Repost: Environmentalism for All

Here's a short essay I wrote last year on the state of the environmentalist movement. Original post is here

Being a professional who has worked and lived in different regions of the Midwest and
east coast over the past few years, I've had opportunities to meet more people in the
fields of environment protection and planning. I've been able to gain more insight
about myself as well as about Americans of various races, creeds, and nationalities.
As an African American, an environmentalist and as planner, I am
consistently reminded of how few minorities there are in these fields. There's been
significant talk and writing recently about the state of the environmental movement.
Some have even gone so far as to call the movement "dead". (Nordhaus, 2004) Is this
true? Have we seen the best of what environmentalism, smart growth and other
movements has to offer?

My answer to these questions is no. I would argue that the very best of
environmentalism and regionalism is still yet to come. The ideals
that environmentalism and smart growth are founded on, are a great starting point.
But, if they are to survive, grow and continue to make positive progress, the concepts
of diversity and inclusion has to move to the front of the line. They need to be fully
integrated into our visions, missions and so forth. The face and make up of what
might be called traditional environmentalism has to change or else the movement
"will" die. I don't mean to say that it will disappear but, I think that it could lose its
relevance perhaps even its credibility in America.

In about fifty years, half of America's population will be non-white. (Rast, 2006)
Finally, a whole new population and generation is saying, "Hey, what about us?". The
impoverished, lower income and many members of minority groups biggest
issues, traditionally, were about income, getting food on the table, keeping the lights
on, and getting the rent paid. Anything beyond this was luxury. But things are
changing. Today and into the future, the threats of global warming,
diminishing natural resources and the increased frequency and/or intensity of natural
disasters, are powerful indicators things to come. (Enderle, 2007)

Environmentalism and the planning community has to broaden our view and act to
help the those who are most vulnerable to changing conditions. The white-bread,
privileged image of traditional environmentalism has got to change to show the
realities of America. The real America is in our communities, in our neighborhoods and the neighborhoods that you drive past on your way home to the suburbs.

10 GOOD THINGS ABOUT $4 GAS

The world had long assumed that Americans were just unrepentant energy pigs (well, we still are).

If gas prices went up, well, we kept our Explorers aimed at the horizon, and little changed. We truthfully didn't have lots of options. Unlike Europeans, we didn't have jobs we could bike to or convenient public transit. Gasoline prices never stayed high enough long enough to force those kinds of shifts in how we lived.

Now here we are. Gas prices are at $4 a gallon, as no one needs to tell you, and they are likely to stay that way. Most of us still don't have the alternatives we need to adapt with grace, which means that many will adapt just by suffering. We will run out of gas on the Interstate, ease our minivans over to the shoulder and tell the kids everything is O.K. We'll fall behind on Visa bills to pay for gas so we can buy food made ever more expensive by energy costs.

But it's also true that Americans are finding options where there seemed to be none. They're ready to change — just waiting for their infrastructure to catch up. They are driving to commuter-rail lines only to find there are no parking spots left. They are running fewer errands and dumping their SUVs. Public-transit use is at a 50-year high. Gas purchases are down 2% to 3%. And all those changes bring secondary, hard-earned benefits.

"You suddenly are reminded how the economy works," says Eric Roston, author of a new book about energy, The Carbon Age. "Nobody wants high prices for oil. But there's also no faster mechanism to change behavior." The suffering will go on. But the story, like any good tragedy, is not without redemption.

1. Globalized Jobs Return Home
The world suddenly seems big again. A family of four can't fly cross-country for much less than $2,000. The cost of shipping a standard 40-ft. (12 m) container of couches from Shanghai to New Jersey has tripled since 2000. Trucking carrots from Mexico to Georgia makes less and less economic sense.

When John Smith started a high-end furniture company in Washington in 2003, he couldn't make everything in the U.S. and stay competitive. So his company, Willem Smith, started operations in Vietnam and Ecuador. He found himself visiting factories 11 time zones away from his four small daughters.

By last year, the cost of making and importing one of his favorite pieces, the Caballero Chair, was ballooning. He was shipping Italian leather to Vietnam and then shipping the large chair back to the States. There were other problems too, like inflation in Vietnam. So last January, Willem Smith "repatriated" the Caballero to Hickory, N.C. That shift helps contain shipping costs and has other perks. "People are happy to buy American," Smith says. "And it felt kind of nice to bring this one home."

In more industries, such as steel, lawn-mower batteries and upscale furniture, doing business in the U.S. is starting to look slightly more feasible.

