. 2001. Persistent Organic Pollutants: Environmental Behaviour and Pathways of Human Exposure. New York: Springer; Johansen, Bruce Elliott. 2003. The Dirty Dozen: Toxic Chemicals and the Earth’s Future. Westport, CT: Praeger; Johnston, Paul M., and Ruth Stringer. 2001. Chlorine and the Environment: An Overview of the Chlorine Industry. New York: Springer.

PESTICIDES Chemicals used to kill insects, fungus, rats, and weeds are called pesticides. They can enter ecosystems and create damage. They can bioaccumulate up food chains and affect humans. Their widespread use makes environmentalists and communities uneasy despite improvements in public health due to their use. Some pesticide manufacturers label their products in confusing ways, which creates distrust. Some chemical manufacturers claim trade secrets when registering their pesticides with the EPA. Agribusiness points to high levels of productivity with their use. Many retail pesticides are sold every day to households. While pesticides are everywhere, many are concerned about exposure and health risks from them.

Pesticides | 399

Many people are concerned about multiple exposures to pesticides. When those concerned are dismissed as hysterical housewives, the uneducated public, or extremist environmentalists, the seeds for controversy are sown. These are very serious concerns that demand explanation, and inadequate responses from government and industry do little to alleviate these concerns. Food and drinking water are sometimes contaminated from the same agricultural runoff. Some of the same pesticides used in industrial agriculture are also used in homes, hospitals, churches, schools, and day care centers. These are also places where vulnerable populations of the young, pregnant, and old can be more exposed. The human health effects from pesticide exposures are large. The large numbers of potentially affected people and the financial and social costs of exposure have not been considered in the formation of environmental policy around pesticides. Questions about who is exposed to how much become questions about how much is safe for whom. There is a high level of concern around cumulative impacts and vulnerable populations that drives this controversy. Every niche of this controversy is laden with debating scientists, successful and unsuccessful lawsuits, agonizing government regulation and enforcement, and victims who will fight this issue to their literal death. The outline of these many battlegrounds shows the ferocity of this particular controversy. Some of the basic parameters of the current raging controversy about pesticide exposure of children are described by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national U.S. environmental group. The summary findings of their research conclude: • All children are disproportionately exposed to pesticides, compared with adults, due to their greater intake of food, water, and air per unit of body weight, their greater activity levels, narrower dietary choices, crawling, and hand-to-mouth behavior. • Fetuses, infants, and children are particularly susceptible to pesticides compared with adults because their bodies cannot efficiently detoxify and eliminate chemicals, their organs are still growing and developing, and they have a longer lifetime to develop health complications after an exposure. • Pesticides can have numerous serious health effects, ranging from acute poisoning to cancers, neurological effects, and effects on reproduction and development. • Many pesticides that are never used indoors are tracked into the home and accumulate there at concentrations up to 100 times higher than outdoor levels. • In nonagricultural urban or suburban households, an average of 12 different pesticides per home have been measured in carpet dust and an average of 11 different pesticide residues per household have been measured in indoor air in homes where pesticides are used. • In an early 1990s nationwide survey of pesticide residues in urine in the general population, metabolites of two organophosphate pesticides, chlorpyrifos and parathion, were detected in 82 percent and 41 percent, respectively, of the people tested.

400

|

Pesticides

• In a rural community, all 197 children tested had urinary residues of the cancer-causing pesticide pentachlorophenol, all except six of the children had residues of the suspected carcinogen p-dichlorobenzene, and 20 percent had residues of the normally short-lived outdoor herbicide 2,4-D, which has been associated with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. PESTICIDES IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS The Natural Resources Defense Council did a special study of agricultural children and their exposure to pesticides, called Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities (October 1998). Following is a summary of their conclusions. • Children living in farming areas or whose parents work in agriculture are exposed to pesticides to a greater degree, and from more sources, than other children. • The outdoor herbicide atrazine was detected inside all the houses of Iowa farm families sampled in a small study during the application season, and in only 4 percent of 362 nonfarm homes. • Neurotoxic organophosphate pesticides have been detected on the hands of farm children at levels that could result in exposures above U.S. EPA designated safe levels. • Metabolites of organophosphate pesticides used only in agriculture were detectable in the urine of two out of every three children of agricultural workers and in four out of every ten children who simply live in an agricultural region. • On farms, children as young as 10 can work legally, and younger children frequently work illegally or accompany their parents to the fields due to economic necessity and a lack of child-care options. These practices can result in acute poisonings and deaths. (http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ farm/exec.asp, May 15, 2007) KINDS OF PESTICIDES There are many different kinds of pesticides in use today. Pesticides are referred to according to the type of pest they control. Chemical Pesticides Some examples of chemical pesticides follow. Other examples are available in sources such as Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings. Organophosphate Pesticides These pesticides affect the nervous system by disrupting the enzyme that regulates a chemical in the brain called acetylcholine. Most organophosphates are used as insecticides. Some are very poisonous. Both manufacturers of pesticides and government claim they are not persistent in the environment. Others claim they could be responsible for endocrine disruption in humans, as well as other nervous system impacts.

Pesticides | 401 THE LANGUAGE OF PESTICIDES Whether a given pesticide is safe partially depends on the application. Pesticides are application specific, and changes from these applications may pose hazards to people and the environment. While many of these terms have complex legal meanings, a working knowledge of the basic terms gives depth to this controversy. These are basic terms in the pesticide literature and can be found in the references and Web resources at the end of this entry. Pesticides that are related because they address the same type of pests include: Algicides: Control algae in lakes, canals, swimming pools, water tanks, and other sites. Antifouling agents: Kill or repel organisms that attach to underwater surfaces, such as boat bottoms. Antimicrobials: Kill microorganisms (such as bacteria and viruses). Attractants: Attract pests (for example, to lure an insect or rodent to a trap). (However, food is not considered a pesticide when used as an attractant.) Biocides: Kill microorganisms. Biopesticides: Certain types of pesticides derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. Disinfectants and sanitizers: Kill or inactivate disease-producing microorganisms on inanimate objects. Fumigants: Produce gas or vapor intended to destroy pests in buildings or soil. Fungicides: Kill fungi (including blights, mildews, molds, and rusts). Herbicides: Kill weeds and other plants that grow where they are not wanted. Insecticides: Kill insects and other arthropods. Microbial pesticides: Microorganisms that kill, inhibit, or outcompete pests, including insects or other microorganisms. Miticides (also called acaricides): Kill mites that feed on plants and animals. Molluscicides: Kill snails and slugs. Nematicides: Kill nematodes (microscopic, worm-like organisms that feed on plant roots). Ovicides: Kill eggs of insects and mites. Pheromones: Biochemicals used to disrupt the mating behavior of insects. Repellents: Repel pests, including insects (such as mosquitoes) and birds. Rodenticides: Control mice and other rodents. The term pesticide also includes these substances: Defoliants: Cause leaves or other foliage to drop from a plant, usually to facilitate harvest. Desiccants: Promote drying of living tissues, such as unwanted plant tops. Insect growth regulators: Disrupt the molting, maturity from pupal stage to adult, or other life processes of insects. Plant growth regulators: Substances (excluding fertilizers or other plant nutrients) that alter the expected growth, flowering, or reproduction rate of plants.

402

|

Pesticides

PESTICIDES AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION Pesticides have had a strong historical role in limiting threats to the public health. Many states and localities use them for this purpose. Pests that are public health threats are eradicated or contained by the application of pesticides. When the government is applying the pesticides, some members of the resident community may object. Some people simply want to be free from any chemical intrusion and want that choice respected. Controversy can flare up at this point with public pest-eradication programs reliant on widespread application of persistent pesticides. Some members of the public want such a program to eliminate pestilence. Exactly what is a pest for these purposes? The battleground for this type of pesticide controversy will often be the state agencies with responsibilities that include the use of pesticides. There are often the transportation departments that spray the side of the road with herbicides to keep weeds down. Weeds along a road can create a fire hazard in the hot, dry summer months of the United States. WHEN IS A PEST A PUBLIC PEST? Protecting public health goes beyond the general mandate to ensure the required safety of pesticides sold on the market for pest control. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), to identify pests of significant public health importance and, in coordination with the Public Health Service, to develop and implement programs to improve and facilitate the safe and necessary use of chemical, biological, and other methods to combat and control such pests. FIFRA defines the term pest as meaning: 1. any insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or 2. any other form of terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal life or virus, bacteria, or other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria, or other micro-organism on or in living man or other living animals) that the Administrator declares to be a pest under section 25(c)(1). The EPA has broadly declared the term pest to cover each of the organisms mentioned except for the organisms specifically excluded by the definition. Following is a brief description of the identified pests or categories of pests and an explanation for designating each as a public health pest. • Cockroaches. Cockroaches are controlled to halt the spread of asthma, allergies, and food contamination. • Body, head, and crab lice. These lice are surveyed for and controlled to prevent the spread of skin irritation and rashes, and to prevent the occurrence of louse-borne diseases such as epidemic typhus, trench fever, and epidemic relapsing fever in the United States. • Mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are controlled to prevent the spread of mosquitoborne diseases such as malaria; St. Louis, Eastern, Western, West Nile, and LaCrosse encephalitis; yellow fever; and dengue fever.

Pesticides | 403

• Various rats and mice. The listed rats and mice include those that are controlled to prevent the spread of rodent-borne diseases and contamination of food for human consumption. • Various microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses, and protozoans. The listed microorganisms are the subject of control programs by public health agencies and hospitals for the purpose of preventing the spread of numerous diseases. • Reptiles and birds. The listed organisms are controlled to prevent the spread of disease and the prevention of direct injury. • Various mammals. The listed organisms have the potential for direct human injury and can act as disease reservoirs (i.e., rabies, etc.). It is possible that this list may need to be changed. Should any additional species be found to present public health problems, the EPA may determine that it should consider them to be pests of significant public health importance under FIFRA. The EPA is supposed to update the list of pests of significant public health importance. PESTICIDES AND FOOD QUALITY The Food Quality Protection Act placed requirements on the EPA related to public health and pesticides. The EPA considers risks and benefits of pesticides that may have public health uses. The EPA regulates certain pesticides that might be found in drinking water by setting maximum contaminant limits. PESTICIDE SPRAY DRIFT: ANOTHER CASE OF INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE Another controversial risk to public health is from pesticide spray drift. The EPA defines pesticide spray drift as the physical movement of a pesticide through air at the time of application or soon thereafter, to any site other than that intended for application (often referred to as off-target). This can affect the health of neighboring communities and farms, especially organic farms. Pesticide drift can affect human health and the environment. Spray drift can result in pesticide exposures to farmworkers, children playing outside, and the ecosystem. Drift can also contaminate a home garden or another farmer’s crops. There are many reported complaints of pesticide spray drift each year. Reports of exposures of people, plants, and animals to pesticides due to off-target drift are called drift incidents. They are part of an important component in the scientific evaluation and regulation of the uses of pesticides. The EPA is supposed to consider all of these routes of exposure in regulating the use of pesticides. A major criticism of the EPA approach is that it does not measure the cumulative effects of pesticide exposure. Another battleground is the weak enforcement of this environmental protection policy. EPA policy relies on complaints of drift incidents and on labeling. This is often seen as a weak and ineffective response by many who are subject to repeated drift incidents. If no people are nearby, the environmental impacts of drift incidents may accrue over years, eventually

404

|

Pesticides

working their way into land and water systems. This underscores the necessity of a cumulative and ecosystem risk analysis, which are battlegrounds themselves. The EPA allows some degree of drift of pesticide particles in almost all applications. It assumes pesticide applications are made in responsible ways by trained operators. This is not the case in many instances. In making their decisions about pesticide applications, prudent and responsible applicators must consider all factors, including wind speed, direction, and other weather conditions; application equipment; the proximity of people and sensitive areas; and product label directions. A prudent and responsible applicator must refrain from application under conditions that can cause pesticide drift. They decide whether or not to apply a pesticide. It is their responsibility to know and understand a product’s use restrictions, but most do not. The practical result is potential human health effects from chemical overexposure. The EPA conducts ecological risk assessments to determine what risks are posed by a pesticide and whether changes to the use or proposed use are necessary to protect the environment. Many plant and wildlife species can be found near or in cities, agricultural fields, and recreational areas. Before allowing a pesticide product to be sold on the market, the EPA ensures that the pesticide will not pose any unreasonable risks to wildlife and the environment. They do this by evaluating data submitted in support of registration regarding the potential hazard that a pesticide may pose to nontarget fish and wildlife species. PESTICIDES, WATER QUALITY, AND SYNERGY When pesticides are applied on fields, gardens, parks, and lawns, some of the chemicals run off the treated site. More than 80 percent of urban streams and more than 50 percent of agricultural streams have concentrations in water of at least one pesticide, mostly those in use during the study period, that exceed a water-quality benchmark for aquatic life. Water-quality benchmarks, set by the EPA, are estimates of pesticide concentrations that the agency says may have adverse effects on human health, aquatic life, or fish-eating wildlife. Insecticides, particularly diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and malathion, frequently exceed aquatic-life benchmarks in urban streams. Most urban uses of diazinon and chlorpyrifos, such as on lawns and gardens, have been phased out since 2001 because of an EPA-industry agreement. In agricultural streams, the pesticides chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, p,p’-DDE, and alachlor are among those most often found above benchmarks. While the standard benchmarks were not exceeded for human health, recent studies and decades of incomplete risk assessments suggest that EPA benchmarks are severely underestimated. This is a very controversial scientific issue. If synergy and cumulative impacts increase public health risk, then new regulations with different standards could become law. Pesticides seldom occur alone in the real world, but rather almost always as complex mixtures. Most stream samples and about half of well samples contain two or more pesticides, and frequently more. The potential effects of contaminant mixtures on people, aquatic life, and fish-eating wildlife are still poorly

Pesticides | 405

understood. Most toxicity information and the water-quality benchmarks are developed for individual chemicals. The common occurrence of pesticide mixtures, particularly in streams, means that the total combined toxicity of pesticides in water, sediment, and fish may be greater than that of any single pesticide compound that is present. Studies of the effects of mixtures are still in the early stages, and it may take years for researchers to attain major advances in understanding the actual potential for effects. A recent study by researchers at the University of California–Berkeley finds that pesticide mixtures harm frogs at levels that do not produce the same effects alone, often levels 10 to 100 times below EPA standards. This has implications for local governments and other water providers. Drinking water providers are faced with a dilemma about how to deal with the twin problem of killing dangerous bacteria while not increasing the chemical health risks for pregnant women and healthy infants. Pesticides are getting into the drinking water sources for millions of people in the United States. These contaminants combine with disinfectants, such as chlorine (added by drinking water providers to kill dangerous viruses, bacteria, and pathogens), forming disinfectant by-products that are associated with increases in birth defects and miscarriages. This drives the concern that the pesticides in our drinking water cannot be addressed by the chemical-by-chemical regulatory approach of government.

PESTICIDES: THE FIGHT IN CONGRESS Pesticide regulation and control are very controversial in Congress. Presidential administrations also affect this controversy in different ways. One very controversial issue is whether pesticides should be tested on people. Most scientific studies generalize from mice or rats to humans. Some are concerned that this species generalization may be inaccurate, especially if the effects of other chemicals in the environment are considered. As the EPA and other governmental agencies struggle to develop standards and regulations around pesticides, the need for exact data increases. As environmentalists and toxic tort lawyers challenge industry in the courts, the need for data that support human injury also increases. However, most individuals, when given a free choice, choose not be tested for pesticide safety. A core question is whether safe standards for humans can be developed without testing pesticides on humans. Scientifically this may be difficult, but it is demanded by the public. On June 29, 2005, one day after the George W. Bush administration’s proposal to allow industry to test pesticides on people was leaked to the media, the Senate acted to block the testing of pesticides on humans. By a vote of 60–37, the Senate adopted a bipartisan amendment to the 2006 Interior and Environment appropriations bill, which blocks the Environmental Protection Agency for one year from spending tax dollars to fund or review studies that intentionally expose people to pesticides. The U.S. Senate also voted 57–40 to adopt another amendment that requires the EPA to review the ethical ramifications of human pesticide testing.

406

|

Pesticides

RESEARCH NEEDED While the effects of pesticides increase there is a continued need for more research. Pesticide controversies are tied to cumulative risk controversies and therefore will not decrease. Given recent scientific evidence of pesticide synergy, it is likely that public policy development will require more data and information to react and to plan for pesticide public health issues. This is an emerging battleground that pits public health interests against chemical manufacturers of pesticides. It will be difficult for scientists to exercise independent professional judgment given the disparity of power and resources between the two interests. PESTICIDES: INERT INGREDIENTS IN PESTICIDE PRODUCTS— ABOUT TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT Pesticide Tolerances How much of a chemical an individual can take before an adverse response occurs is called a tolerance limit, or a dose response. In investigating the safety of pesticides researchers determine the tolerance limit for an average person. This model person was usually a 155-lb. white male, among the healthiest demographic groups in U.S. society. There are two controversial problems with this method. There is a large dose-response variance in the U.S. population. Something as simple as aspirin can have a 100-fold dose-response difference. This model does not take vulnerability into account and thus underestimates actual risk from pesticides for many parts of the U.S. population. The second problem is that the EPA approach does not take into consideration the accumulated pesticide impacts on a given person. From the human health perspective this is very important. One dose of a chemical may not kill you, but 10,000 small exposures could. The difference to the human body or to the environment if the exposure comes from one bad episode of pesticide drift or 10,000 exposures to residential lawn pesticides is small. The EPA sets limits on the amount of pesticides that may remain in or on foods. These limits are called tolerances. The tolerances are set based on a risk assessment and are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration. More information on tolerances is provided at Pesticide Tolerances (www.epa.gov/opprd 001/inerts/tol.htm). The EPA is reassessing tolerances (chemical-residue limits in food) and exemptions from tolerances for inert ingredients in pesticide products to ensure that they meet the safety standard established by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996. FQPA requires the reassessment of inert ingredient tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in place prior to August 3, 1996. Since the passage of FQPA, EPA has been reassessing inert ingredients and will complete the remaining assessments by August 2006. Completed inert ingredient tolerance reassessment decision documents are now available on the Tolerance Reassessment Status page (www.epa.gov/pesticides/tolerance/reassessment.htm). Refer to the U.S. Government Printing Office–issued Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for complete and current information on inert (other) ingredient tolerances and tolerance exemptions. The CFR describes how each inert ingredient may be used.

Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading | 407

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Pesticide controversies will continue to dominate environmental policy in the courts, legislatures, agencies, and communities. They affect private households, local and state governments, big and small industries, agribusiness, the public health of communities, and many who rely on them. They have large impacts on the environment that may accumulate and bioaccumulate. Many do pose risks to vulnerable populations, and many more could if they mix with other chemicals in the real world. Who is to bear the risk of unknown harm, whether it is from pesticides or a lack thereof ? Science will have a big role to play in this controversy, and there are politically powerful forces in opposition to each other about this controversy. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Genetically Modified Food; Organic Farming Web Resources National Pesticide Information Center. Available at npic.orst.edu/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Available at www.pesticide.org/. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides: Health and Safety. Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings. Available at www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare/handbook/handbook.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides: Science and Policy. Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition—Paper #5. Available at www.epa.gov/pesticides/ carat/2000/june/paper5.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Beres, Samantha. 2002. Pesticides: Critical Thinking about Environmental Issues. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press; Jacobs, Miriam, and Barbara Dinham, eds. 1992. Silent Invaders: Pesticides, Livelihoods and Women’s Health. London: Zed Books; Matthews, Graham A. 2006. Pesticides: Health, Safety and the Environment. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; Nash, Linda Lorraine. 2007. Inescapable Ecologies: A History of Environment, Disease, and Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press; National Research Council. 2000. The Future Role of Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; Wargo, John. 1998. Our Children’s Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us from Pesticides. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

POLLUTION RIGHTS OR EMISSIONS TRADING Emissions trading is a regulatory environmental policy to reduce the cost of pollution control by providing economic incentives to regulated industries for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. A central authority, such as an air pollution control district or a government agency, sets limits or caps on each regulated pollutant. Industries that intend to exceed their permitted limits may buy emissions credits from entities that are able to stay below their

408

|

Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading

permitted limits. This transfer is normally referred to as a trade. This is a new policy in the United States. Questions that may become controversies include whether all emissions are measured. Another more basic question is whether society can still allow polluters to buy their way out of responsibility for environmental and community impacts. HARNESSING MARKET FORCES FOR A SAFER ENVIRONMENT? Market-based environmental policies for reducing pollution include many economic or market-oriented incentives. These include tax credits, emissions fees, or emissions trading. There are many types of emissions-trading approaches; the one used by EPA’s Clean Air Market Programs is called allowance trading or cap and trade and has the following key features: 1. An emissions cap: a limit on the total amount of pollution that can be emitted (released) from all regulated sources (e.g., power plants); the cap is set lower than historical emissions to cause reductions in emissions. 2. Allowances: an allowance is an authorization to emit a fixed amount of a pollutant 3. Measurement: accurate tracking of all emissions 4. Flexibility: sources can choose how to reduce emissions, including whether to buy additional allowances from other sources that reduce emissions 5. Allowance trading: sources can buy or sell allowances on the open market 6. Compliance: at the end of each compliance period, each source must own at least as many allowances as its emissions

WHAT IS THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ON EMISSIONS TRADING? According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cap and trade is a policy approach to controlling large amounts of emissions from a group of sources at a cost that is lower than if sources were regulated individually. The approach first sets an overall cap, or maximum amount of emissions per compliance period, that will achieve the desired environmental effects. Permits to emit are then allocated to pollution sources, and the total number of allowances cannot exceed the cap. The main requirement is that pollution sources completely and accurately measure and report all emissions. There is grave concern about this premise. Since not all emissions are counted now, many are concerned that this lack of specific reporting will only hide pollution. WHERE HAS THIS APPROACH BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY? Cap and trade was first tried in the United States to control emissions that were causing severe acid rain problems over very large areas of the country.

Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading | 409

Legislation was passed in 1990 and the first compliance period was 1995. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions have fallen significantly, and costs have been even lower than the designers of the program expected. The U.S. Acid Rain Program has achieved greater emissions reductions in such a short time than any other single program to control air pollution. A cap and trade program also is being used to control SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the Los Angeles, California, area. The Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program began in 1994. The regulating agency (e.g., EPA) must: • be able to receive the large amount of emissions and allowance transfer data and assure the quality of those data • be able to determine compliance fairly and accurately • strongly and consistently enforce the rule Allowance trading is the centerpiece of EPA’s Acid Rain Program, and allowances are the currency with which compliance with the SO2 emissions requirements is achieved. Through the market-based allowance trading system, utilities regulated under the program, rather than a governing agency, decide the most cost-effective way to use available resources to comply with the acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act. Utilities can reduce emissions by employing energy conservation measures, increasing reliance on renewable energy, reducing usage, employing pollution-control technologies, switching to lower-sulfur fuel, or developing other alternate strategies. Units that reduce their emissions below the number of allowances they hold may trade allowances with other units in their system, sell them to other utilities on the open market or through EPA auctions, or bank them to cover emissions in future years. Allowance trading provides incentives for energy conservation and technology innovation that can both lower the cost of compliance and yield pollution-prevention benefits, although this is controversial. The Acid Rain Program established a precedent for solving other environmental problems in a way that minimizes the costs to society and promotes new technologies.

WHAT ARE ALLOWANCES? An allowance authorizes a unit within a utility or industrial source to emit one ton of SO2 during a given year or any year thereafter. At the end of each year, the unit must hold an amount of allowances at least equal to its annual emissions, that is, a unit that emits 5,000 tons of SO2 must hold at least 5,000 allowances that are usable in that year. However, regardless of how many allowances a unit holds, it is never entitled to exceed the limits set under Title I of the act to protect public health. Allowances are fully marketable commodities. Once allocated, allowances may be bought, sold, traded, or banked for future use. Allowances may not be used for compliance prior to the calendar year for which they are allocated.

410

|

Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading

WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN ALLOWANCE TRADING? Allowances may be bought, sold, and traded by any individual, corporation, or governing body, including brokers, municipalities, environmental groups, and private citizens. The primary participants in allowance trading are officials designated and authorized to represent the owners and operators of electric utility plants that emit SO2. HOW WOULD COMPLIANCE BE DETERMINED? At the end of the year, units must hold in their compliance subaccounts a quantity of allowances equal to or greater than the amount of SO2 emitted during that year. To cover their emissions for the previous year, units must finalize allowance transactions and submit them to the EPA by March 1 to be recorded in their unit accounts. If the unit’s emissions do not exceed its allowances, the remaining allowances are carried forward, or banked, into the next year’s account. If a facility’s emissions exceed its allowances, it must pay a penalty and surrender allowances for the following year to the EPA as excess emission offsets. Emissions trading or marketable rights have been in use in the United States since the mid-1970s. The advocates of free-market environmentalism sometimes use emissions trading or marketable rights systems as examples to support the theory that free markets can handle environmental problems. The idea is that a central authority will grant an allowance to entities based on a measure of their need or their previous pollution history. For example an allowance for greenhouse gas emissions to a country might be based on total population of the country or on existing emissions of the country. An industrial facility might be granted a license for its current actual emissions. If a given country or facility does not need all of its allowance, it may offer it for sale to another organization that has insufficient allowances for its emission production. Environmentalists point out that this only increases environmental impacts to the carrying capacity, and beyond, of the environment. They observe that industry is supposed to reduce its emissions to the greatest extent possible under current environmental law. Claims that emissions will somehow be reduced now, or at least shifted to where it could saturate another environment, are not viewed as credible. This lays the foundation for controversy. Communities point out that the cumulative impact of already-existing industries is a concern and possible public health risk. PROMINENT TRADING SYSTEMS The most common policy example of an environmental emissions trading system is the sulfur dioxide trading system contained in the Acid Rain Program of the 1990 Clean Air Act. Under the program, sulfur dioxide emissions are to be reduced by 50 percent from 1980 to 2010. In 1997, the state of Illinois adopted

Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading | 411 POLLUTION OR EMISSIONS RIGHTS TRADING Interactive Online Reports of Emissions Markets The market for emissions rights depends on skilled and knowledgeable entrepreneurs taking risks. As this is a new policy, getting information out to entrepreneurs is a high policy priority. To accommodate this need, interactive online reports of emissions markets are available. For each report listed here, you can: • Search for information based on certain criteria, as described here. • Download records from a report by clicking the Download Records button. • They will be saved in comma-delimited format (commas between fields). Account Report Allowances Held Report Serial Number Report Transactions Account Owners Report

SO2 | NOx SO2 | NOx SO2 | NOx SO2 | NOx SO2 | NOx

These data are updated daily, between 5:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M., Eastern Time. Allowances held by all accounts. SO2 (includes trades through February 24, 2006; approx. 665 Kb). The SO2 allowance database is too large to download using the allowances held report, so this information is offered in a single compressed file containing the following information for every SO2 allowance account: • • • • •

account number account name allowance use year quantity of allowances held for the use year starting and ending serial number

NOx The NOx database is small enough to be downloaded in its entirety using the NOx allowances held report (leave all entries blank and submit the form). Although not offered as a single compressed file, the advantage is that the information is updated daily instead of weekly. Report Descriptions Search Criteria Detailed description (i.e., metadata) for ATS and NATS

412

|

Pollution Rights or Emissions Trading

Table P.2

Report Descriptions Report Name

Data Included in Report

Account Report Create report: SO2 | NOx

Account ID, Account/Plant Name, State (where the plant is located, if applicable), Representative ID, Representative Name, Alternate ID, Alternate Name, Firm Represented by Representative, Representative Contact Info (Address, Phone, and Fax)

Allowances Held Report Create report: SO2 | NOx

Account ID, Account Plant Name, Allowance (“vintage”) Year, Number of Allowances Held (of the associated vintage), State (where the plant is located, if applicable), and Representative Name.

Serial Number Report Create report: SO2 | NOx

Lists Account ID, Account Plant Name, Allowance (“vintage”) Year, Starting Serial Number, Ending Serial Number, the Number of Allowances Represented in the “Block,” State (where the plant is located, if applicable), Representative Name and Status of the Allowance Block (this flag indicates allowances that will expire; these are allowances allocated, under Early Reduction authority, to NOx Budget Program sources).

Transactions Report Create report: SO2 | NOx

Lists Transaction Number, Transaction Type, Transferee/ Transferor Account ID, Transferee/Transferor Account/ Plant Name, Transferee/Transferor State (where the plant is located, if applicable), Transferee/Transferor Representative Name, Total Number of Allowances Involved in the Transaction, Date the Transaction Was Confirmed (recorded in the Allowance Tracking System); Allowance Year (“vintage”), Start and End Serial Numbers (of an allowance “block” involved in the transaction), and the Number of Allowances Represented in the “Block” (defined by the Start and End Serial Numbers).

Account Owner Report Create report: SO2 | NOx

Lists Account ID, Account/Plant Name, State (where plant is located, if applicable), Owner/Binding Party Name, and Representative Name.

a trading program for volatile organic compounds in the Chicago area, called the Emissions Reduction Market System. Beginning in 2000, over 100 major sources of pollution in eight Illinois counties began trading pollution credits. In 2003, New York State proposed and attained commitments from nine northeastern states to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions. States and regions of the United States are pursuing more of these policies. The European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme is the largest multinational, greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world. It started in January 2005 and all 25 member states of the European Union participate in it.

Poverty and Environment in the United States

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Emissions trading is a new and experimental policy in the United States. However, it exposes major flaws in the current U.S. environmental regulatory regime. Most environmental information about some of the biggest and unknown environmental impacts comes from self-reporting and may not be accurate. Many industries self-report whether they emit enough to even require any type of permit or oversight. Once regulated, emissions are simply permitted, and amounts are self-reported by industry. Emissions trading may be seen as a free-market band-aid to a young, weak, and incomplete public policy of environmental protection. It opens up large holes in the current system and may inflame environmentalists and the public depending on how it is implemented. In a society moving toward concepts like sustainability, emissions trading may be challenged in its present form. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Environmental Audits and Environmental Audit Privileges; Sustainability Web Resources Environmental Economics. Problems of Emissions Trading. Available at www.env-econ. net/2006/12/problems_with_e.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. International Emissions Trading Association. Available at www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/ index.php. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Grubb Michael, and Karsten Neuhoff. 2006. Allocations, Incentives and Industrial Competitiveness under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. London: Earthscan; Hansjürgens, Bernd. 2005. Emissions Trading for Climate Policy: US and European Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; de Jong, Cyriel, and Kasper Walet, eds. 2004. A Guide to Emissions Trading: Risk Management and Business Implications. London: Risk Books.

POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Residents of environmentally degraded neighborhoods are generally poorer, with unemployment rates nearly 20 percent higher than the national average. Some argue for no government intervention in this instance saying that the market will balance out over time. Others argue for strong environmental intervention in these neighborhoods saying that cumulative impacts and a concern for the future should be the driving forces of strong governmental intervention in environmental protection. Poverty and environmental degradation often accompany each other in the United States. For some statistical reasons, many scientists consider it very difficult to disaggregate race and income data when searching for cause and effect. Poverty itself is a policy term of art. It can mean different things under different policies, but basically it means that income is so low it is difficult to meet basic food, shelter, and clothing needs. Generally, 5–15 percent of the U.S. population are relatively poor. They are more often unemployed and live in communities desperate for jobs. This often makes community leaders accept environmentally undesirable economic development activities such as waste sites and waste transfer stations. Concentrations of metal fabrication plants, slaughterhouses, tanneries, incinerators, and auto body repair facilities are other

|

413

414

|

Poverty and Environment in the United States

generally undesirable land uses associated with poor communities. The lower one’s income, the higher the probability of exposure to environmental and occupational hazards at home and on the job. Also, the lower one’s income, generally, the greater the risk of diseases caused or exacerbated by environmental factors. Food, especially organic food, is expensive for poor people. Transportation is very difficult for poor people. This makes it difficult for the poor to find employment, housing, and food. Poor neighborhoods generally receive fewer municipal services, like parks and open outdoor recreation areas. JOB BLACKMAIL Many communities rely on one or more industries as their main economic base. Some of these communities may have begun as company towns. Many of these communities bear the brunt of industrial pollution. However, the threat of losing a job and home due to labor downsizing allegedly caused by environmental regulations is a controversial one. Employers and industry supporters use the threat of job loss to blackmail or force workers and communities into accepting unhealthy workplaces and community environmental damage. For example, in a 1995 job blackmail episode, the Raytheon Corporation, a large employer, threatened to move jobs from Massachusetts unless the state rewrote its corporate income tax code for defense contractors, to save the company about three-fourths of its tax bill. That facility and industry still enjoyed the benefits and privileges of the services provided by the state, they just paid less for them. Then the state’s manufacturers association demanded the same tax loophole for all defense manufacturers. Then Fidelity Investments demanded the same tax loophole for mutual fund companies. The effects of environmental protection and regulation on labor demand are small compared to other factors. They are found to produce a slight employment benefit and economic stimulus due to the effects of public expenditure on environmental protection, corporate investment in abatement measures and accelerated technological innovation, the stimulus to the environmental protection industry, and the adoption of more labor-intensive production processes. Environmental regulation may be responsible for some plant closures and layoffs, but less than 0.1 percent of layoffs annually. This is a hotly disputed number, and there are many other factors. Many plant closures and layoffs are caused by regular business processes such as business failures, external competition, technological change, corporate restructuring, relocation, product changes, and seasonal variations in activity. The number of people laid off was also less than the extra jobs created by environmental protection. There are few examples of relocation of U.S. plants to pollution havens. In general, environmentally induced capital flight has not occurred, because the cost of environmental regulation is small compared to overall business, costs are only one factor in relocation decisions, and modern production technology incorporates pollution-control devices for most regulated air and water pollutants. Government and industry-funded macroeconomic modeling of the economic and employment effects of environmental protection overestimates the adverse impacts. In 13 cases of new national environmental laws, the models had overestimated compliance costs by up to 2,900 percent, and in one case had predicted compliance costs where there

Poverty and Environment in the United States

|

415

were none. Such models had also predicted that proposed changes to the Clean Air Act in the early 1990s would cause a major economic downturn and from 200,000 to 2,000,000 job losses. The recession did not materialize, and fewer than 7,000 workers required assistance because their jobs were affected by the new laws. The models also usually inflated the benefits of environmentally contentious developments. Such models are inaccurate because they proceed from unrealistic assumptions that militate against environmental protection and in favor of permitting business as usual, including that the economy cannot respond innovatively and flexibly to environmental regulation so as to minimize costs and create business opportunities, and that governments will pursue the most costly and least flexible means of implementing such regulation. They also fail to take account of the direct and indirect economic, social, and environmental benefits of the regulation. There is no strong case for a large overall employment gain from strong environmental regulation or an economy-wide shift to clean technology. The subsequent employment history and economic well-being of displaced workers varied according to the overall state of regional economies and the adequacy of federal government retraining and income-support policies. Timber workers found themselves in a strong regional economy that enabled most to be re-employed. Coal miners, however were not able to find jobs in their depressed regional economy. The usefulness of retraining and job-search programs was limited by the strict eligibility rules, time-limited nature, and stingy levels of U.S. unemployment benefits. U.S. workers are more susceptible to job-blackmail tactics by employers than European workers.

POVERTY In the United States in 2008, 12.7 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Poverty affects housing quality, educational opportunities, health, and employment opportunities. It also affects the quality of the air, water, and land. Air conditioning, filtered and bottled water, and clean soil all come at a price. Being poor means that your air, water, and land are more likely to be laden with environmental stressors. What are the tangible measures of poverty in the United States? $35,000—basic-needs budget for a U.S. family of four (two adults, two children). $19,157—poverty line for a family of four (two adults, two children) in the United States in 2004, as established by the U.S. Census Bureau. 12.7—percentage of U.S. citizens living below the poverty line in 2004 (37 million people). 8.6—percentage of non-Hispanic Caucasians living below the poverty level in 2004. 9.8—percentage of Asians living below the poverty level in 2004. 21.9—percentage of Hispanics living below the poverty level in 2004. 24.3—percentage of Native Americans living below the poverty level in 2004. 24.7—percentage of African Americans living below the poverty level in 2004.

416

|

Poverty and Environment in the United States

$84,044—average per-capita personal income in New York County, New York, the most affluent county in the nation, in 2003. $10,805—average per-capita personal income in Starr County, Texas, the poorest county in the nation, in 2003. $11,354—average cost per year of tuition, fees, room, and board at a fouryear public college in 2004–05. 16—percentage by which real wages have increased in the last 30 years for workers with some college education. 19—percentage by which real wages have declined in the last 30 years for workers with less than a high school education. $51,138—median annual income of a white man with a bachelor’s degree in 2003. $41,916—median annual income of a black man with a bachelor’s degree in 2003. $33,142—median annual income of a white woman with a bachelor’s degree in 2003. $30,082—median annual income of a black woman with a bachelor’s degree in 2003. 24—percentage of the workforce in low-wage jobs (under $9 per hour). 46.8—percentage of Americans aged 65 or older who would have had incomes below the poverty line without Social Security benefits, from 2000 to 2002. 8.7—percentage of Americans aged 65 or older who did have incomes below the poverty line, even with Social Security benefits, from 2000 to 2002. 8.6—percentage of children living in poverty in 2003 in New Hampshire, the state with the fewest impoverished children in the United States. 31.2—percentage of children living in poverty in 2003 in Arkansas, the state with the most impoverished children in the nation. 169,000—minimum number of housing units in Appalachia that had no plumbing in 2000, the latest year for which statistics are available. There are many ways to measure poverty. Hunger, revenue modeling for economic regions, denial of municipal and state services, provision of federal and state services, and nutritional intake are a few. There are also many ways to measure environmental quality, but they all tend to measure the same systems the same way. As urban areas have recently been included in U.S. EPA environmental policy, population is growing, the application of technology to environmental systems is expanding, and sustainability arises as a societal goal, the effects of poverty on the environment become a concern. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Without environmental protection in all parts of a given ecosystem, there will be no sustainable development and no successful poverty reduction. We are beginning to understand how environmental issues are linked to other development issues, and just how decisive the management of environmental resources is for people’s livelihoods. While it may be true that the market may

Precautionary Principle | 417

force those without income to less desirable and more polluted areas, over time these environments suffer cumulative effects that affect the entire ecosystem. As environmentalists make a strong push for sustainability, society is realizing just how many poor people exist. The controversy about government intervention or not is likely to fade amidst the practical realities of ecosystem assessment and management. The next set of controversies on the horizon is how to intervene in poverty areas to save the environment. Right now cleanup of some ecosystem-threatening sites has justified intervention under Superfund and brownfields policies. This intervention does benefit the impoverished community and the larger community as well. Government environmental policies that empower poor communities to make their own environmental decisions, or that just benefit the polluted poor community, will be highly controversial in the United States. See also Brownfields Development; Different Standards of Enforcement of Environmental Law Web Resources Brookings Institute. Environment, Poverty, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation: Leveraging U.S. Aid to Improve Natural Resource Management. Available at www. brookings.edu/fp/events/20050624.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Earth Trends: The Environmental Information Portal. Available at earthtrends.wri.org/ searchable_db/index.php?theme=5. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Chomitz, Kenneth M., Piet Buys, and Giacomo De Luca. 2006. At Loggerheads? Agricultural Expansion, Poverty Reduction, and Environment in the Tropical Forests. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications; Durning, Alan. 2004. Poverty and the Environment. Portland, OR: Worldwatch Institute; Hollander, Jack M. 2004. The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty Not Affluence Is the Environment’s Number One Enemy. Berkeley: University of California Press; Lindahl-Kiessling, Kerstin. 1998. Population Economic Development and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE The precautionary principle is an emerging environmental policy approach. It means that when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken. Right now the burden is on the person harmed to scientifically prove that a certain activity causes this harm. The harm may be irreversible. So the precautionary principle further states that even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically, steps should be taken to measure and/or mitigate threats of harm to the environment. Controversies ensue when this principle is applied because it takes additional time to determine if precautionary measures are required, if so what they are, and the overall environmental monitoring of the whole process. Land developers and speculators, real estate agencies, banks, and mortgage lenders all prefer quick, low-cost, low-risk financial transactions without any environmental scrutiny. Communities are now adopting the precautionary principle in their land management practices.

418

|

Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle has flourished in international policy statements and agreements. It was first recognized in the World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982. Later it was adopted in the First International Conference on Protection of the North Sea in 1984. The UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 incorporated the precautionary principle in several important documents. UN leaders adopted Principle 15 and advocated the widespread international application of the precautionary principle. Principle 15 states that: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The precautionary principle was also formally adopted by countries of the European Union in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. It has since been extended from environmental issues to developments related to human health. U.S. APPLICATIONS The minimal concept of precaution underpins some U.S. environmental policy, such as the requirement for environmental impact statements before starting major projects with significant environmental impacts using federal funds. Most current environmental laws in the United States focus on cleaning up and controlling damage rather than preventing it. Even environmental impact statement recommendations are basically advisory, and the law is riddled with categorical exceptions. These early U.S. environmental policies do not sufficiently protect people and the environment from irreparable damage. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other laws basically regulate pollution from large polluters but do not prevent it. As effects accumulate, population increases, and society realistically examines sustainability, precautionary principles will expand from international treaties to local U.S. land-use practices and even further. This brings much greater environmental scrutiny to industrial and other land-use practices that have environmental impacts that accumulate and/or affect the ecosystem. State and local governments are an emerging battleground for the precautionary principle. In these battlegrounds, the environmental scrutiny is often on cleanup of past environmental degradation. Liability for these cleanup costs will be enormous, and anything that brings environmental scrutiny to these past and present practices is strongly resisted by private property and industrial interests. Most communities adopt a basic approach. The precautionary principle is common sense to them. Proponents argue that they need to prevent potentially dangerous practices at the beginning of a project rather than afterwards. Many communities have had difficult relationships with industrial residents and may feel that government environmental enforcement is not reliable or effective. Local leaders feel that they often do not know for sure what harm there will

Precautionary Principle | 419

be until people have suffered or the damage is irreparable. They compare these uncertain risks with the promise of increased employment. PUBLIC HEALTH BASIS OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN LAND-USE PLANNING PROCESSES Public health, environmental regulation, and land-use planning are separate battlegrounds and seldom relate to each other in the United States. Each has separate processes, funding streams, and forums. An international organization of local government has recognized the environmental and public health harms caused by land-use decisions. They have begun to advocate for the precautionary principle as a way of making environmentally sensitive land-use decisions that incorporate the public health. In September 2003, the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) passed a resolution advocating for the adoption of the precautionary principle. The resolution prompted several U.S. municipalities to adopt the precautionary principle in their land-use planning processes, such as Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California. Land-use laws generally have some basis in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The resolution states: Whereas, land use decisions may contribute to: Health inequities; an increase in health and safety risks, poor quality housing, unstable neighborhoods, unsustainable ecosystems, and poor quality of life can be created; asthma mortality is approximately three times higher among African Americans than it is among whites; the elderly and people with disabilities are disproportionately affected by a lack of sidewalks and depressed curbs; and Chronic disease; more than 25 percent of adults in the United States are obese, and more than 60 percent do not engage in enough physical activity to benefit their health; research has shown that a healthy diet and physical activity can prevent or delay type 2 diabetes; and Increased traffic congestion, reliance on the automobile, and increased pedestrian and bicyclist vulnerability; commuting stress has increased in recent years, while there has also been a decline in social capital (community connectedness); one pedestrian is killed in a vehicle accident every 108 minutes and injured every 7 minutes; and Decreased air quality and increased pollution emissions; motor vehicles are the largest source of manmade urban air pollution, and the EPA attributes 64,000 premature deaths per year to air pollution; between 1980 and the mid 1990s, the rate of people with asthma rose by 75 percent; and Decreased water quality; according to the EPA, soil erosion, and destruction of wetlands threaten surface and ground water quality, which may be drinking and/or recreational water sources; runoff from point and non-point sources pollute waterways, and is exacerbated when the amount of impervious surface in an area is increased; and Loss of greenspace and land conversion; greenspace provides benefits for air and water quality, as well as for the physical and mental health of people; sprawling development consumes 1.2 million acres of productive farmland per year; according to the American Farmland Trust, land is being developed at two times the population growth rate; and

420

|

Precautionary Principle

Inappropriate hazardous materials facilities siting, transportation, and storage; exposure to heavy metals has been linked with certain cancers, kidney damage, and developmental retardation; and areas zoned for hazardous materials storage that contain toxic-waste facilities are often located near housing for poor, elderly, young, and minority residents. While not all these justifications will apply to all areas, many of them do currently apply to U.S. cities. After calling for the precautionary principle, the NACCHO resolution suggests three ways to make it work: 1. 2. 3.

integrate public health perspectives and practice (which are based on prevention) into land-use planning; ensure early, sustained, and effective participation by affected community members in all stages of land-use and zoning decisions; and dedicate more resources to getting public health people involved in land-use decisions through training, development of tools, technical assistance, and other support.

WHAT ACTION IS NECESSARY UNDER THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE? There are many stakeholders to this controversy. Land developers, construction companies, bankers, real estate corporations, industrial developers, and venture capital specialists strongly object to anything that can delay or derail a project with environmental impacts. Many times their objections and resistance form a battleground when they are required to do specific actions. Precautionary action may include a sustainability focus, restricting or phasing out practices or substances that irreparably harm the environment, developing new technologies with softer ecological footprints (i.e., using renewable sources of energy), or sometimes denying the project. If a project proponent comes forward with a development with significant environmental impacts, the possibility of the project being rejected can be substantial under the precautionary principle. The proponent may have to do expensive scientific studies that indicate their project should not be denied. These last two dynamics, denial of the project and required scientific study of all impacts, are new in the United States, and very controversial. Currently, when human and environmental damage occurs, victims have a hard time proving in court that a product or activity was responsible. The precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof to the alleged perpetrator. Project proponents must prove its safety and are held responsible for damages and for mitigation and remediation of environmental impacts. REGULATORY CONCERNS The precautionary principle requires regulatory action on the basis of possible and currently unknown unmanageable risks. Business and regulatory decisions are made to stop or slow development, on the basis of what we do not know, according to industry advocates. The environmentalists respond that in interpreting the precautionary principle, it involves a proportionality of response to ensure that the selected degree of restraint is not too expensive and that it does protect public health and the environment.

Precautionary Principle | 421 INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE TO THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE In the battle for public opinion and sentiment, industrial trade representatives and others develop public relations strategies. These are part of many corporate planning processes. In terms of environmental public relations, these strategies seek to show how well industry is complying with environmental expectations. The following points are the general talking points written consulting forms for industry dealing with precautionary principles. (www. mindfully.org/Precaution/Precautionary-Principle-wirthlin.htm) 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

It is too late to redefine the precautionary principle in ways favorable to industry. Instead, emphasize industry’s adherence to a tried and proven precautionary approach, and draw the distinction between reasonable and extreme interpretations. Enlist surrogates who can effectively attack the precautionary principle and its misapplications. Language and positioning are all-important. Beware of saying that industry opposes the precautionary principle. Activists will seize on that to imply that big business does not care about people’s health and safety. Drive up the negatives associated with the precautionary principle. Find examples within your own industry to demonstrate the obvious dangers of relying on an over-simplified version of the principle. Build support for traditional risk assessment

Industries should conduct research and message testing to determine how to rebrand risk assessment in order to make it salient to consumers and compelling enough to blunt the rhetoric of Precautionary Principle advocates. This requires proactively orchestrating support for the science-based process of risk assessment by influential people in the public and private sectors. The following are possible message themes: • A science-based precautionary approach, known as risk assessment, has been a part of U.S. environmental and health laws for over 100 years. We don’t need the Precautionary Principle. • Risk assessment has served the United States well. American life expectancy nearly doubled during the 20th Century. Americans today are living significantly longer and healthier lives than ever before. Industry is committed to a science-based precautionary approach that safeguards human health and the environment. This approach has been very successful in protecting consumers from unsafe products while respecting the consumer’s freedom of choice in the marketplace. • Industry invests heavily in safety testing and product improvement. Companies who make such an investment have a huge economic incentive not to put on the market a product that will later be shown to be unsafe. 6.

Conduct core-values research among consumers and other key stakeholders, to understand their perceptions (both rational and emotional) of your industry on health and environmental issues, and to anticipate their likely response to public debate over the Precautionary Principle.

422

7.

|

Precautionary Principle Develop a communications strategy and employ message testing to identify how to most persuasively communicate your position on these issues as appropriate within your company, to regulatory bodies, to industry peers, to customers, and to the general public.

Because of the rapid growth in the application of the precautionary principle and its potential cost to industry, conflict and controversy are inevitable.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY A precautionary approach has many feedback loops with new and engaged stakeholders, like communities. As uncertainty is reduced about the harmfulness of a given activity better environmental decisions can be made. This implies that all stakeholders should have access to relevant information in a public participation process far more extensive than that currently practiced in the United States. Activities that pose too many uncertainties and offer too few benefits will increasingly be rejected. Slow regulatory processes and the financial risk of a no decision, combined with expensive scientists and exposure to litigation, are costs borne by industry. Advocates of sustainability strongly support the application of the precautionary principle to all decisions that affect the environment. Right now the momentum for application of the precautionary principle is moving fast globally and locally, but it is still very new. It is likely that controversies will emerge in city councils, county commissions, and state legislatures as industrial and business interests respond to this new, environmental decision-making process. See also Climate Change; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Global Warming; Human Health Risk Assessment; Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions Web Resources Rachel’s Democracy and Health News. 2007. Toxicants in Synthetic Turf. Available at www. rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2426. Accessed January 21, 2008. Rachel’s Environment and Health News. 1998. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle. Available at www.mindfully.org/Precaution/Precautionary-Principle-Rachels. htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Tickner, Joel, and Nancy Myers. 2000. Precautionary Principle: Current Status and Implementation. Synthesis/Regeneration 23. Available at www.greens.org/s-r/23/23–17.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Common, Michael S. 1995. Sustainability and Policy: Limits to Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; O’Riordan, Timothy. 2006. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: James and James/Earthscan; Sunstein, Cass R. 2005. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Tickner, Joel A. 2002. Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Preservation

PRESERVATION: PREDATOR MANAGEMENT IN OREGON Wildlife advocates claim that the problem of political influence overruling species management can be seen in the historic persecution of mountain lions in the state of Oregon, where the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and conservationists face each other in a classic controversy. Western states with large federal landholdings are often battlegrounds for environmental preservation. Ranchers, farmers, indigenous people, and environmentalists all fight for their interests here. State wildlife agencies are the modern-day battlegrounds for these controversies. Extensive predator-eradication campaigns throughout the twentieth century were conducted for the convenience of ranchers and the funds that could be engendered by the sale of kill tags. The last grizzly bear in Oregon was killed in 1934. Now the mountain lion, or cougar, is the only remaining predator species in the state. Conservationists point to the state’s mismanagement that almost eradicated every cougar in the state of Oregon by the middle of the last century. State bounties of $5 were paid to houndhunters for a cougar’s tail. The slaughter was so egregious that by the 1970s, when the bounties ended, biologists estimated that perhaps as few as a dozen cougars were left in the whole state by time the state’s predator-eradication campaign ended. Yet by the 1980s ODFW wanted to start allowing houndhunters to kill them again. Beginning in the late 1980s, wildlife activists and conservationists all over the country spoke out about what they claimed was mismanagement of large predators for the benefit of a few vested interests. Conservation groups like Predator Defense and the Northwest Cougar Action Trust repeatedly testified before Oregon’s Wildlife Commission and the legislature, protesting what they perceived as regressive predator-management policies. Wildlife advocates protested that the state had no biological basis for opening up renewed hunting seasons on predators. Political pressure from groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other hunting proponents led the ODFW to raise the kill quotas on cougars each year through the 1980s and 1990s. In Oregon, a successful citizens’ initiative was passed in 1994. Measure 18 banned the then-popular hunting techniques of baiting and hounding bears and cougars, with packs of radio-collared dogs. Then state game officials protested that voters had taken away some of their management options and worked to encourage hunting groups to try and repeal the voter-mandated limits on the killing of cougars and bears. It was at this pivotal point where the International Safari Club started instigating a push for renewed permission to hunt Oregon’s lions for trophies. These groups openly funded several failed attempts to reverse voter-mandated protection for mountain lions. In 1996 they tried to use the initiative process to reverse the law; but they failed again. State game officials still do not seem to understand that the reason their efforts at predator eradication continually fail, is that apparently the majority of voters still believe that cougars and bears should not be hounded or baited in what the public considers a cruel, unfair fashion. Conservationists say that the state’s one-sided management philosophy has shaken the public trust in wildlife

| 423

424

|

Preservation

managers. But to this day it is still illegal to harass wildlife with packs of tracking dogs in Oregon, unless there is a direct threat to human life or property. Game officials defend the renewed use of hounds as the only viable method of limiting lion populations. They contend that reports of cougar sightings are increasing and say renewed hounding is necessary for the protection of the public and ranchers. Conservations say that cougars pose a small public safety threat. They point to the fact that the chance of being attacked by a cougar is less than that of being hit by lightning (1 in 1,000,000). Biologists know that humans are not on the menu. In fact, mountain lions are such effective hunters that if they really did want to attack us, they would easily have the upper hand. Conservationists refute the state’s argument for reintroducing these banned practices as not defensible since the public safety threat is small, and public education campaigns can be provided to improve husbandry practices. Researchers point out that the overwhelming preponderance of such agricultural losses are caused by coyotes, not cougars. Advocates say strong public sentiment runs in favor of state reimbursement programs for ranchers’ losses, and leaving the lions alone. Wildlife advocates say it is discouraging that even after decades of public protests about outdated predator policies, the state remains recalcitrant and persists in demanding that they be allowed to go directly against the voters wishes and reinstitute the same practices that almost killed off every lion in Oregon. Conservationists maintain that several successful legal voter initiatives corroborate the strong public sentiment for protecting lions, and they accuse state game officials of catering to a small, economically insignificant segment of Oregon’s population. They point out that fee-paying hunters make up less than 5 percent of Oregon’s population. Other, more progressive states advocate public education outreach to teach agricultural interests ways they can improve their animal husbandry practices. In 2006 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife approved a new cougar plan and, as part of it, requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program start implementing a new predator eradication plan, to placate ranching interests. But the federal Wildlife Services decided to start killing cougars without first preparing an assessment of the environmental effect of those killings, a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. The state’s new cougar plan calls for the killing of between 2,000 and 3,000 cougars in broad areas of the state. The ODFW’s stated goal is to “manage for a cougar population that is at or above the 1994 levels.” The plan was immediately lambasted by conservation groups that claim it was more of a cougar-killing plan than biologically defensible policy. One outspoken group wrote the governor that ODFW is knowingly using faulty data to promote its newly revised cougar plan. The ODFW has solicited reports of cougar incidents and then used them to fuel public hysteria with claims of dramatic increases in complaints and sightings. The department has continued to assert that Oregon’s cougar population is exploding despite the research of expert scientists who refute the figures. The ODFW has used the media to promote a fear campaign.

Preservation

In June 2006, the Humane Society of the United States and six other conservation organizations filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Oregon to stop Wildlife Services from killing cougars, under the state’s direction. They maintain that the whole Cougar Management Plan is flawed, because it is predicated on incorrect and obsolete data. Conservationists claim that under the guise of “management,” this plan will allow federal employees to re-introduce houndhunting and indiscriminately kill cougars in broad areas of the state, resulting in biologically unsound local extirpations. The state still maintains that it intends to try and freeze predator populations at some arbitrary point in the past history. Wildlife advocates maintain that the ODFW has fabricated its statistics and that their plan has no biologically defensible basis. They point out that the proposed plan is obviously constructed to placate ranchers and is not supported not by empirical data. Additionally, advocates testified that besides the fact that the state has no conclusive published evidence that cougars might be the cause of elk declines, only published data on cougars show an astounding mortality rate for the predators. Studies both east and west of the Cascades prove that lion populations are still directly threatened by overhunting and habitat degradation. When the state finally did put collars on cougars, what they documented was actually rather stark proof of how heavily cougars are being hunted and poached in Oregon. There is no direct connection between the number of complaints and the actual cougar population. Oregon’s human population has doubled in the last 20 years. So, humans have invaded the lions’ space in many areas; mere sightings do not mean that there are more cougars. When there are more people in a given area, authorities should expect a corresponding increase in reported sightings. They have constructed hunting incentives for the killing of cougars all year long. They continue to sell unlimited kill tags for cougars that can be purchased by hunters for $10 as part of their harvest quota system, the chief economic support of the ODFW. There is effectively no law enforcement in remote areas. The state knows that this wide-open permission to kill lions on sight will directly result in their widespread killing, virtually all year long, while relying on a system of voluntary compliance. So, predator advocates still continue to fight a running battle for protection of this invaluable species. The Humane Society and other conservationists continue to strongly oppose the state’s mismanagement and new cougar plan, commenting that it is full of arbitrary regulations and unrealistic assumptions. They have characterized it as a travesty of a wildlife plan. They also want to alert the public to what they feel is an ongoing threat to lion populations in the West, wealthy game hunters with professional guides who help the trophy hunters win points for killing certain animal species that count toward their Boone & Crockett Grand Slam score. States like California, which have not allowed any hunting of lions for decades, realize that rural residents need to be educated and that it is really a question of

| 425

426

|

Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions

social tolerance levels. Heavy resource extraction on federal lands throughout the West has created an extensive system of roads, crisscrossing much of the land base. There are currently no real large blocks of roadless habitat that are protected from vehicular and off-road motorists in Oregon. Cougar and elk biologists say these animals urgently need adequately protected migratory habitats with high-quality forage. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As human populations threaten species habitat, more controversies about species preservation will arise. See also Endangered Species; State Environmental Land Use Web Resources California Department of Fish and Game. Keep Me Wild. Available at www.dfg.ca.gov/ keepmewild/lion.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Humane Society of the United States. Available at www.hsus.org. Accessed January 21, 2008. The Mountain Lion Foundation. Available at www.mountainlion.org/index1.asp. Accessed January 21, 2008. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Key Facts about Cougars in Oregon and the Cougar Management Plan. Available at www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cougar/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Safari Club International. Record Book Top Ten and Minimums. Available at www.safariclub.org/members/RB/view_minimums.cfm. Accessed January 21, 2008. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Game Management Plan, draft. Available at wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sepa/draft_gmp_18oct02.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Botkin, Daniel B. 1992. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Oxford University Press; Moehring, Eugene P. 2004. Urbanism and Empire in the Far West, 1840–1890. Reno: University of Nevada Press; Porter, William F., Joseph L. Sax, and Frederic H. Wagner. 1995. Wildlife Policies in the U.S. National Parks. Washington, DC: Island Press; Pritchard, James A. 1999. Preserving Natural Conditions: Science and the Perception of Nature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; Rutherford, Murray B., and Denise Casey, eds. 2005. Coexisting with Large Carnivores: Lessons from Greater Yellowstone. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Cathy Koehn

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS Public participation in some environmental decisions is mandated by law. This participation is very limited and criticized as noneffectual. It is basically minimal notice of the right to see documents or place something in the record. The public expects to have notice and involvement in every important environmental decision that affects where they live, work, and play.

Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions | 427 THE AARHUS CONVENTION International public involvement and participation in environmental decisions and international perspectives on the environment tend to be more holistic and inclusive than U.S. concepts. Water quality in urban areas has long been an international environmental priority but is only recently emerging as one in the United States, for example. What are the international inspirational goals and ideals about involving the public with environmental decisions? What kind of process do they want to use based on their 500- to 2,000-year history of European civilization? Although regional in scope, the significance of the Aarhus Convention is global. It is by far the most impressive elaboration of principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, which stresses the need for citizens’ participation in environmental issues and for access to information in the area of environmental democracy so far undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations. (Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations) The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisionmaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on June 25, 1998, in the Danish city of Aarhus at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in the Environment for Europe process. The Aarhus Convention is a new kind of environmental agreement. • It links environmental rights and human rights; • It acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations; • It establishes that sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders; • It links government accountability and environmental protection; • It focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context; and • It is forging a new process for public participation in the negotiation and implementation of international agreements. The subject of the Aarhus Convention goes to the heart of the relationship between people and governments. The convention is not only an environmental agreement; it is also a convention about government accountability, transparency, and responsiveness. The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and imposes on parties and public authorities’ obligations regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice.

Environmental public-participation policies create controversy because they deal with a public that often distrusts the process. The issues can be technically complex, perceived as life threatening, and value-laden. A number of research findings underscore the importance of improving public involvement in environmental decision making. The emerging policy consensus is that public involvement can help develop better knowledge of the ecology and culture of the place. The lack of land-use planning of an environmental nature at the local level

428

|

Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions

in the United States leaves a blank gap in the knowledge of past and present land uses and their environmental impacts. What land-use planning for the environment that does exist seldom goes beyond big parks and riparian greenbelts. Most local environmental planning is just beginning to get beyond protection against natural disasters, like floods. Even at its current best, most local land-use planning has poor to nonexistent relationships with federal and state environmental agencies. Environmentalists accuse them of a promoting development over the environment by letting industry use the lack of information at the intergovernmental level. Recent changes in citizen access to the sets of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) that exist between the federal regional offices of environmental agencies and the states, environmental agencies help give citizens knowledge about revenue flow and policy requirements for different environmental programs, many related to environmental enforcement and compliance. This helps with the state and federal governmental relationship and its transparency but does nothing for local environmental planning and its relationship with the other two government levels and their agencies. This has been and will continue to be a large battleground exposed by increased citizen involvement. It is a rapidly changing dynamic, and the battle goes in different directions in some state legislatures. Agencies have unresolved policy issues of efficiency to contend with in their own performance. How much public participation is too much or too little? Overall, more citizens are seeking involvement in environmental decisions whenever they can. Citizens are generally not accommodated, and there are many anecdotes about restricted public meetings. States are reluctant to provide childcare at public hearings in some states for fear of liability. This prevents many working parents with environmental concerns from attending meetings. In Hawaii environmental public hearings can be held on different islands. Travel between the islands generally requires air travel, which can be too expensive for many with environmental concerns. Hearings can be held at night, during the day, and without notice. Public hearing format and agenda form a battleground that is site specific. The hearings can be recorded, handicapped accessible, with language and deaf translation, and provide capacity-building trainings. Many communities are at first overwhelmed with the scientific complexity of some environmental issues. Some people come to the hearings to get information or to give information. The struggle for information can often set the early parameters of a given battleground. This is especially the case when the information conflicts with neighborhood realities. The public-participation requirements of environmental law to involve the public, such as informal and formal comments, public hearings, public comments, and citizen suits, have proved inadequate to effectively meet the challenge of constructively involving the public. Many agencies now develop citizen advisory groups. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense have more than 200 citizen advisory groups at contaminated sites around the country; advisory groups have become important components of EPA’s environmental justice activities. Some manufacturing industries have plants that use citizen advisory committees. Yet public involvement is often part of any controversial environmental issue. The real issue is

Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions | 429

often an environmental conflict, such as the failure of enforcement of pollution laws, which affects the community. Some of the battlegrounds are defined by the goals of the public participation. Is a citizen involvement program successful if it simply involves more of the community, or should it have to result in demonstrably better decisions in terms of overall environmental impacts? This question tugs at many of the internal agency battles to go beyond legal requirements for citizen participation. Another battleground of this controversy arises from fundamental differences about citizens’ role in government. Most citizens assume that they have a right to participate in the large-scale environmental decisions that affect them and their private property. There is a large difference in how that involvement and participation actually happens. Are there many meetings? Are they offered in other languages? How much power over the decision should citizens have? Often citizens think they have the power to stop an environmentally hazardous use, but they do not. Citizens’ opinions are noted, but the administrative agency makes the decisions. After an unsatisfactory decision citizens can appeal through the agency, and after that they can go to court. Industry is often held captive by the agency as the agency deals with citizen participation and involvement. The direct involvement of citizens in decision making is seen as a threat because it opens the door to self-interested strategic behavior. The participation requirement in environmental decision making is more than in most other areas of government. It is required by many environmental laws. These processes can be value-laden and explosive when cultures clash. For example, many administrative agencies diligently prepare meeting agendas in advance of the meeting. Sometimes they involve the community. However, when citizens attend the hearing, they may deviate from the agenda, considering it just one stakeholder’s view of the appropriate topic of discussion. Citizen involvement processes are hard for many administrative agencies because there are no criteria for judging success and failure. This too contributes to the controversy around public participation and involvement. DEVELOPING ISSUES WITH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Many of the problems of public involvement revolve around the capacity of the public to engage in the decisions. It may take longer to reach a decision or formulate a process because of the need for community capacity building, group processes, and the expectation that government and industry be able to meaningfully answer all questions and concerns. The U.S. public lack basic knowledge about many environmental issues but quickly become engaged when there is environmental controversy. OBJECTIVES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In U.S. environmental policy and law, public participation has some basic goals. The goals are:

430

|

Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions

• Educating and informing the public about a prospective environmental decision • Improving the substantive quality of decisions • Giving notice and a meaningful opportunity for all interested parties to participate • Reducing controversy, especially in environmental impact assessment cases WHAT ARE PROCESSES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION? A generalized lack of democracy in environmental decision making is the core of the problem. Environmental decision making brings citizens into the complex world of regulation, industry, and science. The basic mechanisms of citizen participation in the United States include: • Public hearings, public meetings, roundtable meetings, public comments, and advisory committees • One-way flows of information such as surveys, focus groups, and public education • Citizen involvement techniques with collaborative decision making and conflict resolution, such as mediation ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY Environmental literacy allows citizens to carry out the role envisioned in major environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Laws such as the Toxic Release Inventory go a long way toward increasing environmental literacy because they act on self-interest. Citizens can find out the emissions of some polluters in their zip code or neighborhood. Environmental literacy helps citizens’ ability to participate in decision making. Ideally, the citizens’ increase in their environmental capacity will enable them to deliberate issues with government agencies, industries, and scientists. QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Many times community members and environmentalists learn about a certain meeting or decision after the public-participation phase took place. The most common reason for this is the inadequacy of the notice to people or the failure of the government to designate that member as an interested party. Here are some common questions asked to determine the nature and validity of a given public-participation process. • How many members of the public were actively involved in participatory venues or took advantage of information and access provided to them? • What percentage of the wider public was reached through education campaigns, media relations, or interaction with more active participants?

Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions | 431

• Did the active public feel that they had sufficient knowledge to contribute to deliberations and decision making? • Did members of the public understand their role in the participatory process? • Was there sufficient time and money available to obtain credible, relevant, and, if necessary, independent information? • Was information from the public-participation process used to inform or review analyses or decisions? • Did the public feel that it had an impact on decisions? • Where public input was not incorporated into analyses or decisions, did the relevant agency provide justification that was acceptable to the public? • Were all reasonably affected parties included or represented, particularly those with no formal organization? • Did participants reflect the larger public they were expected to represent, for example, in terms of socioeconomic criteria? • Were there mechanisms to hold participants accountable to the community that they represented? Citizens are an important repository of observations, facts, and innovative alternatives. The goal of cost-effectiveness does not refer to the cost-effectiveness of decisions made in participatory processes but to the cost-effectiveness of choosing among the different participatory or nonparticipatory approaches to environmental decision making. The agency perspective argues that public participation programs must be cost-effective by producing results that justify the added effort of including citizens. They face the very pragmatic issue of how much citizen participation is too much or too little. Others argue against this view because it is too difficult to measure the value of environmental harm that is prevented. Others say that the timescale used measure the effectiveness of the environmental intervention is more determinative. Over a longer timescale citizen participation can monitor and adapt the environmental decision to changing conditions, for instance. On a short timescale the citizen participation may be more costly and the benefits less measurable. Public hearings remain the most common form of face-to-face public involvement. The Environmental Protection Agency convenes thousands of hearings per year. Most are used to defend EPA decisions rather than to involve the public in the decision-making process itself. They are judicial or quasijudicial in nature and generally precede a court case. Environmentalists and communities complain that state and federal agencies often hold hearings too late in the process, intentionally present technical information beyond the understanding of the lay public in a language that is hard to understand, and minimally fulfill legal requirements. They complain that the hearings are like theater. The decision is already made, they contend. The process is not deliberative, and their contributions and concerns are not

432

|

Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions

meaningfully acknowledged. Once the decision is made and is final, the citizens may be able to legally contest it. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The further the public is kept away from environmental decisions that affect where they live, work, or play, the more controversial the decision will become. As U.S. mechanisms for public participation are rudimentary, more sophisticated models of public involvement will probably follow international models. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Good Neighbor Agreements; Sustainability Web Resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Public Involvement. Available at www.epa.gov/pub licinvolvement/. Accessed January 21, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wastes: Public Participation and Citizen Action. Available at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/pubpart/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Depoe, Stephen P., and John W. Delicath. 2004. Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; Krimsky, Sheldon, and Dominic Golding, eds. 1992. Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger; National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC). 1996. The Model Plan for Public Participation. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Guidance for Community Advisory Groups at Superfund Sites. EPA 540-K-96–001. Washington, DC: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA.

R RAIN FORESTS Rain forests cover about 6 percent of the earth’s surface. Rain forests are evergreen woodland forests with heavy precipitation, about 100 inches per year, and a continuous canopy of leaves. The range and depth of their biodiversity is enormous. They are home to over half the species of plants and animals in the world. They convert large amounts of carbon dioxide into oxygen. Deforestation of the rain forest is an international environmental controversy. Deforestation comes from logging, mining, slash-and-burn agriculture, and ranching developments. Rain forests were often considered the raw jungle. The popular perception was one of dense and tangled tropical growth interspersed with many unknown and dangerous insects and animals. Most forests were regarded either as wood for fuel and building or as impediments to human habitation. Industrial society and European colonization used forests as free sources of valuable materials or as woods, occupying land and getting in the way of development. Most rain forests are now cleared by a much more powerful technology for their timber. Tropical hardwoods can command a high price on the world market. In the rain forests logging is usually followed by farming and ranching operations. Often they are not local operations but an extension of multinational corporations. In the late 1970s deforestation was widely recognized as an environmental issue of global importance. In 1992, with much controversy between developed and developing countries, the United Nations reached the first global consensus on forests and deforestation. The outcome was the “Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests” (the “Forest Principles”). This was also part of Agenda 21, which was the program for

433

434

| Rain Forests

sustainable development from the first Rio Earth Summit, dealing with combating deforestation. Global resistance to deforestation has since become more entrenched, partially because of reports of climate change due to global warming. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) have been established under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. BATTLEGROUND: DOCUMENTING BIODIVERSITY Rain forests exude life and biodiversity in most of their ecosystems. More than 50 percent of the earth’s known species live in tropical rain forests. A representative four-square-mile patch of tropical rain forest contains up to 1,500 species of flowering plants, 750 tree species, 125 mammal species, 400 bird species, 100 reptile species, 60 amphibian species, and 150 butterfly species. At least 25 percent of all modern drugs originally came from rain forests. Over 2,000 tropical plants have been identified by scientists as having anticancer properties. Many parts of the rain forest remain unexplored by scientists. Historically rain forests covered 14 percent of the earth’s land surface. It is now estimated they cover 6 percent of the planet’s land surface. Some experts estimate that the last remaining rain forests could be consumed in less than 40 years. Experts estimate that 137 plant, animal, and insect species are destroyed every day due to rain forest deforestation. Many fear that species of plants and animals will go extinct before they are scientifically categorized. One battleground in this controversy is simply documenting the rich biodiversity of the rain forest. Work on this task is proceeding at an accelerating rate, aided by technology. It is still far from complete. One obstacle to this task is the next battleground in this controversy. BATTLEGROUND: ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLOITATION? Some accuse pharmaceutical research companies of mining the rain forest for medical plants. The companies then get the patent or copyright to it. They negotiate with both countries and indigenous people. Currently, 121 prescription drugs sold worldwide derive from plant sources. About 25 percent of Western pharmaceuticals are from rain forest ingredients, and less than 1 percent of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists. In 1983, no U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers were involved in research programs to discover new drugs or cures from plants in the rain forest. Today, over 100 pharmaceutical companies, several universities, and the U.S. government are engaged in plant research projects for possible drugs and cures for many modern-day afflictions. There is a fear in the scientific research community, both public and private, that valuable medical information could be lost due to rain forest deforestation. OVERVIEW OF THE RAIN FORESTS There are rain forests all over the world, in many different countries. The battlegrounds over rain forests are often specific to the particular country.

Rain Forests | 435

Central America was once completely rain forest, but large areas have been cleared for cattle ranching and for sugar cane plantations. Similar to other major rain forests, the jungles and mangrove swamps of Central America contain many plants and animals found nowhere else. Central America has large numbers of tropical birds, including many kinds of parrots. The Amazon watershed is the world’s largest tropical rain forest. The forest covers the basin of the Amazon, the world’s second-longest river. The Amazon contains the most biodiversity on earth, as far as it is known to the present. One-fifth of the entire world’s plants and birds and about one-tenth of all mammal species are found there. Africa is a large continent with large areas of rain forests and unknown biodiversity. Africa also contains areas of high cloud forest, mangrove swamps, and flooded forests. Central Africa holds the world’s second-largest rainforest. To the southeast, the large island of Madagascar was once intensively forested, but now much of it is gone. The island of Madagascar is home to many unique plants and animals not found anywhere else. The rain forests of Asia stretch from India and Burma in the west to Malaysia and the islands of Java and Borneo in the east. Bangladesh has the largest area of mangrove forests in the world. Mangrove forests play an important role in many coastal ecosystems. Australia, New Zealand, and the island of New Guinea contain many different species of animal that occur nowhere else. Undergrowth in Australia’s tropical forests is dense and lush. The forests lie in the path of wet winds from the Pacific. RAIN FORESTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The population of indigenous people in the Amazonian rain forest decreased from an estimated 10 million to fewer than 200,000 today. European colonists destroyed many indigenous tribes since the 1900s. Some of these tribes and bands hold treaty rights to the land but have difficulty getting the provisions of the treaty enforced locally. These groups could decide to economically develop the land by removing the forests. One concern here is the loss of traditional ways of medicine. The medicine man of these groups often possesses centuries of knowledge of indigenous plants. Many of these medicine men are now more than 70 years old and are not being replaced. There are several small projects under way to try to capture some of the oral history generally, some by the tribes themselves. The vast bulk of the world’s rain forests are in developing countries, many of which also have weak control by government. Timber and land are valuable resources that cannot be ignored. Much of the pressure for conservation comes from the developed world. In the developed world the economic issue is less directly significant than the environmental and cultural issues. The cultural clash of values between developed and undeveloped nations, between indigenous peoples and scientific explorers, and between global environmentalists and multinational corporations outlines the battleground of the rain forest deforestation controversy.

436

|

Rain Forests

THE WEALTH OF THE RAIN FORESTS The Amazon rain forest covers over a billion acres of land. It includes parts of Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, and the eastern Andean region of Ecuador and Peru. More than 20 percent of the planet’s oxygen is produced in the Amazon rain forest alone. More than half of the world’s estimated 10 million species of plants, animals, and insects live in the tropical rain forests. One-fifth of the world’s fresh water is in the Amazon Basin, one of the largest and oldest intact watersheds on the planet. It is here that slash-and-burn land settlement techniques destroy many acres of rain forests. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The scientific evidence for the role played by the rain forests in supporting life on earth is no longer disputed. Deforestation destroys biodiversity and indigenous cultures, leads to desertification and land degradation, and contributes to the global warming by reducing the planet’s capacity to recycle carbon dioxide. These are all former battlegrounds. While international agreements are made to try to preserve rain forests as well as respect state sovereignty and cultural traditions, there are still issues about how well they are enforced. Poor countries do not want to give up a natural resource like wood just because rich countries want to preserve rain forests. Some countries, such as Costa Rica, have capitalized on the beauty of the rain forest through successful ecotourism. Other countries may not have this option. Deforestation is an international problem, but deforestation of the rain forest affects the planet most. The emerging battleground for this controversy may be the area of international environmental law enforcement. See also Climate Change; Conservation in the World; Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity; Logging Web Resources Rainforest Facts. Available at www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm. Accessed January 21, 2008. World Rainforest Information Portal. Available at www.rainforestweb.org/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: McClain, Victoria, Richey, eds. 2001. The Biogeochemistry of the Amazon Basin. New York: Oxford University Press; Rajala, Ruchard A. 1999. Clearcutting the Pacific Rain Forest. Vancouver: UBC Press; Rudel, Thomas K. 2005. Tropical Deforestation: Small Farmer and Land Clearing in the Ecuadorian Amazon. New York: Columbia University Press.

S SACRED SITES Sacred sites are places revered by local and indigenous people for their spiritual histories and qualities. They include burial grounds and geological locations thought to be powerful or sensitive in terms of metaphysical forces. These sites are found in all cultures, in all countries, and among all religions. Sacred sites are often involved in environmental controversies over resource development or tourism, as opposed to preservation of indigenous or ancient cultures and biodiversity. Intense pressure to develop timber, oil and gas reserves, coal mining, and nuclear waste storage have all intensified developmental pressures on sacred lands. These sites can stop development because any significant impact on them requires an environmental impact statement. CONTROVERSIES WITH NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION Many native lands, once thought to be without exploitable resources, are under intense scrutiny from gold, coal, and uranium mining companies. For example, the ancestral homelands of eight Lakota Sioux nations, the Black Hills of South Dakota, are now valued at more than $4 billion and are the subject of an unpaid claim settlement against the U.S. government for $570 million. These lands are considered the womb of the people of these tribes and cover lands in contemporary western South Dakota, northeastern Wyoming, and southeastern Montana. Without participation from affected tribes, logging interests, sports and recreational interests, and others have all been allowed great access and use of these lands despite resistance from organizations such as the American Indian Movement.

437

438

|

Sacred Sites

These tribes continue to advocate the return, undisturbed, of their lands, refusing settlement monies despite some of the lowest incomes and employment rates in the country. Cyanide heaps and leached gold mines have left lands and water polluted, and ecotourist developers have proposed extensive development on these lands despite objections regarding these users’ disrespect of spiritual customs on the land. In the western states, the competition for freshwater resources to feed growing populations and agribusiness has led to a proposed public works project to increase the height of the Shasta Dam on the McCloud River, flooding the remaining ancestral homeland and sacred sites of the Winnemem Wintu. Similar struggles pitting indigenous people against coal-mining interests and dambuilding projects have arisen in the two fastest-developing economies in the world, India and China. In India, coal mining threatens the valley of the Damodar containing invaluable archeological sites and sites sacred to several indigenous tribes. In China, the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in Sichuan Province threatens both sacred sites and biodiversity in the region, which are being sacrificed to the need for a source of energy to fuel the developing economy. TOURISM Some sectors of the tourism industry have had a long history of conflict with indigenous tribes and their claims of sovereignty and sacredness of land that presented recreational opportunities like ski resorts and rafting adventures. Mount HIKING ON AYERS ROCK, AUSTRALIA In the middle of the Australian continent, a series of vivid red rock domes rise some 1,100 feet from the desert floor, making a visually striking image that has attracted visitors and indigenous people alike. The largest of these rocks are called Uluru and Kata Tjuta by the indigenous Anangu people; they are known to western tourists as Ayers Rock and Mount Olga. The government of Australia developed them as tourist destinations, but they have now been restored to the stewardship and joint ownership of the Anangu people by the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act of 1989. Uluru and Kata Tjuta are sacred to the Anangu people: they hold more than 40 named sacred sites and countless other secret sites, as well as numerous iwara (ancestral paths) crisscrossing the area. The Anangu did not climb on Uluru (Ayers Rock), but it remains a very popular tourist attraction for hikers, backpackers, and climbers despite requests not to climb or hike there. There are numerous Web sites offering this experience without any reference to the wishes of the indigenous stewards of this land. Moreover, climbing the rock is dangerous. At least 37 people have died while making the climb since tourism has operated there. For each death, the Anangu are obliged to grieve. For these reasons, Anangu request that visitors do not climb the rock. But about 400,000 people visit the park annually, and many choose to attempt the hike, creating multiple strains on cultural traditions and infrastructure.

Sacred Sites

Shasta in northern California and the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona are considered holy ground by their local tribes but are also the sites of proposed multimillion dollar ski resorts. Increasingly, tourists seeking spiritual experiences and ecologically fulfilling travel destinations have also sought out esoteric and exotic destinations including sacred sites. Ecological tourism, called ecotourism, has emerged as a theoretical compromise promoting travel-related services and development aimed at both ecologically and socially conscious tourists. The concept is based on the idea that tourist dollars can be channeled in ways that benefit the environment and local people without creating the environmentally degrading consequences normally associated with recreational development, while allowing more equitable local participation in development benefits. LOCAL AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES’ CLAIMS Underlying many of these controversies is the fact that indigenous societies have traditionally regarded land and its use fundamentally differently from a western idea of private ownership and exclusive rights to exploit land. Communally held lands and sacred lands were not to be held or exploited for the benefit of individual wealth creation, and treaties executed between colonial or invading governments and indigenous peoples were often based on fundamental misperceptions of basic terms. What European settlers meant when they negotiated the sale of land had no comparable meaning in the minds of those tribes with whom they dealt. Many tribes simply had no concept that individuals could own land; they conceived of the relationship between human and land as the other way around—humans are the people of the earth. Even more to the point, some land could not be used at all, for any purpose except ceremonial and secret purposes, intended to benefit the tribal society and tribal people. These indigenous limits on the use and ownership of land had no parallel in the European settler’s law. Contemporary treaty interpretations have repeatedly stumbled over ways to resolve the inequities of these fundamentally mistaken documents. There are controversial issue of sacredness and proof of claims, secrecy issues, and western concepts of evidence. Tribes often claim rights in these areas and simultaneously claim the solemn obligation not to reveal the basis for their claims, refusing to submit their claims to outsiders’ review. Often there is no paper trail of ownership such as that traditionally used by western European settlers. Nonetheless, in some island nations land can be inherited to the 10th cousin. It is so precious it is not bought or sold. Outsiders, often the majority culture, are suspicious of these claims and processes of proof. These controversies flare up when the land in question becomes valuable. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSIES As human population increases and development moves more into indigenous lands all over the world, sacred sites may become more imperiled. Whether an object of tourism or a deterrent to development, sacred sites represent a

|

439

440

| Ski Resort Development and Expansion

physical respect for the historic human culture of a place. Many of the world’s indigenous cultures have been reduced in numbers, and these sacred sites are very important to them. See also Cultural vs. Animal Rights; Ecotourism as a Basis for Protection of Biodiversity; Environmental Impact Statements: Tribal Web Resources Protect Sacred Sites. Available at www.protectsacredsites.org/. Accessed January 21, 2008. Sacred Earth Network Newsletter. Available at www.sacredearthnetwork.org/Newsletters/ ENews16p3.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Sacred Land Film Project. Protecting the Earth’s Sacred Places. Available at www.sacredland. org/index.html. Accessed January 21, 2008. Sacred Sites Legal Summary. Available at www.abanet.org/irr/committees/environmental/ essay/bearns.doc. Accessed January 21, 2008. Further Reading: Dean, Bartholomew, Jerome M. Levi, and Winona LaDuke. 2003. At the Risk of Being Heard: Identity, Indigenous Rights and Postcolonial States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; Gulliford, Andrew. 2000. Sacred Objects and Sacred Places: Preserving Tribal Traditions. Niwot: University Press of Colorado; Kan, Sergei. 2006. New Perspectives on Native North America: Cultures, Histories, and Representations. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; Lennon, Jane, and Ian David Robertson. 2001. Natural and Cultural Heritage. Sydney, Australia: CSIRO Publishing; Russell, Emily Wyndham Barnett. 1998. People and the Land through Time: Linking Ecology and History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Robin Morris Collin

SKI RESORT DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION Ski areas are an intensive land use in generally sensitive mountain terrain. They use large amounts of water and draw vehicle traffic, both uses that create significant environmental impacts. Ski slopes must be cleared of trees, so other environmental impacts come from logging, erosion from disturbances on steep slopes, and damage to wetlands from construction and maintenance. Some ski companies choose to maximize development of the site at the expense of conservation of the mountain environments, part of a trend in public lands called industrial recreation. Violence and lawsuits about public lands and recreational users mark this battlefield. Ski resorts are increasingly evolving from local or regional recreation facilities to destination resorts. They can be large sprawling complexes with all the amenities and environmental impacts of home. Many ski resorts are involved in real estate development. Condominiums and ranch houses can be found at ski lodges. Commercial and residential real estate development near ski resorts compound the habitat fragmentation impacts of ski runs and lifts because they have severe environmental impacts on mountain ecotones, wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive lands. These environmental impacts can hamper other wilderness preservation efforts. One battleground is wilderness conservationists

Ski Resort Development and Expansion

trying to preserve the wilderness. Many species require more than a patch of land. They require migration corridors, especially in mountainous areas. When winter moves into many mountains, most animals go down from the mountain. In the summer many animals return. By selling the land necessary for this movement of animals to commercial and residential real estate development, the integrity of the wilderness areas are threatened. Some parts of the ski industry have purchased lands, or engaged in land exchanges with the Forest Service, to obtain land contiguous to their ski areas. They then propose ski lifts on these lands, which increases their value for development of condominiums, residential units, or retail outlets. They may or may not have actual plans to build a ski lodge but are increasing the value by doing so. This is a land speculation practice environmentalists claim is particularly objectionable. These environmental policies affect private property forest holdings that are not measured or monitored. The impacts of ski lodge overdevelopment can affect private property owners and other public and private property owners lower down the mountain. Environmentalists are concerned with the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from resort development in pristine mountain environments. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The environmental impacts of ski lodge development stand out because they are often the only major real estate development in the area. Other environmental impacts are not so obvious. The main function of a ski lodge is to support downhill skiing. Many lodges also allow snowboarding, sledding, and snow tubing. They all require ski runs and ski lifts. Ski runs are designated routes skiers must use. All trees, foliage, and large obstacles are removed, generally from steep slopes. This can increase erosion and cause sediment buildup in the water downstream. Ski slopes also require daily or nightly maintenance. Large machines groom the surface of the snow for the next wave of skiers. Ski lifts at the big resorts can be as big as little heated cabins, holding as many as 12 people on cables that transverse the mountainside. The ski lifts remain year-round. Road building and large parking lots are also necessary for ski lodges. They both pave over land, making it unavailable for most species, and altering migration or nesting territories for many animals. Water and vehicle emissions mix as runoff, changing the water quality. Ski resorts can cut off habitat and migration corridors of mountain animal species such as lynx and mountain goats. Logging on a mountain can expand to old-growth timber areas, an area of particular concern for conservationists. Road building, commercial and residential real estate development, and other infrastructural environmental impacts include covering or filling bogs, or mountain wetlands. SKI LODGES AND WATER IMPACTS Ski lodges generally make more profit when there is snow. Most ski developments now use snowmaking equipment to supplement real snow. Snowmaking

| 441

442

|

Ski Resort Development and Expansion

requires large amounts of water. The water comes from the surrounding streams and creeks on the mountain and other sources. Snowmaking requires withdrawal of water from these sources. The biggest pressure for water for snowmaking equipment is to open the skiing season as early as possible, in the late autumn or early winter in most places. Summers can be very dry, so some of these water sources can be very low when the demand for the water is high for snowmaking. This can create a battleground between downstream water users and conservationists on one side, and the ski development and real estate interests on the other side. One of the main questions in this battleground is how much land do skiers need? This can help determine other water impacts. MORE ACREAGE THAN SKIERS? Since the 1978–1979 ski season, the number of U.S. skiers has not increased substantially. Ski areas and their snowmaking areas are increasing their slopes to compete for skier revenue. This generally requires more land and more water. Most ski areas feel they must now do so in order to remain economically viable. Ninety percent of ski areas in the western United States are on public lands administered by the Forest Service. When the Forest Service expands ski areas and snowmaking is used, it creates a battleground. Conservationists contend that by doing so the Forest Service encourages ski area expansions without due consideration to all the environmental impacts and for other public recreation needs such as hiking or climbing. Construction activities for ski lodges are a significant problem. Moving large amounts of soil around the side of a mountain is inherently risky to the workers and the environment. In site preparation they scrap large areas of soil in the mountain environment. All construction equipment can leak and require on-site storage of gas, oil, antifreeze, leaded batteries, solvents, and parts. These leaks can contaminate both surface water and groundwater. Snowmaking utilizing water of lower quality, including that from treated sewer systems, can have an affect on the watershed and downstream users. TRANSPORTATION AND AIR POLLUTION Travel to and within ski resort areas creates transportation stresses and air quality problems. By engaging in programs within the community and region to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, ski areas can help mitigate these environmental problems. They can us buses, shuttles, and trains for workers and skiers, for example. Ski areas are among the first businesses to suffer the impacts of global warming. Although the impacts are greatest at the poles, mountain snow is very sensitive to warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures generally mean more rain, less snow. Ski lodges then have to make enough snow to keep the season open long enough to remain economically viable. Ski lodges use large amounts of energy in terms of heating and cooling, guest amenities like spas and swimming pools, and transportation. Because of their sensitivity to global warming issues, some ski lodges are investigating alternative energy forms.