2. Sprawl Stalls
Across the country, real estate agents are reporting that many home buyers are looking to move closer to cities. Gas prices are shaping their decisions. A May study that examined housing values in five cities found prices had fared worse in the more distant neighborhoods. "The collapse of America's housing bubble — and its reverberations in financial markets — has obscured a tectonic shift in housing demand," wrote economist Joe Cortright in the study, sponsored by CEOs for Cities, a nonprofit group that promotes cities. "Housing in cities and neighborhoods that require lengthy commutes and provide few transportation alternatives to the private vehicle are falling in value more precipitously than in more central, compact and accessible places."

3. Four-Day Workweeks
Companies, colleges and governments are moving to four-day weeks. Brevard Community College in Cocoa, Fla., went to four days for the 2007 summer session and saved $268,000 in energy costs. There were unforeseen benefits too. Over the year, sick leave fell 50%, and turnover among the 1,500-person staff dropped 44%. "We thought the energy savings would be a plus. But the reaction was about what it meant to people's family lives and their ability to take care of themselves," says college president Jim Drake. Brevard is doing four-day weeks again this summer and may make the change year-round.

4. Less Pollution
As people consume less fuel in America, vehicle emissions should drop. Less pollution means bluer skies and longer lives — and the potential to slow global warming, albeit slightly. Lower energy demand means the air will contain fewer toxic agents, like particle pollution, which can get deep into your lungs and cause serious health problems. Bottom line? About 2,220 lives have already been saved over the past year because of higher gas prices and less pollution, according to an estimate calculated for TIME by J. Paul Leigh, a University of California at Davis health-economics professor who co-wrote a study on the topic in the March 2008 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. If prices remain high, we can expect some 2,000 people to avoid dying from pollution in the next 12 months.

5. More Frugality
Trucking companies are using software to help identify optimal places for drivers to refuel and the most efficient delivery routes. Waste haulers are checking tire pressure twice a day instead of every couple of days. We're all wasting less. Vespa scooter sales increased 106% in May compared with the same time last year; Ford SUV sales dropped 55% in June. Columbia, Md., resident Glenn Conrad, 58, bought a Honda Insight a few years ago and like many so-called hypermilers became obsessed with his miles-per-gallon gauge. "That thing is really addictive," he says. Although a police officer recently gave him a warning for going too slowly, he is undeterred. "If I roll both of my windows up," he says, "I instantly get about two more miles per gallon."

6. Fewer Traffic Deaths
Every year, about 40,000 people die in traffic accidents in the U.S. If you are age 5 through 34, you are more likely to die this way than any other way. Ordinary things we do — or don't do — have extraordinary consequences. We know that higher gas prices cause many of us to slow down and drive less — which means fewer people die. Early research into 2006 accident data suggests many lives have already been spared. If gas remains at $4 a gallon for a year or more, expect as many as 1,000 fewer fatalities a month, according to professor Michael Morrisey at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and associate professor David Grabowski at Harvard Medical School, who calculated that estimate for TIME. That means annual deaths could be cut by almost a third — a public-health triumph.

7. Cheaper Insurance
If you are driving less, you could qualify for lower car-insurance rates. For example, if you have stopped driving to work, your classification has changed to "pleasure driver," and you could save 10% to 15% (or $94 to $142 on an average premium), according to the Consumer Federation of America. So if you're parked more, call your insurer.

8. Less Traffic
Travel on all roads dropped 2.1% in the first four months of 2008, according to the Federal Highway Administration. Wherever people can take public transit, they are. Even before the biggest gas-price hikes, a Congressional Budget Office study of California freeways from 2003 to 2006 showed that the number of freeway trips went down 0.7% for every 50� increase in gas prices — but only in areas near public transit. Cities are struggling to keep up. BART, the San Francisco Bay Area rail system, removed seats to open up more standing room. In Boston, where turnpike use declined by 600,000 cars in May, officials are pleading with public-transit passengers to travel at non peak times.

9. More Cops on the Beat
Across the country, police bike and foot patrols are up, and cops are being told to cut down on idling their cruisers — which is sort of like telling a teenager to stop using his cell phone. Georgia state police have been told to cut driving time 25%. In Shelby, N.C., police officers have been ordered to park their cars for 15 min. every 2 hours and to stop taking patrol cars out for lunch. In May the city government's fuel consumption decreased. The longer-term effects may include better community relations — and slimmer police.

10. Less Obesity
People walk more, bike more and eat out less when gas is pricey. A permanent $1 hike in prices may cut obesity 10%, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars a year, estimates Charles Courtemanche, an assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. At Orange Cycle, the largest bike store in Orlando, Fla., sales of upright urban bikes from March to June rose 57% compared with the same period last year. The shop was around for the 1970s gas crisis too, but this feels different, says co-owner Deena Breed. "I don't think it's just gas," she says. "It has to do with weight, exercise, community — a general sense of not being so wasteful."

Spotlight on easements

Grand jury probe should lead to tougher penalties for lawbreaking
Rocky Mountain News
Friday, June 20, 2008
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/20/spotlight-on-easements/

Some real estate appraisers, property owners and land trusts have manipulated tax credits available from Colorado's conservation easement program in ways that seem downright criminal.
So we welcome Wednesday's decision by Attorney General John Suthers asking a statewide grand jury to look into the more questionable deals. An independent probe is essential.

A grand jury can subpoena witnesses and compel testimony; the AG would not have that authority for this investigation. Subpoena powers will help the grand jury unravel any scams.
The probe should publicly highlight the worst abuses. Exposing obvious loopholes should prod state lawmakers to close those gaps.

No single agency has direct oversight of easement credits, which have drained more than $274 million from state coffers since 2000. Articles in the Rocky have uncovered a host of dubious transactions, some involving what looks like excessive appraisals and multiple tax credits claimed from the same parcel of land.

For some people the temptation to game the system must have been irresistible. It was possible to collect millions in tax credits without drawing any attention. With little risk of getting caught, pushing the limits may have seemed a gamble worth taking.

Indeed, the penalties for illegally cashing in easements are little more than a slap on the wrist - low-level misdemeanors which carry modest fines and minimal jail time, if any.

To be sure, the grand jury might discover evidence of conspiracy, tax fraud or securities fraud - offenses that carry much stiffer penalties. And for months the IRS has conducted its own probe of easement deals that could violate federal tax laws.

If those wider offenses aren't prosecuted, don't count on stiff sentences for those who illegally manipulated easements. Another reason to welcome the grand jury's independence: Tax attorney Rodney Atherton, now under investigation by the Colorado Supreme Court for potential ethics violations related to the easement program, is likely to get a look.

A Rocky investigation of a land trust he organized found that Atherton got two open-space agreements on land he owned in Jefferson County and that these deals led to $360,000 in state tax credits for the attorney and his wife. Atherton may have attracted attention because the state Republican Party is a client of his law firm Zakhem Atherton. Suthers is Colorado's highest-ranking GOP official.

Michael Huttner of ProgressNowAction called for Suthers to recuse himself from the investigation, claiming Suthers had "a conflict of interest with one of his major contributors."
Atherton is hardly a "major contributor," since he did not give Suthers any money for his 2006 campaign. And while Atherton's law partner John Zakhem gave $900 to Suthers' campaign, Atherton did not join the firm until 2007. The most direct link Huttner can make is a contribution from Atherton to Gov. Bill Owens' 2002 re-election campaign.

Huttner's allegation is ludicrous. We have no reason to question Suthers' independence.
Besides, if Suthers wanted to protect Atherton, or any Republican, why wouldn't he take charge of the investigation, so he could cherry-pick who was scrutinized and who was left alone?
We trust the grand jury probe will be thorough, giving lawmakers plenty of ammunition to stiffen the penalties for looting public coffers and abusing a program meant to conserve valuable open space.

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.
Associate Professor and Program Chair Urban Affairs and Planning
Virginia Tech

Michigan, Last in Efficiency?

This is a commentary on energy efficiency posted on the Enviro Mich Listserv on Jun 19, 2008


Dear Michigan Citizens, Voters and Ratepayers,

Evidence suggests that Michigan's lack of energy efficiency programs and achievement are hurting our citizens and businesses and putting us deeper in an economic hole. This situation may not improve. Energy efficiency legislation is currently being debated in the Michigan Senate with opposition.

Is Michigan last in Energy Efficiency?
· A quick look at the chart in this site suggests the State of Michigan may be making the least effort to promote energy efficiency of all 50 states. Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana appear to be making more energy efficiency efforts. http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/FinEE.cfm?&CurrentPageID=7&EE=1&RE=0
· Michigan is ranked very low in US residential and commercial building codes and only 33
rd in energy efficiency policy according to an ACEEE study. http://www.aceee.org/press/e075pr.htm About 15 years ago, we were one of the leading states in efficiency.