Ski Resort Development and Expansion

INDUSTRIAL RECREATION AND VIOLENCE The Earth Liberation Front committed the October 21, 2006, Vail, Colorado, ski resort arson, which did about $12 million in damage to four ski lifts and five buildings. The group said it struck to protect the lynx, maintaining that the 880acre back-bowl expansion would damage lynx habitat. This arson was to attract public attention to the alleged collusion between recreation corporations and the government agencies managing federal lands. Environmentalists claim that industrial recreation could be more damaging to wild land than all the logging, mining, and grazing of the past century. Industrial recreation refers to intensive, mechanized use of the landscape by high numbers of people. It usually involves extensive infrastructure development. Widespread recreational development will change the nature of the wilderness experience. The major ecological problem with industrial recreation is that the federal government rarely requires ecological analysis of its effects on the environment and has never looked at the cumulative or synergistic impacts of such development. A ski area has never been required to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) unless the Forest Service was sued to provide one. Even then, an EIS is advisory only. FAILURES OF MITIGATION MEASURES Ski resorts are in sensitive environments and provide a stark testing ground for mitigation measures, activities taken to lessen the environmental impacts. Mitigation is a battleground because it is often required for a project’s approval but rarely enforced post–project approval. Some conservationists believe that it is not possible to mitigate the environmental impacts of a large ski development and that ski lodge projects and expansions should simply be denied. Most projects having a significant impact on the environment have to file some type of environmental assessment or environmental impact assessment. There are many exceptions or categorical exclusions, and many question how truly rigorous these assessments are in the United States. The agency decision maker is not required to make the most environmentally sound decision but considers all kinds of political and economic factors in the final decision. One common requirement and recommendation that comes out of these assessments is that the projects mitigate their worst environmental impacts. Promises of mitigation exist in almost every final environmental impact statement, and many question their enforcement. Some mitigation measures themselves may have significant environmental impacts, and they are an exception. One measure of the mitigation is its express intent, generally to restore the environment the way it was before significant environmental impacts. By this environmental measure, most mitigation measures in the Untied States fail to meet promised expectations. This is the subject of controversy and litigation. Many mitigation projects have failed due to one or more of the following reasons: • poor siting and project design; • inadequate monitoring and enforcement programs;

| 443

444

|

Ski Resort Development and Expansion

• lack of adequate maintenance, knowledge, or remedial activities; and • failure of project proponents to comply with the conditions of their permits. Based on over a decade of results, the cumulative record of past mitigation projects remains poor overall, with few examples of long-term success. Under present mitigation policies and practices, environmental losses are likely to be long lasting and mitigation as currently practiced has a high chance of failure. The weakly enforced mitigation policy adds fuel to the battleground because many environmentalists believe that the ski development should be denied. SKI RESORTS AND SUSTAINABILITY The environment is a ski resort’s most significant asset. But skiing, snowboarding, and countless summer recreational activities often come at the cost of the environment. This past summer the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) and its partner organizations started Sustainable Slopes: The Environmental Charter for Ski Areas to help protect the very environment upon which ski resorts depend. The charter proposed ways that participating ski resorts can manage issues like wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater runoff, and erosion and sedimentation, while demonstrating their commitment to good environmental stewardship. The partner organizations include a host of federal, state, and local agencies such as the EPA, USDA Forest Service, the Conservation Law Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Leave No Trace Inc., The Mountain Institute, and the U.S. Department of Energy. The EPA supported the development of the Environmental Charter and continues to support the initiative by providing technical assistance from existing voluntary partnership programs such as the Water Alliance for Voluntary Efficiency, the Waste Wise program dealing with solid waste, the Energy Star program that promotes energy efficiency, and the agency’s smart growth and development efforts. CHARTER OVERVIEW The Environmental Charter for Ski Areas is a voluntary initiative that holds participating ski areas (winter and summer resort operations) to a broad set of principles that provide a framework for implementing best management practices, assessing environmental performance, and setting goals for future improvement. More than 160 ski areas, representing 31 states that host 70 percent of the country’s skiers and snowboarders, have already endorsed the charter. To recognize the resorts’ participation, NSAA issues a Sustainable Slopes endorsement logo to each resort to display at their facility and on their marketing materials. NSAA and the partner organizations are hoping that all resorts in the country will endorse and adopt the principles. Most of the resorts who have yet to endorse the charter are small resorts without the staffing and financial or technical ability to implement the principles. To address this problem, the partner organizations will continue to develop tools and education programs that will make it easier for all resorts to eventually endorse the principles. The voluntary

Ski Resort Development and Expansion

principles are meant to provide overall guidance to help ski resorts practice good environmental stewardship. They are not a list of legal requirements that must be applied in every situation. Since each ski resort operates in a unique local environment or ecosystem, each resort reflects regional differences; therefore, each resort must make its own decision about how to achieve sustainable use of natural resources. While individual resorts have the same overall goal of implementing the charter, they will need to choose different paths to get there. The Principles The principles in the charter were developed through a collaborative effort by NSAA and the partner organizations and are intended to be updated periodically as needed. They focus on three areas. • Planning, Design, and Construction. The principles include (1) engaging stakeholders in dialogue on development plans and implementation; (2) planning and siting facilities to avoid negative impacts on natural resources and to avoid sprawl; (3) designing new facilities to conserve water, energy, and materials; and (4) meeting or exceeding all regulatory requirements. • Operations. The principles include (1) optimizing efficiency and effectiveness of water uses throughout the ski resort; (2) protecting and minimizing wildlife and habitat impacts; (3) maintaining minimum stream flows; (4) conserving water, energy, and fuel; (5) managing wastewater responsibly; (6) reducing all waste generated at the ski resorts; (7) reusing and recycling where possible; (8) minimizing air quality impacts; (9) designing resorts to complement the natural environment, and (10) contributing to solutions to decrease transportation issues. Several suggestions are offered for each resource. For example, to protect water quality, the charter suggests that ski resorts participate in watershed planning and management efforts, maintain vegetative buffers along streams to improve natural filtration and protect habitat, and apply appropriate stormwater management techniques and erosion and sediment control practices. • Education and Outreach. The principles include (1) promoting environmental education and awareness and (2) enhancing the relationship between the ski area and stakeholders so that it benefits the environment. Ski resorts are expected to promote the Environmental Code of the slopes, a list designed to heighten the public’s awareness about ways they can make sustainable use of natural resources while participating in outdoor recreational activities. The code suggests that the public practice energy conservation, participate in educational events and cleanup days sponsored by the ski resort, and practice outdoor ethics like respecting wildlife and not littering. Based on information collected each year from the resorts, the NSAA will issue an annual report card to assess how well the participating resorts are meeting the goals outlined in the principles. To assist with data collection, NSAA and the partner organizations plan to work together over the next few years to

| 445

446

|

Ski Resort Development and Expansion

set and achieve measurable goals for all the principles. NSAA expects the annual report to become more quantitative as the program develops and grows. The report will be issued each year in May and will be available on the NSAA Web site (www.nsaa.org). Compliance Incentives A series of incentives encourage ski resorts to adopt and follow the charter. First, by doing so, ski resorts demonstrate their environmental stewardship to customers and partner organizations. Second, adopting and implementing the principles results in a reduction of waste and energy use, which benefits the environment and resort profits. Third, partner organizations will provide technical and/or financial assistance to make improvements and share data across the industry. Resorts can also win an award, sponsored by the Skiing Company (a Times Mirror company), for environmental excellence based on the principles. And finally, by following the charter, ski resorts can ensure their livelihood is sustainable for the future through customer satisfaction and environmental protection. Several ski resorts have developed management plans based on the charter. Crystal Mountain, Washington: Their Master Development Plan includes several measures to address the protection of water resources, including water reclamation and conservation. Under this master plan, they have also developed management plans for roads, trails, stormwater, and stream restoration. The management plans are implemented to offset temporary and permanent watershed impacts, and monitoring is used to verify their implementation, determine the effectiveness of the restoration, and validate the maintenance of improvement of the watershed functions. Snoqualmie Pass, Washington: The Summit at Snoqualmie’s Master Development Plan will be similar to that of Crystal Lake. However, the Summit must address key wildlife corridors that represent the very heart of the northern spotted owl controversy. Any proposed expansion of facilities at the Summit must include sufficient revegetation or preservation of previously cleared forest to be determined neutral or beneficial to old-growth forest. The proposed development will be required to include up to 400 acres dedicated to old-growth forest preservation. In addition, several areas within the ski terrain will be revegetated to improve the aesthetics. This preservation/revegetation approach will benefit skiers, wildlife, and watershed function. Westwood, California: Dyer Mountain is the only undeveloped resort to endorse the environmental charter. In 1998, Dyer Mountain Associates was formed, and plans to develop a resort community began to unfold. In 1999 several groups of consultants researched existing data and conducted field investigations to locate key habitats in environmentally sensitive areas and any other constraints to developing ski, golf, residential, and base-area facilities. Based on the vision for the recreational community and the environment, the consultants determined that four elements would drive the planning for the project, all targeted toward keeping the sense of place that currently dominates the

Ski Resort Development and Expansion

site. These elements include emphasizing general environmental protection and using innovative planning and design to avoid environmental impact, while also offering the technology and recreational amenities desired by the community. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Ski resort development presents the current preferred recreational use for public lands. Packhorses, hikers, mountain bikers, the handicapped, dog owners, rock climbers, hang gliders, balloonists, and various sorts of aerial artists (base jumping, tightropes, etc.) are all recreational users, and each is controversial. Ski resort development represents a significant increase in environmental impacts as acreage, traffic, and year-round operations increase. These environmental impacts take place not just anywhere, but in places many have preserved for environmental reasons. Mountain environments can be sensitive ecotones that are easily irreparably damaged. In these environments it is essential that cumulative impacts be accurately measured, and the effects of development recorded. Cumulative risk assessment methodologies have been done in Banff and British Columbia in these ecosystems. This may be an area where any promised corporate mitigation or strategy simply will not work in terms of environmental preservation. It may also be a chance to find out what works in these environments for purposes of sustainability. This is one argument used by a large, sustainable resort close to Ayers Rock, Australia, a sacred site to the indigenous people. Treaty rights of indigenous people can also be an issue for ski resort development in some places. It is likely that controversy about the environmental impact of the size of ski resorts will continue, especially on public lands. The direction of this controversy is likely to place ski resort development in with other park users and concessionaires and their environmental impacts. Some ski resorts have embraced sustainability and may help discover practical approaches that other communities can use. Critics say these policies are voluntary and based on self-reported information that is self-serving. However, as long as ski resort development continues to have large environmental impacts, it is likely that environmental lawsuits will continue. See also Climate Change; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Endangered Species; Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Federal Environmental Land Use; Logging; Sacred Sites; Sustainability; Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation Web Resources National Ski Areas Association. Available at http://www.nsaa.org/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Baron, Jill S. 2002. Rocky Mountain Futures: An Ecological Perspective. Washington, DC: Island Press; Kimmins, Hamish, and J. P. Kimmins. 1997. Balancing Act: Environmental Issues in Forestry. Vancouver: University of British Colombia Press; Körner, E. Christian Spehn, and Ch M. Korner. 2002. Mountain Biodiversity: A Global

| 447

448

| Solar Energy Supply Assessment. Oxford: Taylor and Francis; Murphy, Peter E., and Ann E. Murphy. 2004. Strategic Management for Tourism Communities: Bridging the Gaps. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications; Shabecoff, Philip. 2003. A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.

SOLAR ENERGY SUPPLY Controversies around solar energy include economic arguments that it is not always cost-effective. Land-use restrictions can also impede solar energy applications. Proponents point to the renewable nature of this source of energy as worthy of investment now as other nonrenewable sources become depleted. A consistent aspect of U.S. environmentalism is conservation of natural resources. When electricity comes from dams, gas, coal, nuclear plants, or other sources, the true cost can increase dramatically in a short time because of the lack of renewability of many of these resources. Many of these fossil fuel-based power sources have large environmental impacts, from the resource extraction to use to pollution and waste. Saving power is a tenet of many environmentalists. Using less power considered a softer ecological footprint. Frugal homeowners also find it a convenient way to save money. Those interested in sustainability find solar power to be acceptable. Many developing nations like solar power because that is the only electricity available. Many countries have limited hours of electricity, if any at all. Power sources can be unreliable, with frequent brownouts. Solar power combined with low-power LED lights is currently bringing light to the night in small communities in developing nations. Instead of relying on a distant grid of wires, solar power can be produced on site. This also greatly reduces its environmental impacts, or its ecological footprint. Alternative energy sources always trigger initial controversies about costeffectiveness. These can be complex debates including utility rate structures; bond recovery rates; local, state, and federal regulatory accommodations; safety; and scientific foundations. Most measures of cost-effectiveness measures compare the new source with petrochemical sources. Since the rate of petrochemical depletion is scientifically debated and politically contested, it remains an unknown factor in cost-effectiveness computations. Another debated assumption in these measures is the provider of the power. Solar energy can be home generated, or off the grid. In some areas the power company is required to buy back the excess power generated, provided the correct monitoring mechanisms are in place. SOLAR ENERGY BASICS The sun is the source of almost all of the energy on Earth. Converting sunlight to electricity or heat is solar energy. There are many solar technologies and technological variations with the use of solar energy. The most basic way is the use of photovoltaic systems to convert sunlight directly into electricity. These systems are commercially marketed as photovoltaic (PV) arrays. They are used to generate electricity for a single residential or commercial building. Large arrays can be

Solar Energy Supply | 449

combined to create a solar power plant using heat. The sunlight is focused with mirrors to create a high-intensity heat source. This heat then produces steam power to run a generator that creates electricity. Solar water-heating systems for most residential and commercial buildings usually have two main sections. The first is a solar collector located somewhere the sun can hit it. Generally the longer and more direct the sunlight the more power created, depending on the efficiency of the PV array. The second section, connected to the solar collector, is a storage tank of liquid, generally water, which retains the heat collected by the solar collector. This heated water can then be used for heating, washing, cleaning, and so on. The sun heats the solar collector that heats the fluid running through tubes within the collector. Solar power can be used for anything that requires electricity. The most traditional buildings use it to heat hot water, which is very energy intensive. Many residential commercial buildings can use solar collectors to do more. Solar heating systems can heat the buildings. A solar ventilation system can be used in cold climates to preheat air before it enters a building. Other than buildings, solar power is the energy source for space missions, remote viewing and sensing outposts in wilderness areas, home motion detector lights, and many, many other applications. PASSIVE SOLAR HEATING: COOLING AND DAYLIGHTING Structure and design with nature often mean incorporating the sun into the energy plan for the building. They are passive systems because they require little action once built. However, to efficiently use the sun as a passive energy source requires strict compliance with the rules of nature at the particular site. Buildings designed for passive solar and daylighting require design features such as large south-facing windows, building materials that absorb and slowly release the sun’s heat, and structural designs to support any holding tanks. Passive solar designs should include natural ventilation for cooling. The way a building is situated on a lot can have a large effect on the efficiency of solar passive energy. Many municipal zoning and land-use laws are strict about the zoning envelope, especially for residential structures. Buildings must be set back from the front, back, and side, creating an envelope around it. On a small lot this will greatly constrain the direction the building can face. This can limit passive solar efficiency, as well as active solar systems. This is one land-use battleground related to solar power. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The environmental requirements for solar power differ based on power usage. Often they are site specific and not always readily available to a home buyer or builder. Essential environmental information is how much solar energy is available to a particular solar collector. The availability of or access to unobstructed sunlight for use both in passive solar designs and active systems is protected by zoning laws and ordinances in some communities.

450

|

Solar Energy Supply

COMMUNITY SOLAR ACCESS VERSUS PRIVATE PROPERTY Access to the sun has always been controversial in urban settings. Access to light and air was thought to be healthier and became an important part of U.S. private property law. Solar access is the access to unobstructed, direct sunlight. Modern solar access battlegrounds emerged in the United States when commercial property owners wanted to protect their investment in solar power from nearby development casting shadows. This can be a contentious land-use battleground because it can, arguably, infringe on the development rights of nearby property owners. Advocates of solar energy point out that community-wide solar access can greatly increase the energy efficiency of the solar collectors and lower the cost of energy. Several communities in the United States have developed solar access land-use guidelines and/or ordinances, but most have not done so. There is ongoing tension between current land-use laws and zoning ordinances and modern energy technologies that fuels this controversy about protected solar access, individually or community wide. Many communities are overwhelmed with cell tower debates and economic development. Real estate, banking, and mortgage lending interests are very important economic development stakeholders. They prefer traditional private property approaches. Many private property owners see mandatory solar access as another infringement of their rights in private property, like cable television wires, sewer pipes, and cell phone towers. Zoning is a common mechanism used to protect solar access, but can face community resistance if mandatory. This means that if you install a solar collector it may be in the shadow of another developed building later. Environmentalists would like to see more protection for investment in solar energy. Many states now offer tax rebates for alternative energy sources, including appliances, installation, and use. CONTROVERSIES WHEN DESIGNING THE LAND-USE PLAN Communities have created their own community solar access policies and land-use laws. When there are no local solar access laws, it is still possible to buy it from potential shadow sources. Landowners can purchase the surrounding development rights. It is possible for governmental entities to exercise their taking power to achieve public purposes related to solar energy development. Both these land-use policies stir up considerable controversy. Traditional zoning ordinances and building codes can create problems for solar access. Most pertain to the zoning envelope mentioned previously. • • • • • •

Height Setback from the property line Exterior design restrictions Yard projection Lot orientation Lot coverage requirements

The most important solar access regulation for land development is to face the sun in a predominantly east-west street direction. Common problems those

Solar Energy Supply | 451

wishing to install solar power have encountered with building codes include the following: • • • •

Exceeding roof load Unacceptable heat exchangers Improper wiring Unlawful tampering with potable water supplies.

Potential zoning issues include the following: • Obstructing side yards • Erecting unlawful protrusions on roofs • Siting the system too close to streets or lot boundaries. Special area regulations such as local community, subdivision, or homeowner’s association covenants also demand compliance. These covenants, historic district regulations, and floodplain provisions can easily be overlooked. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Voluntary consumer decisions to purchase electricity supplied by renewable energy sources represent a powerful market-support mechanism for renewable energy development. Beginning in the early 1990s, a small number of U.S. utilities began offering green power options to their customers. Since then, these products have become more prevalent, both from utilities and in states that have introduced competition into their retail electricity markets. Today, more than 50 percent of all U.S. consumers have an option to purchase some type of green power product from a retail electricity provider. Currently, about 600 utilities offer green power programs to customers in 34 states. This burgeoning economic growth will push at the current constraints on the use of solar energy. As more solid information comes in about the true environmental costs of petrochemical pollution, the amount of oil left, and the large, record-breaking profits made by multinational petrochemical corporations, communities and residents seeking more self-sufficiency will pursue solar power. See also Arctic Wildlife Refuge and Oil Drilling; Sustainability; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution Web Resources Solar Energy Links. Available at www.solarbuzz.com/Links/Environmental.htm. Accessed January 22, 2008. World Conservation Union. Energy and Environment. Available at www.iucn.org/en/news/ archive/2001_2005/press/mb_energy.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Gordon, Jeffrey. 2001. Solar Energy: The State of the Art. London: James and James/Earthscan; Laird, Frank N. 2001. Solar Energy, Technology Policy, and Institutional Value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Oldfield, Frank. 2005. Environmental Change: Key Issues and Alternative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Scheer, Hermann. 2005. A Solar Manifesto. London: James and James/Earthscan.

452

|

Sprawl

SPRAWL Sprawl is the unconstrained growth of real estate and unplanned land development. It has large environmental impacts. Controlling sprawl requires landuse regulation that can decrease the value of some property. WHY IS SPRAWL AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSY? Sprawl refers to a sprawling use of natural resources, especially land. This inefficient use of natural resources and open spaces increases avoidable and unnecessary environmental impacts, contend antisprawl groups. Poorly planned real estate development threatens our environment, our health, and our quality of life in many ways. Sprawl spreads development out over large amounts of land, paving much of it. Because Americans do not live near where they work, and land-use planning tends to separate industrial, commercial, and residential land uses, there are long distances between homes, services, and employment centers. This increases dependency on the car, which pollutes more of the environment. Sprawl decreases pedestrian or bicycle transit routes and can have a negative impact on individual and public health. Sprawling development does increase environmental impacts in air and water. As reliance on cars and pavement of more roads increases, so does air and water pollution. Sprawl destroys more than two million acres of parks, farms, and open space each year. The owners of the parks, farms, and open space sell their property willingly on the private real estate market or unwillingly when taken by government through eminent domain processes. Sprawl can begin when rural areas are allowed to subdivide their large tracts of land into smaller parcels of land for residential development. After this counties and cities decide the minimum lot size allowed for a residential use. These residential developments, called subdivisions can be large or small, built all at once or in phases, and increase demand for government services. One primary government service they demand is roads. Sprawling development increases traffic on side streets and highways. It pulls economic resources away from existing communities and spreads them out over sparse developments far away from the core. Local property taxes subsidize new roads, water and sewer lines, schools, and increased police and fire. An underlying concern with this controversy is that it leads to degradation of our older towns and cities and higher taxes. The relationship to taxes is itself a battleground. The underlying idea is that municipal services like fire, police, sanitation, and education all cost more because development is more spread out, or sprawling. Suburban sprawl uses much open and green space, increases air and water pollution. Critics claim sprawl is an institutional force, supported by tax policies, land speculation, and an unrestrained profit motive. Others claim sprawl is simply the result of unrestrained market dynamics applied to land development for profit. People move to outlying areas because land is cheaper, they reason.

Sprawl

SPRAWL-THREATENED CITIES U.S. cities are suffering from sprawl. In the United States, many municipalities may make up a given metropolitan area. They can compete with one another to develop a high tax base with low service delivery. They seldom act in a regional manner with the exception of some transportation planning. As a result, development occurs in an unplanned manner. What are the actual descriptions of sprawl? What are the environmental impacts? How do sprawl controversies unfold? Washington, D.C. The District of Columbia has steadily lost population since 1970. The outermost suburbs have experienced growth. Open space is being rapidly allocated to commercial and residential structures, roads, parking lots, and strip malls. A 1994 federal study ranked Washington, D.C., number one (ahead of Los Angeles) in the cost per person of wasted fuels and time spent stuck in traffic jams. Cincinnati, Ohio While the number of people moving into the Cincinnati metro area has not risen significantly in recent years (8 percent in the 1980s and 2.2 percent from 1990 to 1996), its land area has spread out steadily over the years: from 335 square miles in 1970 to 512 square miles in 1990, a 53 percent increase. The area grew by another 12 percent between 1990 and 1996. The average number of daily vehicle miles traveled per person increased by 29 percent between 1990 and 1996. Kansas City, Missouri The metro area has also been influenced by an extensive regional freeway system planned in the 1940s and white flight. Kansas City has paved miles of roads, sidewalks, curbs, and even streambeds. Kansas City has more freeway lane miles per capita than any other city in the country. The percentage of work trips made by people driving alone is 79.7 percent, above the national average of 73.2 percent. Public transit is poor, Public transit ridership per capita in Kansas City is one-third the average of most other cities the same size. Seattle, Washington The Seattle metropolitan region is moving southward along the coast and eastward, closer to the Cascades mountain range. The metropolitan area grew in population by 13 percent from 1990 to 1996, much of it in the outer suburbs. During the same period, population grew by only 1.6 percent in Seattle’s center

| 453

454

|

Sprawl

city. Seattle’s four-year-old urban growth boundary has helped slow down some of the unplanned sprawl. Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota Between 1982 and 1992, Minnesota lost 2.3 million acres of farmland to development. Hennepin County, where Minneapolis is located, lost the greatest proportion: 29 percent. The rate of open space destroyed by development increased by almost 25 percent in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area overall. The number of people moving to the city’s surrounding areas increased 25 percent in the 1980s and another 16 percent in the early 1990s. Few urban areas have experienced a faster-growing traffic problem than Minneapolis/St. Paul. Sprawl is a development pattern that affects all sizes of cities. It can have the same effects and controversies as in large cities.

five most sprawl-threatened medium cities (population: ,– million) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Orlando, FL Austin, TX Las Vegas, NV West Palm Beach, FL Akron, OH

five most sprawl-threatened small cities (population: ,–,) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

McAllen, TX Raleigh, NC Pensacola, FL Daytona Beach, FL Little Rock, AR

ALTERNATIVES TO SPRAWL Hundreds of urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods are using smartgrowth solutions to address the problems caused by sprawl. Examples of smartgrowth solutions include: • More public transportation • Planning pedestrian-friendly developments with transportation options; providing walking and bicycling facilities around services and parks • Building more affordable housing close to transit and jobs • Requiring greater public involvement in the transportation and land-use planning processes • Requiring developers to pay impact fees to cover the costs of new roads, schools, and water and sewer lines, and requiring environmental impact studies on new developments

Sprawl

| 455

SMART GROWTH In response to sprawl, a movement to emphasize planning in land development exists under the name of smart growth. Smart growth is development that serves the economy, the community, and the environment. It changes the terms of the development debate away from the traditional growth/no growth divide to “how and where new development should be accommodated.” Underscoring the smart-growth movement is the premise of preserving open space, farmland, wild areas, and parks as necessary for a healthy environment and community. The question of how to stop sprawl is complicated, new in the United States, and controversial. Smart growth has garnered the support of some state legislatures. However, any loss of profit in the sale of private property due to the local land-use rules required by smart growth will encounter stiff resistance from powerful lobbies of realtors, home builders, mortgage bankers, and others with a financial interest in land.

Ecosystem Preservation Given the current U.S. checkerboard pattern of many competing municipalities in any given metropolitan area, any shift toward ecosystem preservation will be extremely difficult, but many claim it is necessary. The shift is prompted by the realization that ecosystems are the appropriate units of environmental analysis and management. Wildlife must be managed as a community of interrelated species; actions that affect one species affect others. The open space plan emphasizes connections to off-site habitat and preservation of corridors rather than isolated patches. It helps to preserve patches of high-quality habitat, as large and circular as possible, feathered at the edges, and connected by wildlife corridors. Patches preserved in an urbanizing landscape should be as large as possible. In general, the bigger the size of land, the more biodiversity of species it can accommodate. Patches of 15 to 75 acres can support many bird species, smaller mammals, and most reptiles and amphibians. Wildlife corridors should be preserved to serve as land bridges between habitat islands. Riparian strips along rivers and streams are the most valuable of all corridors, used by nearly 70 percent of all species. When land is developed, a large volume of stormwater that once seeped into the ground or nourished vegetation is deflected by rooftops, roads, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces; it ends up as runoff, picking up urban pollutants as it goes. This change in hydrology creates four related problems. Peak discharges, pollutant loads, and volumes of runoff leaving a site increase, as compared to predevelopment levels. By reducing groundwater recharge, land development also reduces base flows in nearby rivers and streams. To mitigate the adverse impacts of development, there are two options: stormwater infiltration and stormwater detention. With infiltration, stormwater is retained on-site in basins, trenches, or recharge beds under pavements, allowing it to infiltrate into the ground. With detention, stormwater runoff is slowed via swales, ponds, or wetlands but ultimately discharged from the site. Experts are beginning to favor infiltration as the only complete approach to stormwater management. Where soils and water table elevations permit, infiltration can maintain the water balance in a basin and runoff before and after development using infiltration trenches, swales, different dams, and/or permeable pavements. Infiltration rates can be

456

|

Sprawl

increased by means of infiltration basins and vegetated swales, created prairies, created wetlands, and a stormwater lake to reduce runoff volumes. The swales and prairie lands clean and infiltrate runoff, while the wetlands and lake polish the outfall. Turf is used only where it serves a specific purpose, such as erosion control or recreation, rather than as fill-in material between other landscape elements. One visual preference survey found that lawns with up to 50 percent native groundcover are perceived as more attractive and less work (as well as much more natural) than are conventional turf lawns. Plants with similar irrigation requirements are grouped together into water-use zones (so-called hydrozones). Irrigation systems can then be tailored to different zones rather than operating uniformly. It is recommended that high water-use zones (consisting of turfgrasses and plants that require supplemental watering year-round) be limited to 50 percent of total landscaped area, and that drip or bubbler irrigation be used on trees, shrubs, and ornamentals. Even some of the most manicured developments are beginning to experiment with native plantings. Expect to see more of the same as other developers discover that a palette of native and adapted plants is more economical and visually pleasing than is endless turfgrass. The required environmental changes in our approaches to sprawl are severe in our current context. Many are nonetheless required. This assures that as they become more operational in education, business, and governmental practices they will also be controversial.

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The land-use decisions made today could have the most important, longterm environmental consequences for future sustainability. Innovative thinking and foresight can facilitate the creation of greenspace in development plans and how urban communities can create greenspace from previously ignored areas. The vast majority of land is privately owned. As a result, individual landowners, developers, and local governments are the principal land-use decision makers. They do not always have the same vision and foresight regarding the environment if it affects their profit from the sale of the land. U.S. metropolitan areas are spreading outward at unprecedented rates, causing alarm from Florida to California, from New Jersey to Washington State. Without changes in policy and practice, most new development will take the form of suburban sprawl, sprawl being this nation’s now-dominant development pattern. The economic and social costs will be large. By designing with nature, developers can further the goals of habitat protection, stormwater management, water conservation, and aquifer protection. Ways of furthering another environmental goal—air quality—can include natural amenities such as woodlands, hedgerows, slopes, rock outcroppings, and water bodies, which cost nothing in their pure state and are preferred by residents. Wild places (natural areas with nothing done to them at all) are a particular favorite with children. Greenbelts and other open spaces, if designed for physical and visual access, can enhance property values of nearby developable lands. With increasing population and a strong, car-based transportation infrastructure, sprawl will continue. But strong environmental and public health values oppose the negative impacts of sprawl. With a long tradition of respecting private

State Environmental Land Use |

property but with a need more brass-tacks environmental policies, controversies will continue to develop. See also Air Pollution; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Land-Use Planning in the United States; Sustainability; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution; Transportation and the Environment; Water Pollution Web Resources Sierra Club. Stopping Sprawl. Available at www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Sprawl Watch. Available at www.sprawlwatch.org/. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smartgrowth. Available at www.epa.gov/smart growth/about_sg.htm. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York: Random House; Hayden, Dolores. 2004. A Field Guide to Sprawl. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.; Sierra Club. 1999. Solving Sprawl: The Sierra Club Rates the States. Washington, DC: Sierra Club; Wolch, Jennifer, Manual Pastor, and Peter Dreier, eds. 2004. Up Against the Sprawl. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE States exert strong control over their public lands. As such they face some of the same controversies of multiple uses on land meant for conservation as does the federal government. Additionally state environmental agencies are delegated authority over many environmental laws via memorandums of understanding from regional offices of federal agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Millions of dollars pour into states via these memorandums about environment laws, especially enforcement by the state environmental agency of federal environmental laws. State agencies are often delegated the authority to issue industrial permits. Many state environmental agencies employ more permit writers to assist industry with compliance in single consultations then they do environmental enforcement personnel. Controversies about environmentally degrading uses on state-owned public lands (like parks), enforcement of environmental laws, permit renewal and modification, and new permits all evoke considerable consternation from communities and local elected officials. BACKGROUND OF LEGAL BASIS FOR STATE CONTROL As individual states became more urbanized, land development and use regulations became acceptable methods for resolving conflicts. Metropolitan areas, such as New York, Boston, Cleveland, and Los Angeles, were the first to face the land-use controversies that accompanied urban growth. At that time, local authority over land-use control was conducted on a case-by-case and piecemeal basis. The result was a hodgepodge of developmental regulatory policies, programs, ordinances, and resolutions that numbed the mind and destroyed coherent approaches to community planning. This confusing situation led to the

457

458

|

State Environmental Land Use

Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SSZEA). This has been adopted in some form by most states. The U.S. Constitution defines the federal government’s relationship to the states, but the Constitution does not refer to local governments because local governments are considered to be creatures of state government. Thus, they derive their authority from the laws of the states where they are located, and they possess only those powers given to them by the state, either through state constitutions or state statutes, or both. The power of localities to control the uses of land within their borders derives from state statutes and, like many other areas of the law, states have not uniformly granted broad authorization for local governments to engage in land-use planning and zoning. There are a number of recent trends worth noting. In 1999, the American Planning Association (APA), as part of its multiyear Growing Smart effort, surveyed state laws on local land-use planning to determine how many states continue to authorize planning based on the 1928 Standard City Planning Enabling Act. The survey found that almost half of the states (24) had not updated their local planning statutes since 1928, and only 11 states had adopted substantial updates of their laws. Seven states had slightly updated their planning enabling acts, and eight states were classified as having made moderate updates. Other findings from this survey are discussed further on in the section on comprehensive land-use planning. The long history of state and local roles in land-use planning and zoning has been an important influence on current opportunities for reforms to address environmental issues. The nation was clearly in a different place in the 1920s when the cities were grappling with myriad social and environmental stresses. But today, even with the technological revolution, newer and perhaps even more complex social and environmental issues are being confronted as the nation strives to achieve some level of sustainable development and as the economic, environmental, and equity challenges are no longer contained within cities but now spread throughout suburban and rural communities as well. The American Planning Association has identified many factors to consider in reforming state planning statutes, including: • • • •

Ongoing problems of housing affordability, Lack of housing diversity, Exposure of life and property to natural hazards, and The obligation to promote social equity—“the expansion of opportunities for betterment, creating more choices for those who have few”—in the face of economic and spatial separation.

Various planning and zoning enabling statutes have had an impact on the ability of local governments to consider and address environmental concerns by controlling land use. There is a renewed interest in modernizing and reforming many states’ outmoded planning and zoning laws. This interest presents a unique opportunity for environmental and community advocates to provide leadership by securing the passage of revised state enabling statutes that will

State Environmental Land Use |

empower local governments to address these issues more effectively through land-use planning and zoning. However, the gap between environmental planning and land-use planning at the local level is large. That is one reason the states fill the void with their version of environmental planning. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Environmental planning is the analysis of how people impact natural resources. Decisions made regarding development and conservation, zoning, and land use may have visible and invisible impacts on the environment. Visible impacts include major land disturbances, loss of natural areas and wildlife, or pollution. Invisible impacts may be contamination of land, water, and air by point or nonpoint source pollution. Environmental planning projects involve protecting natural resources for future generations, identifying problem areas (such as stormwater, erosion hazards, and threatened sensitive areas), and developing strategies for correcting those problems. Some states do this, but very few localities do so. State approaches are more focused on industrial compliance measures than on prioritizing environmental assessment and monitoring with adequate resources. Many environmental controversies have the involvement of the states, either as property owners, caretakers of natural resources, recipients of federal environmental funds, or enforcers of environmental laws. All these controversies are complicated by the controversies tied in with the power to take private property that the state can exercise. Communities distrust state agencies that seem to cater to industry by granting permits without community input or approval. There are very few environmental policies in the United States that do not rely on the states in some way. It is likely this controversy will play out in the battleground of electoral politics. As environmental impacts become known among residents, and as the state may sometime preempt local land-use resistance, citizen frustration may result in a stronger environmental policy role for local government. See also Federal Environmental Land Use; “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution Web Resources North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Section: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Program. Available at h2o.enr.state.nc.us/sepa/index.htm. Accessed January 22, 2008. State Environmental Planning Information. Available at www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/states/ states.cfm. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Environmental Law Institute. 2003. Planning for Biodiversity: Authorities in State Land Use Laws. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute; May, Peter J. 1996. Environmental Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches to Hazards and Sustainability. London: Routledge.

459

460

| Stock Grazing and the Environment

STOCK GRAZING AND THE ENVIRONMENT The grazing of cattle, sheep, and goats provides food but has environmental impacts. In some environments stock grazing can be destructive. Stockmen use 70 percent of the U.S. West for raising livestock, and most of this land is owned by the public. Experts and environmental activists consider ranching the rural West’s most harmful environmental influence. Many animals naturally graze or eat plants such as grasses and leaves. Some animals and plants develop strong symbiotic relationships with each other in the natural environment. Grazing animals in nature can fill important parts of the food chain in a given ecosystem. Many predators rely on them for food. Humans learned that raising your own animals was easier and more reliable than hunting them. Since early civilization, humans have grazed animals such as sheep, cattle, and goats. With the advent of large moving herds of the same grazing animal, environmental impacts increased, especially over time and in the context of increasing human population. Increasing population and expanding development reduce the amount of pastureland available and can increase the environmental impacts on the pastureland left. Increasing population also increases demand for food. The demand for meat and animal products drives the overall production of meat and the need for efficient industrial production processes. Part of these more efficient processes is producing the most meat per acre, which may have environmental impacts. Producing meat from pastures generally requires a minimum pasture size, depending on pasture quality and grazing animal. GLOBAL CONTEXT Not all pastureland is affected by large stock grazing systems. Approximately 60 percent of the world’s pastureland is covered by grazing systems. This is just less than half the world’s usable surface. The grazing land supports about 360 million cattle, and over 600 million sheep and goats. Grazing lands supply about 9 percent of the world’s production of beef and about 30 percent of the world’s production of sheep and goat meat. For an estimated 200 million people grazing livestock is the only source of livelihood. For many other people grazing animals is the basis of a subsistence lifestyle and culture. U.S. CONTEXT Ranching is big business in the United States. Although concentrated in the western United States, other states have some ranching interests. Hawaii, for instance, has the biggest ranch in the United States in the Parker Ranch on Hilo. One battleground is the use of federal land for grazing. The federal government is a large landowner is western ranching states. In the western United States, 80 percent of federal land and 70 percent of all land is used for livestock grazing. The federal government grants permits to ranchers for their herds to use federal lands. The mean amount of land allotted per western grazing permittee is 11,818 acres. Many ranchers own both private property and permits from the federal

Stock Grazing and the Environment |

government for ranching public land. The public lands portion is usually many times larger than the private. Cattle and sheep have always comprised the vast majority of livestock on public land. Cattle consume about 96 percent of the estimated total grazed forage on public land in the United States. There are some small public lands ranchers, but corporate ranchers and large individual operators control the market now. This is also a battleground because some say they are doing so with the aid of the U.S. government. Many of the permits are with long-term leases at below-market rates. Forty percent of federal grazing is controlled by 3 percent of permittees. On the national scale, nearly 80 percent of all beef processing is controlled by only three agricultural conglomerates. ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS Stock grazing can damage the environment by overgrazing, soil degradation, water contamination, and deforestation. Seventy-three percent of the world’s 4.5 billion hectares of pasture is moderately or severely degraded already. Livestock and their need for safe pastures is one reason for deforestation of tropical rain forests. Prolonged heavy grazing contributes to species extinction and the subsequent dominance by other plants, which may not be suitable for grazing. Other wild grazing animals are also affected by the loss of plant biodiversity. Such loss of plant and animal biodiversity can have severe environmental impacts. In sensitive environments, such as alpine and reclaimed desert environments, the impacts of overgrazing can be irreversible. Livestock overgrazing has ecological impacts on soil and water systems. Overgrazing causes soil compaction and erosion and can dramatically increase sensitivity to drought, landslides, and mudslides. Actions to mitigate environmental impacts of overgrazing include preservation of riparian areas, place-sensitive grazing rotations, and excluding ranchers from public lands. All these are battlegrounds. Ranchers resent the government telling them how to run their business and resist taking these steps because they cost them money. Excluding ranchers dramatically increases the intensity of the battleground, but is the preferred solution for many conservationists. Some of the areas that benefit from these types of mitigation include: • grasslands, grassy woodlands, and forests on infertile, shallow, or skeletal soils; • grassy woodlands and forests in which trees constrain grass biomass levels and prevent dominant grasses from outcompeting smaller herbs; and • other ecosystems on unproductive soils that occur amongst grassy ecosystems within managed areas. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Given climate change, population growth, and the dependence of people on grazing animals it is likely this controversy will increase. In the United States,

461

462

|

Supplemental Environmental Projects

perceptions of a vested property right in U.S. land by ranchers, their families, and their communities clash with the reality that this is land held in trust for all citizens of the United States. As environmental restrictions on grazing on public and private lands challenge this perception, courts and federal agencies will be front-and-center battlegrounds in this controversy. As concern about endangered species and sustainability rises, so too will these battlegrounds enter this controversy. See also Climate Change; Endangered Species; Federal Environmental Land Use; Global Warming; Rain Forests; Sustainability; True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics Web Resources Holechek, Jerry L., and Karl Hess, Jr. Government Policy Influences on Rangeland Conditions in the United States: A Case Example. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Available at www.springerlink.com/content/w35t2181714478v1/. Accessed January 22, 2008. van den Brink, Rogier, Glen Thomas, Hans Binswanger, John Bruce, and Frank Byamugisha. Consensus, Confusion, and Controversy: Selected Land Reform Issues in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Working Paper, no 71. Available at www.landcoalition.org/pdf/ wb06_wp71.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Davis, Charles E. 2000. Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Robbins, William G., and William Cronon. 2004. Landscapes of Conflict: The Oregon Story, 1940–2000. Seattle: University of Washington Press; Wilkinson, Charles F. 1993. Crossing the Next Meridian. Washington, DC: Island Press.

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS Supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) are performed by environmental violators as alternatives to fines; they may be viewed as a form of community service (performed instead of the jail time or a monetary penalty). Conventional environmental enforcement results in fines paid to government treasuries and, often, injunctive relief (judicially imposed requirements to return to compliance). Supplemental environmental projects, on the other hand, target environmental improvement beyond the immediate violation and its effects. They are used in settlements between regulators and violators and also in settlement of private citizen suits enforcing environmental laws. Although relatively new and very constrained by law, communities and some environmental groups advocate for their use, although some community groups are unaware of SEPs. Government environmental agencies have been lukewarm to the idea, and industry seems to be adopting a wait-and-see approach. The current enforcement of environmental law is itself controversial. Generally the Environmental Protection Agency or state environmental agencies enforce the terms and conditions of permits, licenses, and court cases. If the industry or municipality or other entity accused of environmental wrongdoing challenges it, they must first exhaust all administrative remedies before getting a court to

Supplemental Environmental Projects

accept jurisdiction. If a big case is headed to court, the EPA will give it to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution. Some have accused the EPA of being captive to industry because of their leniency toward wrongdoers. Supplemental environmental projects are environmentally beneficial projects that a violator voluntarily agrees to undertake during settlement of an enforcement action. The purpose of an SEP is to secure significant environmental or public health protection improvements beyond those achieved by bringing the violator into compliance. The violator is not under a preexisting legal requirement to do the project. The proposed cash penalty may be lowered if the violator chooses to perform an acceptable SEP. An acceptable SEP must improve, protect, or reduce risks to public health or the environment and have a relationship with the violation. The EPA does not manage or control the money for the project. The EPA does provide enough oversight to ensure that the company follows through on what it promises to do. CHARACTERISTICS OF SEPs Because SEPs are part of an enforcement settlement they must meet certain legal requirements. There must be a relationship between the underlying violation and the human health or environmental benefits that will result from the SEP. An SEP must improve, protect, or reduce risks to public health or the environment, although in some cases an SEP may, as a secondary matter, also provide the violator with certain benefits. The SEP must be undertaken in settlement of an enforcement action as a project that the violator is not otherwise legally required to perform. SEP GUIDELINES There are several guidelines that an SEP must meet. A project cannot be inconsistent with any provision of the underlying statute(s). An SEP must advance at least one of the objectives of the environmental statute that is the basis of the enforcement action. The EPA must not play any role in managing or controlling funds used to perform an SEP. CATEGORIES OF ACCEPTABLE SEPs The EPA has set out eight categories of projects that can be acceptable SEPs. To qualify, an SEP must fit into at least one of the following categories. • Public Health: SEPs may include examining residents in a community to determine if anyone has experienced any health problems because of the company’s violations. • Pollution Prevention: These SEPs involve changes so that the company no longer generates some form of pollution. For example, a company may make its operation more efficient so that it avoids making a hazardous waste along with its product.

|

463

464

|

Supplemental Environmental Projects

• Pollution Reduction: These SEPs reduce the amount and/or danger presented by some form of pollution, often by providing better treatment and disposal of the pollutant. • Environmental Restoration and Protection: These SEPs improve the condition of the land, air, or water in the area damaged by the violation. For example, by purchasing land or developing conservation programs for the land, a company could protect a source of drinking water. • Emergency Planning and Preparedness: These projects provide assistance to a responsible state or local emergency response or planning entity to enable these organizations to fulfill their obligations under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA.) Such assistance may include the purchase of computers and/or software, communication systems, chemical emission detection and inactivation equipment, HAZMAT equipment, or training. Cash donations to local or state emergency response organizations are not acceptable SEPs. • Assessments and Audits: A violating company may agree to examine its operations to determine if it is causing any other pollution problems or can run its operations better to avoid violations in the future. These audits go well beyond standard business practice. • Environmental Compliance Promotion: These are SEPs in which an alleged violator provides training or technical support to other members of the regulated community to achieve, or go beyond, compliance with applicable environmental requirements. For example, the violator may train other companies on how to comply with the law. Other Types of Projects Other acceptable SEPs would be those that have environmental merit but do not fit within the categories listed previously. These types of projects must be fully consistent with all other provisions of the SEP policy and be approved by the EPA. Some have advocated for the expanded use of SEPs to preconviction phases of enforcement policy. That is, before an environmental wrongdoer or violator is found guilty they could opt for an SEP, without an admission of guilt. An admission of guilt at this stage of enforcement is very expensive for the industry in terms of future agency scrutiny, higher fines if the act is repeated, loss of community goodwill, and sometimes higher insurance premiums. A judicially supported agency finding of environmental violations or crimes will also make it easier for later courts to entertain environmental lawsuits. The industrial reputation of fighting and losing charges of pollution develops a body of evidence, and sometimes proof, that enables later suits to sustain industry’s legal attempts to dismiss the case. The manufacturer of Lucite did such an SEP, remedying the water pollution caused by its emissions and empowering the community to monitor water quality and organize around environmental issues.