Does Energy Efficiency Matter? (It’s only money and health and …)
· Successful commercial and industrial companies are energy efficient. Wal-Mart became highly efficient in many ways including energy use and prospered. K-Mart didn’t. Cutting energy costs contributes directly to profits and even corporate survival.
· Energy efficient homes allow residents to save and spend on better things (education, retirement, health care, mortgage payments) rather than just creating more smoke, CO2 and other pollution.
· Wisconsin and Vermont have had excellent efficiency programs for years. If Michigan had Vermont’s program and results, we would have put back $3 billion into our economy since 2000.
http://www.focusonenergy.com/Default.aspx
http://www.efficiencyvermont.com/pages/Common/AboutUs/

An Energy Efficiency Program is an Investment, not a Tax
· A mandated, state-wide, utility funded energy efficiency program would communicate and incentivise efficiency products and practices for residential, commercial and industrial electric and heating.
· Such a program would cost less than $1.00 per month on a typical home electric bill. But, it can offset the need for a new coal plant which would increase the monthly electric bill by $3.00 to $4.00 for decades.
· In addition to avoiding a coal plant charge on an electric bill, an energy efficient house can save over $50 per month on combined electric and heating bills.


There is Strong Support for Energy Efficiency program in Michigan
· According to a poll by MUCC and NWF, 79% of Michigan sportsman support a Michigan energy plan which requires investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy, first, before building new coal fired plants to meet our energy needs. http://targetglobalwarming.org/michiganpressrelease
· Other polls confirm public support for energy efficiency.
· Preliminary recommendations from the Michigan Climate Action Council strongly support the need for an energy efficiency program in Michigan. Business, utilities, environs and government are all represented. http://www.miclimatechange.us/index.cfm
From the RCI workgroup: http://www.miclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O46F17860.pdf
From the Energy Supply workgroup: http://www.miclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O46F18008.pdf
· Plus, energy efficiency will create Michigan jobs. http://aceee.org/pubs/e07x.htm

Surrounding States already have Energy Efficiency Laws and Programs
· Surrounding states have already passed stronger energy efficiency legislation (mandating energy efficiency programs) which puts them far ahead of Michigan in ratepayer savings. For example: Wisconsin (1.2% of revenue), Minnesota (1.5% of savings), Ohio (2% savings) and Illinois (2% savings).

· Of note, proposed Michigan legislation calls for only a modest 1% energy savings per year. We will never become fully competitive by aiming low.
· A recent Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance study indicates that Michigan could save $1.7 billion a year (2025) with a 1% energy savings program but $3.1 billion a year with a 2% savings program.

Conclusion
Energy efficiency is the quickest, cleanest and least expensive way to achieve our energy goals. It creates jobs, save rate payers money which can flow back into the state's economy and reduces CO2, pollution and health problems. Energy efficiency is an investment in waste and pollution reduction and pays many dividends.

The Senate, House, other government, media and friends need to know of our support for energy efficiency in Michigan. We haven't had an energy efficiency program in years and it is hurting our residents and economy. Quick action and a high energy savings target can help get us out of our economic hole.


Take care, frank

Frank Zaski
A Concerned Citizen
Franklin, Mi.

Coming Home: Glad to be back in Great Lakes but will miss the Chesapeake Bay

Well, I have relocated back to my home state of Michigan. While I love my home state, I have to say that I had very mixed feelings about returning. Feels a little weird because after 3 years in the Washington D.C. area, I had become accustomed and fond of the region (not to mention the milder winters). My top reason for returning to MI was economic and family. Cost of living in DC region is really high and it was really difficult to make ends meet with a young family.

Being a news junkie and always interested in the nation's politics, working in the capital of Maryland and then in downtown DC, I found it quite exciting and intellectually fulfilling. So I will miss Maryland and will really try to maintain the great contacts and friendships I made there. The BICEP Bulletin will still provide new and commentary about and for the Chesapeake Bay.

Saginaw County Chamber of Commerce calls for government probe into EPA

Saginaw News Headlines Saturday Feb 2, 2007 Chamber calls for probe.
Members upset over the Environmental Protection Agency's " accidental" release of a confidential memo regarding dioxin talks http://blog.mlive.com/saginawnews/2008/02/chamber_calls_for_probe.html

While there are many issues of more significance than the Chambers latest salvo at a regulatory agency or its defense of Dow's chronic bad behavior, statements cannot go unchallenged. Terry Miller, Lone Tree Council Chair, did a great job responding in a My View column in the Saginaw News. There is however no Saginaw News Internet link to Terry's response.

The Saginaw County Chamber of Commerce is asking the Inspector General to investigate how Lone Tree Council obtained an EPA memo; a memo which details Dow Chemical’s ongoing bad behavior, i.e., shoddy work plans, failure to follow regulatory guidelines, studies designed to create year long delays, maneuvering to go behind closed door, political strong arming… just to name a few. Go to TRWnews.net-- left column, click on FOIA documents and go to Dow CA 0807 to view the document that has jacked the Chamber so out of a shape. The Chamber did not deny the veracity of the document, I think they were just upset the public found out about Dow’s bad behavior.

Snips from the news story are pasted below and followed by my comments and my different viewpoint in bold print.