Supplemental Environmental Projects

CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLES OF SEPs Public Health SEPs may include examining residents in a community to determine if anyone has experienced any health problems because of the company’s violations. City of Timpson Electric Utility Identify all existing oil-filled electrical equipment within City of Timpson electrical utility system that contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at one part per million (ppm) or greater. Remove from service and properly dispose of all PCBs and PCB equipment that contains PCBs at 50 ppm or greater. Cost = $58,885.00 Pollution Prevention SEPs involve changes so that the company no longer produces some form of pollution. For example, a company may make its operation more efficient so that it avoids making a hazardous waste along with its product. Formosa Plastics Corporation Replace two ethylene dichloride (EDC) furnaces seven to eight years before the end of their expected useful life. Cost = $6,600,000.00 Pollution Reduction SEPs are like pollution prevention, projects. Instead of eliminating the source of pollution, these projects reduce the amount and/or danger presented by some form of pollution, often by providing better treatment and disposal of the pollutant. Micro Chemical Company Sponsor household hazardous waste collection (HHW) event for Franklin Parish, Louisiana, for the next five years. Provide public with educational material concerning management of HHW at home. Several tons of waste will be kept out of landfills Cost = $25,280.00 Environmental Restoration and Protection SEPs that improve the condition of the land, air, or water in the area damaged by the violation. For example, by purchasing land or developing conservation programs for the land, a company could protect a source of drinking water.

|

465

466

|

Supplemental Environmental Projects

Lead Products Company, Inc. Remove contamination from soil and pave road to reduce exposure; provide public education and outreach. Cost = $5,000.00 Emergency Planning and Preparedness SEPs provide technical assistance and training to state or local emergency planning and response organizations to help them better respond to chemical emergencies. Chem Service, Inc. Donate $2,000 in equipment, $2,000 to Oklahoma local emergency planning committee’s (LEPC) regional conference, and $4,000 in support over two years to LEPC. Cost = $8,000.00 Assessments and Audits Company identifies opportunities to reduce emissions and improve environmental performance. Camp Stanley Storage Activity Hire an on-site expert to audit and implement actions to review all inadequate hazardous waste management practices. Cost = $555,000.00 Environmental Compliance Promotion Provides training or technical support to other members of the regulated community to help achieve and maintain compliance, or to reduce pollutants beyond legal requirements. National Tank Company, Inc. Conduct Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) training seminar for local industry. Affected industry is primarily metal fabrication and coating. Cost = $9,861.00 Other Types of Projects SEPs that have environmental merit but do not fit within the categories listed previously. These projects must be fully consistent with all other provisions of the SEP policy and be approved by the EPA.

Supplemental Environmental Projects

|

467

WANGARI MAATHAI Wangari Maathai is the first African woman and first environmentalist to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Awarded to her in 2004, it recognizes outstanding accomplishment. She was born in 1940 in Nyeri, Kenya. She is the inspirational founder of the Green Belt Movement. This movement uses networks of rural women to plant trees. Since 1977 they have planted over 40 million trees. She began her tree-planting citizen initiative in 1976. From there, Professor Maathai developed it into the Green Belt Movement. In 1986 that Green Belt Movement established a Pan African Green Belt Network. Several African countries have started similar environmental conservation efforts. These include Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Lesotho, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe. In Africa, women are responsible for collecting firewood. Increasing deforestation has meant that women have had to travel further to get the firewood. This in turn has led to women spending less time around the home, earning income, and raising their families. In deforested areas streams often dry up faster, with no trees to shade rivers and to retain water. Women are also responsible for water collection and must also go farther for water. Sometimes the search for wood and water is risky, and it is always time consuming. By having wood and water closer to home and earning income from sustainably harvesting the trees, women became empowered through conservation. Professor Maathai was the first woman in East and Central Africa to earn a doctoral degree. Ms. Maathai first took a degree in biological sciences from Mount St. Scholastica College in Atchison, Kansas, in 1964. She next earned a master of science degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1966. She earned her PhD in 1971 from the University of Nairobi. She also taught veterinary anatomy there, eventually becoming chair of the department. Professor Maathai is internationally recognized for her environmental efforts and expertise. She addressed the United Nations (UN) on several occasions. She has advocated for both the environment and for women. She has also participated in many of the most important and influential environmental summits that result in environmental agreements and treaties. She has worked with UN Commission for Global Governance and the Commission on the Future. For further information see Wangari Maathai, Unbowed: A Memoir (New York: Anchor Books, 2007).

Coco Resources, Inc. For RCRA violation, install fence around facility to separate facility from fireworks stand and day care; construct secondary containment for storage of products that contain hazardous constituents; install ventilation vents inside warehouse; and implement risk management plan. For Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) violation, donate $500 in emergency equipment to LEPC; donate $500 to annual regional LEPC conference; and attend LEPC meetings for two years. Cost = $11,650.00

468

|

Supplemental Environmental Projects

POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The current legal limitations on SEPs and the fact that they are used postconviction make it difficult to judge how controversial they would be in a broader policy application. In addition, the settlements are not nearly as publicized as the efforts going into creating environmental standards, so SEPs are a form of stealth policy. By directing the resources of the wrongdoer towards benefiting the environment rather than enriching the treasury, environmental outcomes and community satisfaction could be expected to be better. However, some have expressed concern that the receipt of SEP project funds by community groups could imperil their independence and impartiality. Also, community groups wonder whether some companies perform projects as SEPs that they would otherwise be doing for business reasons. SEPs are being used more by state and federal agencies. SEPs do rely on an environmental knowledge base that is incomplete at the present, although rapidly growing. Industries that are rooted in the community often see SEPs as a way to enhance their image. Industries that can move may not share that perception. Corporations may believe that the costs of administering SEPs outweigh the benefits that they reap in goodwill, also. Environmental groups, especially land preservation groups, embrace SEPs. But SEPs must achieve a higher profile and win over institutional resistance toward their use, before they can make substantial contributions to environmental and public health. See also Litigation of Environmental Disputes Web Resources Model SEP CAFO. Available at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/seps/sep cafo.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2008. University of California, Hastings College of the Law, The Center for State and Local Government Law. “Supplemental Environmental Projects: A Fifty State Survey with Model Practices.” Available at www.uchastings.edu/cslgl/SEPs.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Call for SEP Ideas. Available at www.epa.gov/compliance/ resources/publications/civil/programs/call-sepsprojects.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SEP Policy memo. Available at www.epa.gov/compli ance/resources/policies/civil/seps/fnlsup-hermn-mem.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supplemental Environmental Projects Library. Available at yosemite1.epa.gov/r6/r6w3c2.nsf/SEPFacility?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Friedman, Frank B. 2003. Practical Guide to Environmental Management. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute; Payne, Scott M. 1998. Strategies for Accelerating Cleanup at Toxic Waste Sites: Fast-Tracking Environmental Actions and Decision Making. Singapore: CRC Press; Rechtschaffen, Clifford, and David L. Markell. 2003. Reinventing Environmental Enforcement and the State/Federal Relationship. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute; Thomas Jr., William L., Bertram C. Frey, and Fern Fleischer Daves. 2000. Crafting Superior Environmental Enforcement Solutions. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.

Sustainability | 469

SUSTAINABILITY Sustainable development is development that places equal emphasis on environment, economics, and equity rather than economic interests above all others. It is controversial because it limits human activities in light of their environmental and equitable impacts on all affected communities. Sustainability is controversial in the first instance because of confusion over the application of the term. Its perhaps most intuitive meaning is one that allows for the environment, or nature, to thrive. However, Western nations have used the term to mean sustainable development. Sustainable development assumes continuous economic growth, without irreparably or irreversibly damaging the environment. Human population growth is difficult for this model because it is difficult to place an economic value on the lives that exist in the future. Some environmentalists challenge the assumption of growth at all. The fundamental battleground for this emerging controversy is one of values. The continued prioritization of economic growth over environmental protection, combined with population increases, may have irreparable impacts on the environment and therefore any type of sustainable policy. So most environmentalists do use the term sustainable development because that is better than nothing at all. The underlying value differences still exist. Some values may simply not be sustainable in any sense of the term, but are important histories of powerful countries. GLOBAL BACKGROUND In 1987, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then-prime minister of Norway, authored a report for the World Commission on Environment and Development called “Our Common Future.” In it, she described a concept of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This has become the defining statement about sustainable human development. Sustainability focuses on fairness to future generations by ensuring that the ecosystems on which all life depends are not lost or degraded, and poverty is eradicated. Sustainable development seeks these goals of environmental protection and ending poverty by implementing several key concepts in development policies and practices. The UN Conferences on Environment and Development (UNCEDs) have become the forums in which these key concepts have been turned into implementable policy statements. The agreements and statements resulting from these conferences are often identified by their host city. Perhaps the most famous of these conferences was the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. At this conference the nations of the world, including the United States, agreed to implement seven key concepts to ensure sustainable development in a declaration called the Rio Declaration and they also wrote out a work plan called Agenda 21, which remains the source of much international controversy to this day. The

470

|

Sustainability

seven key principles emerging from the Earth Summit, and found in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, are: 1. Integrated decision making (three Es: environment, social equity, and economics) 2. Polluter pays 3. Sustainable consumption and production 4. Precautionary principle 5. Intergenerational equity 6. Public participation 7. Differentiated responsibilities and leadership Another famous conference based upon this same UNCED plan was held in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, resulting in the Kyoto protocols on climate change and the limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. Although a signatory to the protocols, the United States has not moved forward with ratification of the protocols even though it is the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide, because it disagrees with the exemptions given to developing economies like China and India. The idea of sustainable development is a fundamentally different model of growth and development from the model of colonial and industrial development. It stresses equality in the distribution of benefits from development between developed and under- or undeveloped nations. It also stresses equal distribution of the benefits of development between contemporaries within developing nations. This egalitarian model of development recognizes the inequitable distribution of environmental and economic burdens created by the development policies associated with industrial capitalism and colonial powers. Additionally, the model of sustainable development would require governments to place constraints on development that have not been present before. Development is often a matter of constructing infrastructure such as roads, bridges and dams. Sustainable development requires the consideration of environmental and social concerns in such projects, not simply maximizing short-term economic benefits at the sacrifice of the environment or communities within that developmental area. Development also often means new manufacturing methods. Sustainable development requires commitment to the principles and practices of clean production and manufacturing techniques rather than continued reliance on fossil fuels, or other dirty energies to propel manufacturing. Shifting models of development raise controversies that may involve problems of unequal opportunity for women and subordinated ethnic groups and the environmental impacts of industrial use of natural resources. These controversies stem from the development policies and practices of an earlier age that did not require accountability for the social or environmental consequences of development. The changed model has been hardest to accept in the United States. CONTROVERSIES FOR BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIES Sustainable development requires businesses and industries to adopt clean manufacturing goals and technologies. This often means designing pollution

Sustainability | 471

and waste out of their manufacturing cycle (industrial ecology) and thinking about their product in terms of its total life span, beyond its point of sale (product life cycle management). Additionally, clean production may also require a substantial investment in new technology and plants, investment that is prohibitive to small business enterprises. These requirements challenge businesses and industries in virtually all sectors of an economy to change what they are doing and how they are doing it. What makes the task of change even harder is the fact that many established businesses and industries have been subsidized directly or indirectly through tax benefits conferred by national governments, which enhance the reluctance of businesses to change. But some businesses have pioneered change by embracing concepts of a restorative economy and natural capitalism. Businesses that have taken short-term transitional losses to eliminate waste and toxins in their product and production methods have been rewarded in long-term economic gains, as well as creating measurable improvements in their environmental impacts. These businesses have embraced the linkage between environment and economy, but they have not necessarily incorporated communities and their well-being into this new model. ENVIRONMENTALISTS Environmentalists have documented the scope of environmental degradation all ecosystems are suffering as the result of human activities. The news they deliver is sobering. Human activity is threatening to cause the collapse of the living systems on which all life on our planet depends. This leads some environmentalists to advocate protection of the environment above all other concerns, including economic concerns and the needs of human communities. Trying to determine the causes for this dangerous state of the environment leads some environmentalists to identify population growth as the most substantial factor. Others point to use of fossil fuel to propel our activities. Still others identify overconsumption of resources as the basis for this state of environmental degradation. Environmentalists employing such data and using this type of formula often find themselves in conflict with business and industry as they press urgently for changes in manufacturing processes. Mainstream environmentalists tend to be from relatively privileged backgrounds including wealth and educational opportunities. They frequently find themselves in conflict with communities and developing countries for their stands about population control and their relative indifference about the plight of the poor, who bear the costs of unsustainable practices more than any other class. COMMUNITIES Communities and their physical and economic well-being are often excluded from decision making concerning economic opportunities and environmental consequences with which they must live. This exclusion can arise from structural separation between different administrative branches of government, or from the

472

|

Sustainability

INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY Industrial ecology is the shifting of industrial process from open loop systems, in which resource and capital investments move through the system to become waste, to a closed loop system where wastes become inputs for new processes. Robert Frosch first proposed the idea of industrial ecology in an article published in Scientific American in 1989. He asked, “Why would not our industrial system behave like an ecosystem, where the wastes of a species may be resource to another species? Why would not the outputs of an industry be the inputs of another, thus reducing use of raw materials, pollution, and saving on waste treatment?” The idea of industrial ecology is to model this human-made system on the performance of those based on natural capital that do not have waste in them. The term industrial ecology was defined as a systematic analysis of industrial operations by including factors like technology, environment, natural resources, biomedical aspects, institutional and legal matters as well as socioeconomic aspects. Industrial ecology conceptualizes industrial systems like a factory or industrial plant as a human-made ecosystem based on human investments of infrastructural capital rather than reliant on natural capital. Along with more general energy conservation and material conservation goals, and redefining commodity markets and product stewardship relations strictly as a service economy, industrial ecology is one of the four objectives of natural capitalism. This strategy discourages forms of amoral purchasing arising from ignorance of what goes on at a distance and implies a political economy that values natural capital highly and relies on more instructional capital to design and maintain each unique industrial ecology.

separation between different levels of government. It can also arise from cultural and social forces that formally or informally operate to exclude poor people or people stigmatized by historical discrimination. Exclusion of community interests and participation affects the viability and efficiency of efforts to protect the environment and to develop a community economically in several ways. People driven by insecurity as to basic living conditions are likely to accept employment opportunities regardless of consequences to human and environmental health. This eliminates labor as an agent of change toward sustainable production technologies and allows continued pollution and waste to be externalized into the environment with long-term disastrous consequences for human health. Moreover, people faced with exposure and hunger will also contribute to environmental degradation to meet basic life needs. Whether in a developed or a developing country, poverty and the inability to meet basic needs for food, shelter, and care make some human communities even more vulnerable to environmentally degraded conditions of work, living, recreation, and education. Conflicts arise as these communities strive to participate in environmental decision making and decisions concerning the use of natural resources. These communities are often not welcomed into dialogue at a meaningful and early stage and are forced to seize opportunities to participate in controversial ways. In the United States, the environmental justice movement has pioneered processes of public participation designed to ensure community involvement

Sustainability | 473

with environmental decision making. Internationally, the United Nations has developed a convention to assure such participation, the Aarhus Convention. Banks and other international lenders are beginning to require such community participation in development projects. For example, the World Bank has now required community participation and accountability to communities in its lending programs under the Equator Principles. Additionally, people including ethnically stigmatized groups and women, disadvantaged by informal social forces are striving to use these methods, and others to participate in environmental and economic decision making. In the United States these efforts are being developed through the environmental justice movement. Internationally, the United Nations supports efforts to build strong nongovernmental organizations through which these and other community interests can be effectively championed. The UN activities are being developed through the Civil Society initiatives. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSIES There is a strong international and national push for a new kind of environmentalism that includes sustainable development. Like all the environmental policies before it, sustainable development policies will need to have accurate, timely, and continuous data of all environmental impacts to be truly effective. So far knowledge needs about environmental impacts generate strong political controversies. In the United States most of the industry information is self-reported, the environmental laws are weakly enforced, and environmental governmental agencies are new. Sustainability will be controversial because it will push open old controversies like right-to-know laws, corporate audit and antidisclosure laws, citizen monitoring of environmental decisions, the precautionary principle, true cost accounting, unequal enforcement of environmental laws, and cumulative impacts. The concept of sustainability has captured the environmental imagination of a broad range of stakeholders. No one group is against it, in principle. It is the application of the principle that fires up underlying value differences and old and continuing controversies. In many ways, the strong growth of the principles of sustainability represents exasperation with older, incomplete environmental policies. These policies now seem piecemeal, ineffective in individual application, and an impediment to collaboration with other agencies or environmental stakeholders. The new processes of policies of sustainability could be radically different than environmental decision making is now. Communities are demanding sustainability, some even if adopting the Kyoto principles even if the United States will not sign it under President George W. Bush. They want to be an integral part of the process, especially as they learn about the land, air, and water around them. As environmental literacy spreads so too will all the unresolved environmental controversy. It is these controversies that lay the groundwork for the functional advancement of U.S. environmental policy. Sustainability will require complete inclusion of all environmental impacts, past, present, and future.

474

|

Sustainability

See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Environmental Impact Statements: International; Precautionary Principle; True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics Web Resources The Equator Principles. Available at www.equator-principles.com/index.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. Union of Concerned Scientists. Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/. Accessed January 22, 2008. The United Nations and Civil Society. Available at www.un.org/issues/civilsociety. Accessed January 22, 2008. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The Aarhus Convention. Available at www.unece.org/env/pp/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Apostolopoulos, Yiorgos, and Dennis John Gayle. 2002. Island Tourism and Sustainable Development: Caribbean, Pacific and Mediterranean Experiences. Westport, CT: Praeger; Dernbach, John C. 2000. Stumbling toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute; Doob, Leonard William. 1995. Sustainers and Sustainability: Attitudes, Attributes, and Actions for Survival. Westport, CT: Praeger; Harris, Jonathan M. 2001. A Survey of Sustainable Development: Social and Economic Dimensions. MO: Island Press; Hawken, Paul. 1993. Ecology of Commerce (The): A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperCollins; Maser, Chris. 1999. Ecological Diversity in Sustainable Development: The Vital and Forgotten Dimension. New York: Lewis Publishers; Rao, P. K. 2000. Sustainable Development. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; Riddell, Robert. 2004. Sustainable Urban Planning: Tipping the Balance. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; Wackernagel, Mathis, and William Rees. 1995. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Robin Morris Collin

T “TAKINGS” OF PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION The role of government and its ability to take away property owned by private citizens is one of the foundations of the U.S. concept of liberty. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The government can take private property but it must be for a public purpose and they must pay you what they determine to be fair market value. This is called the eminent domain of the state to pursue the greater good. Environmentalists advocate for a stronger role for government to control environmentally harmful practices of private property owners. If governments can regulate land without taking away the property, then no compensation needs to be paid. Regulations that do essentially take the value of the property down to zero may require the government to pay compensation for lost value. Governments seek to avoid this but are under increasing pressure from community groups and other voters to stop environmentally nonsustainable and dangerous uses of private property. The crux of this deep institutional controversy is the need to act in an ecological manner in the face of political land control and distribution regimes. Land-use law is a murky jurisprudence, with governments suing other governments, citizens seeking redress in the courts, and a strong focus on takings. Historically, it was unusual for the U.S. Supreme Court to even consider land-use cases, preferring to leave these to the state and local control. This U.S. Supreme Court has been more active. Many state constitutions have dynamic takings provisions. Their interpretation has changed over time by different state courts. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that certain regulations can go too far and therefore result in 475

476

| “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution

takings that require the government to compensate the landowner if they need the land. In general, the Court has ruled that regulation only results in a taking when it eliminates all or substantially all of the property’s value. Business proponents of the modern takings agenda argue that regulations that limit the potential value of land and other property result in takings, which causes a loss of value that must be compensated for by the government. This includes many environmental rules and laws. These proponents do not address what happens when a government act increases the value of their land; they just assume it is their personal profit. An example of this is when the government builds a train station. All the retail trade property owners have a better site, and the value of the property goes up. The U.S. land-use system does not recognize givings as the English do. The courts will play a powerful role in determining the direction of the taking issue because of its constitutional roots. This is true for several reasons: • The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of a constitutional provision such as the takings clause. Absent a further amendment to the Constitution (a rare event), citizens and their elected representatives are powerless to overturn the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. • The courts are inherently conservative institutions. Once the Supreme Court establishes precedent in some field of law, the Court tends to revise its precedents, if at all, only reluctantly and over a relatively long period of time. Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has taken a number of important steps in the direction of expanding the takings clause as a constraint on the ability of elected representatives to adopt regulations to protect the environment and other aspects of the public welfare. OREGON’S TEMPORARY TAKINGS COMPENSATION Measure 37 Oregonians approved Measure 37 in November 2004 by 61 percent to 39 percent. Oregon, like several other states and territories of the United States, votes on citizen initiatives if enough signatures from citizens are gathered. These initiatives often take the form of measures. In terms of policy, they vary widely in scope, content, and legality. Measure 37 allows a property owner to receive compensation for any land-use regulation passed since the owner or his family controlled the property or, alternatively, waive any land-use regulation enacted since the owner has had the property. All counties in Oregon have decided to use waivers as the primary way to address Measure 37 claims; some have reserved a small amount of money to compensate exceptional claims.

Oregon’s Land-Use Planning System: An Early State Approach In 1973, Senate Bill 100 was passed by the Oregon Legislature and signed into law, creating a statewide planning program that has since been expanded. Many statewide

“Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution

| 477

environmental groups, especially 1,000 Friends of Oregon, advocated for passage of this law. The planning program is coordinated by the state Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Department of Land Conservation and Development but implemented by local governments. Local governments develop growth and zoning plans that then must be approved by the state. The most controversial element of these plans is often the urban growth boundary, which limits how property can be sold or developed outside those boundaries. Many proponents of Measure 37 have objected to restrictions on building homes, including for owner-occupancy and subdividing. As of 2006 all of Oregon’s 240 cities and 36 counties have comprehensive land-use plans, every city area has an urban growth boundary that separates urban uses from rural farm and forest uses, and all sensitive coastal lands and estuaries on Oregon’s coast are part of a comprehensive management plan. Using land-use planning, Oregon has concentrated population growth in cities: for instance, between 1979 and 1999, the Portland Metro area had a 40 percent increase in population and only a 20 percent increase in urbanized land, while between 1990 and 1996, Kansas City had a 5 percent increase in population and a 70 percent increase in urbanized land. The land-use plans have also maintained amounts of farmland at the same time many states, including Pennsylvania and Florida, lost significant amounts of farmland. In addition to land-use planning regulations, Oregon also has a forestry law that will be involved in Measure 37 claims. The 1971 Forest Practices Act requires replanting of logged tracts, limits the size of clear-cuts, and places restrictions on activities near streams. This can be construed as a temporary taking of private property for which Measure 37 would mandate compensation to the property owner.

How Measure 37 Works To enforce the act, owners are to write to the local or state government concerning the regulation they object to; the act calls for them to receive money or the regulation to be vacated within 180 days. Owners can only receive relief if they or a family member owned the property when the land restriction they object to was passed. If the government does not grant relief within 180 days, the statute creates a civil right of action and entitles the landowner to attorney’s fees. The measure exempts from its compensation obligations, rules, and legislation that control common-law public nuisances, selling pornography, and nude dancing, or legislation that restricts activities to protect public health, protect safety, or comply with federal law. Because Oregon’s land-use planning program delegates development and implementation to local governments, they will be responsible for addressing most of these claims and paying for them. The state has estimated costs to local governments will be between $46 million and $300 million. The state has no obligation to cover those costs. Local governments can lower their costs by relaxing restrictions instead of paying compensation. More than 1,000 Measure 37 claims have been filed since December. Many are requests to build an additional home on an area zoned for farming. Some of the larger claims are detailed here.

478

| “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution

Claim against Protections around Native American Sacred Places Wallowa County: A Measure 37 claim has been filed by a developer who objects to density restrictions on his subdivision. The density restrictions had been imposed because of the Nez Perces’ objection to the subdivision, which they found to be too close to the grave and monument of Old Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe, culturally significant land and the site of many possible archeological sites. The developer had been permitted to build 22 homes on 60 acres but now wants to build 60–72 homes on the same land.

Claim to Build Casino in a Town of 400 Marion County: Two brothers have filed for permission to build a casino, hotel, and golf course on their farm outside a town of 400. Fire Chief Reed Godfrey of the St. Paul fire district that would be required to service the McKay casino development, has said that the project “would completely overwhelm our fire department and ambulance transport capabilities.” While the Oregon Constitution prohibits nontribal casinos, the brothers claim their family has owned the land since before Oregon became a state.

Claim to Build Project Rejected by Community as Too Noisy Lane County: A Measure 37 claim to create 300-acre motorcycle, ATV, and paintball park that has already been rejected by the local county council was filed in late January. Neighbors have been fighting the proposal for years, and the county council had turned it down because of noise pollution and fire hazard concerns.

Claims for Subdivisions in the Columbia River Gorge Columbia River Gorge is a federally designated scenic area. Land-management decisions are federally designated to the interstate Columbia River Gorge Commission; that commission has delegated some of its authority to local counties. Despite language in Measure 37 excluding regulations designed to comply with federal law, several Measure 37 claims now argue that the gorge regulations are state and county regulations and can be waived. Because the Columbia Gorge building restrictions are fairly recent (1986), many landowners would qualify for waivers and thus be allowed to turn their property into subdivisions. One claim to build hundreds of homes asks for $15.6 million. In April, the Columbia River Gorge asked a state court whether Measure 37 applies to their regulations.

Claim for a Right to a Landfill Washington County: A 43-acre landfill filed a Measure 37 claim. The company asks that the state waive its 209-foot height limitation, as well as allow the landfill to extend northwards, or pay the company $11.4 million. The landfill is already unpopular with neighbors.

Claim to Build a Mall in the Woods A Measure 37 claim in rural Polk County has been approved for over 1 million square feet of commercial space, approximately the size of Oregon’s largest malls.

“Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution

| 479

Subdivision Development Claims • • • •

842 homes on one-quarter-acre lots or receive $57 million in the Hood River valley 340 acres of housing and commercial development in Yamhill County (April 5, 2005) 167 acres of housing on 10-acre lots in Yamhill County (April 16, 2005) 173 acres of farmland (in heard) of Red Hills wine country Yamhill County; alternately are seeking $15.6 million (January 27, 2005)

Pioneering Controversies In Measure 37, counties are given the choice between paying compensation for the loss of property value because of restrictions on the property since a family has held it or granting waivers of the law since the claimant acquired the property. Most counties in Oregon have stated that they will grant waivers because paying compensation is simply impossible; in Yamhill County two of 74 claims were for more than the county’s entire yearly property tax revenue. Those whose family has owned the property for a long time but have only recently inherited it themselves are left in the middle. In Linn County, a family in such a position is pressing the county to waive laws enacted before they inherited the property. On May 25, 2005, the county council turned down the family’s waiver request but the family is expected to litigate. The exception in Measure 37 for “the protection of public health and safety” is likely to be controversial. Some issues that have already been raised are whether setbacks from forested lands can be waived or if they are a health and safety measure designed to limit forest fires, and whether limitations on building because of limited groundwater can be justified as a health restriction. Whether Measure 37 requires continual ownership is also debated. Claims have been rejected because there was not continual ownership, but in Linn County a widow whose husband had owned the property for many years legally by himself was allowed to receive a waiver from regulations enacted when her husband owned the property. Other potential controversies will arise as Measure 37 is implemented. The measure is expected to impact logging practices, but some of these could be justified under federal statutes like the Endangered Species Act. Many counties have decided to waive rules for all valid Measure 37 claims and not even consider compensation. If Measure 37 claims are filed where only a few hundred dollars or several thousand dollars are lost in value and the county waives important land-use regulations, more controversies could be created. If compensation is to be paid, no one knows quite how it should be determined. Measure 37 and the case law it will spawn are being closely watched by many private property rights activists, developers and land speculators, environmentalists, state and local governments, and land-use planners. It is likely that some aspects of Measure 37 will attempt to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. It evokes a controversy about a core American value held from the homeowner level and determined by the highest court—private property.

The activity at the Supreme Court level is matched by a significant rise in the volume of takings-related litigation in the lower courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, in particular,

480

| “Takings” of Private Property under the U.S. Constitution

have been especially active in recent years in attempting to expand regulatory takings doctrine. The state as well as federal courts has seen a significant increase in the number of takings cases filed in recent years. In Congress, takings legislation was a central feature of the Contract with America in the 104th Congress. Some version of takings legislation has been considered, but not adopted, in every subsequent Congress. Virtually every state legislature has considered takings legislation; about 20 states have adopted some form of legislation on this subject. In the state legislative sessions of early 2005, a number of takings bills have been introduced. Some are in response to Measure 37’s passage in Oregon; others are perennially introduced, as in Maine. Ballot initiatives like Measure 37 are also being discussed in a number of states. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that is very important to free-market conservatives. Government regulation is a concern of theirs generally, but private property regulation is an issue of strong political saliency. It is clear that when the government physically seizes property (as for a highway or a park, for example) that it will have to pay just compensation. It is also clear that serious, sustained physical invasions of property (as in the case of low overflying aircraft, for example) require payment of compensation equal to the difference between the market value before and after the invasion. The difficult cases are generally those where government regulations, enacted to secure some sort of public benefit, fall disproportionately on some property owners and cause significant diminution of property value. The Court has a difficult time articulating a test to determine when a regulation becomes a taking. It has said there is “no set formula” and that courts “must look to the particular circumstances of the case.” The Court has identified some relevant factors to consider: the economic impact of the regulation, the degree to which the regulation interferes with investor-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. There is a lot of room for controversy as to how these various factors should be weighed. The takings law is in the courts and legislatures. The battles are expensive, intense, and increasing. So too are the environmental controversies that drive public concern over ecological assessments, impacts, and risks. Sustainability may require a significant shift in the direction of takings law and policy. If one private property owner is free to pollute an entire ecosystem, then current takings law may not be sustainable. Large changes in takings law loom in light of global conditions and cumulative industrial impacts. These changes will upset the settled expectations investors and owners have regarding real property. The next set of controversies will be the valuation of theses types of partial property losses. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY While courts may engage this controversy for many years and issue decisions, and legislatures may deliberate and hold hearings, and administrative agencies may take years to promulgate very important environmental rules,

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water | 481

the impact on the environment continues. The fundamental association of private property and liberty is one that has shifted dynamically over the history of the United States. English systems recognize not only takings but also givings, where the property owner is charged for the increased value of the land due to government services. As increasing environmental impacts and knowledge about them continue unabated, the strong U.S. association of liberty with private property will be challenged. This controversy will challenge the foundations and flexibility of concepts of liberty and private property. See also Federal Environmental Land Use; Land-Use Planning in the United States; State Environmental Land Use; Sustainability Web Resources The Property Rights Project. Available at www.propertyrightsproject.org/. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wetlands: What about Takings? Available at www. epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact18.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Bradley, Jennifer, Timothy Dowling, and Douglas Kendall. 2006. Good News about Takings. Chicago: APA Planners Press; Epstein, Richard. 1985. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Freyfogle, Eric. 2003. The Land We Share: Private Property and the Common Good. Washington, DC: Island Press; Hagman, Donald G., Dean J. Misczynski, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 1978. Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation. Chicago: American Planning Association; Pruetz, Rick. 2003. Beyond Takings and Giving. Marina Del Ray, CA: Arje Press.

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDL) OF CHEMICALS IN WATER The overall controversy of setting standards for water quality has not been resolved in the United States. There are some basic standards for a small number of chemicals discharged into the water. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) represent the best efforts to set comprehensive water quality standards. It is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. It determines the allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources among all water permit holders. Water quality standards are legally set by states, territories, and tribes. These standards identify the uses for each water body, for example, drinking water supply, contact recreation (swimming), and aquatic life support (fishing). Most sources of water pollution are from nonpoint sources so even if TMDLs are established it will be hard to assess responsibility for discharges into water. Environmentalists and communities want water standards that disclose the total maximum load of a given chemical, and how much capacity the watershed has for that chemical. TMDL standards have been conceptual environmental policy tools for decades but have faltered at the implementation stage. Industry strongly

482

| Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water

resists the formulation of such standards because it increases the cost of pollution controls. The environmental law mandate to provide safe, drinkable, fishable, and swimmable water flounders on trying to control environmental impact on a pollutant-by-pollutant or chemical-by-chemical approach. Theoretically, a TMDL is the total of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. Nonpoint sources is a catchall term for sources that are currently not known or measured. The calculation should include a margin of safety. The calculation also accounts for seasonal variation in water quality. Both these calculations can be controversial depending on stakeholder perspective. The Clean Water Act, section 303, establishes the water quality standards and TMDL programs. The standards can be clearly described by the federal government, but states are free to try new ways to achieve these standards. Calculations of margin of safety and seasonal variations are common battlegrounds in this controversy, partially because of this dynamic of intergovernmental relations in U.S. environmental policy. Unlike the Clean Air Act that divided the country into about 290 districts and measured six basic pollutants, U.S. clean water policy is still at the stage of describing how much of a given chemical or potential pollutant a given body of water can absorb. Some chemicals have definite effluent and discharge limitations per facility, but many do not. This battleground around standards of capacity for water bodies has continued since the early 1980s and is not close to resolution. THE NEED: THE QUALITY OF OUR NATION’S WATERS Almost one-half of assessed waters still do not meet the water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them. This is over 20,000 individual river segments, lakes, and estuaries. These impaired waters include about 300,000 miles of rivers and shorelines and approximately five million acres of lakes. About 218 million people live within 10 miles of the polluted water. Many aspects of the watershed, including other lakes, rivers, and streams, have not been environmentally assessed. There are still many controversies about the underlying standards for water quality measurement and measurement protocol. Some states allow chemical discharges into water to mix with river water before they are tested. Other states have claimed water quality testing protocols where none existed. The level of distrust is very high. This can prompt citizen monitoring of environmental conditions. FEDERAL AGENCY BATTLEGROUND Communities, states, and environmental groups blame the EPA for delays in issuing TMDL guidance and providing assistance to the states. The EPA and others are critical of states for vigorously exploring approaches to address their water quality problems unique to their states. A current political controversy involves progress in implementing the nonpoint pollution-management provi-

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water | 483

sions added in 1987. States are developing management programs describing methods that will be used to reduce nonpoint pollution, which may be responsible for as much as 50 percent of the nation’s remaining water quality problems. The EPA has adopted program guidance intended to give states more flexibility and to speed up progress in nonpoint source control. Nonpoint sources are those sources not covered by the Clean Water Act. Another political controversy is impacts and implementation of requirements under current law for states to develop TMDLs to restore pollution-impaired waters. TRIBES AND TMDL S Many Native American tribes have status as states with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This is generally in accordance with long-standing treaty rights and other binding and public agreements made with tribes. If tribes meet certain conditions they can set their own TMDLs. This affects the ability of other water users in controversial ways. Of the approximately 500 tribes, about 10 percent either have or are seeking status as states. Many tribes have sophisticated science officers and a deep ethic of preservation of the natural landscape. Water quality is a deep and important multidimensional issue for indigenous people everywhere, affecting relationships with religion, survival, nature, and community. Many tribes also have manufacturing entities that may emit into the water. Some feel that tribes could set the standards so that other water users suffer. While water rights cases can be very complex, many cases involving tribal water rights mask other controversies that relate to unregulated growth without knowledge or accommodation of limited water resources. When resources get low all stakeholders exert their strongest legal claims. Some political claims by farmers, agribusiness, ranchers, loggers, and miners may not have the force of law, but they have had that effect. In this controversy, these cases continue right up to the U.S. Supreme Court. A 1998 Supreme Court decision reaffirms a 2,500-member tribe’s right to tell the city of Albuquerque what it can and cannot dump into the Rio Grande River. The Isleta Pueblo is located six miles downstream from where Albuquerque dumps 55 million gallons of wastewater each day. Sewage from the city’s 450,000 residents makes the river water unhealthy for farming and religious ceremonies. Of particular concern are ammonia, a by-product of human waste, and arsenic, which comes out of the ground in city wells. Arsenic magnifies itself as it works its way up the food chain, poisoning fish and Isleta’s centuries-old fields of squash and corn. The tribe had little legal clout with Albuquerque until 1987, when Congress amended the Clean Water Act, granting 129 tribes around the country equal standing with states on water quality issues. Native Americans had the right to dictate upstream water quality in rivers that flow through tribal lands. Isleta was the first tribe to establish a water quality standards program as allowed under the act. It was the only opportunity to do something about the pollution legally. Isleta set a strict arsenic limit of 17 parts per trillion, many times cleaner than the federal drinking water standard of 50 parts per billion. Some observers say that setting the standards extra high was intentional, a bargaining wedge to negotiate a happy medium with the city.

484

| Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water

At first, Albuquerque seemed cooperative so Isleta gave the city a three-year grace period to analyze its discharges into the Rio Grande and upgrade its sewage treatment. But in 1992, after the agreement was reached, the city sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Albuquerque argued it should not have to pay to clean up pollution when some of it came from industries polluting upstream or from naturally occurring arsenic. Over five years, Albuquerque tried to convince two federal courts that Isleta’s request had no scientific basis and that a clause in the Clean Water Act directs the EPA to mediate disputes over water quality standards. In October 1996, the 10th Federal Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against the city. It held the tribe had legal authority to enforce water quality. The city appealed the case to the Supreme Court, and when the court declined to hear the case last November 2006, it upheld Isleta’s right to dictate Albuquerque’s water quality. The city will have to spend more than $300 million to upgrade its sewage plant. The plant could cost $20 million a year to operate. Currently, tribal water quality standards are being challenged in two states—in Wisconsin for the Mole Lake Chippewa and in Montana for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. In New Mexico, seven other tribes, many of which sit along major rivers, have developed water quality standard programs.

CURRENT STATUS The EPA reported in the 2000 National Water Quality Inventory Report that 39 percent of assessed river and stream miles and 45 percent of assessed lake acres do not meet applicable water quality standards and were found to be impaired for one or more desired uses. The types of remaining water quality problems are diverse, ranging from runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse sources, to metals (especially mercury), organic and inorganic toxic substances discharged from factories, sewage treatment plants, and nonpoint sources. The Bush administration has been reviewing a number of current clean water programs and rules but has proposed few new initiatives regarding the implementation of TMDLs. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY TMDL implementation will involve individual landowners and public or private industries in agriculture, forestry, and urban development. They become very concerned about TMDLs because it affects the cost and availability of water. Some are concerned with the government destroying the value of their land if they are not allocated a certain amount of water and view that as a taking of private property. In these cases, the controversy will move into judicial battlegrounds. Meanwhile, the TMDL policy flutters between state and federal environmental agencies, moving slowly. More community groups are concerned about the lack of any applicable standards for maximum daily loads, or loads of any type,

Toxic Waste and Race

for chemicals in their water. The controversy about TMDLs is not about a way to set standards for water quality but about setting them at all. Resistance to setting standards prevents measuring changes in the environment. This makes it difficult to know what will work, which slows policy development and pulls in other scientific controversies. Meanwhile, the water quality suffers from many users. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water; Public Involvement and Participation in Environmental Decisions; Water Pollution; Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation Web Resources Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey. Recent TMDL decision under Consideration for Supreme Court Review. Available at www.aeanj.org/Main%20 EPA%20News.htm. Accessed January 22, 2008. The Future of the TMDL Program: How to Make TMDLs Effective Tools for Improving Water Quality. House of Representatives, 107 Cong., 1st Sess., November 15, 2001. Available at commdocs.house.gov/committees/trans/hpw107–56.000/hpw107–56_0.HTM. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. 2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; Houck, Oliver A. 1999. The Clean Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy, and Implementation. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute; Younos, Tamim, ed. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Load: Approaches and Challenges. Tulsa, OK: PennWell Books.

TOXIC WASTE AND RACE Environmental justice includes the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. One of the most unwanted burdens is toxic waste. The race of the community is one of the best predictors of where controlled and uncontrolled hazardous wastes exist. The United States rose quickly to large-scale industrialization. Its population grew as fast as industry. There was little land-use control until 1915. Industry, business, and technology were all highly encouraged and seen as an indicator of healthy prosperity. Many cities became the focal point for waves of immigration and post–Civil War migration. Conditions were often overcrowded and unsanitary. Diseases were frequent and more deadly. Racism in housing, employment, voting, and education was legal during most of this period. With former slaves facing the fury of Reconstruction many moved to northeastern cities. After World War II many whites left the city for the suburbs. Postwar economic robustness fueled a rapid increase in automobile and truck transportation. The waste from a century of industrialization was often left in place, in the city. The controversy about toxic waste increased as knowledge increased about the potential and real risks posed by it. Our society shows no signs of decreasing the production of toxic wastes. Our population is increasing, putting waste and communities in direct conflict. And our knowledge base about the public health

| 485

486

|

Toxic Waste and Race

consequences of toxic waste continues to grow as citizens become active. All these growing and dynamic factors contribute to controversy. In the 1970s and later, federal and state governmental agencies were formed to regulate all kinds of waste and hazardous materials. As these agencies studied the distribution of toxic waste facilities they found a pattern. At the request of District of Columbia Congressman Walter Fauntroy, the U.S. General Accounting Office conducted a study of eight southern states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) to determine the correlation between the location of hazardous waste landfills and the racial and economic status of the surrounding communities. The results showed a clear bias in landfill placement, with three out of every four landfills sited near predominantly minority communities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not formed until 1970. Many state environmental agencies and most regional planning agencies were created since then. The Office of Environmental Justice was created inside the EPA in 1991. Most States now have some agency or task force on environmental justice. WHAT IS TOXIC? By law, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) produces toxicological profiles for hazardous substances found at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. These hazardous substances are ranked based on frequency of occurrence at NPL sites, toxicity, and potential for human exposure. Toxicological profiles are developed from a priority list of 275 substances. Also by law, ATSDR prepares toxicological profiles for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) on substances related to federal sites. According to the ATSDR, 289 toxicological profiles have been published or are under development as finals or drafts for public comment; 268 profiles were published as finals; 118 profiles have been updated. Currently, 14 profiles are being revised based on public comments received and 7 profiles are being developed as drafts for public comment. These profiles cover more than 250 substances, but there are many more substances to research. Chemical manufacturers resist the label of toxic or hazardous in agency and legislative hearings. The amount of scientific uncertainty looms large now but is decreasing as information about the environmental impacts of contested toxics becomes known. Controversies ensue because citizens are uncomfortable about being asked to assume the risk of this scientific uncertainty and would rather wait until a given substance is proven safe. The law now requires ATSDR to provide toxicological profiles to state health and environmental agencies and to make them available to other interested parties. Toxics are also listed on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), again by law. Begun in 1988, the Toxics Release Inventory contains information on releases of nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories from industries including manufacturing, metal and coal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous

Toxic Waste and Race

waste treatment, among others. As this information became known to academic and government researchers, more conclusions were drawn about toxic waste and race. As the information became readily available to citizens, groups exposed to waste and pollution confronted some of these environmental policies. According to U.S. federal environmental law, hazardous waste is waste with properties that make it dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the environment. The universe of hazardous wastes is large and diverse. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, contained gases, or sludges. They can be the by-products of manufacturing processes or simply discarded commercial products, like cleaning fluids or pesticides. In regulatory terms, a hazardous waste is a waste that appears on one of the four lists of hazardous wastes or exhibits at least one of four characteristics—ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. By definition, the EPA determined that some specific wastes are hazardous. These wastes are incorporated into lists published by the EPA. These lists are organized into three categories by EPA rule. 1. The F-list (nonspecific source wastes). This list identifies wastes from common manufacturing and industrial processes, such as solvents that have been used in cleaning or degreasing operations. Because the processes producing these wastes can occur in different sectors of industry, the F-listed wastes are known as wastes from nonspecific sources. 2. The K-list (source-specific wastes). This list includes certain wastes from specific industries, such as petroleum refining or pesticide manufacturing. Certain sludges and wastewaters from treatment and production processes in these industries are examples of source-specific wastes. 3. The P-list and the U-list (discarded commercial chemical products). These lists include specific commercial chemical products in an unused form. Some pesticides and some pharmaceutical products become hazardous waste when discarded. Ignitable wastes can create fires under certain conditions, are spontaneously combustible, or have a flash point below 60°C (140°F). Examples include waste oils and used solvents. Corrosive wastes are acids or bases (pH less than or equal to 2, or greater than or equal to 12.5) that are capable of corroding metal containers, such as storage tanks, drums, and barrels. Battery acid is a common example. Reactive wastes are unstable under normal conditions. They can cause explosions, toxic fumes, gases, or vapors when heated, compressed, or mixed with water. Examples include lithium-sulfur batteries and explosives. Toxic wastes are harmful or fatal when ingested or absorbed (e.g., containing mercury, lead, etc.). When toxic wastes are disposed of in land, contaminated liquid may leach from the waste and pollute groundwater. There is little question about the presence and expansion of legal and illegal hazardous waste sites. These contain lead, mercury, arsenic, petroleum by-products, solvents, silicon, and many other known toxic substances. Grass clippings, disposable diapers, and other household waste that enter a legal nonhazardous waste site may not yet pose a toxic threat, and these are not included in the

| 487

488

|

Toxic Waste and Race

analysis that follows. It is likely that these waste disposal practices follow the same patterns as legal and illegal hazardous waste. The United Church of Christ’s Commission on Racial Justice became very involved in the presence of waste sites in communities of color. In 1987, the commission published a powerful study, “Toxic Waste and Race in the United States.” This report demonstrated that race was the most significant factor in determining the siting of hazardous waste facilities, and that three out of every five African Americans and Hispanics live in a community housing toxic waste sites. The commission also noted that African Americans were heavily overrepresented in areas neighboring toxic waste sites. A follow-up study in 1994 found the risks to be even greater: People of color are 47 percent more likely than whites to live near health-threatening facilities. In the early 1990s the National Law Journal reported that Superfund toxic waste sites in communities of color are likely to be cleaned up by the government 12 to 42 percent later than sites in white communities. This first round of research, study, and policy review fueled more controversy. WASTE AND RACE Efforts by citizens and government agencies to address environmental injustices have been hampered by a lack of public attention and research on the issue. New methods are being developed that rank the environmental burden of every community. They also measure cumulative exposure to environmental hazards of all kinds. Most other environmental justice studies focus on a particular type of hazard or facility. The findings demonstrate that environmentally hazardous facilities and sites—such as toxic waste dumps, polluting industrial plants, incinerators, power plants, and landfills—are disproportionately located in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. Statistics present a stark imbalance. Communities of color average 27 hazardous waste sites per square mile (psm), while low-income communities average 14 waste sites psm. In contrast, middle-to-upper-income white communities average only 3 sites psm. Similarly, between 1990 and 1998, large industrial facilities released an average of 110,000 to 123,770 pounds of chemical pollutants psm into communities of color, compared with 22,735 pounds psm for predominantly white communities. Such disparities are the result of political disempowerment and economic abandonment. The landmark study, “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States” (Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of Christ, 1987), described the extent of environmental racism and the consequences for those who are victims of polluted environments. The study revealed that: • Race was the most significant variable associated with the location of hazardous waste sites. • The greatest number of commercial hazardous facilities were located in communities with the highest composition of racial and ethnic minorities.

Toxic Waste and Race

• The average minority population in communities with one commercial hazardous waste facility was twice the average minority percentage in communities without such facilities. Although socioeconomic status was also an important variable in the location of these sites, race was the most significant even after controlling for urban and regional differences. The report indicated that three out of every five black and Hispanic Americans lived in communities with one or more toxic waste sites. Over 15 million African American, over eight million Hispanics, and about 50 percent of Asian/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans are living in communities with one or more abandoned or uncontrolled toxic waste sites. A study by the EPA concluded that socioeconomic conditions and race are the major factors determining environmental discrimination. Communities inhabited by poor whites are also vulnerable to toxic threats. In its two-volume report, “Environmental Equity” (1992), the EPA alluded to the difficulties of assessing the impact of environmental hazards on low-income and minority communities. While admitting that those communities suffer a disproportionate share of the burden, there appears to be a general lack of data on the health effects of pollutants in those communities. The report asserts that environmental and health data are not routinely collected and analyzed by categories of income and race. Critics maintain that the information is available, but the EPA considers it a public relations issue, not a civil rights issue, and, therefore, does not take the claims seriously enough to gather the necessary data by income and race. This is a continuing battleground at the EPA and state environmental agencies. One of the sources of toxic waste exposure is through incinerators. The ash that remains and the ash that flies into the air can contain metals and other chemicals that can pose a risk to people. The waste that is brought into the incinerator can also contain hazardous chemicals. This source of toxic waste is predominantly in racial minority communities in the United States. The portion of minorities living in communities with existing incinerators is at least 75 percent higher than the national average. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, communities where incinerators were proposed had minority populations 60 percent higher than the national average and property values 35 percent lower than the national average. This did not include Native American reservations where the majority of new incinerator proposals developed. In communities with existing incinerators, the average income is about 15 percent less than the national average and property values are 35 percent lower than the national average. COMMUNITY CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Over 100 research and community studies find relationships between a high concentration of minority populations and pollution exposures from the environment. Industries that pollute are attracted to poor neighborhoods because land values, incomes, and other costs of doing business are lower. Higher-income areas are usually more successful in preventing or controlling

| 489

490

|

Toxic Waste and Race

the entry of polluting industries to their communities. The effects of pollution and environmental hazards on people of color have been overlooked because it was perceived that those communities would not successfully resist the siting of such facilities. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As our environmental policy evolves to include cities, the waste and race controversies will also include more cleanup controversies. The racism in the United States, from slavery until the present, is a value most now find repugnant. Implicit in any charge of racism is the idea that one must intend it to be racist. Historically, it may have been easier to prove racism in this manner than today, but it does not matter to any particular ecosystem. If the material there is toxic, it should be cleaned up. Toxic materials can accumulate over the decades and begin to move around in water and soil systems. The typical landfill liner is functional for only 30 years before the toxic leachate begins to seep into the soil and water. Who pays for the costs of a given cleanup is very controversial. The science and technology of waste disposal is also fraught with uncertainties. Who should pay for the cost of research and development in these areas? These materials are toxic because of the damage they cause to living things. This can include cancers as well as a host of other debilitating effects. The damage to people is severe. Who pays for their costs? It is often difficult in our courts to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any one specific act caused another individual to get cancer. Sometimes the period of time to sue, known as the statute of limitations, runs out before any affliction is reported. This is another controversial aspect of toxic waste and race—the damage to people and the costs to society. Policy makers will have to specifically consider race when making environmental decisions about waste disposal. As U.S. environmental policy enters the multicultural urban arena, the cumulative totals of waste exposure will become more apparent. The City of Jackson, Florida, recently settled a $200 million lawsuit for $75 million where 4,500 people, predominantly African American, had been exposed to seven old-fashioned incinerators for decades. There was much harm to individuals. Individual health risks, reduced local property values, noxious fumes, increased truck traffic, and sometimes the attraction of hazardous waste–generating industry are also some of the burdens associated with these sites. Many cities may face similar histories and will face the controversies generated by waste and its legacy of placement in communities of color. The battleground for this controversy is expanding beyond environmentally disadvantaged communities. Concern about sustainability and ecosystems combined with spreading cumulative impacts on the public and on the environment focus a great deal of attention on toxic waste. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Environmental Justice; Human Health Risk Assessment; Toxics Release Inventory

Toxics Release Inventory

Web Resources Environmental Justice Resource Center. Available at www.ejrc.cau.edu/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Toxic Waste and Race: Dangerous Blend. Available at www.finalcall.com/perspectives/env_ racism05–07–2002.htm. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Bullard Robert D., ed. 2005. The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books; Goldman, Benjamin A., and Laura Fitton. 1994. Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited: An Update of the 1987 Report of the Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. Washington, DC: Center for Policy Alternatives; United States General Accounting Office. 1983. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities. June 1, 1983. GAO-RCED-83–168, B-211461.

TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as federal facilities. This is a powerful information tool in environmental controversies. There are current controversial proposals to change reporting requirements to every two years. There are always controversies about lack of coverage of all emitters of pollution and other chemicals. An early stage of environmental policy formulation is to simply inventory or list and describe the places pollution comes from. Pollution is a term of policy art and has a much more limited meaning than most citizens expect. The chemicals and their amounts may qualify as pollution, but they may also be legally permitted by governmental environmental agencies. This definitional disjuncture is often the beginning of a battleground between citizens and communities, especially environmental justice communities, with state and federal environmental regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In part because of the rigid and entrenched battle lines with industry, elected officials passed laws that inventory the chemicals and wastes. Another background factor with the formation of the TRI is that it came as the first really large cleanup policies began. Superfund and other large industrial cleanups began to untangle exactly who was responsible for the pollution. This is extremely difficult in some environmentally degraded sites with years of multiple industries, and sometimes municipalities, dumping large quantities of unknown chemicals into a site. This difficulty also helped develop a policy response of just creating an inventory of the sources of the chemicals and pollution. The inventory is a bitterly fought controversy because it is so powerful. Citizens can find out the self-reported emissions of some of the largest emitters. The TRI was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. EPCRA’s primary purpose is to inform communities, first

|

491

492

|

Toxics Release Inventory

responders, and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report the locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to state and local governments in order to help communities prepare to respond to chemical spills and similar emergencies. EPCRA Section 313 requires the EPA and the states to annually collect data on releases and transfers of certain toxic chemicals from industrial facilities and to make the data available to the public in the TRI. In 1990 Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act that required additional data on waste management and source reduction activities to be reported under TRI. The express legislative goal of TRI is to empower citizens, through information, to hold companies and governments accountable in terms of how toxic chemicals are managed. Even though most of the TRI data is self-reported by covered industries, it is the best most groups can get or afford. It is heavily used. The more it is used, the more sources of emissions citizens want covered. The reason many citizens and communities want more industries included is to know more about their environment and any potential risks to themselves or the environment. Citizens, environmentalists, and others strongly believe that all environmental transactions should be transparent, that is, nothing with any potential environmental impact in any way is hidden. Sustainability proponents need all environmental information about a given ecosystem to better repair and manage it. Industries and local, state, and federal government agencies that protect them and hide their information resist disclosing all information even if it is self-reported. They would like to keep environmental audits secret and have succeeded in doing so in some states with the audit privilege. The TRI program has expanded since its inception in 1987 to approximately 650 chemicals. Seven new industry sectors have been added to expand coverage significantly beyond the originally covered industries, that is, manufacturing industries. Most recently, the EPA has reduced the reporting thresholds for certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals in order to be able to provide additional information to the public on these chemicals. TRI listings are strongly resisted by covered and currently uncovered industries. Over four billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released into the U.S. environment each year, including 72 million pounds of recognized carcinogens, from nearly 24,000 industrial facilities. Environmentalists and many communities claim it is actually a much higher number in terms of real environmental impact. The information is self-reported for the most part. It is in industry’s profit interest to view its emissions as too low to even cross the threshold necessary to begin reporting. It is a matter of debate as to whether some industries expand their plant by developing many small operations to keep from having to report anything. For example, in the late 1990s when New York City began requiring reporting of incinerator emissions only for those a certain size and over, many small incinerators sprung up with no reporting. Incinerator emissions are often toxic and contain metals that float down nearby as particulate matter. New York City is one of the most densely populated areas in the United States. The environmental impact could be even greater and more risky for people unless all environmental emissions are included in the inventory, argue environmentalists. They also argue that it is

Toxics Release Inventory

just an inventory, which by itself does not reduce environmental impacts. This is a constant battleground, driven by cumulative emissions and expanding public environmental literacy and concern. A CONTROVERSIAL CHANGE IN REPORTING In the October 4, 2005, Federal Register, the EPA noted that it wanted to make changes to the Toxic Release Inventory Reporting Program. The EPA has proposed three changes in TRI reporting. 1. Move from the current annual reporting to every-other-year reporting for all facilities, essentially eliminating half of the TRI program. 2. Allow companies to release 10 times as much pollution (raising the reporting threshold from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds) before requiring them to report on how much pollution was produced and where it went. 3. Allow facilities to withhold information on low-level production of persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs), including lead and mercury, which are dangerous even in very small quantities because they are toxic, persist in the environment, and build up in people’s bodies. Critics are many. They claim that these changes would slow information to communities about toxic releases and waste discharges, and prevent public health agencies and researchers from uncovering potential environmental risks. Of all the regulated industries the chemical industry is probably the industry most burdened by TRI reporting. They claim the overall burden of the system has dramatically increased over the years. Industry wants streamlined reporting requirements to have the resources necessary to compete in the global market. All environmental reporting policies suffer this criticism in the early stages of implementation. The initial burden is always on those regulated because they are closest to the product and its environmental impact. Most U.S. environmental regulation is already based on the self-reported data of some regulated industries in some regulated activities. Environmentalists and other proponents of sustainability argue that regardless of any burden, accurate reporting of all chemicals is minimally necessary. If the industry is reluctant to accept minimal regulation, many communities do not trust them. This is often the beginning of citizen monitoring of environmental decisions. The policy crinkle in this controversy is at the beginning of implementation when the start-up costs are the greatest. The battleground for this controversy is as large as the public’s desire to know about the environment. Overall, the TRI reporting program has been a catalyst for improved accounting and transparency regarding the emissions of toxic chemicals. The benefits of the program have been a reduction in the amount of toxics released to the environment, the standardization of methods for calculating emissions, and education of the general public about the type, amount, and location of toxics released by the industry. The program has been in place since 1987, and regulated companies have adapted to the effort and burden of reporting. Moreover, the public is accustomed to receiving annual updates of toxic releases.

|

493

494

|

Transportation and the Environment

Other critics point to technology as part of this controversy. They point to how technologically behind the times the EPA, industry, and environmental reporting are in the United States. Companies have spent billions of dollars since the early 1990s increasing productivity through information technology. Similar tools exist for TRI reporting. These tools go beyond what the EPA discusses in its Federal Register proposal for reporting the numbers. These tools can help companies gather daily information about air, water, and waste emissions and, with the push of a button, total emissions data on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannual, or annual basis. These tools can extract the information from a central database to the EPA TRY-ME reporting files from where they can be electronically submitted to the EPA. If companies invested more in the proper productivity tools for environmental engineers and scientists, then reporting would not be expensive. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Environmental information is necessary for all environmental decisions. All transactions about pollution need to be transparent so that environmental information can be checked and verified. Lack of environmental information seldom stops a controversy and often inflames it. Communities do not trust industries that do not want to give information about their use of chemicals in their midst. Industries fear lawsuits and other industries getting a competitive advantage with the release of the toxics information. Environmentalists point out that the current TRI does not include all industries, that it is poorly enforced, and that much controversy exists over the listing of toxics. See also Community Right-to-Know Laws; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water Web Resources Canadian Toxic Release Inventory. Available at www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The TRI Explorer. Available at www.epa.gov/triex plorer/. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The TRI Inventory Program. Available at www.epa. gov/tri/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Collin, Robert W. 2006. The EPA: Cleaning Up America’s Act. Westport, CT: Greenwood; Hamilton, James T. 2005. Regulation through Revelation: The Origin, Politics, and Impacts of the Toxics Release Inventory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Irwin, Frances, Tundu Lissu, Crescencia Maurer, and Elena Petkova. 1995. A Benchmark for Reporting on Chemicals at Industrial Facilities. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.

TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT Transportation is a major contributor to air pollution, with motor vehicles accounting for a large share of nearly all the major pollutants found in the

Transportation and the Environment | 495

atmosphere. Trains, planes, trucks, and cars define the transportation system and have large environmental impacts. As these impacts become known and begin to accumulate in communities, many urban communities resist transportation enlargements such as roads. The movement of people, goods, and materials requires large amounts of energy. Much of this energy is reliant on nonrenewable fuel reserves such as gas and oil. They also produce pollution that affects the land, air, and water. It is the battleground of air pollution that creates some of the most intense controversy. Bus and railway depots in urban areas can be sinks of polluted air. These sinks will increase as these facilities expand to meet transportation demands. Increased transportation demand is reflected in longer and bigger traffic jams and gridlock. These themselves increase the amount of emissions that spew into the surrounding air. Many urban communities are already overloaded with transportation modalities that tend to benefit those outside the city. The notorious electrified third rail of the New York City subway system poses a deadly hazard wherever it is exposed. That subway tends to run underground in wealthy areas and above ground in generally lower-income and diverse communities. Many large cities east of the Mississippi have similar mass transit approaches. Mass transit has often left these communities more exposed to transportation hazards. Some maintain that rich and powerful white communities get better-designed roads with higher safety margins than poor, African American and Hispanic communities. As these emissions have accumulated, and these communities become environmentally self-empowered, the resistance to enlargements in transportation infrastructure is vigorous. Local battlegrounds may include land-use hearings, environmental impact assessments, and courts. For example, Portland, Oregon, would like to add a fifth lane to the four-lane interstate highway to accommodate commuters from the outlying, predominantly white suburbs. They want to add a lane in a Portland community that is lower income and very diverse and that already has large amounts of air pollution. These battlegrounds have been a series of community and city meetings, with the city trying to persuade the community that the land expansion is important. The neighborhoods strongly resist and do not think anything could mitigate environmental impacts enough to reduce the area’s 14 percent asthma rate. Another example is in Seattle, Washington. After years of controversy and public ballots, Seattle is building a better mass transit system. Because there are significant environmental impacts the U.S. Department of Transportation had to perform an environmental impact assessment. Early plans replicated the U.S. East Coast pattern of delivering infrastructural improvement based on the wealth and race of the community. Because the environmental impact assessment did not adequately address environmental justice impacts, they had to do it all over again and make significant changes in the transit plan. The litigation and result held up about $47 million in federal aid until the environmental assessment was performed to a satisfactory level. The environmental impacts of mass transit and private transportation are well known. Both transportation types are increasing, and communities are increasing their resistance because of the environmental impacts. There have been attempts to handle aspects of this problem with federal legislation. Although the

496

|

Transportation and the Environment

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 strongly reinforced the Clean Air Act requirements through its planning requirements and flexible funding provisions, technical uncertainties, conflicting goals, cost-effectiveness concerns, and long-established behavioral patterns make achievement of air quality standards a tremendous controversy. Techniques of estimating (and forecasting) emissions from transportation sources in specific urban areas are still controversial and generally inaccurate at the individual level. The number of monitoring stations and sites remains low, which often forces the citizens to monitor the air themselves. The lack of monitoring sites is a key issue for most U.S. environmental policy. Most industry self-reports its environmental impacts, and many industries are not even required to get any kind of permit. The more monitoring sites the more potential liability the corporation faces. Communities and environmentalists do not trust government and industry when monitoring is not allowed or is insufficient. This greatly inflames any controversy but particularly air pollution controversies around transportation’s environmental impacts. Transportation activity contributes to a range of environmental problems that affect air, land, and water—with associated impacts on human health and quality of life. NOISE Noise is probably the most resented form of environmental impact. Despite the money devoted to noise abatement, these measures are still limited in their effects. Numerous studies have been conducted from economic points of view, but their findings can be seen as somewhat controversial. Environmental impacts of noise can affect nesting sites for birds, migration pathways and corridors, and soil stability. Noise can also decrease property values. SPRAWL AND CARS U.S. cities are characterized by a separation of work and home, connected mainly by cars and some mass transit systems in denser urban and older suburban areas. The desire for a single-family detached home away from work, and increasingly away from other trips like shopping and school, requires large amounts of land and therefore has greater environmental impacts. Cars and trucks on the road today are some of the heaviest contributors to poor air quality and global warming. Illnesses such as cancer, childhood asthma, and respiratory diseases have become increasingly linked to emissions from transportation. This problem is furthered by poorly designed transportation systems that contribute to sprawl, causing freeways to become more congested and polluted. Despite improvements in technology, the average fuel economy of vehicles is less than it was in the 1980s, which also means they generate more pollution. The expansion in the production of hybrid vehicles and technological improvements in conventional vehicles could raise the fuel efficiency of new vehicles to 40 miles per gallon within a decade and 55 miles per gallon

Transportation and the Environment | 497 FREEWAYS’ TAINTED AIR HARMS CHILDREN’S LUNGS Southern California contains some of the dirtiest air in the United States. There are enormous traffic problems, large polluting industries, and a rapidly increasing population. The smog can extend for hundreds of miles out in the Pacific Ocean, and hundreds of miles inland to the majestic Sierra Mountains. The public health risks extend to wherever the smog accumulates. The regional air quality control boards have been intense battlegrounds. At one time all 15 scientists in the Los Angeles air basin quit, resigned, or were terminated because of the failure to set enforceable and strong clean air standards. The issue of air pollution harm is therefore a very intense controversy. University of Southern California (USC) researchers found in January 2007 that children living near busy highways have significant impairments in the development of their lungs. These impairments, or tears and scars in the lung tissue, can lead to respiratory problems for the rest of their lives. The 13-year study of more than 3,600 children in 12 central and southern California communities found that the damage from living within 500 yards of a freeway is about the same as that from living in communities with the highest pollution levels. For communities in high-pollution areas and living near highways there is a huge increase in risk of respiratory illness. The greatest human damage is in the airways of the lung and is normally associated with the fine particulate matter emitted by automobiles. The research is part of an ongoing study of the effects of air pollution on children’s respiratory health. Previous study findings show that smog can slow lung growth, and highway proximity can increase the risk of children getting asthma. Groups of fourth-grade students began the study, average age 10, in 1993 and 1996. The USC research team collected extensive information about each child’s home, socioeconomic status, and health. Once each year, the team visited the schools and measured the children’s lungs. Results from the study in 2004 indicated that children in the communities with the highest average levels of pollution suffered the greatest long-term impairment of lung function. In the new study, children who lived within 500 yards of a freeway had a 3 percent deficit in the amount of air they could exhale and a 7 percent deficit in the rate at which it could be exhaled compared with children who lived at least 1,500 yards, or nearly a mile, from a freeway. The effect was statistically independent of the overall pollution in their community. The most severe impairment was in children living near freeways in the communities with the highest average pollution. According to the USC study, those children had an average 9 percent deficit in the amount of air they could expel from the lungs. Lung impairment was smaller among those who moved farther from the freeways.

by 2020 according the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Each major highway or other transportation project impacts the environment in a variety of ways. The most immediate negative impact on the human

498

|

Transportation and the Environment

HAWAII: PARADISE LOST? Without public comment, transportation officials exempted the Hawaii Superferry from an environmental review required of projects that use federal government money and have significant environmental impacts. This has generated enormous controversy among many stakeholder groups. In September 2007 the Kauai Surfers Association protested the first day of operation and successfully blocked the Superferry’s physical progress. The first ferry is a four-story, 900-passenger, 250-car catamaran built especially for Hawaii at a shipyard in Mobile, Alabama. The second is being built. The first Superferry is to make daily trips between Honolulu and the islands of Kauai and Maui with one-way fares of $42 per person and $55 per vehicle. The second ferry would add service to the Big Island. Currently, the only regular interisland travel is by air, with one-way fares ranging from $79 to more than $100. Environmentalists resist the Superferry because of traffic congestion, collisions with humpback whales, the spread of invasive species, and strains on limited harbor space. A recent opinion by the state Environmental Council said the Department of Transportation erred when it granted the exemption for an environmental impact review. Superferry officials argue they have exceeded environmental requirements. Two lawsuits calling for environmental evaluations, one before the Hawaii Supreme Court and another in Maui Circuit Court, are also pending. At issue is whether the Superferry would be exempt. The law states in relevant part Section (b) of 11–200–8 . . . no exemption shall apply “when the cumulative impact of planned successive actions in the same place, over time, is significant, or when an action that is normally insignificant . . . may be significant in a particularly sensitive environment.” The DOT previously had found that successive actions relating to a proposed intra-island ferry (on Oahu) in the early 1980s did require preparation of an environmental impact statement, and thus there was a distinct inconsistency in their application of an exemption in the case of the Superferry. Both the cumulative and secondary effects evidenced through numerous resolutions of county officials in Maui, as well as the established sensitivity of the environment in which the Superferry will operate (conservation district, shoreline, endangered species, etc.) meet the explicit terms of §11–200–8(b). The ultimate concern here lies in the avoidance of systematic environmental review. No amount of after-the-fact study or mitigation undertaken by the Superferry reverses the failure to abide by the intent of the law that there should be public disclosure and consideration of serious environmental concerns as part of a process that is concluded prior to approval of a major project. One of the three lawsuits filed, specifically challenging the exemption, is under appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. From the Hawaii Environmental Council, available at http://hawaii.gov/health/oeqc/envcouncil.html.

environment is the destruction of existing homes and businesses. Longer-term impacts include noise, air pollution, and potential loss of living quality. Wildlife and plants suffer from habitat destruction and various forms of pollution.

Transportation and the Environment | 499

In addition, ecosystems suffer fragmentation; habitats and ecosystems that had worked together are divided. Migratory species may be separated into genetic islands, reducing future biodiversity and leading to local extinctions. Transportation projects may also necessitate the draining or contamination of wetlands, which are important for flood control and filtering and cleaning water. Current laws require that wetlands be reclaimed or created somewhere else. Critics claim these laws are poorly enforced and have many exemptions. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Transportation systems show little signs of abating in size and scale. Their environmental impacts have serious public health consequences and implications for sustainability. The air emissions from these systems accumulate, and more communities are now knowledgeable about some of their effects. The environmental impact statements required by many of these projects are battlegrounds of controversy. Mass transit and low-impact transportation modalities (like bicycles) are not accommodated in the United States. The current lack of integrated environmental land-use planning in the United States also prevents the development of alternative modalities on the scale necessary to reduce environmental impacts. The current healthy-community movement and policies do emphasize low-impact and healthy alternatives, and the physical design necessary for people to engage in these activities safely, but are still theoretical. Controversies about roadway development and expansion will continue as environmental controversies. See also Acid Rain; Automobile Energy Efficiencies; Climate Change; Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Sprawl Web Resources Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews. Executive Order 13274. Available at www.dot.gov/execorder/13274/eo13274/index.htm. Accessed January 22, 2008. Sightline Institute. Sprawl and Transportation: Research and Publications. Available at www. sightline.org/research/sprawl/res_pubs. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Chinn, L., J. Hughes, and A. Lewis. 1999. Mitigation of the Effects of Road Construction on Sites of High Ecological Interest. London: Thomas Telford; Forman, Richard T. T. 2002. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Washington, DC: Island Press; Frank, Lawrence D., Peter O. Engelke, and Thomas L. Schmid. 2003. Health and Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity. Washington, DC: Island Press; Meyer, John Robert, and Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez. 1993. Going Private: The International Experience with Transport Privatization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; National Research Council Transportation Research Board. 2002. Surface Transportation Environmental Research: A Long-Term Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; Sherwood, Bryan, David Frederick Cutler, and John Andrew Burton. 2002. Wildlife and Roads: The Ecological Impact. Singapore: Imperial College Press.

500

|

Trichloroethylene (TCE) in Water Supplies

TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) IN WATER SUPPLIES Trichloroethylene (TCE) is regulated as a human carcinogen. Trichloroethylene is a major industrial solvent with 234,000 metric tons produced annually worldwide; it is used for degreasing and cleaning metal parts and electronic components. TCE has been used and discharged by major institutions such as prisons, hospitals, and military bases for years before and after its dangers were suspected. TCE has found its way into the environment. TCE appears to be widely distributed in the aquatic environment. Battlegrounds occur with proving TCE caused a specific cancer and with cleaning TCE out of the water supply. TCE is pervasive in many ecosystems. TCE is a probable human carcinogen but that is being reviewed and is a political battleground. Human cancers associated with TCE are liver/biliary, kidney, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, cervical, and esophageal cancers. The cost of cleaning TCE up is very high given current technology. Fresh, clean, drinkable, and swimmable water is a presumed goal, social expectation, and policy mandate. Controversy swirls around many aspects of water. Water quality is becoming more of a battleground as criteria are being developed for pollutants and as monitoring increases by other groups. High-risk pollutants that pervade ecosystems are becoming more prominent. Trichloroethylene is one of those pollutants. TCE USE TCE is a common environmental contaminant. When a facility emits tons of TCE per year into the air of a neighborhood with a school, a public health battleground starts. In most U.S. locations no air quality or water quality data are available to determine the exposures of local residents and children to TCE. The problem and exposures could be much greater than suspected. This uncertainty inflames this controversy. PROBLEMS OF PROOF PREVENT POLLUTERS FROM PAYING FOR DAMAGES To scientifically demonstrate harm to children from exposure to TCE in school or the community is very difficult. There are many intervening variables that current scientific models of proof do not accommodate. Many cancers take years to develop, so children from the school would be adults before the onset of cancer. Proving harm in state and federal courts puts the burden of proof on the citizens. This burden of proof translates into very expensive litigation for an unknown period of time. Appeals, enforcement of any judgment, motions, and defendant bankruptcy can thwart even the most able-bodied cancer victim. Some have accused the industry, and sometimes the environmental regulatory agency and the insurance companies for the corporation or facility, of intentionally prolonging litigation to increase the chance of the citizen-plaintiff dying be-

Trichloroethylene (TCE) in Water Supplies |

fore a judgment is rendered. These types of judicial and insurance battlegrounds pervade environmental controversies around TCE. CANCER One of the biggest concerns from TCE is cancer. Many cancers are treatable, especially if detected early enough. Cancer itself is a dreaded disease that risks death and loss of function. An ecological study of persons exposed to TCE in drinking water supplies found incidence of leukemia was higher for females in towns with the highest exposure. Various other cancers have been reported following exposure to TCE. No studies have been reported regarding cancer in humans after skin exposure to TCE. Animal studies have linked TCE exposure to various types of cancers in rats and mice. High doses of TCE administered to rodents during long-term carcinogenicity studies resulted in liver and lung tumors in the mice, and tumors of the kidney and testes in rats. The incidence data for lung tumors in mice, together with other tumor incidences, were used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to estimate carcinogenicity potency. This cancer rating was recently withdrawn in 2006 after the chemical had been listed as carcinogenic in two prior, large, consensus-based scientific trials. Environmentalists and community activists claim the delisting occurred because TCE is so pervasive in the environment that it would be too expensive for corporations that caused it to clean it up and still make profits. Some communities with large cancer clusters, such as the farmworker community in McFarland, California, believe that the corporate shell of protection from personal and individual liability should be lifted. Corporations may cease to do business and wind down or go bankrupt. Nonetheless, the prior owners of the corporation have individual assets that could pay for the cleanup. Many citizens feel strongly that the polluter should pay for the environmental impacts of their activities, especially if it puts dangerous chemicals in the environment in large quantities. By delisting TCE as a carcinogen, many accuse, conservative politics is protecting industry through the use of a government agency. TCE still causes cancer and is still in the environment in large quantities. Citizen empowerment regulatory tools such as the Toxics Release Inventory have enabled citizens to find out about large TCE discharges. The delisting is part of the controversy with TCE. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The environmental fate of TCE has not been well documented, and considerable controversy still exists concerning its behavior in the environment. Early literature references have concluded that TCE chemicals are not metabolized by microorganisms. More recent studies, however, are split on the issue of whether TCE is biodegraded, with one research group reporting both “no appreciable anaerobic degradation” and 40 percent degradation of TCE. Whether TCE biodegrades makes a large difference in cleaning up TCE from water supplies. The costs of cleanups are always controversial. TCE contamination is so pervasive that it may be the biggest cleanup effort yet. There is some hope

501

502

| True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics

that emerging technologies such as nanotechnology may be applied to the cleanup of TCE. TCE cleanups will be part of environmental and public health controversies for the near future. See also Cumulative Emissions, Impacts, and Risks; Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Human Health Risk Assessment; Nanotechnology; Toxics Release Inventory; Water Pollution Web Resources Environmental Valuation and Cost-Benefit News. Empirical Cost-Benefit and Environmental Value Estimates. Available at www.envirovaluation.org/index.php?cat=89. Accessed January 22, 2008. Rachel’s Environment and Health News #370. Chemicals and Health: Part 2 and SLAPPed. December 30, 1993. Available at www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_ Health_News_758.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2008. Southern Tier Superfund Sites. Available at concernedcitizens.homestead.com/Superfund_ links.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Cuesta-Camacho, David E., and David E. Camacho. 1998. Environmental Injustices, Political Struggles: Race, Class, and the Environment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; Goldstein, Inge F., and Martin Goldstein. 2002. How Much Risk: A Guide to Understanding Environmental Health Hazards. New York: Oxford University Press; McCutcheon, Steven C., Jerald L. Schnoor, and Alexander J. B. Zehnder. 2003. Phytoremediation: Transformation and Control of Contaminants. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-IEEE; Spellman, Frank R., and Joanne Drinan. 2000. The Drinking Water Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

TRUE COST PRICING IN ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS While the environmental, social, and health costs of current economic activities mount, economists do not count them. Measuring the true price, inclusive of the cost of environmental impacts, of products is more accurate because of greater understanding of science and human impacts on the environment. By charging the true price economically consumers can have a choice to have less environmental impact because they will purchase less costly products, and industry can be motivated to stop producing pollution and waste. THE BASIC EQUATION: PROFIT PLUS COST EQUALS PRICE In industrial capitalism the cost of a given product is roughly equal to the costs of production plus profit. The cost of producing a given product is initially borne by the producer. The manufacturer assembles the raw materials, organizes the labor, develops and finds markets and distributors, and makes the product. Costs that are outside the costs of production are called externalities. Pollution and environmental and health consequences are usually considered external to the costs of production. Yet they are costs that are delivered in expensive ways, in environmental degradation and erosion of public health.

True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics |

ECONOMICS OF TRUE COST PRICING True cost pricing (TCP) is an accounting and pricing system that includes all costs in the price of a product. This would make ecologically sound products cheaper to the consumer in terms of market price, and the demand for these products would increase. Also, various cultural and traditional industries that have been marginalized by high-impact industrial technology could compete. Many products carry hidden environmental and social costs such as air and water pollution, deforestation, and toxic waste. These costs are created during the production, use, or disposal of the products. While the producer internalizes revenue and profits from these products, the costs are externalized to society and the natural environment. The first serious attempt at any regulation of the environment in the United States began in 1970 with the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Even today many industries that self-report their emissions do not reach the threshold necessary to even require any type of permit. Environmental impacts from communities and commercial activities are seldom known, reported, or regulated. Many of the laws that exist to prevent environmental and social damage are not adequately enforced. Many environmentalists contend that the environmental standards developed by the regulatory agencies like the EPA are not stringent enough to protect the environment. Weak laws that are weakly enforced allow polluters to profit at the partial expense of the health and welfare of the public and environment. In this way, externalized costs to industry equate to a subsidy paid in part by degraded environments and decreased public health. Environmentalists and impacted communities continue to seek redress and policy from the courts and legislatures. Industry argues that the need to compete with global markets requires the least expensive means of production. U.S. corporate law requires that the chief executive officer (CEO) of a company make reasonable financial decisions on behalf of shareholders, usually meaning a profit motive. This is a powerful and rigid controversy that affects all segments of society. Some are questioning the special corporate charter given by the state to an organization structured as a corporation, partnership, subsidy, or some other legally recognized form that allows the owners to escape individual liability for the debts of their business. The government represents the people and grants this immunity. They can also take it away. The Corporate Charter Revision movement adds fuel to this controversy by challenging one of the largest and most powerful stakeholders on the planet, corporate business. True cost pricing would measure true environmental impacts in a way that is just starting to develop as public policy in the United States. Ecological risk assessment is now applied to select cleanup projects. Citizens are monitoring the environment themselves. There is the rudimentary Toxics Release Inventory. Citizen right-to-know laws have spread across the country. The level of environmental literacy and understanding has improved and expanded. This has empowered community groups and sometimes sympathetic state environmental agencies. True cost pricing would not only account for environmental costs but also affect other controversial policy changes. Environmental taxes such as the carbon

503

504

|

True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics

WHAT DOES IT REALLY COST? Cost of Aviation Aviation gives rise to a number of adverse environmental impacts. These include aircraft noise, contributions to local air quality problems and climate change, and other negative effects on townscape, landscape, biodiversity, heritage, and water.

Air Pollution Generated by Food Transport A 2001 Iowa State University study showed that through the conventional food delivery system, the average piece of produce in that state travels 1,494 miles to get to the consumer. Compared to Iowa-based regional and local systems, the conventional system used far more fuel and released 5 to 17 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Cost of Industrial Farming in Great Britain A 1999 report from Essex University calculated that British taxpayers spend up to £2.3 billion every year repairing the damage that industrial farming does to the environment and human health. The report’s authors compiled figures from a variety of sources. In 1996, water companies spent £214 million removing pesticides, nitrates, and farm pathogens from drinking water. The bill for food poisoning includes an allowance for the victims’ lost wages as well as the cost of their hospital treatment. The government agency English Nature calculated that restoring endangered species and wildlife habitats damaged by agriculture costs £25 million annually. The bill of £1.1 billion for air pollution and greenhouse emissions includes, for example, the cost of flood protection as a result of rising sea levels.

Cost of Obesity in the United States According to a 2002 U.S. Surgeon General report, 61 percent of Americans are significantly overweight. This obesity generates $117 billion in annual medical bills and triggers 300,000 premature deaths each year.

Cost of Agricultural Pollution in the Water Supply In 2000, seven people died in the town of Walkerton, Canada, when farmland runoff polluted the town’s water supply with E. coli. The subsequent crisis cost at least $64.5 million Canadian dollars overall and individual households had to spend about $4,000 Canadian dollars on average.

Cost of Mad Cow Disease Disruptions to the beef industry caused by mad cow scares: Canada—$3.3 billion United States—$6 billion Europe—€92 billion

True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics |

505

Cost of Global Warming Private insurers hit hard by global warming costs prepared a report in 2001 demonstrating that more frequent tropical cyclones, loss of land as a result of rising sea levels, and damage to fishing stocks, agriculture, and water supplies amounted to a yearly bill of $304.2 billion.

Cost of Air Pollution Exposure to air pollution affects mortality rates, hospitalizations, emergency room and other medical visits, problems of asthma and bronchitis, days of work and school missed, restricted-activity days, and a variety of measures of lung damage. A World Health Organization study of France, Switzerland, and Austria found that their health costs due to traffic pollution amounted to approximately 1.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), dramatically more than the cost of treating injuries from traffic accidents. In Canada, the province of Ontario estimates that air pollution costs its 12 million residents at least $1 billion annually in hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and worker absenteeism. The World Bank reports that in China, home to some of the most polluted air in the world, the deaths and illnesses of urban residents due to air pollution cost an estimated 5 percent of GDP.

Cost of Driving What would it cost to drive if the price of gas and cars included air pollution; road construction and maintenance; property taxes lost from land cleared for freeways; free parking paid for by taxes; noise and vibration damage to structures; protection of petroleum supply lines; sprawl and loss of transportation options; auto accidents; and congestion? A number of researchers have tried to answer this question. The Sierra Club profiled eight studies that, when averaged, estimated the true price of gas at $6.05 a gallon. As for vehicles, transportation analysts have calculated that the external costs of driving would add $42,363 to the sticker price of a shiny new car, based on a 12.5 year life span.

Cost of Noise The 1.3 million jet skis in the United States impose approximately $900 million in noise costs on U.S. beachgoers each year. It is likely that many of these costs are now higher. The cost of oil and gas continue to rise sharply, and energy costs form a large part of these cost estimates. Even economists agree that at some point the cost of a good or natural resource does not represent its value to a sustainable society. When those natural resources are depleted and gone for future generations, the amount of lost future value is impossible to econometrically forecast. Many advocates of sustainability advocate use of the precautionary principle in these instances.

tax are nascent environmental policies. True cost pricing is a basis for decisions on government projects and in environmental impact statements. If applied to environmental impact statements, true cost pricing could enlarge the

506

|

True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics

negative environmental impacts and increase the cost of mitigating those impacts. Some propose to integrate true cost pricing into domestic industrial policies and regulations and promote it in international trade agreements. If true cost pricing is to work consumers must be motivated to find the lowest price, it must be accessible, and consumers must have knowledge of the production process. Therefore, true cost pricing would implement product labeling to inform consumers of the total cost of the product’s ingredients and manufacturing process. Another policy component is that true cost pricing may have a large short-term impact on people of lesser financial means, so that measures to mitigate these effects may need to be implemented. True cost pricing policy components in environmental impact statements, international trade agreements, government contracts, product labeling, and mitigation measures for poor people are all controversial. DISCOUNTING THE VALUE OF THE UNKNOWN Most economic cost analyses focus on current or annualized expenditures. Cost generally represents money or assets that must be expended in a given agency’s fiscal year. The emergence of global climate change as a major environmental policy issue and the rise in social preferences for sustainability change how cost is computed. These dynamics require a consideration of costs and benefits across very long periods of time. To compare costs and benefits over time, costs in the future are discounted to the present at a particular rate. The appropriate rate of discount has been subject to much controversy. Some value must be put on future human lives. Since there cannot be an infinite number of future humans, some value must be assigned for analysis. Value is put on human life and injury every day in courtrooms. Industries consider the cost of wrongful death lawsuits part of the cost of doing business, as Lee Iacocca did in the business development of the Ford Pinto’s gas tank location. While the actual value may be disputed, the value of human life is determined by insurance companies’ actuaries, and regulatory determinations are made about it all the time. Nonetheless, in the environmental area this remains a developing, awkward, and quiet controversy. This is especially true in the areas of sustainability and population control. COSTING HEALTH BENEFITS The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently promulgated regulations to reduce air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles. The estimated health benefits of reductions in ambient particulate matter (PM) concentrations associated with those regulations, based on the best available methods of benefits analysis, were estimated. The results suggest that when heavy-duty vehicle emission reductions from the regulation are fully realized in 2030, they will result in substantial, broad-scale reductions in ambient particulate matter. This will reduce the incidence of premature mortality by 8,300, chronic bronchitis by

True Cost Pricing in Environmental Economics |

5,500, and respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions by 7,500. In addition, over 175,000 asthma attacks and millions of respiratory symptoms will be avoided in 2030. The economic value of these health benefits is estimated at over $65 billion. Some communities object to putting a dollar value on any life, suggesting even putting a number on it reduces its value. True cost pricing would put a dollar value on the health costs and add it to the product. One concern is that healthy food, air, water, and land will be for the wealthy, and the poor would get the more harmful environment. So, although true cost pricing may use market-based forces to reduce environmental and public health impacts, it may also simply make human mortality and environmental degradation part of the cost of production. Environmentalists and many indigenous peoples who maintain a stewardship perspective do not embrace true cost pricing for this reason. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY True cost pricing may be the free market incorporating the consumer preferences of an environmentally enlightened citizenry. Governments are often torn between two very powerful stakeholders—their citizens’ health and welfare versus economic development. The stakes are high and the various interest groups are powerful and far apart in current approaches. This controversy will have many subcontroversies as new environmental policies grapple with protecting and creating a clean and safe environment under a dominant free-market regime. As the scale and impact on the environment of human activity increase and become known, the ability to quantify the actual complete costs of many activities will increase. In economic terms, the costs of pollution will be internalized. Some argue that some impacts, like cancer in a community or a landscape tainted by radiation, are not reducible to costs. The current battleground for this controversy is in the form of new and emerging environmental legislation that incorporates the polluter-pays principle. Under this principle the facility doing the polluting pays for all costs to people and the environment. This is a popular principle but strongly resisted by industry. See also Environmental Impact Statements: United States; Sprawl Web Resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water and Wastewater Pricing. Available at www. epa.gov/water/infrastructure/pricing/index.htm. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Collin, Robert W. 2006. The EPA: Cleaning Up America’s Act. Westport, CT: Greenwood; Costanza, Robert, John Cumberland, Herman Daly, Robert Goodland, and Richard Norgaard. 1997. An Introduction to Ecological Economics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; Freeman, A. Myrick III. 2003. The Measurements of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; Lovins, Amory, and Paul Hawkin. 1999. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Back Bay Books.

507

508

|

Tsunami Preparation

TSUNAMI PREPARATION Tsunamis present environmental controversies in terms of their prediction and emergency response preparation. Tourism-based coastal areas may be reluctant to warn tourists because of the potential loss of profits and revenue. Warning communities of tsunamis is an old problem with modern implications. Warning communities can take many forms. The accuracy and quickness of the warning can affect lives. Education campaigns are apart from any warning system. Minimally, people need to know how they are going to get information in an emergency and what to do about it. Evacuation planning should also include evacuation routes. Warnings without such training are ineffective. Without evacuation planning and emergency response coordination, natural disasters can cause great harm. Ironically, without public education campaigns, untrained people may go down to the beach to see what a tsunami looks like. Public education campaigns need to target both local residents and tourists. Tourist communities may fear that such warnings could deter tourists. The incentive for local communities that rely on tourism to warn the public is small when they are in places that tsunamis would impact. Public education policies are also expensive, and many governments are reluctant to pay for them. Federal funding of such programs may start soon with new tsunami preparation programs. Tsunamis, also known as seismic sea waves, are a series of enormous waves created by an underwater disturbance such as an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, or meteorite. A tsunami can move hundreds of miles per hour in the open ocean and smash into land with waves as high as 100 feet or more. From the area where the tsunami originates, energy waves travel outward through the water in all directions. Once the wave approaches the shore, it builds in height because the bottom pushes it up as it approaches. Often the tsunami will pull up all the water away from the coast to gain in height. The coastline and the ocean floor will shape the size and force of the wave. Tsunami waves are not predictable in sequence. There may be more than one wave, and they can change in size. A small tsunami at one coast can be a giant wave a few miles away. A tsunami can strike anywhere along the U.S. coastline. Earthquake-related movement of the ocean floor most often generates tsunamis. If a major earthquake or landslide occurs close to shore, the first wave in a series could reach the beach in a few minutes, even before a warning is issued. Most landslides that cause tsunamis are directly on the shoreline. There are several large fault lines on the West Coast of the United States that scientists are concerned will move dramatically in the next several thousand years. This is a debate, and the battleground in this context is whether warning of a tsunami would be enough because these faults are a few hundred miles offshore. Drowning is the most common cause of death associated with a tsunami. Tsunami waves and the receding water are very destructive to structures in the run-up zone. Other associated disasters are flooding, contamination of drinking water, and fires from gas lines or ruptured tanks.