1. Snip: Veronica Horn, chamber executive vice president, said the group backs transparency but that Dow and the EPA had agreed to confidential talks. The Chamber is wrong and their statement a deliberate attempt to mislead. The EPA memo is dated August 2007. Dow did not go into confidential negotiations until October 18 and were not ordered to go into those negotiations until October 11. At the time of this memo was written, EPA had not even ordered Dow to negotiate. The memo if anything was written in anticipation of EPA taking legal action against Dow under CERCLA for failing to act in accordance with their corrective action responsibilities under RCRA. See EPA press release for October 2007 announcing negotiations. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/r05_2007-10-18_dowriver. In all the years and the many times Dow has forced this cleanup behind closed doors, even with the illegal consent order in 2002, which was made public, I've never seen the Chamber demand transparency or public accountability from Dow Chemical.

2. Snip: Chamber President and Chief Executive Officer Robert VanDeventer and former Chairman Brian D. Eggers signed the letter. This would be the letter to the Inspector General asking for an investigation into how Lone Tree obtained the memo. It's interesting that Mr. Eggers, President of ATK Peerless failed full disclosure and did not divulge the significant income garnered by his company as a contract employee for Dow Chemical doing work on priority one and two properties along the river contaminated with dioxin.

3.Snip The Chamber letter also claims many memo comments "seem to be taken directly from the Lone Tree Council's Web Site." Never mind that none were identified or used as an example. Lone Tree Council's web site due to our lack of time has not had any information added to it in over a year. There are no documents on the LTC web-site from the EPA or anyone else. Visit our website: http://www.lonetreecouncil.com/index.htm

4. Snip Mrs. Horn goes on to State : "Perhaps Lone Tree doesn't know what honoring a commitment means, but the business community certainly does." Would Dow Chemical be included in the " business community" that knows how to honor a commitment? Perhaps Mrs. Horn would then ask Dow Chemical to honor their commitment to the people of this watershed by honoring the RCRA corrective action license signed by Ms. Sue Carrington on Dow’s behalf in June of 2003. By doing so Dow clearly acknowledged its responsibility, its legal commitments to the residents of this watershed and state. Dow clearly agreed by signing this commitment to abide by the law and produce as part of the contract with the people of this watershed: 1. Scopes of Work 2. Interim Response Activities 3. Remediation 4.Open public process. This is a legal binding document which Dow has fought tooth and nail after signing. A contract which at the end of the day would address the cleanup of this watershed and demonstrate Dow Chemical comprehends what it means to honor a commitment. Or does Dow with the Chambers blessing get to walk away from that contract? Where's the honor in that?

5.Snip More from Ms. Horn : "Our position is this: We are very upset that this kind of activity has happened on more than one occasion," Horn said. "This is not helpful to either side, to the EPA or to Dow. Our concern is with the community and the perception of the community. It's not a perception it's a reality; this is a highly contaminated watershed and it is time the Chamber insist their premier member expedite cleanup instead of being an apologist/lobbyist for the company. While we must acknowledge that Dow is not the only contributor the Saginaw River contamination--- the company is responsible for the dioxin black eye that drew national attention to our community. There are more than two sides! It's not just the regulatory agencies and Dow involved-- Hello Chamber of Commerce-- there is the public! As for the Chamber being upset, let me submit the Chamber is more upset because the memo, like many others, reveals Dow Chemical to be very uncooperative, manipulative, political and unwilling to comply with the law. Please go to TRWnews.net and click on FOIA documents to read other documents detailing the company’s failings.

6 Snip.Ms. Horn: "It's an attitude we feel that the EPA is taking against a company. We want a healthy Great Lakes and river system, but we also want a healthy economy." Attitude? It's called enforcing the law. Unlike the Chamber of Commerce, EPA and DEQ do not see a healthy eco-system and a healthy economy as being mutually exclusive. In progressive communities with progressive thinkers that archaic thinking is no longer acceptable. Many communities are seeing the economic benefit, job creation and long-term sustainability in cleaning up their contaminated waterways. And the healthy Great Lakes and river system are about public health and quality of life—more and more research is demonstrating the long-term impact of persistent organic pollutants on children. Quality of life matters! And it is defined by more than profit and money...........