Tsunami Preparation |

TSUNAMI PREDICTION IS AN INEXACT SCIENCE Although the geoscientists have so far failed to develop any system for predicting earthquakes, there are some methods that are applied to warn about tsunamis to protect the people of coastal areas from being washed away by the sudden surge of water. In the United States, the tsunami prediction centers still use a manual prediction system from tremor to evacuation. A correct prediction is very difficult given the current state of tsunami-monitoring systems. The cost of an incorrect prediction may be high. In the case of Hawaiian tsunamis, three of four tsunami warnings issued since 1948 have been false alarms. It is estimated that an evacuation in Hawaii could cost as much as $68 million in lost profits and other revenue. There have been two warnings of tsunamis in Hawaii that ended in evacuations, and both were false alarms. Most times the waves do arrive. Their size, power, and frequency determine their risk to people and environment. That is very difficult to predict beacuse it depends on many factors, including the configuration of the ocean floor and the shape of the coastline. Coastline areas with substantial constriction, that is, areas that constrict water into a narrow and/or shallower space, could see much higher waves than more open coastline areas. WHAT DOES A TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM COST? United Nations organizations and concerned governments are creating a new warning system for the Indian Ocean. The lowest-cost components of a tsunami warning system are simple water-level gauges that measure immediate water movement. These cost about $5,000 to $8,000 per gauge. Siting and the level of monitoring and maintenance determine their effectiveness at giving enough warning. These gauges can cost substantially more if they have better monitoring equipment. It is possible to make monitoring stations with imaging capacities as well as the whole range of equipment to measure ocean characteristics necessary. An important instrument is the seismometer, because earthquakes and fault-line shifts can cause tsunamis. Satellite communication capacity is available. Unlike simple depth gauges, these systems can detect and communicate increasing risk of a tsunami much more quickly. They could also serve other monitoring purposes, such as measuring ocean salinity changes and deviations in water current. These systems can be very expensive, but some have argued a worldwide basic system would only cost several million U.S. dollars. On the global scale that is a small amount. There is a need for better monitoring equipment. The best standard for tsunami measurement is a new generation of deep-sea sensors. These devices sense when a tsunami passes over and transmit data to satellites, which then pass the signal along to warning centers. Only seven of these tsunameters are in use to date. They cost $250,000 apiece with annual maintenance costs of $50,000. Controversies ensue over the cost of these warning systems, as well as annual maintenance. Who pays for these systems and their maintenance? Who controls these systems? Scientists, environmentalists,

509

510

|

Tsunami Preparation

WHAT IS TSUNAMIREADY? Through the TsunamiReady program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service gives communities the skills and education needed to survive a tsunami before, during and after the event. TsunamiReady helps community leaders and emergency managers strengthen their local tsunami operations. TsunamiReady does not mean tsunami proof. TsunamiReady communities are better prepared to save lives from the onslaught of a tsunami through better planning, education and awareness. Communities have fewer fatalities and property damage if they plan before a tsunami arrives. No community is tsunami proof, but TsunamiReady can help communities save lives. Business leaders, civic groups, political leaders, and local government officials can be instrumental in helping their community to become TsunamiReady. To be recognized as TsunamiReady, here are some of the criteria that a community must meet. • Establish a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center. • Have more than one way to receive tsunami warnings and to alert the public. • Promote public readiness through community education and the distribution of information. • Develop a formal tsunami plan, which includes holding emergency exercises.

and some communities advocate for them. Countries and local governments seem lukewarm to many tsunami warning systems. Seismometers and coastal tide gauges do not provide data that allow accurate prediction of the impact of a tsunami at a particular coastal location. Monitoring earthquakes gives a good estimate of the potential for tsunami generation, based on earthquake size and location. It gives no direct information about the tsunami itself. Partly because of these data limitations, 15 of 20 tsunami warnings issued since 1946 were considered false alarms because the tsunami that arrived was too weak to cause damage. Recently developed real-time, deep-ocean tsunami detectors provide the data necessary to make better tsunami forecasts. Amplitudes, arrival time, and periods of several first waves of the tsunami were correctly forecasted in recent scientific experiments. To many, it seems that tsunami forecasting is ready to move forward in accuracy. Initial battlegrounds of cost and control are so far preventing a unified global effort. Another reason may be that even with accurate tsunami forecasting all coastlines are unique. The shape of the land as the tsunami wave train moves in is a strong factor in determining amplitude. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY The vast majority of coastal communities in the United States and around the world have inadequate tsunami warning systems. Fewer still have emergency response and evacuation plans. World and U.S. coastal populations continue to

Tsunami Preparation |

increase, rising sea levels are predicted as a result of global warming, and climate change models predict an increase in violent weather in some regions. It is unclear who opposes early warning for tsunamis and earthquakes. Emergency preparation and evacuation planning would seem to be a high priority for fire, police, and public health workers. Without adequate warning, these on-the-scene service providers are thrown into a reactive, crisis-intervention mode of action. Without an adequate emergency response plan they do not know with whom or how to communicate what kind of information. Without public education policies that reach residents, businesses, and tourists, people do not know what to do or where to go. Without an evacuation route no one knows how to get out, especially if roads are jammed with traffic. Tsunamis represent one of the environment’s inconvenient truths. No one embraces the idea of their existence and destructiveness. No one stops tsunamis either. Scientists of all kinds from around the world clamor for better monitoring. There are recent increases in some untested tsunami warning devices. There will certainly be more tsunamis to test them, and in their path of impact will be more controversies about early warning and community preparedness. See also Climate Change; Evacuation Planning for Natural Disasters; Floods; Global Warming Web Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Preparedness and the Tsunami Resilient Community. Available at www.tsunami.noaa.gov/prepare.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. National Tsunami Mitigation Program History. Available at http://nthmp-history.pmel.noaa. gov/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Bernard, E. N. 1991. Tsunami Hazard: A Practical Guide for Tsunami Hazard Reduction. New York: Springer; Fredericks, Anthony D. 2002. Tsunami Man: Learning about Killer Waves with Walter Dudley. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press; Hebenstreit, Gerald T. 2001. Tsunami Research at the End of a Critical Decade. New York: Springer; Satake, Kenji. 2005. Tsunamis: Case Studies and Recent Developments. New York: Springer.

511

W WATER ENERGY SUPPLY Controversial aspects of hydroelectric power involve the effects of dams on water and wildlife. Downstream water quality, stream erosion, and loss of wildlife habitat are frequent battlegrounds. Upstream issues include flooding whole communities, sedimentation, and species extinction. Dams affecting endangered fish are now being torn down in a new wave of environmental controversies associated with dams. Running water as an energy source has been part of human civilization for thousands of years. It was primarily used to turn water wheels that turned large stones that ground grains and corn into meal. The first use of water as a source of electricity was in 1882 in the United States. Now it is one of the main sources of energy in the world, and often sought after by developing nations with the natural and financial resources. There are many hydroelectric power stations, providing around one-fifth of the world’s electricity. DAMS: THE MAIN SOURCE OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER AND CONTROVERSY Dams are ancient ways to control and regulate water flow. With modern building technology the scale of dams has increased enormously. Three Gorges Dam The $24 billion Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China will be the largest hydroelectric dam in the world. It would span nearly a mile across and 513

514

| Water Energy Supply

tower 575 feet above the world’s third-longest river. Its reservoir would stretch over 350 miles upstream and force the displacement of close to 1.9 million people. (The Chinese government says 1.2 million people will be relocated, although others dispute this number being too low.) Construction began in 1994 and is scheduled for completion by 2009. Its environmental impacts are extensive and many remain unknown. China has dammed more of its rivers than most nations. Dams have mobilized environmental protests from neighbors, environmentalists, and others for about two centuries. In the United States, property rights and water rights are in an awkward balance to this day, with differences between western and eastern U.S. water laws. Dams can have significant environmental effects. With modern construction techniques, dams can be made quite large, and the fear is that these large-scale projects can have large, global, environmental impacts. Environmental Impacts There are many controversies about environmental impacts. The dam builders conclude that impacts could actually enhance the environment. However, environmentalists claim that the Canadian company hired to build the dam based their assessment on a previous Chinese government environmental impact statement, which dismissed the project’s environmental effects as insignificant. The Chinese impact statement failed to meet China’s National Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Environmentalists claim that the Canadian dam builders’ conclusions are inadequate, misleading, and irresponsible because they neglected the social and environmental disruption that the dam would cause to the following. • The 75 million people who live along the Yangtze River downstream of the Three Gorges whose subsistence economies are inextricably tied to the ecosystems along the Yangtze and around the downstream lakes and wetlands. • Land-use patterns due to resettlement of environmental refugees. • Downstream lakes and wetlands that support productive fisheries and provide critical habitat for endangered Asian waterfowl such as the Siberian crane. • Riparian, estuarine, and marine fisheries that are already suffering a serious decline in productivity due to pollution, dammed tributaries, and overfishing. • Coastal flooding and erosion of hundreds of square miles of China’s best agricultural land. • Increasing the salt in the city water supplies of several large cities. • Wildlife such as the Yangtze River dolphin, the Chinese sturgeon, the finless porpoise, and the Yangtze alligator, which are already endangered and could become extinct. The dam builders state that the most significant environmental impact would be impoundment of the river. However, others disagree with this conclusion. In addition to creating a 600-kilometer lake, impoundment of the river would flood upstream tributaries and valleys, which would effectively increase the reservoir

Water Energy Supply | 515

area by 50 percent over that designated by the dam builders. The dam builders neglected to assess the social and environmental impacts of flooding upstream tributaries and their valleys. The dam builders state that flood control is the primary need for the Three Gorges project. This too is contested for the following reasons. 1. There is confusion and inconsistency in the dam, builders’ study as to the area that the Three Gorges Dam would actually be able to protect from Yangtze floodwater. 2. An inaccurate method of analysis was used to determine flooding patterns downstream of the dam. 3. The dam builders failed to demonstrate that more people would be protected from flooding downstream by operation of the dam than would be flooded out as the reservoir level rises during major floods. 4. The area within the reservoir, used for flood storage in the event of a flood, would remain populated with nearly one-half million people. These people, who previously were safe from flooding, would face an increased risk of flooding. The dam builders imply that the Three Gorges project must be built to alleviate China’s energy crisis. Environmentalists again disagree with this conclusion. China has a shortage of electricity in its urban centers due to grossly inefficient energy use. The electricity needs now being met could be covered using just 60 percent of the country’s existing hydroelectric capacity, leaving China with a reserve of the remaining 40 percent of hydroelectric capacity and all of its fossil fuel–burning plants. Rather than build the Three Gorges project, a more environmentally sound and cost-effective alternative would be energy-efficiency improvements and conservation measures through technological innovations and price reforms. The Three Gorges Dam has significant potential for future controversy. In the local battleground, many early computations supporting the construction of the dam were based on incomplete data. The extensive clear-cutting of forests and global warming may affect the dam in unforeseen ways. The sedimentation caused by the dam and the effects of the dam on endangered species both promise to be a continuing controversy. Underlying this controversy is the influence of international concern on a country’s efforts to economically develop. There are many treaties on this point. China is trying to modernize its economic development and needs power to do so. Hydroelectric power is cheap and available. The scale of this modernization effort could be larger than any before it. The modern-day scale of some environmental impacts from very large projects concern international conservationists. China and other developing nations argue that the industrialized nations of the United States, Japan, and Germany had unlimited access to these power sources when they economically developed. One battleground for this controversy is the global community of environmentalists. Another controversial area of concern represented by the Three Gorges Dam project is a fear that nonindustrialized countries will mimic the conspicuous consumption patterns of the industrialized countries. With their large and rapidly growing populations, an increase in consumption to these high levels could severely drain natural resources and promote environmental degradation.

516

| Water Energy Supply

Developing nations consider it unfair that they should be denied the same access to a higher quality of life as already enjoyed by developed nations. The battleground for this aspect of the controversy tends to be international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Bank. A dam is meant to hold water. All kinds of geographic, business, and political factors accompany large dam projects. In the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, environmentalists emerged as a powerful political factor. It was the environmental opposition to the Hetch Hetchy dam in southern California that ignited the late David Brower, the fiery director of several large environmental groups and projects. Canada produces the most hydropower in the world. The United States produces the second most hydropower. It is considered very clean because it does not produce any greenhouse gases or other air pollution and also no hazardous waste products. The best site for a dam is usually in a valley where there is an existing lake or natural reservoir. There is more potent ional gravitational energy to drive turbines. At the bottom of the dam there are tunnels that can be controlled. At the bottom of the tunnels are the massive turbines. Water flows through tunnels in the dam, turns the turbines, and drives generators that create electricity that is sent to power stations for distribution to the grid. The water then reenters the river and continues downstream. Since the power station can control the tunnel gates, they can control the flow of the water downstream. Many factors affect the decisions about the tunnel gates, some environmental, some market, and some regulatory. The rate of the flow is a very important environmental issue for everyone downstream. Kayakers like to ride the release, the first wave of water

OCEAN POWER? Researchers around the world have experimented with the use of tides to produce energy. By putting buoys that float on the tide as it moves in and out, different experimental technologies are seeking to obtain electrical power from the oceans. Reliability of energy source is an important part of current research into alternative energy sources. Tidal power was thought to be unreliable because tides can differ by season, day, and locale. Tides are generally predictable, however. Even when tides are not predictable, better monitoring systems and satellite imagery of the ocean now allow for some control over the unreliability of tides. There may be other technological challenges current research is now exploring. There will be controversy. Commercial and sport fisherman, surfers and recreational boaters, ocean shipping lanes, and others all claim some use of the coastline. Depending on where the buoys are located, and the technology of power transmission, there could be conflict over the use of that space with these groups. There could also be controversy over the direct and indirect environmental impacts. That would depend on many speculative and site-specific factors now, such as location, presence of sensitive species or marine ecosystems, or pollution.

Water Energy Supply | 517

after the tunnels are opened. Other boaters, people who fish, indigenous people, and industrial, agricultural, and municipal users of water all have a claim on part of that water flow, some of which are legal claims. The environmental impacts are huge with water flow. Flow determines many other factors important for aquatic life, such as salinity, turbidity, temperature, and water depth. Hydroelectric dams are very expensive to build. Water exerts a powerful and persistent force, requiring a large amount of rebar and concrete to hold it back. It requires good roads to the site to build a dam. Once built, a power station and grid are necessary, and they also require built infrastructure. In mountainous countries such as Switzerland, hydroelectric power provides more than half of the country’s energy needs. Parts of Africa and South America have vast untapped resources for hydroelectric capacity. A less expensive, less powerful alternative to a dam is to build the power station next to a fast-flowing river with enough reliable flow of water. The flow of the water cannot be controlled, which limits the control of power output. This decreases reliability of the electrical grid. BATTLEGROUNDS Hydroelectric power from dams is littered with battlegrounds. Some dams are being torn down, some voluntarily, some pursuant to court order, and some pursuant to environmental impact statements. Dams are very expensive to build, which translates into higher electricity costs for ratepayers later. Dams have other uses than power generation. They are used for flood control, irrigation, recreation, and fire safety. Building a large dam almost always floods a very large land area upstream. It completely destroys most life that cannot move from that area. Another basic battleground is finding a suitable site. The environmental impact of the dam on residents and the environment may be unacceptable. Water flow, quality, and quantity downstream can be affected, which can have an impact on fish and plant life. Endangered species, tribal rights, and interstate compacts may also be affected. Municipal and agricultural users of water also have concerns.

FISH LADDERS: ENOUGH TO PREVENT EXTINCTION? Many fish are driven to return to their place of birth to spawn, after which they often die. The next generation of fish repeats this cycle as they have for many years. If their access to their birthplace is blocked, spawning does not occur and the species goes extinct. This biological fact supports the governmental provision of fish, through fish hatcheries. Wild salmon are often protected as an endangered species, but hatchery salmon are not. An intense battleground concerning wild versus nonwild salmon is opening up in supermarkets, fishing camps, and the federal courts handling endangered species cases. The fish ladder allows wild salmon to migrate upstream to mitigate the biological impact of the dam. These are very controversial in terms of their effectiveness. They do help mitigate extensive damage to fish populations, especially fish that migrate

518

| Water Energy Supply

upriver. Some dams now videotape every single fish to ensure accurate fish counts. ROOTS OF DAM CONTROVERSIES: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND CONTROL OF NATURE Dams have an enormous impact on the environment because they fundamentally alter the watershed in a given ecosystem. Many watersheds are not necessarily stable, with periods of dry and wet, changing river courses, and different rates of eutrophication in its lakes and ponds. Damming the water affects those who live downstream and modifies the habitats of plant and animal life in the area. Private property law has recognized rights to the use of water bordering one’s land (called riparian rights). This includes not having it diverted away from one’s land by upstream dams, as a general principle of common law. However, there are many formal and informal arrangements about water use in the West that differ. Building a dam is a huge imposition on private property rights. The government can take the land via eminent domain. This will increase the intensity of the battleground. Dams have many purposes. They are built for controlling floods, generating power, providing drinking water, improving navigation, and recreational, industrial, and agricultural uses. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, hydroDAVID R. BROWER (1912–2000) David Brower was a leader of the U.S. environmental movement. He was a serious mountaineer who advocated for the protection of the environment and the first executive director of the influential and powerful Sierra Club, serving from 1952 until 1969 and then on their board of directors periodically until the late 1990s. He also founded Friends of the Earth, a 68-country global environmental group, and cofounded the League of Conservation Voters. This national organization closely tracks how elected officials vote when environmental issues are at stake. Sometimes they issue “report cards” or “scorecards” on how various elected officials are doing with regard to environmental voting. These organizations came at a crucial time in U.S. environmental history. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was freshly formed in 1970, and about 18 laws went into effect over the next ten years. Part of the success of establishing a national system of environmental protection, when there was none, is due to David Brower and his unflagging sense of purpose. Later, he founded the Earth Island Institute to empower environmental activists. In 1999 he cofounded the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment. His environmental activism is legendary. He led thousands of people in the Sierra Club Outings program into wilderness areas from 1939 to 1956. He stopped major dam projects in the West, he advocated for and achieved the creation of new national parks, and he was crucial to the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964. He was not afraid of controversy. His vision protected untold acres of pristine wilderness for future generations. David R. Brower died in 2000 in Berkeley, California.

Water Energy Supply | 519

electric power from dams supplied about a third of the generating capacity in the United States. It is currently used to supply only about 10 percent of the U.S. energy supply. According to the Army Corps of Engineers the most common primary benefit for which dams are built is recreation (35%). Only 11 percent of dams were constructed for the primary purpose of irrigation, and 2 percent primarily for hydroelectric power. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Dams are part of the all-encompassing controversies around freshwater. Tapping the energy of falling water will become more attractive to users of energy as nonrenewable sources become depleted. However there are many other users of the water, a decreasing resource and commodity. Advances in technology and ecological understanding of marine systems may help better mitigate impacts. Currently, the first dams are being taken down. Many are considered to have serious environmental impacts to endangered species. The utility companies offer staunch resistance to dam decommissioning, threatening that the ratepayers will have to pay more for their power. Many proponents of self-sufficiency and sustainability advocate for these small hydrosystems if the terrain is appropriate. The controversy over the use of water for power via dams shows no signs of abating. The battleground for these controversies will be the courts. See also Ecosystem Risk Assessment; Endangered Species; Floods; Sacred Sites; Sustainability Web Resources Energy Kids Page. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/kids. Accessed January 22, 2008. Environmental Defense Fund—70 Related Documents. Available at http://www.environ mentaldefense.org/home.cfm. Accessed January 22, 2008. Three Gorges Probe. Available at http://www.threegorgesprobe.org/tgp/index.cfm. Accessed March 2, 2008. Turning to Hydropower. Available at www.fwee.org. Accessed March 2, 2008. U.S. Geological Service. Water Science for Schools. Available at ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy. html. Accessed March 2, 2008. Further Reading: Chasek, Pamela S. 2000. The Global Environment in the Twenty-First Century: Prospects for International Cooperation. New York: United Nations University Press; Economy, Elizabeth C. 2004. The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; El-Ashry, Mohamed T., and Diana C. Gibbons. 1988. Water and Arid Lands of the Western United States: A World Resources Institute Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Espeland, Wendy Nelson. 1998. The Struggle for Water: Politics, Rationality, and Identity in the American Southwest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Heggelund, Gjørild. 2004. Environment and Resettlement Politics in China: The Three Gorges Project. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing; Khagram, Sanjeev. 2004. Dams and Development: Transnational Struggles for Water and Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; Murray, Geoffrey, and Ian G. Cook. 2002. Green China: Seeking Ecological Alternatives. London: Routledge; Newson,

520

| Water Pollution Malcolm David. 1997. Land, Water, and Development: Sustainable Management of River Basin Systems. London: Routledge; Postel, Sandra. 1997. Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity. New York: W. W. Norton and Company; Shiva, Vandana. 2002. Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution and Profit. London: Pluto Press.

WATER POLLUTION Water is essential for life. Water quality is often at odds with the demands of increased development. Conflicting laws, poorly enforced environmental regulations, and increased citizen monitoring are the ingredients for powerful and long-lasting controversy. Water pollution is a term that describes any adverse environmental effect on water bodies (lakes, rivers, the sea, groundwater) caused by the actions of humankind. Although natural phenomena such as volcanoes, storms, and earthquakes also cause major changes in water chemistry and the ecological status of water, these are not pollution. Water pollution has many causes and characteristics. Humans and livestock produce bodily wastes that enter rivers, lakes, oceans, and other surface waters. These wastes increase the solids suspended in the water and the concentration of bacteria and viruses, leading to potential health impacts. Increases in nutrient loading may lead to eutrophication, or dead zones, in lakes and coastal water. Organic wastes deplete the water of oxygen, which potentially has severe impacts on the whole ecosystem. Industries and municipalities discharge pollutants, permitted and sometimes unpermitted, into their wastewater, including heavy metals, organic toxins, oils, pesticides, fertilizers, and solids. Discharges can also have direct and indirect thermal effects, especially those from nuclear power stations, and also reduce the available oxygen. Human activities that disturb the land can lead to silt running off the land into the waterways. This silt can have environmentally detrimental effects even if it does not contain pollution. Silt-bearing runoff comes from many activities including construction, logging, mining, and farming. It can kill aquatic and other types of life. Salmon, for example, do not spawn if the temperature of the water is too high. Another environmental controversy around water quality is that when water becomes polluted, native species of plants and animals fail to flourish in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. Depending on how exactly the water quality is impaired, some of these species may be threatened with extinction. If, for example, the water quality is impaired through agricultural runoff containing nitrogen and other chemical fertilizers, this may precipitate algae blooms. These blooms can warm up the water as well as rapidly deplete oxygen in the water. Pollutants in water include chemicals, pathogens, and hazardous wastes. Many of the chemical substances are toxic. Many of the municipal water supplies in developed and undeveloped countries can present health risks. Water quality standards consist of three elements: the designated uses assigned to those waters (such as public water supply, recreation, or shellfish harvesting), criteria to protect those uses (such as chemical-specific thresholds that should not be

Water Pollution

exceeded), and an antidegradation policy intended to keep waters that do meet standards from deteriorating from their current condition. Water regulations control point sources of pollution. Some environmentalists consider the definition of point source too narrow because it allows smaller discharges into the water. It has been estimated that between 50 and 80 percent of water pollution comes from nonpoint sources. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution comes from many sources, including human habitation and industrial emissions currently unaccounted for. NPS pollution begins with precipitation moving on and through the ground. As the force of gravity pulls the water down, it carries with it natural and human-made pollutants. Many of these pollutants end up in lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and underground sources of drinking water. These pollutants include: • Excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; • Oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production; • Sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding stream banks; • Salt from irrigation practices and acid drainage from abandoned mines; and • Bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty septic systems. Atmospheric deposition is also a source of nonpoint source pollution. An incinerator next to a lake could be a source of water pollution. NONPOINT SOURCES States report that nonpoint source pollution is the leading remaining cause of water quality problems. The effects of nonpoint source pollutants on specific waters vary and may not always be fully assessed. These pollutants have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife. With only about 20 percent of lakes and rivers being monitored in any way, and much to learn about the movement of underground water and aquifers, the degree of uncertainty as to nonpoint sources is currently very large. Even water areas that are monitored still allow permits to industries and cities to discharge treated and untreated waste and chemicals. Nonpoint source pollution results from a wide variety of human activities on the land. These activities touch upon battlegrounds in areas from private property to corporate environmental responsibility. Governmental responses to water pollution from nonpoint sources are spread across the spectrum. Some activities are federal responsibilities, such as ensuring that federal lands are properly managed to reduce soil erosion. Some are state responsibilities, for example, developing legislation to govern mining and logging and to protect groundwater. Others are local, such as land-use controls like erosion control ordinances. The coordination of intergovernmental relations and communication between these levels of government about water pollution approaches are poor, contributing to the controversy.

|

521

522

| Water Pollution

The United States developed new environmental policies in the past 35 years to clean up water pollution by controlling emissions from industries and municipal sewage treatment plants. This last 35-year period was preceded by 500 years of urbanization and then industrialization and waves of immigration from every coast. There was little in the way of enforceable environmental legislation in the United States until 1970. Navigable waterways have been intentionally and unintentionally altered in drastic ways, such as channelizing the Mississippi River by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Modern plumbing devices, such as backflow regulators, help keep wastewater separate from drinking water. Urbanized areas without backflow regulators on industry eventually taint the entire watershed. In many areas, it is often the case that as water quantity goes down so does water quality. In places such as Texas that practiced a form of waste discharge called deep well injection, some of the water sources may be contaminated. The accumulated wastes from the water pollution both before and after the formation of the EPA will themselves foster cleanup controversies. Fear of liability for past acts of environmental contamination is a powerful contour in the battleground of water pollutant cleanup. Nonpoint source pollution is the largest source of water quality problems in the United States. It remains the catchall term for all other than point sources of water pollution. Point sources are regulated by the EPA. Each watershed is allowed to have a limited overall amount of water pollution permits. If all sources were counted, including nonpoint sources, the overall amount of permissible chemical discharges into the watershed would decrease. This could result in fewer permits being issued. The fewer permits issued generally means less industrial economic development. Industries and governments prefer more industrial and manufacturing economic development. Some industries prefer not to compete with other industries in the same watershed and may not want to share a water permit. Uncertainty of the water permit can deter financial investors from long-term investments in a plant or real property. Other stakeholders like farmers, agribusiness, and Native Americans all hold various rights and expectations for the same water. Nonpoint sources of water pollution have serious unresolved environmental issues that involve many stakeholders. Accurate environmental monitoring is a necessity as the foundation of sound environmental policy, especially if sustainability is the goal. The range of disrespect for the environment from some stakeholders shocks other stakeholders, who feel reverence for the environment when it comes to water pollution. The wide range of environmental expectations becomes controversial when accurate environmental monitoring and research reveal the true extent of the environmental impacts of water pollution.

KNOWN SOURCES OF NONPOINT WATER POLLUTION Agribusiness is the leading source of water quality impairments, degrading 60 percent of the impaired river miles and half of the impaired lake acreage surveyed by states, territories, and tribes. Runoff from urban areas is also a very large source of water quality impairments. Roads, parking lots, airports, and

Water Pollution

other impervious paved surfaces that occur with U.S. land development increase the runoff of precipitation into other parts of the watershed. The most common NPS pollutants are soil sediment and chemical nutrients. Other NPS pollutants include pesticides, pathogens (bacteria and viruses), salts, oil, grease, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals. ROLE OF COMMUNITIES Communities play an important role in addressing NPS pollution. When coordinated with federal, state, and local environmental programs and initiatives, community-based NPS control efforts can be highly successful. More than 500 active volunteer monitoring groups currently operate throughout the United States. Monitoring groups may also have information about other NPS pollution projects, such as beach cleanups, stream walks, and restoration activities. More than 40 states now have some type of program to help communities conserve water. NPS pollution starts at the household level. Households, for example, can water lawns during cooler hours of the day, limit fertilizer and pesticide applications, and properly store chemicals to reduce runoff and keep runoff clean. Pet wastes, a significant source of nutrient contamination, should be disposed of properly. Communities can also replace impervious surfaces with more porous surfaces. RUNOFF FROM URBAN AREAS The nonpoint sources of pollution often come from paved, impermeable road surfaces. These can be in urban, suburban, or rural areas. Many vehicle emissions run off from the pavement with water when it rains. Effective drainage systems can remove this water to city water systems, but these do not necessarily treat the runoff for its load of pollutants. In many cities, the consolidated sewer overflow system, means that when it rains heavily the sewers simply overflow into the nearest river or lake. Many urban sewer and water systems are old and need repair, especially those made with lead pipes. Cities with storm sewer systems that quickly channel runoff from roads and other impervious surfaces increase their environmental impacts with large flow variations. Runoff gathers speed in the storm sewer system. When it leaves the system, large volumes of quickly flowing runoff erode riparian areas and alter stream channels. Native fish, amphibians, and plants cannot live in urban streams impacted by urban runoff. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY Water pollution will become more controversial. As water pollution standards mature, environmental impact assessment and pollution accountability will increase. Many stakeholders now assume they have the right to fresh, clean water, and as much of it as they want. Where the water begins to run out, violent confrontations can occur. In Klamath, Oregon, the site of a furious water controversy between farmers, various agencies of the federal and state government,

|

523

524

| Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation

and environmentalists, violence erupted in 2006 as Native American children were assaulted in their school bus by farmers angry at their loss of water. Although the Klamath tribe tried to avoid the controversy, they do have water rights by treaty and law. The farmers’ property rights lawsuit, claiming they owned the water as a property right, was dismissed in a 57-page opinion in federal court. Vice President Cheney is currently being investigated as illegally intervening in this dispute and commanding the federal agencies to let agribusiness get the water. This controversy only gets larger, and so far is only resolved by more water from nature. As more and more of the aquatic environment becomes known, battlegrounds of who pays for cleanup and for dredging occur. There are battlegrounds with the environmental impacts of these activities alone. In arid developing areas where water can become scarce, those who use it and pollute it affect many other groups. There will be an increase in stakeholder accountability for pollution sources as environmental law enforcement works its way upstream. Litigation and community engagement will increase in the controversy over water pollution. See also Citizen Monitoring of Environmental Decisions; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water; Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of Chemicals in Water; Trichloroethylene (TCE) in Water Supplies. Web Resources Natural Resources Defense Council. Issues: Water. Available at www.nrdc.org/water/pollu tion/default.asp. Accessed January 22, 2008. Sources of Water Pollution. Available at www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/waterpol3.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution). Available at www.epa.gov/nps/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Best, Gerry. 2000. Environmental Pollution Studies. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press; Helmer, Richard. 1998. Water Pollution Control. London: Spon Press; Houck, Oliver A. 1999. The Clean Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy, and Implementation. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute; Pagenkopf, James R., Andrew Stoddard, James R. Pagenkopf, and Jon, B. Harcum. 2002. Municipal Waste water Treatment. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

WATERSHED PROTECTION AND SOIL CONSERVATION Watersheds left unprotected from development may experience environmental impacts that deplete soil resources. Logging, grazing, some types of mining, paving over land with impervious surfaces, and overchannelization of major water courses have affected watersheds in controversial ways. Agriculture and environmentalists want to prevent soil depletion by protecting watersheds. Communities want to protect watersheds for water quality. For watershed protection to work as a policy it may require the taking of private property or the terminations of long-term leases given to loggers, ranchers, and mining corporations. Water use and quality are generally becoming controversial, and watershed protection

Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation

is increasingly seen by some as excessive government intervention. Others see it as a necessary component of any successful sustainability program or policy. Visions of hurricanes and floods tearing the hard earned top soil from the Midwest prompted many to ask the federal government to intervene in the 1930s. The early legislation set the tone for today’s policy. Most of the federal legislation for watershed protection emerged in this time to protect rural and agricultural interests. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, authorized Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to cooperate with states and local agencies to carry out works of improvement for soil conservation and for other purposes including flood prevention; conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and conservation and proper utilization of land. NRCS implements the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act through the following programs: Watershed Surveys and Planning Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations Watershed Rehabilitation Watershed Surveys and Planning The NRCS cooperates with other federal, state, and local agencies in making investigations and surveys of river basins as a basis for the development of coordinated water resource programs, floodplain management studies, and flood insurance studies. NRCS also assists public sponsors to develop watershed plans. The focus of these plans is to identify solutions that use conservation practices, including nonstructural measures, to solve problems. Each project must contain benefits directly related to agriculture, including rural communities that account for at least 20 percent of the total benefits of the project. WATERSHED OPERATIONS Watershed Operations is a voluntary program that provides assistance to local organizations sponsoring authorized watershed projects, planned and approved under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, and 11 designated watersheds authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to states, local governments, and tribes (project sponsors) to implement authorized watershed project plans for the purpose of watershed protection; flood mitigation; water quality improvements; soil erosion reduction; rural, municipal, and industrial water supply; irrigation water management; sediment control; fish and wildlife enhancement; and wetlands and wetland-function creation and restoration. There are over 1,500 active or completed watershed projects. As communities become more involved in environmental issues they quickly learn about their particular watershed. FLOOD PREVENTION PROGRAM The Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to install watershed improvement measures (http://www.nrcs.usda.

|

525

526

| Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation

gov/programs/watershed/pl534.html). This act authorized 11 flood prevention watersheds. The NRCS and the Forest Service (FS) carry out this responsibility with assistance from other bureaus and agencies within and outside USDA. Watershed protection and flood prevention work currently under way in small upstream watersheds all over the United States sprang from the exploratory flood prevention work authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944, and from the intervening 54 pilot watershed projects authorized by the Agriculture Appropriation Act of 1953. These projects are the focus of much study as watershed protection and soil conservation have become battlegrounds after the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans in 2006. Many accuse these types of projects as too little too late for prevention of risk to urban areas from natural disasters. The 11 watershed areas are: watershed name

state

watershed size

Buffalo Creek Middle Colorado River Coosa River Little Sioux River Little Tallahatchie River Los Angeles River Potomac River

New York Texas Georgia, Tennessee Iowa Mississippi California Virginia, W. Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania California Texas Oklahoma, Texas Mississippi

279,680 acres 4,613,120 acres 1,339,400 acres 1,740,800 acres 963,977 acres 563,977 acres 4,205,400 acres

Santa Ynez River Trinity River Washita River Yazoo River

576,000 acres 8,424,260 acres 5,095,040 acres 3,942,197 acres

Because the authorized flood prevention projects include relatively large areas, work plans are developed on a subwatershed basis. Surveys and investigations are made and detailed designs, specifications, and engineering cost estimates are prepared for construction of structural measures. Areas where sponsors need to obtain land rights, easements, and rights-of-way are delineated. This can present a battleground when private property owners do not want to cooperate with flood prevention and soil conservation. There are presently over 1,600 projects in operation. WATERSHED PROJECTS PROVIDE THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT There are 2,000 NRCS-assisted watershed projects in the United States, with at least one project in every state. Some projects provide flood control, while others include conservation practices that address a myriad of natural resource issues such as water quality, soil erosion, animal waste management, irrigation, water

Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation

management, water supplies, and recreation. Whatever the primary purpose, watershed projects have many community benefits such as fish and wildlife habitat enhancement. Over 300,000 acres of surface water have been created by the construction of 11,000 watershed dams. Lakes generally range in size from 20 to 40 surface acres and provide a good mix of deep water and shoreline riparian areas. Some lakes have up to several hundred acres of surface water, and many had recreational areas developed around them. Lakes formed by the watershed dams have created thousands of acres of open water providing excellent fish and wildlife habitat and areas for migrating waterfowl to rest and feed. Conservation practices in watershed projects such as buffers, pasture and rangeland management, tree plantings, ponds, conservation cropping systems, and conservation tillage provide cover, water, and food for a variety of birds and animals. Thousands of people enjoy fishing, hiking, boating, and viewing wildlife in these very scenic settings each year. NRCS-assisted watershed projects provide a wide diversity of upland habitat landowners in watershed projects with technical and sometimes financial assistance in applying conservation practices. Many of these practices create or improve wildlife habitat and protect water quality in streams and lakes. While watershed projects may offer benefits to recreational users, others wonder about their environmental impacts. To what end is the soil being conserved? What if the area is a natural floodplain? What are the impacts of recreational users on endangered or threatened species? These questions and others abound in the traditional soil conservation and floodplain protection policies. CREATING AND PROTECTING WETLANDS: WATERSHED PROGRAM RESULTS According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, they have assisted in creating the following. • • • •

Upland wildlife habitat created or enhanced: 9,140,741 acres Wetlands created or enhanced: 210,865 acres Stream corridors enhanced: 25,093 miles Reduced sedimentation: 49,983,696 tons/year

The 2,000 watershed projects have established a $15 billion national infrastructure, by their own estimate that is providing multiple benefits to over 48 million people. • • • • •

Agricultural flood damage reduction: $266 million Nonagricultural flood damage reduction: $381 million Agricultural benefits (nonflood): $303 million Nonagricultural benefits (nonflood): $572 million Total monetary benefits: $1.522 billion

|

527

528

| Watershed Protection and Soil Conservation

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Number of bridges benefited: 56,787 Number of farms and ranches benefited: 154,304 Number of businesses benefited: 46,464 Number of public facilities benefited: 3,588 Acres of wetlands created or enhanced: 210,865 Acres of upland wildlife habitat created or enhanced: 9,140,741 Miles of streams with improved water quality: 25,093 Number of domestic water supplies benefited: 27,685 Reduced soil erosion (tons/year): 89,343,55 Tons of animal waste properly managed: 3,910,10 Reduced sedimentation (tons/year): 49,983,696 Water conserved (acre feet/year): 1,763,472

The Watershed Program has been used by communities for over 50 years. The authorizing legislation has been amended several times to address a broader WATERSHED PROTECTION AND SOIL CONSERVATION States are important stakeholders in implementing watershed protection programs. Part of implementation is making information about the program accessible to the public.

State Watershed Web Pages The following states have information about their watersheds available online: Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Florida Hawaii Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Minnesota Missouri Nebraska New York North Dakota Pennsylvania Utah Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

State Proclamations Arizona Hawaii Kansas Oklahoma

Wild Animal Reintroduction

range of natural resource and environmental issues, and today the program offers communities more assistance to address some environmental issues. There are watershed projects in every state. Over 2,000 projects have been implemented since 1948. New projects are being developed each year by local people. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As water resources become scarce, the competition for water will force water users to exert all rights in water and the land. In places where floods occur, property owners will want flood control as watershed protection. Communities want clean and safe drinking water, and this is becoming a scarce resource even in communities with water. Watersheds absorb all past and present wastes, by-products, emissions, discharges, runoff, and other environmental impacts. Their protection will require increasingly stringent controls on all water users and residents of the watershed. Private property owners and land developers object to this because they may have planned for a more profitable use. Without water it is difficult to make a profit in developing land. Sustainable sources of safe water are essential to many stakeholders. Watershed protection will become increasingly controversial as it moves from 1940s and 1950s soil erosion prevention policy to one that incorporates accurate monitoring of water and precepts of sustainability in urban and suburban settlements as well as rural ones. See also Logging; Mining of Natural Resources; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Air; Permitting Industrial Emissions: Water; Pesticides; Sprawl; Sustainability; Water Pollution Web Resources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality: Volunteer Monitoring. Available at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/vol.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Watersheds. Available at www.epa.gov/owow/water shed/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Hirt, Paul W. 1994. A Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests since World War Two. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; Mastney, Lisa, and Sandra Postel. 2005. Liquid Assets: The Critical Need to Safeguard Freshwater Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute; Morandi, Larry, Barbara Foster, and Jeff Dale. 1998. Watershed Protection: The Legislative Role. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Governors; Riley, Ann Lawrence. 1998. Restoring Streams in Cities: A Guide for Planners, Policymakers, and Citizens. Washington, DC: Island Press; Sabatier, Paul A. 2005. Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

WILD ANIMAL REINTRODUCTION To prevent wolves from extinction, the National Park Service reintroduced them on park lands. Nearby ranchers protested this, claiming the wolves prey on

| 529

530

| Wild Animal Reintroduction

their herds. Environmentalists claim ranchers killed some of the wolves. Grizzly bears may be reintroduced in national parks next. One of the biggest reasons for the reintroduction of wolves back into Yellowstone was that this was part of their original habitat. Wolves had originally roamed from Yellowstone all the way down to Mexico. While many environmentalists and wildlife agencies were in favor of the reintroduction of the wolves, many other groups were against it. The main people who were against the reintroduction of the wolves were the ranchers who made a living in the areas surrounding the park. During its 70 years of absence from the Rockies, the grey wolf had been protected under the Endangered Species Act, which was passed in 1973. Therefore, a person could be punished with up to a $100,000 fine and up to one year in jail for killing a wolf. Back in the 1850s there was a major population increase of the wolves in the United States; this was due to settlers moving west. These settlers killed more than 80 million bison, and the wolves started to scavenge on the carcasses left behind. By the 1880s the majority of the bison were gone, so the wolves had to change food sources. This meant that they turned their attention to domestic livestock, causing farmers and ranchers to develop bounties and other vermin-eradication efforts. Due to the lack of a food source, as well as the bounties being offered, the wolf population plummeted in the lower 48 states. When the numbers in animal population become low, the genetic diversity of that species decreases dramatically. This could hasten the extinction of a species. One of the premises of governmental intervention in these environmental controversies around species reintroduction is to prevent extinction. An important aspect of this is gene pool diversity. This requires active animal management by humans, including an in-depth knowledge of the genes of specific animals and packs. One aspect of the battleground of this controversy is the need for more scientific monitoring of animals facing extinction. When the wolf population dropped, there was a safe place then. That was Yellowstone National Park, established in 1872. In 1916 the National Park Service started to eliminate all predators in Yellowstone National Park, which meant killing 136 wolves, 13,000 coyotes, and every single mountain lion. By 1939 this program was shut down, but all the wolves were dead. WHAT IS A WOLF PACK? A wolf pack is very hierarchical and organized. Dominance and submission establish the order of power in the pack. A pack consists of an alpha male, an alpha female, and their descendants. The alpha pair are the only two that breed. The natural pattern of breeding within a wolf pack works to protect their genetic diversity if populations are healthy. THE REINTRODUCTION PROGRAM In January 1995, 14 wolves from many separate packs were captured in Canada. They were brought into Yellowstone Park. The next step in their reintroduction

Wild Animal Reintroduction

was to place them in one-acre acclimation pens. Capturing wolves from different packs helped protect their genetic diversity. Biologists then created packs from these captured wolves. While in captivity the wolves were fed large amounts of meat in the form of roadkill or winter carrion from the area. This was often deer, elk, and smaller animals. Each pack was fed once every 7 to 10 days, which is how frequently they eat in the wild. A small wolf pack of six in the wild will consume on average 800 pounds of meat per month. In Yellowstone National Park that would average out to two adult elk and maybe a small deer per small pack per month. Today, 90 percent of all wolf kills are elk; the other 10 percent consist of bison, deer, moose, and other small game. RANCHERS’ RESISTANCE TO WOLF REINTRODUCTION Out in the U.S. West, ranchers control large tracts of land. Sometimes they own the land outright. Others lease the land from the U.S. government. The ranchers’ concerns are basic. The wolf is a predatory animal that finds the easiest type of food source available. An animal that has been domesticated and no longer has natural predators is very easy prey. From 1995 to 1998 nine head of cattle and 132 sheep were killed by wolves. The wolves that have killed livestock were mainly traveling from Canada to Yellowstone, across Montana. From 1987 to 1997 Defenders of Wildlife have paid $42,000 for 62 cattle and 141 sheep that have been lost to wolves. Many environmentalists feel that ranchers will kill off all of the introduced wolves. Only two wolves have died legally, while seven have died of unknown causes. The reintroduction of the wolf has had many problems, ranging from lawsuits to loss of livestock. The two lawsuits that have been filed contended it was unconstitutional to reintroduce the wolves into the park. The judge that was looking over the lawsuits said that the wolves needed to be returned to Canada, but Canada did not want them. Then the judge said that all the introduced wolves were to be sent to a zoo, but no zoo had room. Finally the judge said all of the introduced wolves needed to be destroyed, but the environmentalists protested. In the end nothing was done. THE ROLE OF STATES As of 2008 the population of the wolf has met the recovery goal of 10 breeding pairs. This means that the states are now trying to get the wolf off the endangered species list and under state control. Back around 1998 all of the states (Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana) started to make plans for how they were going to manage the wolf populations in their states. Each plan was then reviewed by wolf specialists and depredation specialists, to see what they thought of the plans. Each state had their plans finished by 2002. Wyoming was the first state to send its plan to be reviewed by the U.S. Congress. The other two states waited to see what would come of Wyoming’s plan, before they sent theirs in. In 2003 the Wyoming Grey Wolf Management Plan was sent back to the state, saying that it

| 531

532

| Wind Energy Supply

would not work. Most people probably felt the plan did not go through because Wyoming was planning on managing the wolves. as if they were a predator species. This meant that the wolves could freely be hunted as long as they were off national forest or national park property and on private property. Many environmentalists did not want this since they felt this was the reason all the wolves had been lost in the first place. The Montana and Idaho plans were different than Wyoming’s. They were planning on putting a trophy hunting season out on the wolf. As of right now, Wyoming has not made any changes to their plan, even though Congress wants them to change it to better manage the wolf population. Wyoming is going to take this matter to the courts. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY This is a highly controversial topic at the local level that will continue to be debated in courts, legislatures, and federal agencies. As more species become endangered and protected, successful reintroduction programs around national parks and other federal lands will be initiated. The battleground for this controversy may move to legislatures. As federal and state wildlife and park agencies seek more funding for reintroduction programs others will seek to prevent this. Ranchers and others in surrounding communities will continue to resist the siting of dangerous animals in their midst. These very communities have often benefited from the presence of nearby national parks, as well as long-term grazing leases from the federal government at very favorable rates. See also Endangered Species; Stock Grazing and the Environment Web Resources CNN.com. Wolves’ Return to Yellowstone Sparks Controversy. Available at www.cnn.com/ EARTH/9711/12/yellowstone.wolves/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Environmental Literacy Council. Wolves. Available at www.enviroliteracy.org/subcategory. php/292.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. New West. The Greatest Hunting Controversy of Them All. Available at www.newwest.net/ index.php/topic/article/the_greatest_hunting_controversy_of_them_all/C146/L41/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Mech, L. David, and Luigi Boitani. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

WIND ENERGY SUPPLY Wind power comes from turbines that generate power. These turbines can create noise that may disturb communities and wildlife. In cold climates the blades can throw ice and snow. Sometimes the variation in wind turbulence can cause traditional fan blades to come off. Some communities do not want them near homes or schools. Proponents claim that wind power can be harnessed to be a nonpolluting, renewable source of energy to meet electric power needs around the world. Wind

Wind Energy Supply | 533

power is a form of renewable energy. As portions of the earth are heated by the sun, the heated air rises and air rushes to fill the low-pressure areas, creating wind. The wind is slowed as it brushes the ground so it may not feel windy at ground level. The power in the wind may be five times greater at the height of the blade tip on a large, modern wind turbine. Entire areas of the country may be very windy while other areas are relatively calm. The majority of people do not live in high-wind areas, although that could change with global warming and climate change. WIND INTO ELECTRICITY Wind power is converted to electricity as the wind moves the blades of a windmill or wind turbine. In a typical, modern, large-scale wind turbine, the wind is converted to rotational motion by the rotor, which is the three-bladed assembly at the front of the wind turbine. The rotor turns a shaft that transfers the motion into the large housing at the top of a wind turbine tower. The slowly rotating shaft enters a gearbox that greatly increases the rotational shaft speed. The output shaft is connected to a generator that converts the rotational movement into electricity. APPLICATIONS The wind resource in the United States is vast. Using today’s technology, proponents claim there is theoretically enough wind power flowing across the United States to supply all of our electricity needs. Assuming adequate access to One common controversy with earlier wind turbines was their noise. Noise issues are difficult because it is hard to measure noise in real-life conditions. The following are measurements in decibels of some common noises:

Source/Activity

Indicative noise level dB

Threshold of hearing Rural nighttime background Quiet bedroom Wind farm at 350 m Car at 40 mph at 100 m Busy general office Truck at 30 mph at 100 m Pneumatic drill at 7 m Jet aircraft at 250 m Threshold of pain

0 20–40 35 35–45 55 60 65 95 105 140

While modern turbines are quieter, no research has been undertaken about the cumulative effects of constant noise from wind turbines.