7. Snip The chamber letter also raised concerns about other "accidental" releases of "confidential, internal documents to this environmental group. Each time this has happened it has resulted in sensational, negative headlines that in our opinion serve only to hinder negotiations between The Dow Chemical Company and either the (state Department of Environmental Quality) or, in this case, the EPA," it said. Like we control the headlines. The headlines and subsequent stories are not about the "release" of information but the content in the release. It’s what is revealed in these documents that so unnerves the Chamber of Commerce because it exposes the shenanigans of Dow Chemical. To suggest the public's access to information hinders negotiations one can only conclude the Chamber thinks the negotiations should be out of the public arena. We strongly disagree. Dow polluted this environment they don't own it. The most valuable stakeholder in this process is the people. We own the resource. The people and the process should be afforded the deference given Dow for the past 30 years. There is nothing about this cleanup that should be kept from the public, the property owners or the citizens who use these resources for recreation, food or their livelihood.

Lone Tree Council will continue to do what it always has....... Seek out public information and make it public when it comes to the resources and public health matters of our Saginaw Bay Watershed. Our resources, people and water are important as is the business of the people..... Everyone of us has an obligation to ensure a public and transparent process. It's how our democracy works best and it is what the taxpayers pay for from their elected officials and public agencies.

Best Regards,
Michelle Hurd Riddick
Lone Tree Council

RFK Jr. and Howard Ernst Crititcal of Maryland's Environmental Efforts

Sorry I haven't posted in a couple of weeks. Been pretty busy with a graduate course working on my masters degree.

Here's an editorial from the Baltimore Sun by two high profile environmental watch dogs. I heard a speech Ernst gave a couple of years ago. He definitely doesn't hold back anything in his opinions. I haven't read his book Chesapeake Bay Blues yet. Hopefully I'll get to it this year. Cheers!

Maryland's dirty secrets
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Howard Ernst
January 24, 2008
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chickenfarms24jan24,0,718905.story

The Chesapeake Bay, where we learned to swim, fish and crab, is dying. And despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent on research and reporting, there has been little action to hold polluters accountable for poisoning our beloved bay.

Drive around the country roads of the Delmarva Peninsula and you will find the leading source of the desecration of the bay and its estuarine tributaries: toxic animal waste piled outside chicken houses, sprayed over fields and running into the ditches, creeks and streams that flow to the Chesapeake.

For too long, Maryland's commercial chicken industry has been using the Chesapeake Bay, once a global treasure, as its personal dumping ground for illicit and harmful wastes. Billions of pounds of chicken litter have flowed into the bay in the decades since international poultry conglomerates such as Perdue and Tyson located their multimillion-dollar operations in the Delmarva Peninsula.

The destruction of our waterways by factory farms is illegal under this
nation's environmental laws, which contemplate transparency and cooperative enforcement among the federal government, state environmental agencies and citizens. Yet too many of Maryland's political leaders and poultry industry officials have partnered in a carefully choreographed dance around the many legal tools designed to protect our precious water resources. Together, they've succeeded in undermining all levels of safeguards to ensure that the poultry industry can continue to act in secrecy and without accountability.

On the federal level, the Clean Water Act provides a framework for holding polluters accountable by requiring all dischargers to obtain permits to control harmful substances. Factory chicken producers are no exception. Yet, defying federal law, Maryland holds out as one of the last states in the country not to require these pollution permits for poultry facilities; a draft permit released this month by Maryland's Department of the Environment that is purported to comply with federal laws falls woefully short.

While much of the authority to implement and enforce the Clean Water Act is delegated to state environmental agencies such as MDE, Maryland's 1998 Water Quality Improvement Act wrested oversight of chicken farms away from MDE in favor of the Maryland Department of Agriculture, essentially allowing the poultry industry to self-regulate and the Chesapeake Bay to slowly waste away.

Perhaps most egregiously, Maryland's citizens are being denied their
fundamental rights under this political-industrial compact. Under current law, Maryland chicken farmers must file nutrient management plans with the MDA, describing how they control and dispose of their billion pounds of chicken waste each year. In states across the country, including Virginia and Pennsylvania, these plans are public documents that empower citizens with an invaluable tool to monitor irresponsible behavior and allow for citizen enforcement of environmental regulations. Yet the MDA shields the poultry industry by refusing to make nutrient management plans public. Why the secrecy? Why are there no federally required permits for poultry operations in Maryland? And why can't state citizens gain access to public documents? There are no permits to review and no records to inspect. Maryland's poultry industry is operating under a state-sponsored cloak of darkness designed to protect it from any scrutiny.

It is time to shine a light on improper industry practices. Allowing public access to nutrient management plans is the first step in empowering citizens to protect their communities and waterways. The many chicken growers that are acting responsibly have nothing to fear from the transparency that would be gained by allowing public access to waste-disposal plans. And those in the industry who pollute our waters or fail to develop and properly implement waste-disposal plans would rightfully be subject to enforcement by state and federal government, or citizens, for their illegal activities.