534

| Wind Energy Supply

the national grid, windy North Dakota alone could supply over 40 percent of the nation’s electricity. Adequate winds for commercial power production are found at sites in all but four states. However, only a small portion of that potential is currently used. Less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity is currently supplied by wind power. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS One of wind energy’s important environmental benefits is its minimal impact on the environment. Electricity in the United States is mostly produced from coal and other fossil fuels (70%), nuclear energy (20%), and hydroelectric sources (dams), which have greater environmental impacts. There has been some controversy about the noise the wind turbines make when in operation. Recently there has been major technological innovation in the design of multidirectional, conical turbines. Some claim to have designed them at a scale to fit on top of rooftops in urban areas. Cities such as Chicago have great interest in these “microturbines,” but currently the skeptics are many. An emerging battleground is the government regulation of microturbines on urban rooftops. Given the density of the unit in urban areas it is unlikely that every building could harness the wind energy. The buildings will have to be able to take both the weight of the units and the stress of wind turbulence. Nonetheless, many engineers and builders think that lighter and stronger materials will be able to do so. There is promise of rapid technological advancement increasing the efficiency and safety of wind power. POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE CONTROVERSY As nonrenewable sources of energy dry up, other alternative sources must be found to replace them. Wind power is an attractive alternative. If developed on a large scale, community resistance could result from some of the noise concerns. Controversies may evolve as a national policy on alternative fuels gains a meaningful budget. How much should the government support wind power? Can a government use its power to take private property for wind turbines to generate power for community use? Would it matter if it were a private company, a utility, or a city that owned the wind turbines and/or land underneath it? These battleground questions and others have no easy answers yet, which is a sign of potential controversy. New technological advancements in wind turbines and in other ways to effectively increase their efficiency may make them even more appealing. Some claim they can make them function on a building. Globally, wind markets are booming. The Global Wind Energy Council analyzed wind energy data from 70 nations. They report that in 2006 total installed wind energy capacity was 74,223 MW. In 2005 it was 59,090 MW. The wind energy market grew by 41 percent in 2006. Europe has the largest market share with 65 percent of the total. Germany and Spain are especially involved in wind energy, and alternative, renewable energy generally. Asia had 24 percent of new installations in 2006

Wind Energy Supply | 535

according to the council report. Canada increased its wind power capacity enormously from 683 MW in 2005 to 1,459 MW in 2006. The United States has the highest new installed wind power capacity reporting 2,454 MW in 2006. Thirteen nations now generate at least 1,000 MW a year, and more are exploring the possibilities of wind power. Concern about energy independence as well as environmental impacts influences this battleground. Given the recent rapid changes in technology of wind turbines and the robust increases in global wind energy markets, it is likely that any environmental controversies associated with them will increase. However, technology may be able to overcome concerns about noise and other risks, and decrease some of the current battlegrounds in this controversy. See also Climate Change; Global Warming; Sustainability Web Resources Union of Concerned Scientists. Wind Power: Clean, Sustainable, and Affordable. Available at www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/index.html. Accessed January 22, 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior. Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center. Available at windeis.anl.gov/. Accessed January 22, 2008. Wind Power: Environmental and Safety Issues. Wind Energy Fact Sheet 4. Available at www. dti.gov.uk/files/file17777.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2008. Further Reading: Gipe, Paul. 1995. Wind Energy Comes of Age. New York: John Wiley and Sons; Hills, Richard Leslie. 1994. Power from Wind: A History of Windmill Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Pasqualetti, Martin J., Paul Gipe, and Robert Righter. 2002. Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier; Patel, Mukund R. 1999. Wind and Solar Power Systems. New York: CRC Press.

APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE PROGRAMS, APPLICATIONS, AND PORTAL WEB SITES ABEL Model http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/econmodels/index.html By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The ABEL Model evaluates a corporation’s or partnership’s claim that it cannot afford compliance costs, cleanup costs, or civil penalties. Arsenic Rule State Primacy Requirements (PDF) http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.html#training By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Slides and narrative from one of the presentations delivered in the EPA’s 2002 Arsenic Rule Training Sessions. Arsenic Rule State Primacy Requirements (PowerPoint) http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/compliance.html#training By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Copies of the slides from one of the presentations delivered in the EPA’s 2002 Arsenic Rule Training Sessions. BEN Model http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/econmodels/index.html By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The BEN Model calculates a violator’s economic savings from delaying and/or avoiding pollution-control expenditures. Dashboard of Sustainability http://www.iisd.org/cgsdi/dashboard.asp 537

538

|

Environmental Database Programs, Applications, and Portal Web Sites

By Consultative Group on Sustainable Development Indicators. A software package that illustrates the complex relationships among economic, social, and environmental issues. The visual format is suitable for decision makers and others interested in sustainable development. This edition promotes the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) indicators especially for developing countries. These indicators help define poverty reduction strategies and monitor the achievement of the MDGs. Environmental Planning for Small Communities (TRILOGY) http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome/trilogy.html By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Purdue University. An introduction to a wide range of environmental issues and decisions that affect small to medium-sized communities. It offers communities the chance to judge their own needs and preferences and to make informed decisions on their own. Major sections cover: environmental laws and regulations, self-assessment planning and comparative risk analysis, financial tools and financial self-analysis, case studies, and contact and information directory. Each section includes interactive tools, such as a notebook tool to fill in and save survey forms and keep notes. The program combines and integrates numerous publications from federal agencies and states like Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, and Utah. EnviroRisk http://www.uic.edu/sph/cade/envirorisk/ By the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. A casebased, problem-solving program in environmental risk assessment and risk communication. You will play the role of a public health professional as you go through the course. This course will develop your ability to investigate an environmental health problem and serve as a resource and risk communicator in your community. Credit for taking this course is available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epi Info http://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/ By U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). With Epi Info and a personal computer, epidemiologists and other public health and medical professionals can rapidly develop a questionnaire or form, customize the data entry process, and enter and analyze data. Epidemiological statistics, tables, graphs, and maps are produced with simple commands such as READ, FREQ, LIST, TABLES, GRAPH, and MAP. Epi Map displays geographic maps with data from Epi Info. EpiCalc 2000 http://www.brixtonhealth.com/index.html By Mark Myatt. A statistical calculator that works with pretabulated data. Some of the functions available in EpiCalc will be of general use, but they have been chosen to be of interest to persons working with data from a public health or epidemiological context.

Environmental Database Programs, Applications, and Portal Web Sites

HRS Quickscore http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/npl_hrs/quickscore.htm By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Program. Created to assist in scoring sites using the EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS). HRS Quickscore is an electronic set of HRS scoresheets that executes real-time site score calculations. It was designed to assist in developing a conceptual model for Superfund site assessments. This product is intended for use by those individuals who plan and implement preliminary assessments (PAs), site inspections (SIs), and other data-collection efforts according to the HRS rules, as well as those individuals that write and review HRS documentation records. HRS Toolbox http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/ By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Program. The HRS Toolbox page provides current guidance documents that may be used to determine if a site is a candidate for inclusion on the National Priorities List. INDIPAY Model http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/econmodels/index.html By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The INDIPAY Model evaluates an individual taxpayer’s claim that he or she cannot afford compliance costs, cleanup costs, or civil penalties. MUNIPAY Model http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/econmodels/index.html By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The MUNIPAY Model evaluates a municipality’s, town’s, sewer authority’s, or drinking water authority’s claim that it cannot afford compliance costs, cleanup costs, or civil penalties. National Emissions Inventory Input Format (NIF) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/index.html By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The NEI Input Format (NIF) is the format most widely used by state and local agencies to transfer data to the EPA’s National Emission Inventory (NEI). The most current version of the NIF, Version 2.0, and all user documentation is posted here for users to download. In addition, there is a software program included here for download to help NIF users perform quality control (QC) checks on their files to ensure correct format specification. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas http://www.epa.gov/nps/urbanmm/ By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. This guidance document is designed to help citizens and municipalities in urban areas protect bodies of water from polluted runoff that can

|

539

540

|

Environmental Database Programs, Applications, and Portal Web Sites

result from everyday activities. The guidance also offers help to states for implementing their nonpoint source control programs and to municipalities for implementing their Phase II Storm Water Permit Programs. PROJECT Model http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/econmodels/index.html By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The PROJECT Model calculates the real cost to a defendant of a proposed supplemental environmental project. Regulatory Economic Analyses Inventory http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/ By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). A database of a variety of regulatory economic analyses on most major U.S. regulations. Some of the recent ones are available for download. RMP*Review http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/rmp_comp By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO). Designed for reviewing and analyzing risk management plans (RMPs) submitted under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r). It has advanced query capabilities for users who want to analyze RMP data beyond the capabilities of RMP*Info (e.g., state implementing agencies, LEPCs, etc.) STELLAR: Systematic Tracking of Elevated Lead Levels and Remediation www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/surv/stellar/stellar.htm By U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC). A software application provided to state and local childhood lead-poisoning prevention programs (CLPPPs) with a practical means of tracking medical and environmental activities in leadpoisoning cases. The intent of this application is to provide an electronic means of addressing the data that programs receive from labs, providers, clinics, and case management professionals. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Program. Contains factor values and benchmark values applied when evaluating potential National Priorities List (NPL) sites using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). Factor values are used for determining the relative threat posed by a hazardous waste site and reflect hazardous substance characteristics, such as toxicity and persistence in the environment, substance mobility, and potential for bioaccumulation. Benchmarks are environment- or health-based substance concentration limits developed by or used in other EPA regulatory programs. SCDM contains HRS factor values and benchmark values for hazardous substances that are frequently

Environmental Database Programs, Applications, and Portal Web Sites

found at sites evaluated using the HRS, as well as the physical, chemical, and radiological data used to calculate those values. PDF files. Water Quality Standards and Criteria www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome/wqs.html By U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Purdue University. Provides a framework for maintenance and improvement of water quality when adopted by states, U.S. territories, and Indian tribes. This software presents the three components of state and tribal water quality standards: water body uses (e.g., swimming, boating), water quality criteria or limits on chemical concentrations that may be present the water body, and antidegradation policy to protect existing water quality. It explains how Indian tribes can become involved and describes discretionary policies that affect water quality standards (WQS), economic considerations in the WQS program, the EPA’s role and responsibility in the WQS process, and implementation of WQS through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Relevant sections of the Clean Water Act are included, along with information on use attainability analysis, the submittal/approval process, implementation, and public involvement. Additionally, the user is provided with resources, contacts, a glossary of terms, and several examples of water quality standards. Working with Communities for Environmental Health (Webcast on Demand) www2a.cdc.gov/PHTNOnline/Registration/DetailPage By U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC). This program is an edited version of the Working with Communities for Environmental Health satellite broadcast and webcast, originally aired on September 12, 2002. Environmental conditions and their impact on health are a growing concern. It is challenging for communities and individuals to obtain reliable, accurate environmental health information. It is equally challenging for health and environmental professionals to work effectively with communities and individuals concerned about or facing environmental health issues. This program demonstrates a framework for working with communities and individuals to improve their capacity for making informed decisions that promote environmental health and quality of life. The program examines cultural, behavioral, environmental, and policy influences that impact community-based work throughout the process. Continuing education credits are available.

portal websites Air Quality in National Parks http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Monitoring/network.cfm Federal Facilities Environmental Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center http://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/myfacility/

|

541

542

|

Environmental Database Programs, Applications, and Portal Web Sites

International Endangered Species List http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Tides, historical nautical charts http://www.noaa.gov/charts.html U.S. Endangered Species List http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html

APPENDIX B: INDEX CHEMICALS Benzene and the polycyclic hydrocarbons are index chemicals—examples of the many chemicals present in combustion products. While the descriptions of the chemicals are very general, there is no doubt that chronic exposure can produce profound and long-lasting changes in biological function. BENZENE The greatest possibility for high-level exposures is in the workplace. Most people are exposed to benzene in tobacco smoke and automobile exhaust. Benzene has been found in at least 337 of 1177 National Priorities List (NPL) hazardous waste sites. Other environmental sources of benzene include gasoline (filling) stations, underground storage tanks that leak, wastewater from industries that use benzene, chemical spills, groundwater next to landfills containing benzene, and possibly some food products that contain benzene naturally. Brief Exposure at High Levels—Death may occur in humans and animals after brief oral or inhalation exposures to high levels of benzene; however, the main effects of these types of exposures are drowsiness, dizziness, and headaches. These symptoms disappear after exposure stops. Long-Term Exposures at Various Levels—From overwhelming human evidence and supporting animal studies, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined that benzene is carcinogenic. Leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form the white blood cells) and subsequent death from cancer have occurred in some workers exposed to benzene for periods of fewer than 5 and up to 30 years. Long-term exposures to benzene may affect normal blood production, possibly resulting in severe anemia and internal bleeding. In addition,

543

544

|

Index Chemicals

human and animal studies indicate that benzene is harmful to the immune system, increasing the chance for infections and perhaps lowering the body’s defense against tumors. Exposure to benzene has also been linked with genetic changes in humans and animals. Animal studies indicate that benzene has adverse effects on unborn animals. These effects include low birth weight, delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage. Some of these effects occur at benzene levels as low as 10 parts of benzene per million parts of air (ppm). Although benzene has been reported to have harmful effects on animal reproduction, the evidence for human reproductive effects, such as spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, is too limited to form a clear link with benzene. Benzene can be measured in the blood and the breath. The body changes benzene to phenol, which can be measured in the urine. Amounts of benzene (in blood) and phenol (in urine) cannot be used as yet to predict what degree of harmful health effects may occur. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the maximum permissible level in drinking water at 5 parts of benzene per billion parts of water (ppb). Because benzene can cause leukemia, the EPA established an ultimate goal of 0 ppb for benzene in drinking water and in ambient water such as rivers and lakes. The EPA realizes that this goal may be unattainable and has estimated how much benzene in ambient water would be associated with one additional cancer case for every 100,000 persons (6.6 ppb benzene), one case for every 1 million persons (0.66 ppb benzene), and one case for every 10 million persons (0.066 ppb benzene). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended an occupational exposure limit in air of 0.1 part of benzene per million parts of air (ppm). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) legally enforceable limit is an average of 1.0 ppm over the standard eight-hour workday, 40-hour workweek. POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances. PAHs can be humanmade or occur naturally. There is no known use for most of these chemicals except for research purposes. A few of the PAHs are used in medicines and to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides. They are found throughout the environment in the air, water, and soil. There are more than 100 different PAH compounds. Although the health effects of the individual PAHs vary, the following 15 PAHs are considered a group with similar toxicity: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benz(a) anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo (ghi)perylene, benzo (k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, pyrene. Several factors will determine whether harmful health effects will occur and what the type and severity of those health effects will be. These factors include the dose (how much), the duration (how long), the route by which you are exposed (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact), the other chemicals to which you are exposed, and your individual characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, family traits, lifestyle, and state of health. As pure chemicals, PAHs generally exist as colorless, white, or pale yellow-green solids. Most PAHs are found as mixtures of two or more PAHs. They can occur in the air either attached to

Index Chemicals | 545

dust particles, or in soil or sediment as solids. They can also be found in substances such as crude oil, coal, coal tar pitch, creosote, and road and roofing tar. Most PAHs do not dissolve easily in water, but some PAHs evaporate into the air. PAHs generally do not burn easily, and they will last in the environment for months to years. PAHs are attached to dust and other particles in the air and originate from vehicle exhausts, asphalt roads, coal, coal tar, wildfires, agricultural burning and hazardous waste sites. Background levels of PAHs in the air are reported to be 0.02–1.2 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) in rural areas and 0.15–19.3 mg/m3 in urban areas. Exposure to PAHs can occur from soil near areas where coal, wood, gasoline, or other products have been burned or from the soil on or near hazardous waste sites, such as former manufactured-gas sites and wood-preserving facilities. PAHs have been found in some drinking water supplies in the United States. The background level of PAHs in drinking water ranges from 4 to 24 nanograms per liter (ng/L). For many people, the greatest exposure to PAHs occurs in the workplace. PAHs can enter the body through the lungs. They enter the body quickly and easily by all routes of exposure. The rate at which PAHs enter your body is increased when they are present in oily mixtures, and they tend to be stored in the kidneys, liver, and fat, with smaller amounts in the spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries. Results from animal studies show that PAHs do not tend to be stored in the body for a long time and are excreted within a few days in the feces and urine. PAHs may be carcinogens. Several of the PAHs, including benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene have caused tumors in laboratory animals when they ate them, when they were applied to their skin, and when they breathed them in the air for long periods of time. Reports in humans show that individuals exposed by breathing or skin contact for long periods of time to mixtures of other compounds and PAHs can also develop cancer. Mice fed high levels of benzo(a)pyrene during pregnancy had difficulty reproducing and so did their offspring. The offspring from pregnant mice fed benzo(a)pyrene also showed other harmful effects, such as birth defects and decreased body weight. Similar effects could occur in humans, but we have no information to show that these effects do occur. Studies in animals have also shown that PAHs can cause harmful effects on skin, body fluids, and the body’s system for fighting disease after both short- and long-term exposure. These effects have not been reported in humans. PAHs are changed into chemicals that can attach to substances within the body. The presence of PAHs attached to these substances can then be measured in body tissues or blood after exposure to PAHs. However, this test is still being developed and it is not known yet how well it works. PAHs or their breakdown products can also be measured in urine. Although these tests can tell that you have been exposed to PAHs, it is not yet possible to use these tests to predict the severity of any health effects that might occur or to determine the extent of your exposure to the PAHs. These tests are not routinely available at a doctor’s office because they require special equipment for sampling and detecting these chemicals. For more information, see http://www.nutramed.com/environment/cars chemicals.htm.

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS The following is a generally accepted set of terms used in describing environmental events. Source: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Absorption: The process of taking in, as when a sponge takes up water. Chemicals can be absorbed into the bloodstream after breathing or swallowing. Chemicals can also be absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream and then transported to other organs. Not all of the chemical breathed, swallowed, or touched is always absorbed. Acute: Occurring over a short time, usually a few minutes or hours. An acute exposure can result in short-term or long-term health effects. An acute effect happens within a short time after exposure. Ambient: Surrounding. Ambient air usually means outdoor air (as opposed to indoor air). Analyte: A chemical for which a sample (such as water, air, blood, urine, or other substance) is tested. For example, if the analyte is mercury, the laboratory test will determine the amount of mercury in the sample. Aquifer: An underground source of water. This water may be contained in a layer of rock, sand, or gravel. Background level: A typical level of a chemical in the environment. Background often refers to naturally occurring or uncontaminated levels. Background levels in one region of the state may be different than those in other areas. Bedrock: The solid rock underneath surface soils. Biological monitoring: Analyzing chemicals, hormone levels, or other substances in biological materials (blood, urine, breath, etc.) as a measure of chemical exposure,

547

548

|

Glossary of Environmental Terms health status, etc. in humans or animals. A blood test for lead is an example of biological monitoring. Body burden: The total amount of a chemical in the body. Some chemicals build up in the body because they are stored in body organs like fat or bone or are eliminated very slowly. Case control study: A study in which people with a disease (cases) are compared to people without the disease (controls) to see if their past exposures to chemicals or other risk factors were different. Central nervous system (CNS): The part of the nervous system that includes the brain and the spinal cord. CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. See “Superfund.” Chronic: Occurring over a long period of time, several weeks, months, or years. Cohort study: A study in which a group of people with a past exposure to chemicals or other risk factors are followed over time and their disease experience compared to that of a group of people without the exposure. Composite sample: A sample that is made by combining samples from two or more locations. The sample can be of water, soil, or another medium. Concentration: The amount of one substance dissolved or contained in a given amount of another substance or medium. Contaminant: Any substance that enters a system (the environment, human body, food, etc.) where it is not normally found. Contaminants are usually referred to in a negative sense and include substances that spoil food, pollute the environment, or cause other adverse effects. Dermal: Referring to the skin. For example, dermal absorption means absorption through the skin. Detection limit: The smallest amount of substance that a laboratory test can reliably measure in a sample of air, water, soil, or other medium. Dose: The amount of substance to which a person is exposed. Epidemiology: The study of the occurrence and causes of health effects in human populations. An epidemiological study often compares two groups of people who are alike except for one factor such as exposure to a chemical or the presence of a health effect. The investigators try to determine if the factor is associated with the health effect. Exposure: Contact with a chemical by swallowing, by breathing, or by direct contact (such as through the skin or eyes). Exposure may be either short term (acute) or long term (chronic). Exposure assessment: A process that estimates the amount of a chemical that enters or comes into contact with people or animals. An exposure assessment also describes how often and for how long an exposure occurred, and the nature and size of a population exposed to a chemical. Feasibility study (FS): A study that compares different ways to clean up a contaminated site. The feasibility study recommends one or more actions to remediate the site. See “Remedial investigation.” Gradient: The change in a property over a certain distance. For example, lead can accumulate in surface soil near a road due to automobile exhaust. As you move

Glossary of Environmental Terms | 549 away from the road, the amount of lead in the surface soil decreases. This change in the lead concentration with distance from the road is called a gradient. Health assessment for contaminated sites: Determination of actual or possible health effects due to environmental contamination or exposure. It includes a health-based interpretation of all the information known about the situation. The information may come from site investigations (environmental sampling and studies), exposure assessments, risk assessments, biological monitoring, or health effects studies. The health assessment is used to advise people how to prevent or reduce their exposures, to determine remedial actions or the need for additional studies. Health effects studies related to contaminants: Studies of the health of people who may have been exposed to contaminants. They include, but are not limited to, epidemiological studies, reviews of health status of people in exposure or disease registries, and doing medical tests. Health registry: A record of people exposed to a specific substance (such as a heavy metal), or having a specific health condition (such as cancer or a communicable disease). New York State maintains several health registries. Ingestion: Swallowing (such as eating or drinking). Chemicals in or on food, drink, utensils, cigarettes, hands, etc. can be ingested. After ingestion, chemicals may be absorbed into the blood and distributed throughout the body. Inhalation: Breathing. People can take in chemicals by breathing contaminated air. Interim Remedial Measure (IRM): An action taken at a contaminated site to reduce the chances of human or environmental exposure to site contaminants. Interim remedial measures are planned and carried out before comprehensive remedial studies. They can prevent additional damage during the study phase, but do not interfere in any way with the need to develop a complete remedial program. Latency period: The period of time between exposure to something that causes a disease and the onset of the health effect. Cancer caused by chemical exposure may have a latency period of 5 to 40 years. Leaching: As water moves through soils or landfills, chemicals in the soil may dissolve in the water thereby contaminating the groundwater. This is called leaching. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest (maximum) level of a contaminant allowed to go uncorrected by a public water system under federal or state regulations. Depending on the contaminant, allowable levels might be calculated as an average over time or might be based on individual test results. Corrective steps are implemented if the MCL is exceeded. Media: Elements of a surrounding environment that can be sampled for contamination, usually soil, water, or air. Plants, as well as humans (when sampling blood, urine, etc.) and animals (such as sampling fish to update fish consumption advisories) can also be considered media. The singular of “media” is “medium.” Metabolism: All the chemical reactions that enable the body to work. For example, food is metabolized (chemically changed) to supply the body with energy. Chemicals can be metabolized by the body and made either more or less harmful. Morbidity: Illness or disease. A morbidity rate for a certain illness is the number of people with that illness divided by the number of people in the population from which the illnesses were counted.

550

|

Glossary of Environmental Terms National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of certain inactive hazardous waste sites. The list is produced and updated periodically by the EPA. See Superfund. Odor threshold: The lowest concentration of a chemical that can be smelled. Different chemicals have different odor thresholds. Also, some people can smell a chemical at lower concentrations than others can. Organic: Generally considered as originating from plants or animals, and made primarily of carbon and hydrogen. Scientists use the term organic to mean those chemical compounds that are based on carbon. Permeability: The property of permitting liquids or gases to pass through. A highly permeable soil, such as sand, allows a liquid to pass through quickly. Clay has a low permeability. Persistence: The quality of remaining for a long period of time (such as in the environment or the body). Persistent chemicals (such as DDT and PCBs) are not easily broken down. Plume: An area of chemicals moving away from its source in a long band or column. A plume, for example, can be a column of smoke from a chimney or chemicals moving with groundwater. Protocol: The detailed plan for conducting a scientific procedure. A protocol for measuring a chemical in soil, water, or air describes the way in which samples should be collected and analyzed. Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC): A system of procedures, checks, and audits to judge and control the quality of measurements and reduce the uncertainty of data. Some quality control procedures include having more than one person review the findings and analyzing a sample at different times or laboratories to see if the findings are similar. Remedial investigation (RI): An in-depth study (including sampling of air, soil, water, and waste) of a contaminated site needing remediation to determine the nature and extent of contamination. The remedial investigation (RI) is usually combined with a feasibility study (FS). Remediation: Correction or improvement of a problem, such as work that is done to clean up or stop the release of chemicals from a contaminated site. After investigation of a site, remedial work may include removing soil and/or drums, capping the site, or collecting and treating the contaminated fluids. Risk: Risk is the possibility of injury, disease, or death. For example, for a person who has measles, the risk of death is one in one million. Risk assessment: A process that estimates the likelihood that exposed people may have health effects. Risk management: The process of deciding how and to what extent to reduce or eliminate risk factors by considering the risk assessment, engineering factors (Can procedures or equipment do the job, for how long, and how well?), social, economic, and political concerns. Route of exposure: The way in which a person may contact a chemical substance. For example, drinking (ingestion) and bathing (skin contact) are two different routes of exposure to contaminants that may be found in water.

Glossary of Environmental Terms | 551 Safe: Strictly, free from harm or risk. Exposure to a chemical usually has some risk associated with it, although the risk may be very small. However, many people use the word safe to mean something that has a very low risk or one that is acceptable to them. Site inspection: A Department of Health visit to a site to evaluate the likelihood of human exposure to toxic chemicals and to do an exposure assessment. Solubility: The largest amount of a substance that can be dissolved in a given amount of a liquid, usually water. For a highly water-soluble compound, such as table salt, a lot can dissolve in water. Motor oil is only slightly soluble in water. Superfund (federal and state): The federal and state programs to investigate and clean up inactive hazardous waste sites. Target organ: An organ (such as the liver or kidney) that is specifically affected by a toxic chemical. Volatile: Evaporating readily at normal temperatures and pressures. The air concentration of a highly volatile chemical can increase quickly in a closed room. Volatile organic compound (VOC): An organic chemical that evaporates readily. Petroleum products such as kerosene, gasoline, and mineral spirits contain VOCs. Chlorinated solvents such as those used by dry cleaners or contained in paint strippers are also VOCs.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Agrawal, Clark C. 2001. Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Boyce, James K., and Barry G. Shelley, 2003. Natural Assets: Democratizing Ownership of Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press. Bullard, Robert. 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston: South End Press. ———. 2000. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cole, Luke W., and Sheila R. Foster. 2001. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York: New York University Press. Collin, Robert W. 2006. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cleaning Up America’s Act. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Common, Michael S. 1995. Sustainability and Policy: Limits to Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cox, John D. 2005. Climate Crash: Discovering Rapid Climate Change and What It Means to Our Future. New York: National Academies Press. Daniels, Ronald J., Donald F. Kettl, and Howard Kunreuther, eds. 2006. On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Dean, Bartholomew, Jerome M. Levi, and Winona LaDuke. 2003. At the Risk of Being Heard: Identity, Indigenous Rights and Postcolonial States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Degregori, Thomas R. 2004. Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.

553

554

|

Bibliography Depoe, Stephen P., and John W. Delicath. 2004. Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Dernbach, John C. 2000. Stumbling toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Doob, Leonard William. 1995. Sustainers and Sustainability: Attitudes, Attributes, and Actions for Survival. Westport, CT: Praeger. Durning, Alan. Poverty and the Environment. Portland, OR: Worldwatch Institute. Easton, Thomas A., and Theodore D. Goldfarb, eds. 2003. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Environmental Issues. Dishkin, CT: McGraw-Hill. Elliott Johansen, Bruce. 2003. The Dirty Dozen: Toxic Chemicals and the Earth’s Future. Westport, CT: Praeger. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Forman, Richard T. T. 2002. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Washington, DC: Island Press. Frank, Lawrence D., Peter O. Engelke, and Thomas L. Schmid. 2003. Health and Community Design: The Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity. Washington, DC: Island Press. Freeman, A. Myrick III. 2003. The Measurements of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Freyfogle, Eric T. 2003. The Land We Share: Private Property and the Common Good. Washington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books. Friedman, Frank B. 2003. Practical Guide to Environmental Management. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Garwin, Richard L., and Georges Charpak. 2002. Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Geisler, Charles, and Gail Daneker, eds. 2000. Property and Values: Alternatives to Public and Private Ownership. Washington, DC: Island Press. Haar, Charles M., and Jerold S. Kayden. 1989. Zoning and the American Dream: Promises to Keep. Chicago: American Planning Association. Harkin, Michael Eugene, and David Rich Lewis. 2007. Native Americans and the Environment: Perspectives on the Ecological Indian. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Harrad, Stuart. 2001. Persistent Organic Pollutants: Environmental Behaviour and Pathways of Human Exposure. New York: Springer. Honey, Martha. 1999. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington, DC: Island Press. Houck, Oliver A. 1999. The Clean Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy, and Implementation. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Institute of Medicine. 2000. Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Kan, Sergei. 2006. New Perspectives on Native North America: Cultures, Histories, and Representations. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Kreske, Diori L. 1999. Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bibliography Lawrence, David Peter. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Maser, Chris. 1999. Ecological Diversity in Sustainable Development: The Vital and Forgotten Dimension. Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers. Mazaika, Rosemary, Robert T. Lackey, and Stephen L. Friant, eds. 1995. Ecological Risk Assessment: Use, Abuse, and Alternatives. Amherst, MA: Amherst Scientific Publishers. Mech, L. David, and Luigi Boitani. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meltz, Robert, Dwight H. Merriam, and Richard M. Frank. 1999. The Takings Issue: Constitutional Limits on Land-Use Control and Environmental Regulation. Washington, DC: Island Press. Moore, Colleen F. 2003. Silent Scourge: Children, Pollution, and Why Scientists Disagree. New York: Oxford University Press. Moussiopoulos, Nicolas, ed. 2003. Air Quality in Cities. New York: Springer. Nash, Linda Lorraine. 2007. Inescapable Ecologies: A History of Environment, Disease, and Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. National Academies Press. 2003. Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope. Washington, DC: National Research Council. National Environmental Education Advisory Council. 2005. Setting the Standard, Measuring the Results, Celebrating Successes: A Report to Congress on Environmental Education in the US. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC). 1996. The Model Plan for Public Participation. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. Noss, Reed F., 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: Island Press. O’Riordan, Timothy. 2006. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: James & James/Earthscan. Pelling, Mark. 2003. The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London: Earthscan. Pellow, David, and Robert J. Brulle. 2005. Power, Justice, and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Platt, Rutherford H. 2004. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press. Randolph, John. 2004. Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Washington, DC: Island Press. Riddell, Robert. 2004. Sustainable Urban Planning: Tipping the Balance. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Selin, Helaine. 2003. Nature across Cultures: Views of Nature and the Environment in Non-Western Cultures. New York: Springer. Shiva, Vandana. 2002. Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit. Boston: South End Press. Simioni, Daniela. 2004. Air Pollution and Citizen Awareness. New York: United Nations Publications. Spellerberg, Ian F. 2005. Monitoring Ecological Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

|

555

556

|

Bibliography Stamati, P. Nicolopoulou. 2004. Cancer as an Environmental Disease. New York: Springer Publishing. Steingaber, Sandra. 1997. Living Downstream: A Scientist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment. New York: Random House. Thomas, June Manning, and Marsha Ritzsdorf. 1997. Urban Planning and the African American Community: Planning in the Shadows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tickner, Joel A. 2002. Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press. United Nations Environment Programme. 1997. Global Environment Outlook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Victor, David G. 2001. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wackernagel, Mathis, and William Rees. 1995. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Wargo, John. 1998. Our Children’s Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us from Pesticides. Yale University Press. Yost, Nichlas C. 1989. NEPA Deskbook. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS Steven Bonnoris Fellow, Public Interest Law Research Institute, Hastings College of Law. Over the past several years he has managed a series of reports jointly produced by the Public Interest Law Research Center and the American Bar Association, including “Environmental Justice for All: A Fifty State Survey.” He recently authored Environmental Enforcement in the Fifty States: The Promise and Perils of Supplemental Environmental Projects. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Robert W. Collin is the Senior Research Scholar at the Center for Sustainable Communities at Willamette University. He has been a Professor of Law, Urban Planning and Social Work; teaching at the University of Auckland, New Zealand; the University of Virginia Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, the University of Oregon Environmental Studies, Cleveland State University Department of Social Work, and Jackson State University Department of Urban and Regional Planning. He has served as an advisor to state and federal agencies. He has published many articles. His most recent book is The US Environmental Protection Agency: Cleaning Up America’s Act. Robin Morris Collin Professor of Law, Willamette School of Law. Professor Morris Collin has numerous publications in the area of sustainability. She was the first law professor to teach sustainability in the United States in the early 1990s. She also teaches cultural property law and has published in this area. She has litigated court cases, served as an advisor to federal and state agencies, and provided legislative testimony on many environmental and cultural issues. She is working with the Oregon State Bar Association to find ways to integrate sustainability into legal practice.

557

558

| About the Author and Contributors

Cathy Koehn is a retired teacher and a past director of the Northwest Cougar Action Trust, a nonprofit that actively worked to ban hounding and baiting of cougars and bears. She has a bachelor’s degree in social sciences and a master’s degree in science education. She has taught classes at Western Washington University and worked for the Forest Conservation Council, which produced forest ecosystem maps for the Audubon Society. She has been actively involved in saving Oregon’s wildlife since the mid 1980s and continues to make regular public comment to the state’s Wildlife Commission and at legislative hearings on wildlife and predator issues. Monica Patel is a 2006 law school graduate of Lewis and Clark Law School. She is currently working on issues of Environmental Justice in Michigan.

INDEX Aarhus Convention, 427 Absorption, 547 AC. See Animal Care Acid deposition, 2– 4, 10 –11 Acid rain, 1–13; Adirondack Mountains impacted by, 5–7; air pollution and, 2– 4; antiquities and, 10; as atmospheric deposition, 10 –11; CAA and, 4; causes of, 8; ecosystem/environment impacted by, 3; engineering solutions to, 8 –9; program, 409 –11; sources of, 11; water quality influenced by, 4 Acute, 547 Adirondack Mountains: acid rain impacting, 5–7; coal-burning power plants upwind of, 6 Adverse impacts, 164 Aerosols, 261 AFN. See Assembly of First Nations AFOs. See Animal feeding operations Africa, 435 African American farmers: discrimination complaints of, 208; Environmental justice lacking for, 206; land loss and, 206 –9 African Americans: asthma and, 88; cancer and, 202–3 African women, 468 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 486 Agent Orange, 180 Agriculture industry: declining, 264 – 65; Green Revolution modernizing, 300 –301; industrialized, 298 –301; marginalized workers in, 233 –34; organic foods

importing in, 376; sustainable, 299; water pollutants from, 504; water quality issues from, 521–22 Air pollutants: CNS influenced by, 39; from coal-burning power plants, 31; immune system influenced by, 39 – 40; industrial facilities releasing, 494 –95; measurement equipment for, 18 Air pollution, 13 –19; acid rain and, 2–3; central regulation authority of, 407– 8; children vulnerable to, 87; communities fighting, 385– 86; cost of, 505; defining, 15–17; entering bloodstream, 38; food transportation generating, 504; indoor, 17, 86; political boundaries and, 9; Prudhoe Bay with, 32; public health influenced by, 13 –15; ski resorts causing, 442; Southern California with, 497; transportation contributor to, 494–99 Alaska: environmental protection of, 28 –29; North Slope oil drilling in, 30 –32 Albuquerque, NM, 483–84 Algae, 42– 43 Allowances, 408–12 Alternative dispute resolution: confidentiality of, 213 –14; environmental mediation and, 210 –14; mediators role in, 212–13 Alternative energy sources: cost effectiveness of, 448; environmental impact of, 42; nuclear energy supply and, 369; tidal power as, 516 Alternative fuel vehicles, 37–38 Amazon rainforests, 436

559

560

|

Index Ambient, 547 American Petroleum Institute (API), 126 American Planning Association (APA), 458 Analyte, 547 Anangu people, 438 Animal, and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 23 Animal Care (AC), 23 Animal Enterprise Protection Act, 26 –27 Animal feeding operations (AFOs), 306 –7; public health influenced by, 305 –7; TMDL regulations on, 307 Animal Rights Act, 22–23 Animal rights groups, 26 Animals: climate change influencing, 107; culture v., 137– 41; humane treatment of, 23 –24; industrial feeding operations for, 302– 8; public health research of, 19–20; water contaminated by, 305– 6 Animals (testing/research), 19 –27; opposition to, 19 –20, 26; pet protection from, 24 –25; research facilities for, 21; rights advocates of, 20; testing proponents of, 20 –21 Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 22–23; monitoring/record keeping requirements of, 25–26; warm-blooded animal treatment and, 24 Antiquities, acid rain and, 10 An Unnatural Disaster: The Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 223–24 ANWR. See Arctic National Wildlife Refuge APA. See American Planning Association APHIS. See Animal, and Plant Health Inspection Service API. See American Petroleum Institute APOs. See Animal feeding operations Aquifer, 547 Arctic ice, 29 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): drilling controversy in, 36; oil drilling and, 28 –36; wildlife species of, 29 –30 Art, acid rain and, 10 Arvin, CA, 17 Aschengrau, Ann, 93 Asians, 199 Assembly of First Nations (AFN), 296 Asthma, 14 –15; African Americans/Puerto Ricans and, 88; children with, 85– 89; costs of, 88; health care access for, 87– 88; indoor air pollution and, 17, 86; in U.S., 87 Atmosphere: measurement data, 262– 63; methane concentrations in, 261 Atmospheric deposition, 10 –11 ATSDR. See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Attorneys’ fees, 335 Audits, environmental, 182– 85 Australian National Drought Policy, 154 Automobiles, 36 – 45 Auto paint/body shops, 120

Avalanches, 46 – 48; conditions necessary for, 46; controlling, 47; risk of, 48; United States risk of, 46; victims of, 47 Aviation, 504 AWA. See Animal Welfare Act Ayers Rock, Australia, 438 Babbitt, Bruce, 237– 40 Background level, 547 BACT. See Best Available Control Technology Bannerman, Bruce, 57 Bedrock, 547 Behavioral problems, 6 Benzene, 279; long-term exposure to, 543 – 45; petroleum refining producing, 38 –39 Best Available Control Technology (BACT), 383 Big box retailer development, 49 –59; land use battles of, 53 –59; local economies influenced by, 52–53; sprawl contributions of, 50 –51 Biodiesel fuels: climate change and, 43; environmental attributes of, 43; transesterification creating, 41– 42 Biodiversity: ecotourism protecting, 167–71; Hawaii preserving, 169 –70; logging influencing, 341; of rainforests, 434 Biofuel industry, 66 – 67 Biological monitoring, 547– 48 Biotechnology, 253–54 Bioterrorism Act, 164 – 66 Blanco, Kathleen, 223–24 Bloodstream, air pollution entering, 38 Body burden, 548 Border cities, 221 Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), 303 Bracero program, 233 Brady, Julia Green, 93 Brain cancer, 80 – 82 Brain damage, 82– 83 Breast milk, 395–96 Brower, David, 516, 518 Brownfields, 60 – 67; biofuel industry role of, 66 – 67; defining, 62; policy toward, 60 – 62; populations impacted by, 64 – 65 Brown, Michael, 224 Brundtland, Gro Harlem, 469 BSE. See Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Buffer strips, 42 Bureau of Land Management, 327 Bush administration: drilling approvals from, 34; environmental justice under attack by, 188 – 89; human pesticide testing proposed by, 405; national forest logging proposed by, 342– 43 Bush, George W., 27, 34 Business, sustainability of, 470 CAA. See Clean Air Act CAFO. See Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Index | 561 CAG. See Community Advisory Group California Responses to Supercenter Development: A Survey of Ordinances, Cases, and Elections (Isaacs), 54 Campgrounds, 367 Camp Stanley Storage Activity, 466 Cancer: African Americans and, 202–3; brain, 80 –82, 90, 92–94; cell phones possible link to, 80; childhood stressors causing, 92–93; children and, 90 –94; from electromagnetic radiation, 69 –72; as immune system breakdown, 91–92; PAHS may be linked to, 544 – 45; power lines and, 71; TCE causing, 500 –2; types of, 91 Cap and Trade program, 76, 408 –9 Carbon dioxide: emissions of, 73, 75–76; Geothermal power plants emitting, 259; global warming contribution of, 72–73; human impact of, 104 –5 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), 263 Carbon monoxide, 245 Carbon offsets, 72–74 Carbon taxes, 75–79 Carboxyhemoglobin, 164 Carcinogens, regulation of, 279 Caribou, 29 –31 Carter, Majora, 220 Case control study, 548 Cattle: environmental impact of, 461; feedlot operations of, 302–3; grazing of, 460 – 62. See also Ranching CBEP. See Community-based environmental planning CDC. See Centers for Disease Control CDIAC. See Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Cell phones: brain damage and, 82– 83; cancers possible link to, 80; electromagnetic radiation from, 79 – 85; radio-frequency energy from, 83 – 84 CELSS. See Controlled Ecological Life Support System Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 299 –300 Central America, 435 Central nervous system (CNS), 39, 91–92, 548 CEQ. See Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, And Liability Act Certification, in organic farming, 377–78 Chains of causation, 276 –77 Chavez, Cesar, 232 Chemical(s): childhood cancers caused by, 93 –94; chlorine-containing, 272; congenital malformations from, 273; hazards, 130 –31; human reactions to, 272; immune system broken down by, 274 –75; industry, 490; pesticides, 400; stripping, 8; TMDL of, 97–98; uranium toxicity and, 181