The bay and our local waters are not privately owned commodities.
Maryland's citizens have the right to clean water and healthy communities, and this right depends on public knowledge of where and how the largest industry on the Eastern Shore is disposing of its waste.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is president of the Waterkeeper Alliance. Howard Ernst, author of "Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay," is senior scholar at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun

Nestlé's water pumping harmful to Michigan

Saturday, January 05, 2008
By Terry Swier
Special To The Press

I am writing to set the record straight on the harm done to Michigan's waters by Nestlé water mining operations. When the guest column, "Nestlé success in Michigan in spotlight" by Nestlé Vice President of Corporate Affairs Heidi Paul in The Grand Rapids Press was being read Dec. 12, I was testifying in front of the U.S. Congress.

I am the president of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC). I was on the same panel as Ms. Paul, testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcommittee Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and was asked many of the same questions. Ms. Paul stated that Nestlé's pumping is good for Michigan, and the company has caused no harm.

Courts have determined otherwise. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation won on this point in all three courts in the case MCWC v Nestlé.
The finding of fact that Nestle would cause substantial harm at levels lower than they are pumping now, was made by the Mecosta County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, and affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court when it rejected Nestlé's argument that the findings were in error.

A picture of the mudflat at Dead Stream was projected on the walls at the hearing. As stated in my written testimony, before pumping, there was water in the stream, even during natural low flows and levels. Sound science, considered and argued over during 19 days of trial in MCWC's case, found Nestlé's pumping at 400 gallons per minute would reduce stream flow by 24 percent, drop levels by 2 to 4 inches, and drop the levels of two lakes by 4 inches to 6 inches.
The findings can be found in Judge Lawrence Root's opinion following the bench trial. The stream has narrowed and wetland edges and bottomlands have been invaded by plant species. Nestlé did not halt pumping. Where is Nestlé's "good neighbor" policy?

At the hearing, Congressman Dennis Kucinich asked witness Dr. David Hyndman about the picture, and asked if beaver dams had anything to do with the harm of Dead Stream. Dr. Hyndman testified, as the courts agreed, that the beaver dams had nothing to do with low levels on Dead Stream. He testified that the low levels were caused by Nestlé's pumping during low flow or growing season when the stream is most vulnerable.
Nestle continues to claim there is no harm. Nestle continues to present itself as just another business using a little water. Instead, this is water mining, pure and simple -- at the expense of the public and at enormous profit to Nestlé. No amount of Nestlé bubbly talk can obscure that fact.

Nestlé also recently argued to the Michigan Supreme Court that citizens have no right to bring a lawsuit to protect wetlands or lakes on Nestlé's own property, even though it has been undisputed that their water resources are protected by state laws.

MCWC believes much of what it has done and stands for is supported by a majority of citizens in Michigan and the Great Lakes. Many citizens oppose the removal of water for export and sale as water, because this converts water under public control to private control and profit without adequate consideration of the public trust, the environment or an accounting for a substantial subsidy of a private exporter without public purpose.

Every gallon extracted as "spring water" as it appears on the label of Nestlé's Ice Mountain bottles, extracts a gallon of water that would otherwise feed a wetland, stream or lake. The diminishment of flow and level causes significant adverse impacts to these water bodies and their habitat and wildlife.

Water grabbers, like Nestlé, undermine the interest of our sixth-generation residents who live in Mecosta, on its lakes and streams; the public that fishes, boats, swims and enjoys our lakes and streams; farmers who rely on our groundwater; industry and our economy that are so dependent on our water, and the environment and public trust.
Our water is our heritage and our culture. It must be protected for our future generations. Let the water stay where it flows, not where it goes.

-- Terry Swier is President of the grassroots group Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation in Mecosta.

©2008 Grand Rapids Press
© 2008 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.

City of Detroit Should Sell Under Utilized Small Parks

The Detroit City Council will be considering a proposal from the its Parks and Recreation Department to sell about 90 small city owed parks. The proposal seeks to condense and consolidate park space and resources in thriving areas. Recreation officials are endorsing it as a sensible way to look at needed downsizing, a way to reconcile surplus park space with the significant demographic shifts over the last half-century in Detroit, which has lost about a million people since 1950. If sold, the city estimates it can raise $8.1 million from selling the land. The cash strapped city would use the money earned from any sales to maintain and possibly expand parks in parts of the city that are more densely populated.

Is it worth it to do this? I think it is. Without question, parks do serve immensely important benefits and functions to urban/city life. Parks are set aside for people to enjoy--to relieve some of the stress of life. Normally, I would tend to agree with them that selling park land is a bad idea. But in the case of Detroit, I have to say that the city's recreation department proposal seems logical in terms of fiscal demands. By concentrating parks and recreation in neighborhoods that are more likely to utilize them makes sense to me. The city should take any funds made from land sales and reinvest in good or mediocre city parks and make them GREAT parks. I would rather have a dozen great parks than 100 crappy ones.