Chem Service, Inc., 466 Chertoff, Michael, 224 Children: air pollution vulnerability of, 87; asthma causes in, 85– 89; cancer and, 90 –94; cancer causes in, 92–93; chemicals/cancer in, 93 –94; lead exposure to, 144; lead level screening of, 122; mining labor of, 352; pesticide exposure of, 399 – 400; radio frequency emissions influencing, 81– 82; smog harming, 497 China, 513 –15 Chlordane, 93 Chlorine-containing chemicals, 272 Chronic, 548 Cincinnati, OH, 453 CITES. See Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Cities: border, 221; environmental vulnerability of, 219 Citizen lawsuits, 150; environmental justice and, 335–37; environmental law with, 334; expansion of, 334 –35; government enforcement and, 335; in U.S., 336 –37 Citizens: data collection by, 99 –101; environmental decisions monitored by, 95–102; monitoring by, 101–2 Class-action lawsuits, 84 – 85 Clean Air Act (CAA), 1; acid rain and, 4; alternative fuel vehicles for, 37–38; asthma and, 88; challenges of, 7–9; emissions and, 381– 82 Clean Air Mercury Rule, 393 Clean up policy: of industrial sites, 64; sprawl needing , 61 Clean Water Act (CWA), 204, 482–83; CAFO and, 304 –7; point source regulations of, 390 –91; pollution control with, 388 – 89; tribes equal standing on, 483–84 Climate: data availability on, 106 –7; historic record of, 262; as total weather conditions, 103 – 4 Climate change, 102– 8; animals influenced by, 107; biodiesel fuels and, 43; drought influenced by, 151; greenhouse gas emissions and, 470; inland flooding from, 247; methane influencing, 105– 6; rate of, 107– 8; technology solving, 103 Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL), 262– 63 Cline, William, 264 CMDL. See Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory CNS. See Central nervous system Coal-burning power plants: Adirondack Mountains downwind of, 6; air pollutants from, 31; mercury emissions of, 393 Coalition for Amazonian Peoples and Their Environment, 297

562

|

Index Coco Resources, 467 Cohort study, 548 Collaboration: common knowledge base for, 114; in environmental decision making, 109 –15; process of, 111–12; stakeholders of substance in, 112–13 Columbia River Gorge, 478 Commercialization, 364 – 65 Commercial property owners, 450 Communities: air pollution battle of, 385– 86; conservation movement in, 101; environmental decisionmaking of, 471; environment concern of, 496; hazardous waste disposal concern of, 372–73; industrial emissions response of, 387; mining/rights and, 353; monitoring programs for, 96; NPS pollution role of, 523; partnership principles in, 127–28; researching, 127–28; right to know laws for, 129 –32; solar access policies and, 450 –51; sprawl influencing, 59; supercenter site opposition of, 56 –59; transparent environmental transactions for, 131; tsunami warnings for, 508 –9; Wal-Mart’s impact on, 55–56 Communities of color, pollution and, 198 –204 Community Advisory Group (CAG), 117–23 Community-based environmental planning (CBEP), 115–24; environmental policy effectiveness of, 123; EPA and, 116 –17; EPA driving force for, 121 Community-based science, 124 –29 Community-led efforts, 121–23 Comparative risk assessment (CRA), 279 – 80 Composite sample, 548 Compounds, ozone layer eroded by, 3 – 4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, And Liability Act (CERCLA), 467, 548 Computers, processing power of, 103 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), 302, 304 –5 Concentration, 548 Concessions, 366 – 68 Confidentiality, alternative dispute resolution, 213 –14 Congenital malformations, 273 Congress, 405 Conroy, Jacob, 26 Conservation: in communities, 101; endangered species protected by, 133; in the world, 132–37 Contaminant, 548 Contamination: fish with, 392–93; sites with, 65, 311–14; water with, 305– 6 Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS), 293 Controlled Substances Act, 270 Control methods, pollution, 8 –9 Conventional food, 378 –79

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 173 Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), 83 Correa, Paul, 55 Corrosive waste, 487 Cost analyses, 506 Cost effectiveness, energy, 448 Cougar Management Plan, 425 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 197 Cow manure, 106 CRA. See Comparative risk assessment CRADA. See Cooperative Research and Development Agreement Creep, 324 Criteria pollutants, 383 Crops, biotechnology, 254 Crown fires, 244 Crystal Mountain, WA, 446 Cultural rights, 137– 41 Cumulative effects, 142– 43 Cumulative emissions, 141– 47 Cumulative risk assessment, 142– 43, 146 – 47 CWA. See Clean Water Act Dams: environmental impact of, 514 –17; hydroelectric power from, 513 –17; purposes of, 518 –19 Data availability, 106 –7 Data collection, 98 –99, 101 Data evaluation record (DER), 163 DCIAC. See Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), 273 DEA. See Drug Enforcement Agency Debris flows, 319 –21, 322 Decommissioning, 373 Deforestation, 189, 340; African women influenced by, 468; of rainforests, 433 –36 Department of Defense (DOD), 486 Department of Energy (DOE), 486 Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), 117 Depleted uranium, 176 –77, 181 DER. See Data evaluation record Dermal, 548 Detection limit, 548 DHEC. See Department of Health and Environmental Control Dioxin, 273 –74 Discrimination complaints, 208 –9 Disposal: hazardous waste concerns of, 372–73; of lead, 332–33; of LLRW, 349; of POPs, 395–96; radioactive waste, 310, 373; sites, 188 –89 DOD. See Department of Defense DOE. See Department of Energy Dose, 548 Downwinders, 125

Index | 563 Draize Eye test, 20 Dredging technology, 397–98 Drought, 151–55; climate change influencing, 151; environmental impact of, 152–53; mitigation of, 154 –55; in U.S., 153 –54 Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), 270 Dry cleaners, 120 Dyer Mountain, CA, 446 – 47 Eagle mine, 313 Early warning system, 100, 222, 357 Earth Liberation Front, 443 Earthquakes, 508 –11 E-coli, 298; CDC responding to, 299 –300; defining, 301 Ecological damage, 178 Ecological risk assessment, 157–58, 160 –63 Ecological risk management decisions, 157– 67 Economic costs, 323 –24 Economics, of true cost pricing, 502 –7 Ecoregions, 133 –34 Ecosystem: acid rain impacting, 3; global warming and, 264 – 65; preservation of, 455 Ecosystem risk assessment, 159 –63, 166– 67 Ecotourism: biodiversity protection through, 167–71; Hawaii and, 169 –70; NGOs concerns about, 168 – 69; WTO recommendations for, 170 EDRF. See Endothelial-derived relaxing factor Electric fields, 70 Electricity, 533 Electromagnetic frequency (EMF), 70 –72 Electromagnetic radiation: cancer from, 69 –72; from cell phones, 79 – 85; public health concerns from, 81 Emergency planning, 464 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 130 –31, 464, 466, 491 EMF. See Electromagnetic frequency Eminent domain: federal government with, 237–38; takings clause and, 475 Emission(s): CAA and, 381– 82; Cap and Trade program for, 408 –9; carbon dioxide, 73, 75–76; compliance of, 410; cumulative, 141– 47; greenhouse gas, 410, 470; inventory, 263 – 64; measurement equipment for, 18; mercury, 393; pollution, 384; radio frequency, 80 – 82; rights trading, 411; sulfur dioxide, 409; trading systems of, 410 –12; vehicle, 332. See also Industrial emissions; Lead; Pollution Emissions trading: environmental policy of, 408; features of, 408; pollution and, 407–13; of shipping industry, 12; system, 410 –11 Endangered species, 171–75; conservationists protecting, 132–33; logging threatening, 343 – 44; recovery plan for, 174 –75

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 172–75, 238, 530 Endocrine disruptors, 271–77 Endocrine systems, 274 Endothelial-derived relaxing factor (EDRF), 39 Energy efficiencies, automobiles, 36 – 45 Energy supply, 513 –19 Energy values, 291 Enforcement, environmental law, 149 –51 Engineering solutions, acid rain, 8 –9 Engler, Paul, 303 Environment: advocacy for, 126 –27; assessments of, 53; audits of, 182– 85; biodiesel fuels attributes and, 43; childhood asthma caused by, 85– 89; community concern of, 495 –96; community transactions on, 131; emissions trading system, 410 –11; fires interaction with, 244; hemp benefiting, 269 –70; human activities degrading, 471; indigenous people and, 294 –97; land use factor of, 315, 456; literacy of, 430; problem solving of, 110 –13; refugees from, 153; transportation influencing, 497–99; violations against, 464; war and, 176 – 81 Environmental Charter for Ski Areas, 444 – 47 Environmental decisions: citizens monitoring, 95–102; collaboration in, 109 –15; of communities, 472; principled, 159 – 60; public involvement in, 426 –32; racism and, 490 Environmental degradation: from hog industry, 306; human causes of, 471; of POPs, 395–96; poverty accompanied by, 413 –17 Environmental disputes: litigation of, 333 –39; politics in, 337–38 Environmental education: guiding principles of, 360; multicultural, 357– 61 Environmental impact, 194 –98; of acid rain, 3; of alternative fuels, 42; of cattle, 461; of dams, 514 –17; of drought, 152–53; of fire, 244 – 45; of ice, 287– 89; of industrial agricultural practices, 298 –301; of industrial emissions, 265; of LLRW, 347; of logging, 343 – 44; of oil drilling, 33 –34; of ski resorts, 441, 447; of sprawl, 452 –57; of thermal pollution, 371–73; of transportation, 494 –99; of urbanization, 218 –21; of wind energy, 532 –35 Environmental impact assessment: contents of, 194 –98; policy from, 201–2 Environmental impact statements: impact activities in, 194 –98; international, 185–90; logging preparing, 341; of nuclear facilities, 370; tribal, 194 –98; U.S., 190 –94 Environmental justice, 198–210; African American farmers lacking, 206 –9; citizen lawsuits and, 335–37; farmworkers and, 231–36; locator, 204 –5; U.S. Senate hearing on, 201 –2

564

|

Index Environmental law: citizen lawsuit provisions in, 334 –35; enforcement of, 149 –51; land use and, 457–59; new regulations causing, 336; public involvement requirements of, 426 –32 Environmental mediation, 210 –14 Environmental planning: community-based, 115–24; natural resource preserved through, 459 Environmental policy: Aarhus Convention and, 427; brownfields, 60 – 67; CBEP effectiveness on, 123; cumulative effects and, 145– 46; of emissions trading, 408; intergovernmental relations lacking in, 284; of pollution regulation, 418 –19; of precautionary principle, 417–22; public involvement in, 429 –30 Environmental privilege, 183 – 85 Environmental protection: of Alaska, 28 –29; federal agency responsibility in, 211–12 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): air emissions measurement equipment for, 18; APOs regulation by, 306 –7; CAFO enforced by, 304 –5; CBEP and, 116 –17; as CBEP driving force, 121; collaborative environmental problem solving of, 110 –13; community-led efforts and, 121–23; cumulative risk assessment by, 142– 43, 146 – 47; ecological risk assessment of, 163; ecosystem risk assessment of, 162– 67; environmental laws enforced by, 149 –51; NEPA reviewed by, 197; Superfund program of, 313; TMDL guidance from, 482; TRI database of, 491; water monitoring by, 97–99 Environmental regulations: housing affordability and, 214 –18; job layoffs from, 414 –15; in United States, 5– 6 Environmental vulnerability: of border cities, 221; of cities, 219; of urban areas, 218 –21 EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA. See Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Epidemiological roots, 278 –79 Epidemiology, 548 Equation, 502 ESA. See Endangered Species Act Euclid v. Ambler, 315–16 European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme, 412 Evacuation planning: for natural disasters, 222–26; New Orleans, 226 –29; policy development in, 224; routes in, 225 Evans, David, 87 Exposure: assessment, 548; long-term, 543 – 44; radiation, 181; route of, 550. See also Human exposure FACA. See Federal Advisory Committee Act “Family Pesticide Use Suspected of Causing Child Cancers,” 94

Family-wage jobs, 51 Farmworkers: environmental justice and, 231–36; industry of, 504; in Oregon, 234; pesticide exposure of, 400; pesticides danger to, 232–34; risk perception of, 233; work status of, 234 –36. See also African American farmers; Organic farming Feasibility study (FS), 548 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 110 Federal agencies, 208 –9; environmental protection responsibility of, 211–12; wildfires and, 242 Federal assistance, 225–26 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 226 –29, 251, 320 Federal environmental land use, 237– 40 Federal government: eminent domain power of, 237–38; land holdings of, 237; landslides/ mudslides assessed by, 325–26; radioactive waste disposal responsibility of, 373; wetlands regulated by, 389 –90 Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 402 Federal lands: Bureau of Land Management of, 327–28; ranching on, 239; regulation of, 239 Feedlot operations, 302–3 FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency Fertilizer facilities, 120 Fertilizers, 132, 298 –99 Field burning, 243 FIFRA. See Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Fifth Amendment, 480 Fire, 240 – 46; environmental impact of, 244 – 45; environmental interaction with, 243 – 44 Fish: contaminated, 392–93; ladders, 517; watershed habitats for, 526 –27 Flint, MI, 144 – 45 Flood Control Act, 525 Floods: human causes of, 247– 48; infrastructure protection expensive for, 248; map accuracy for, 250 – 51; prevention program for, 525–26; wetlands protection and, 248 – 49 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 142, 146, 403, 406 Foods: adverse reactions to, 256; pesticides and, 403; seasonal labor producing, 236; security of, 254, 256 –57; transportation of, 504 Forest fires, 242 Forest Practices Act, 477 Formosa Plastics corporation, 465 Fossil fuels, 16, 45 FQPA. See Food Quality Protection Act Free-range, 377 Freezing rain, 288 Friends of the Earth, 518

Index | 565 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 334 Frogs, 276 Frosch, Robert, 472 FS. See Feasibility study Fuel cell vehicles, 41 Fuel load, 244 Fullmer, Darius, 26 Future generations, 469 –70 Gandhi, Mahatma, 232 Garcetti, Eric, 56 Gas absorption, 8 Gazzola, Lauren, 26 GE. See General Electric General Electric (GE), 396 –98 Genetically modified food, 253 –57; benefits of, 254 –55; controversies of, 255; labeling, 256 Genetic Engineering, 256 Geothermal energy, 257– 60; attaining, 257–58; benefits of, 258; health care savings from, 259; land use of, 259 Geothermal power plants, 259 Geothermal reservoir, 257 Ghostboxes, 51–52 Gioia, John, 55 Global transgenic crops, 254 Global warming, 260 – 65; Arctic ice melting from, 29; atmospheric measurement data and, 262– 63; carbon dioxide contributing to, 72–73; cost of, 505; ecosystem and, 264 – 65; Gore leading change in, 77; human impact of, 260 – 61; hurricanes influenced by, 283 – 84; polar bears influenced by, 32 Global warming potential (GWP), 262 Global Wind Energy Council, 534 Good neighbor agreements, 265– 68 Gore, Al, 77, 105, 261 Goshute band, 346 Government enforcement, 335 Government scientists, 125–26 Gradient, 548 – 49 Grayfields, 51–52 Grazing, of cattle, 460 – 62 Great Britain, 504 Great Lakes, 392 Green Belt Movement, 468 Green-E certification, 74 Greenhouse effect, 104 Greenhouse gas: climate change and, 470; emissions allowance of, 410; methane as, 261 Green Revolution, 300 –301 Ground fires, 244 – 45 GWP. See Global warming potential Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), 174 Hallam, Steve, 57 Hansen, James, 108 Harper, Josh, 26

Hatch, Orrin, 347 Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force (HETF), 296 Hawaii: biodiversity preservation in, 169 –70; superferry issue in, 498 Hazardous waste: categories of, 487; communities concern of, 372–73; disposal sites for, 188 – 89; Goshute band accepting, 346; land contamination from, 311–14; lead as, 332–33; RCRA regulating, 310; Skull Valley, UT surrounded by, 345; superfund site cleanup of, 62– 63; wetlands impacted by, 33 –34 HBM. See Health Belief Model HCP. See Habitat Conservation Plan Health assessment for contaminated sites, 549 Health Belief Model (HBM), 233 Health care: for asthma, 87– 88; benefit cost of, 506 –7; geothermal energy savings for, 259; in U.S., 92 Health effects studies related to contaminants, 549 Health hazards, 319 –21 Health registry, 549 Hearings, land use, 317–18 Hemp, 269 –71; environmental benefits of, 269 –70; illegality of, 270 HETF. See Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force High-risk populations, 331–32 Hill, Amy, 54 –55, 57 Hispanics, 199–200 Historic record, 262 Hog industry, 306 Homeland struggles, indigenous people, 438 Homeownership, 215–16 Hormone disruptors: endocrine disruptors and, 271–77; preventing, 274 –75; thyroid, 276 Hormone-free, 377 Housing: affordability, 214 –18; mold in, 217; radon controversies in, 216 Hudson River, 396 –98 Huerta, Dolores, 232 Human causes: of environmental degradation, 471; of floods, 247–51; of landslides/ mudslides, 322–23 Humane treatment of animals, 23 –24 Human exposure: to chemicals, 272; to lead, 330; to mercury, 392–93; to POPs, 395 Human habitats, 178 –79 Human health risk assessment, 277– 80 Human impact: of carbon dioxide, 104 –5; of global warming, 260 – 65; of nuclear energy supply, 369 –74; on wetlands, 391–92 Humanity standards, 25–26 Human relations, 133 –34 Hurricane Katrina: federal assistance in, 225–26; FEMA assistance after, 226 –29; racists police and, 282– 83; timeline of, 223 –24

566

|

Index Hurricanes, 281– 84; global warming influencing, 283 – 84; Saffir-Simpson scale of, 282 Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), 38, 40 – 41 Hydroelectric power, dams, 513 –17 Hydrology, 455 Iacocca, Lee, 506 Ice, 287– 89; environmental impact of, 287– 88; freezing rain as, 288; loading, 288 IEN. See Indigenous Environmental Network Ignitable waste, 487 Illegal immigrants, 231 ILO. See International Labor Organization Immune system: air pollutants influencing, 39 – 40; cancer and, 91–92; common chemicals breaking down, 274 –75 Incineration: benefits of, 291–92; resource recovery and, 289 –93; toxic waste from, 488–89; in waste cleanup, 289 –90; as waste treatment method, 293 Income, 187 Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), 296 Indigenous people: environment and, 294 –97; high priority ecoregions occupied by, 133 –34; homeland struggles of, 438; in rainforests, 435; sprawl influencing, 295; tourism conflicting with, 438 –39; tribal claims of, 439; water quality issue of, 483 Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB), 296 Individuals and Households Assistance Program, 226 Indoor air pollution, 17, 86 Industrial agricultural practices, 298 –301 Industrial capitalism, 502–3 Industrial emissions: accumulating, 141– 42; community response to, 387; environmental impact of, 265; permits/air, 381– 87; permits/water, 388 –93; public health influenced by, 2; in TRI, 267– 68; unregulated, 105 Industrial sites: animal feeding operations, 302– 8; clean up of, 64; impact minimization of, 122–23; income/neighborhood proximity to, 198 –99; pollutants released by, 494 Industry: biofuel, 66 – 67; chemical, 491; ecology of, 471; farming, 504; hog, 306; Industrialized agriculture, 298 –299; recreation of, 443; shipping, 12; sustainability of, 299, 470; U.S. growth of, 485–86; wireless-device, 83 – 85 Infill, 61 Infrastructure protection, 248 Ingestion, 549 Inhalation, 549 Inland flooding, 247 Institutionalized racism, 202–3 Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), 434

Intergovernmental relations, 284 Interim remedial measure (IRM), 549 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 496 International environmental impact statements, 185–90 International Labor Organization (ILO), 352 International Whaling Commission (IWC), 138 IPCB. See Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism IPF. See Intergovernmental Panel on Forests IRM. See Interim remedial measure Irrigation, 152 Isaacs, Jodene, 54 IWC. See International Whaling Commission Job layoffs, 414 –15 Kanelos, Peter, 55 Kansas City, MO, 453 Kennedy, Theresa, 93 Kim, James, 355 Kim, Kati, 355 King, Martin Luther, 232 Kjonaas, Kevin, 26 Knowledge base, 114 Kuderna, Charles, 241 Kyoto Protocol, 73, 261, 470 Labels, food, 256, 377 Lagoons: public health influenced by, 305– 6; waste treatment, 305 Lahars, 322, 324 Lake Apopka, FL, 276 –77 Landfill, 478 Land loss, 206 –9 Land management, 242, 327–28 Land pollution, 309 –14 Landslides/mudslides, 318 –29, 461; economic costs of, 323; federal government assessment of, 325–26; health hazards of, 319 –21; human causes of, 322; protection from, 320; risk reduction of, 328; shoreline erosion and, 327; types of, 324 –25 Land use: big box retailer battles over, 53 –59; concessions and, 366 – 68; contaminating land by, 311–14; control types for, 316 –17; environmental factors in, 315, 456; environmental laws and, 457–59; federal, 237– 40; federal government and, 237; of geothermal energy, 259; hearings, 317–18; law, 315–16; mining regulations for, 352– 53; municipal landfills in, 311; public health and, 71, 419 –20; ski resorts as, 440 – 47; solar energy applications and, 448, 450 –51; takings clause and, 475; in U.S., 314 –18; zoning and, 317, 458 –59 Large cities, sprawl, 453 –54 Latency period, 549 Lateral spreads, 325

Index | 567 Law, land use, 315–16 Lawson, Arthur, 283 Lawsuits, 150 Leaching, 549 Lead: children screened for, 122; disposal of, 332–33; emissions, 144; exposure, 144, 329 –33; high-risk populations exposed to, 331–32; human exposure to, 330; poisoning prevention, 119, 122; vehicle emissions of, 332 Lead Products Company, 466 Leukemia, 90 Limestone wet scrubbers, 8 –9 Liquid releases, 371–72 Literacy, environmental, 430 Litigation: attorneys’ fees from, 335; of environmental disputes, 333 –39 LLRW. See Low-level radioactive waste Local economies, 52–53 Logging, 339 – 44; biodiversity lost from, 341; endangered species threatened by, 343 – 44; environmental impact of, 343 – 44; environmental impact statements prepared for, 341; raw materials from, 339 – 40; roadless areas and, 342– 43; salvage, 245– 46; soil erosion from, 340 – 41; sustainable, 341– 42 Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), 344 –50; amounts of, 348 – 49; classes of, 348; defining, 347– 48; disposal of, 349; environmental impact of, 347; nuclear facilities generating, 344 – 45 Lung damage, 14 Maathai, Wangari, 468 Mad Cow Disease, 303, 504 Magnetic field, measuring, 70 Makah tribe, 137– 41 Management plans, ski resorts, 446 – 47 Map accuracy, floods, 250 Maquiladora industries, 221 Marginalized workers, 233 –34 Marijuana, 270 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 139 Mass transit, 495 –96, 499 Maximum contaminant level (MCL), 549 McKelvey, Wendy, 93 MCL. See Maximum contaminant level MDGs. See Millennium Development Goals Measure 41, 476 –79 Measurement data, 262– 63 Measurement equipment, 18 Media, 549 Mediators/facilitators, 212–13 Medical plants, 434 Memorandums of understanding (MOUs), 428 Mercury: behavioral problems from, 6; coal-burning power plants emitting, 393; human exposure to, 392–93; wildfires converting, 245

Metabolism, 549 Methane, 105– 6; atmospheric concentrations of, 262; as greenhouse gas, 261 Micro Chemical Company, 465 “Micro turbines,” 534 Midwest Treaty Network, 296 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 538 Miller, George, 55 Milling residues, uranium, 347– 48 Mining: child labor in, 352; community rights and, 353; land use regulations in, 352–53; of natural resources, 351–54; sustainability of, 353 Mining law (1872), 351 Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, 454 Mitigation: of drought, 154 –55; ski resorts failing, 443 – 44 MMPA. See Marine Mammal Protection Act Mold, in housing, 217 Monitoring, 25 Monitoring programs, 96 Montreal Protocol, 3, 261 Morbidity, 549 Moses, Marion, 232 Mountain lions, 423 –24 Mountain rescues, 354 –57; costs of, 356 –57; racism and, 355–56 MOUs. See Memorandums of understanding MSW. See Municipal solid waste Mudflows, 322, 325 Multicultural environmental education, 357– 61 Municipal landfills, 311 Municipal solid waste (MSW), 310 Myers, Don, 250 NAAQS. See National Ambient Air Quality Standards NACCHO. See National Association of County and City Health Officials Nagin, Ray, 224 Nanomaterials, 363 Nanotechnology, 279, 363 – 65; applications of, 364; commercialization of, 364 – 65; self-regulation in, 365 NAPAP. See National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), 4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 383 National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), 419 National Center for Environment Assessment (NCEA), 147 National Environmental Coalition of Native Americans (NECONA), 296 National Environmental Education Act (NEEA), 358 –59

568

|

Index National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 196 –97, 337–38; EPA review of, 197; federal agencies role in, 196 –97 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), 249 National forests, logging of, 342– 43 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), 330 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 544 National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC), 368 National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, 323 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 326 National Organic Program (NOP), 376, 379 National parks: campgrounds in, 367; concessions and, 366 – 68; noise in, 367 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 390 National Priority List (NPL), 60 – 61, 121, 157, 160, 311, 486, 550 National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), 444 – 46 National Tank Company, 466 National Water Quality Inventory Report, 484 National Weather Service (NWS), 326 Native Americans. See Tribes Natural disasters: evacuation planning for, 222–29; fire as, 240 – 47 Natural pesticides, 379 Natural resources: environmental planning preserving, 459; mining of, 351–54; sacred sites conflicting with, 437– 40 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 525 NCEA. See National Center for Environment Assessment Neah Bay, treaty of, 139 NECONA. See National Environmental Coalition of Native Americans NEEA. See National Environmental Education Act Neighborhood proximity, 198 NEPA. See National Environmental Policy Act New Orleans, LA: FEMA assistance in, 226 –29; racist police in, 282– 83 New Source Review (NSR): as preconstruction permitting program, 381– 82; public involvement in, 386 – 87 NFIP. See National Flood Insurance Program NGOs. See Nongovernmental Organizations NHANES. See National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys NIETC. See National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors NIOSH. See National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Nitrogen: pollution control techniques for, 9; saturation, 7 NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Noise, 496, 505, 533 Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), 168 – 69 Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, 389, 521; communities role in, 523; sources of, 522; water quality influenced by, 521–22 NOP. See National Organic Program Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, 438 North Slope oil drilling, 30 –31 NPDES. See National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL. See National Priority List NPS. See Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution NRC. See Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation Service NSAA. See National Ski Areas Association NSR. See New Source Review Nuclear energy supply, 369 –74; alternative energy sources and, 370 –71; human impact of, 369 –70; major events in, 369 Nuclear facilities: decommissioning of, 373; environmental impact statements of, 371; liquid releases of, 371–72; LLRW generated by, 344 – 45; nuclear waste issue of, 373 –74; spent fuel of, 347; as targets, 177–78 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 373 Nuclear waste, 370 –71, 373 –74 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 346 NWS. See National Weather Service Obesity, 504 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 544 Occupations, 80 Oceans: global warming influencing, 263; power of, 516; reef damage in, 135; world conservation and, 134 –36; world conservation protecting, 134 ODFW. See Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department Odor threshold, 550 Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 163 Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI), 117 Office of Research and Development (ORD), 147 Oil companies, 44 – 45 Oil drilling: in ANWR, 28 –36; approvals, 34; controversy of, 36; environmental impact of, 33 –34; North Slope, 30 –31 Oil politics, 44 – 45 Oil spills, 43

Index | 569 OPEI. See Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation OPP. See Office of Pesticide Programs ORD. See Office of Research and Development Oregon: CAFO in, 304 –5; farmworkers in, 234 –36; field burning in, 243– 44; predator management in, 423 –26; record rainfalls in, 250; temporary takings compensation in, 476 –79 Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department (ODFW), 423 –24 Organic, 550 Organic farming, 375–79; certification in, 377–78; pesticide residue testing and, 375–76 Organic foods, 376; conventional food v., 378 –79; labeling of, 377 Organophosphate pesticides, 400 OSHA. See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Overgrazing, 461 Ozone: compounds eroding, 3 – 4; lung damage caused by, 14 PAHS. See Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Particulate matter, 16, 506 Partnership principles, 127–28 Passive systems, solar energy, 449 Paul, Ron, 270 PCBs. See Polychlorinated biphenyls Peppler, Susan, 58 Perera, Frederica, 87 “Permanent national-interest lands,” 239 Permeability, 550 Permits: industrial air emissions, 381– 87; industrial water emissions, 388 –93; issuing of, 382– 83; PSD requirements for, 383 – 85 Perry, Rick, 303 Persistence, 550 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), 134, 394 –98; chlorine-containing chemicals as, 272; disposal/degradation of, 395–96; human exposure to, 395 Pest, 402 Pesticides, 398 – 407; Bush administration testing proposal of, 405; chemicals used in, 93 –94; children’s exposure to, 399 – 400; congenital malformations from, 273; DER of, 163; drift, 378 –79; farmworkers danger from, 232–34; farmworkers exposure to, 400; food quality and, 403; indoor air pollution and, 17, 86; natural, 379; public health influenced by, 402; regulation battle over, 405; residue testing of, 375–76; spray drift of, 403 – 4; tolerance limits of, 406; types of, 400 –1; water quality and, 404 –5 Pet protection, 24 –25 Petrochemical refineries, 31 Petroleum combustion products, 38 – 40

Petroleum refining, 38 –39 Pharmaceutical companies, 434 Phosphate, 120 Photovoltaic arrays (PV), 448 Piltz, Rick, 125–26 Plastics: resource recovery of, 292; stabilizers of, 275 Plume, 550 Point source regulations, 390 Poisoning prevention, 119, 122 Polar bears, 32 Policy development, 224 Politics: air pollution and, 9 –10; in environmental disputes, 337–38; influences in, 125–26 Pollution: communities of color proximity to, 198 –99; control methods, 8 –9; criteria, 383; emissions, 384; emissions rights trading or, 411; emissions trading and, 407–13; good neighbor agreements and, 265– 68; prevention/reduction, 463 – 64, 465– 66; regulations, 419–20; towns with, 17; of water, 388, 520 –24; waterway cleanup of, 390 –91 Pollution control: of CWA, 388 – 89; for nitrogen, 9 Pollution Prevention Act, 130 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 275, 394, 396 –98 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS), 544 – 45 POPs. See Persistent organic pollutants Population: brownfields impacting, 64 – 65; managing wolf, 531–32; U.S. growing, 215 Porous pavement, 250 Port authorities, 18 Poverty: environmental degradation accompanying, 413 –17; in U.S., 415–16 Power-frequency sources, 70 –71 Power lines, 71 Precautionary principle: environmental policy of, 417–22; industry’s response to, 421; regulatory concerns of, 420 Preconstruction permitting program, 381– 82 Predator management, 423 –26 Preservation: of ecosystem, 455; of endangered species, 172–75; Hawaii’s biodiversity, 169 –70; through predator management, 423 –26 Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), 383 – 85; permit requirements of, 383 – 85; purpose of, 385 Prevention program, floods, 525–26 Primary Responsible Parties (PRPs), 160 Pringle Creek Community, 250 –51 Prior nonconforming uses, 317 Private property, 65 Problem solving, 110 –13 Property assessment, 53

570

|

Index Protocol, 550 PRPs. See Primary Responsible Parties Prudhoe Bay, 30 –32 PSD. See Prevention of significant deterioration Public health: adverse impacts and, 163 – 64; air pollution influencing, 13 –15; animal feeding operations influencing, 306 –7; animal research for, 21–22; benefits cost of, 506 –7; contaminated land influencing, 311–14; electromagnetic radiation concerns to, 81; industrial emissions influencing, 2; lagoons influencing, 305– 6; land use and, 71, 419 –20; LLRW influencing, 347; pesticides influencing, 402; petroleum combustion products influencing, 38 – 40; SEPs and, 463 – 65 Public involvement: in environmental decisions, 426 –32; environmental law requirements of, 428 –29; goals of, 429 –30; in NSR, 386 – 87; validity of, 430 –31 Puerto Ricans, 88 Pulse modulated radio frequency emissions, 82 PV. See Photovoltaic arrays Pyroclastic flows, 321–22 QA/QC. See Quality assurance and quality control Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), 550 Racism, 202– 4; environmental decisions and, 490; hurricane Katrina and, 282– 83; institutionalized, 200 –2; mountain rescues and, 355–56; toxic waste and, 485–91; in U.S., 199 Radiation exposure, 181 Radioactive waste: depleted uranium and, 176 –77; disposal of, 310, 373; low-level, 344 –50 Radio frequency emissions: children exposed to, 81– 82; occupations exposed to, 80; pulse modulated, 82 Radio-frequency energy, 83 – 84 Radon: housing with, 216; levels, 120, 122 Rainfalls, 11, 250 Rainforests, 433 –36; Amazon, 436; biodiversity of, 434; deforestation of, 433 –34; indigenous people in, 435; slash and burn of, 246 Ranching: on federal lands, 238; U.S. big business of, 460 – 61; Wildlife advocates at odds with, 424 –25; wolf reintroduction and, 531 Raw materials, 339 – 40 RCRA. See Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Reactive waste, 487– 89 Real estate appraisal, 53

RECLAIM. See Regional Clean Air Incentives Market Recombinant DNA technology, 253, 256 Recordkeeping, 25–26 Recovery plan, for endangered species, 174 –75 Recreation, 443 Reefs, damaged, 135 Refugees, environmental, 153 Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), 409 Regulation(s): AFO, 306 –7; carcinogens, 279; environmental, 5– 6; environmental law with, 336; of federal lands, 239; land use, 352–53; mining, 352–53; new environmental law, 336; pesticide, 405; point source, 390; pollution, 418 –19; TMDL, 307; wetland, 389 –90. See also Environmental regulations Regulation authority, 407– 8 Regulatory concerns, 420 Remedial investigation (RI), 550 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), 158 Remediation, 550 Reporting changes, TRI, 486 Research, 127–28 Research facilities: animals used in, 21; humanity standards of, 25–26 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 310, 466 Resource recovery: incineration and, 289 –93; of plastics, 292; waste streams with, 292 Retail space, vacated, 51–52 Retinoic acid, 276 RI. See Remedial investigation Richardson, Bill, 343 RI/FS. See Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Rights advocacy, 20 Right to know laws, 129 –32 Riparian protection, 341 Risk, 550 Risk assessment, 421, 550 Risk management, 157– 61, 550 Risk perception, 233 Risk reduction, 328 Roadless areas, 342– 43 Roadside salvage, 246 Roberts, John, 84 Route of exposure, 550 Routes, evacuation, 223 –25 Rudel, Ruthann A., 93 Runoff, 523 Runout zone, 46 Sacred sites, 437– 40; natural resources conflicting with, 437–38; of tribes, 478 Safe, 551 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 98, 192

Index | 571 Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, 282 Salmon: fish ladders helping, 517; sea lions v., 136 Salvage logging, 245– 46 Samuel, Justin Clayton, 27 SARA. See “Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986” Saturation, 7 Save Our Climate Act, 78 Schwartz, Christopher H., 93 Scientific inquiry, 126 –27 Scientists for Secure Waste Storage (SSWS), 346 Scoping, 196 SDWA. See Safe Drinking Water Act Sea lions, salmon v., 136 Seasonal labor, 236 Seattle, WA, 453 –54 Security, food, 254, 256 –57 Seismometers, 509 –10 Self-regulation, nanotechnology, 365 SEPs. See Supplemental environmental projects SeQuential biofuels, 66 SHAC. See Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Sheedy, Sandy, 58 Shepard, Peggy, 87 Shipping industry, 12 Shoreline erosion, 327 Sierra Club, 518 Sinks, 264 SIP. See State Implementation Plan Site inspection, 551 Ski resorts, 440 – 47; air pollution from, 442; environmental impacts of, 441, 447; as land use, 440 – 41; management plans developed by, 446 – 47; mitigation failures of, 443 – 44; sustainability of, 444; water impacts of, 441– 42 Skull Valley, UT, 345 Slash and burn practices, 246 Slavery, 205 Small business compliance assistance, 120 Smart Growth, 455 Smog, 497 Smoke, 245 Smokey bear, 241 Snags, 343 – 44 Snoqualimie Pass, WA, 446 SO2. See Sulfur dioxide emissions Socioeconomic status, 489 Soil conservation, 524 –29 Soil erosion, 340 – 41 Solar energy, 448 –51; commercial property owners protecting investment in, 450; communities access to, 450 –51; land use restrictions impeding, 448; land use rights and, 450 –51; passive systems of, 449; technologies used for, 448 – 49

Solid waste landfills, 106 Solis, Hilda, 201 Solubility, 551 South Bronx, 220 Southern California, 497 Species preservation, 172–75 Spent fuel, 347 Sperm, 82, 273 Spotted Owl, 244 Sprawl, 452–57; alternatives to, 454; big box retailer development contributing to, 50 –51; clean up policy from, 61; environmental impact of, 452; indigenous lands influenced by, 295; large cities threatened by, 453 –54; small communities influenced by, 59; traffic and, 55; transportation issue in, 499 Spray drift, 403 – 4 SSZEA. See Standard State Zoning Enabling Act Stabilizers, 275 Stachybotrys, 217 Staehle, Albert, 241 Stakeholders of substance, 112–13 Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SSZEA), 458 Stark, Peter, 78 Starting zone, 46 State cleanups, 62 State environmental land use, 457–59 State Implementation Plan (SIP), 386 State laws, 183 – 84 Stepanian, Andrew, 26 Stevens, John Paul, 77 Stock grazing, 460 – 62 Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), 26 Storm sewer systems, 523 Stormwater, 455–56 Subdivision development claim, 478 –79 Sulfur dioxide emissions (SO2), 409 Supercenter sites, 56 –59 Superferry, 498 “Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986” (SARA), 130 Superfund program: EPA’s, 313; federal/state, 551; NPL and, 60 – 61, 157; unacceptable risk elimination goal of, 159 – 60 Superfund site: clean up of, 160; Eagle mine as, 313; hazardous waster cleanup in, 62– 63 Supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), 462– 67; categories of, 463 – 64; environmental violations and, 464; public health and, 463 – 65 Supreme Court, 479 – 80 Surface fires, 244 Sustainability, 469–73; of agriculture industry, 299; of business/industry, 470; future generations focus of, 469 –70; of logging, 341– 42; of mining, 353; of ski resorts, 444

572

|

Index Sustainable slopes, 444 SSWS. See Scientists for Secure Waste Storage Takings clause, 475– 81; eminent domain and, 475; land use and, 475; temporary compensation of, 476 –79 Target organ, 551 TAS. See Tribes as States TCE. See Trichloroethylene Technology: climate change solved by, 103; dredging, 397–98; recombinant DNA, 253, 256; solar energy using, 448 – 49; TRI reporting influenced by, 491. See also Biotechnology; Nanotechnology TEIR. See Tribal Environmental Impact Report Thermal pollution, 371–72 Three Gorges dam, 513 –15 Thyroid hormone disruptors, 276 Tidal power, 516 Tipping point, 75 TMDL. See Total Maximum Daily Loads Tolerance limits, 406 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), 97, 390, 484 – 85; animal feeding operations with, 307; EPA guidance in, 482; tribes setting their own, 483– 84; water quality standards using, 482 Total Risk Integrated Methodology (TRIM), 147 Total weather conditions, 103 – 4 Tourism, 438 –39 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), 122, 130 –31, 216, 265, 491–94; as EPA database, 491; industrial emissions in, 267– 68; key findings of, 16 –17; reporting changes proposed for, 493–94; technology influencing, 494 Toxic waste, 487; defining, 487–89; from incineration, 488 – 89; race and, 485–91 Trading systems, emissions, 410 –12 Traffic, sprawl and, 55 Transboundary impact, 186 – 87 Transesterification, 41– 42 Transportation: air pollution from, 494 –95; cost of, 496; environmental impact of, 495–97; environment influenced by, 496; of foods, 504; sprawl issue of, 496 –97 Trees, types of, 340 TRI. See Toxics Release Inventory Tribal claims, 439 Tribal Environmental Impact Report (TEIR), 191 Tribal environmental impact statements, 190 –93 Tribes: CWA and, 192; Makah, 137– 41; sacred places of, 437–38; TMDL set by, 481– 82; water resource control of, 192–93 Tribes as States (TAS), 294

Trichloroethylene (TCE): cancer caused by, 501; uses of, 500; in water supplies, 500 –2 TRIM. See Total Risk Integrated Methodology Tropical cyclone, 281 Tropical storms, 281 Trouble on the Farm: Growing Up with Pesticides in Agricultural Communities, 400 True cost pricing, 502–7; economics of, 503; health costs value from, 506 Tsunami preparation, 508 –11; community warning in, 508 –9; warning system cost in, 509 –10; warning system inadequacies in, 510 –11 TsunamiReady program, 510 Turbines, 532–33 Typhoon, 281 UNCLOS. See United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNESCO. See United Nations Educational Social, Cultural Organization United Kingdom, 98 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 135 United Nations Educational Social, Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 365 United States (U.S.): asthma increasing in, 87; avalanche risk in, 46; carbon taxes in, 75–79; citizen lawsuits in, 336 –37; drought in, 153 –54; environmental impact statements, 194 –98; environmental regulations in, 5– 6; federal government land holdings in, 237; growing population of, 215; health care in, 92; industrial growth of, 485; Kyoto Protocol not signed by, 73; land use planning in, 314 –18; municipal landfills in, 311; polluted towns in, 17; poverty in, 415–16; racism in, 199; ranching big business in, 460 – 61; Senate hearing in, 201–2; threatened/endangered species in, 174; waste management in, 290 –91; water scarce resource in, 155; wind power in, 533; zoning in, 316 –17 Unocal agreement, 267 Uranium: chemical toxicity of, 181; milling residues of, 347– 48. See also Depleted uranium Urban areas: environmental vulnerability of, 218 –21; revitalizing, 63 – 64; runoff from, 523 Urban holocaust, 220 Urbanization, 218 –19 U.S. See United States U.S. environmental impact statements, 194 –98 USGCRP. See U.S. Global Change Research Program U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 262

Index | 573 V2G. See Vehicle-to-grid Vacated retail space, 51–52 Valdez, 30 VBM. See Voluntary Biological Monitoring VEH. See Hybrid electric vehicle Vehicle emissions, 332 Vehicle-to-grid (V2G), 41 Victims, of avalanches, 47 VOC. See Volatile organic compound Volatile, 551 Volatile organic compound (VOC), 551 Volcanoes: mudflows from, 322; pyroclastic flows from, 321–22 Voluntary Biological Monitoring (VBM), 98 Wal-Mart, 50; big box retailer bans fought by, 53 –59; community impact of, 55–56 War: environment and, 176 – 81; human habitats impacted by, 178 –79; reparations, 180; zoos impacted by, 179 Warm-blooded animal treatment, 24 Warning system, tsunami, 508 –11 Washington, D.C., 453 Waste: corrosive, 487; defining, 309; Ignitable, 487; ignitable, 487; nuclear, 370 –71, 373 –74; reactive, 487; streams, 293; toxic, 487; types of, 310. See also Hazardous waste; Low-level radioactive waste; Radioactive waste; toxic waste Waste cleanup: incineration in, 289 –90; on private property, 65 Waste management: public health influenced by, 312–14; in U.S., 290 –91 Waste-to-energy facilities, 292 Waste treatment: incineration for, 292–93; lagoons, 305 Water: agricultural pollutants in, 504; animal waste contaminating, 305– 6; as energy supply, 513 –19; EPA monitoring, 97–99; industrial emission permits for, 388 –93; from nuclear facilities, 371–72; pollution of, 388, 520 –24; scarce resource of, 155; ski resorts impacting, 441– 42; TCE in, 500–2; tribes controlling, 294 Water quality: acid rain influencing, 4; indigenous people issue of, 483– 84; NPS pollution influencing, 521–22; pesticides and, 404 –5; three elements of, 520; TMDL used for, 484

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 525 Watersheds, 305– 6; areas of, 526; fish/wildlife habitats from, 526 –27; operations, 525; soil conservation and, 524 –29; wetlands protected through, 527–29 Waterways, 390 –91 Weapons, 177–78 Weather conditions, 103 – 4 Web sites, 537– 42 Wendelin, Rudy, 241 Wetlands: Federal government regulations of, 389 –90; flood protection and, 248 – 49; hazardous waste impacting, 33 –34; human impact degrading, 391–92; watershed programs protecting, 527–29 Whaling: Makah tribe and, 137– 41; moratorium on, 138 Whistleblower Protection, 238 Wildfires: federal agencies jurisdiction over, 242; fuel load in, 244; mercury converted by, 245; prevention of, 241; types of, 243 – 44 Wildlife: advocates of, 424 –25; of ANWR, 29 –30; managing, 455; reintroduction of, 530 –32; watershed habitats for, 526 –27 Wind energy, 532–35; into electricity, 533; environmental impact of, 534; turbines with, 532–33; in U.S., 533 Winfrey, Oprah, 303 Wireless-device industry, 83 – 85 Wolf: packs, 530; population management of, 531–32; ranchers and, 531 Work status, farmworkers, 234 –36 World conservation: human relations and, 133 –34; ocean law and, 134 –36; ocean pollution and, 134 World Conservation Union, 175 World Trade Organization (WTO), 170 World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 132 WTO. See World Trade Organization WWF. See World Wildlife Fund Wyoming Grey Wolf Management Plan, 531 Yellowstone Park, 530 –31 Young, Peter Daniel, 27 Zoning, 316 –17; land use and, 458 –59; modern land use of, 317; solar access in, 450 Zoos, 179