Opponents are calling the plan short-sighted and wrong, pointing out that once gone, it's gone forever. Colleagues of mine have said to me with all the land available for redevelopment in Detroit, who is going to buy these parks, for what reason, and at what price? Also, it could encourage a developer who has the money to purchase the parks, and the time to wait for the opportunity for resale or development. Still not an optimal use for parkland. Some would likely argue that keeping and maintaining the pocket parks can be used in revitalizing neighborhoods and attracting new residents, small businesses, etc.

Granted, if given a choice between developing a greenfield vs. a gray-field, I would certainly prefer to redevelop the gray-field. No argument here. But, in the case of Detroit neighborhood resurgence, I think that the city needs to attract new neighborhood mixed-income dwellers from outside of the downtrodden neighborhoods. As well as outside of the city limits. Barely satisfactory/poorly maintained pocket parks are not enough to attract these people in order to bring up neighborhoods.

But I’m not letting the city off that easy though. It will take a lot more than selling off currently under-used parks to revitalize Detroit. Detroit still has to do a much better job in maintaining and investing in existing open spaces. They also need to spend more time and effort in planning for quality urban greenspace. Detroit should consider planning for permanent nature preserves, larger urban parks connected to other greenspaces, urban farming, and even restoring wetlands or daylighting some historical watercourses. Such uses would have practical benefits such as increasing property values in nearby neighborhoods and creating educational and tourism opportunities, and would greatly add to the quality of life in Detroit. Fix what’s broken. I’m referring to the parks as well as decisions made in city hall.

Reference:
NY Times
Detroit considers sale of City's small parks
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/29/us/29parks.html

Political Environment & Green Movement in America

Responding to post on SES: Science, Education, and Society Blog by the Urban Scientist

Urban Scientist,

I just read your comments about AAEA's blog post Political Environment & Green Movement In America. Just a few words in response.

In my experience as an African American involved in the environmental movement, I can say that I have felt welcomed by the various organizations and groups that I have come to know and be associated with. The point that AAEA is making is that the movement has not yet come to the point where minorities are seen in LEADERSHIP positions. As I am still at a very early stage in my career, I can’t say that I’ve personally experienced being passed up or ignored for key leadership positions. But, I hope to someday advance into executive level position within an advocacy, government, or policy organization.

I can say that for years I have felt like an oddball among the African American community because of my interests, education and career choices. It seems to me that blacks who do aspire to higher education to pursue finance, business, law and now, technology fields. All fine, honorable occupations and careers. My gripe with people who advise young minorities in career choices is that they push, pressure, and present these as the only acceptable career choices. As a result, most educated blacks today have a lot of difficulty thinking outside the box when it comes to the world we live in. This is ironic because the point of a college education is to train you to be able to reason, question things and broaden your horizons.

I don’t find I find the remarks made on the blog and the linked article Environmental Groups Ignore Diversity Survey inflammatory and antagonistic at all. Using strong or controversial language to get a point across has always been a part of drawing attention to any worthwhile cause or movement. Don’t be too hard on AAEA and EJ groups. I can understand your position of being a scientist and an educator. But one of the things that I think you miss is that people and societies rarely fit into neat equations where 2+2=4. When it comes to Americans, sometimes 2+2 = something completely different to each of us.

A VISIT TO THE REAL WORLD OF THE KELO DECISION

Interesting blurb from NJ Lawyer

In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court said that if a government thought it was a good idea to condemn private property through eminent domain and hand it over to a private developer - if public officials thought that would forward the public purpose of economic development -well, the nine justices would defer to those local officials' informed judgment. That was in June 2005. So how are things going in New London,Conn, two and a half years later? According to reports in the New London Day, not so well. The private company chosen to redevelop the Fort Trumbull area, Corcoran Jennison, has missed several deadlines for securing financing and hasn't built a single one of the luxury apartments and townhouses that are supposed to begin to revivify the area. The city has given them another six-month extension to get their financing together. Meanwhile, the first condemnation notices for the homes and businesses that once stood in the neighborhood went out a full seven years ago. Oops! 12-20-07

Editorial: Wandering Off The Plantation

From:

Norris McDonald

President

African American Environmentalist Association (AAEA)

It is an expression of leaving a place where others think you should stay. AAEA has wandered way off the plantation and it has been quite fulfilling. Many would have us address only certain issues such as environmental justice and racism. Of course we address environmental justice and racism but we do not limit ourselves to these important issues. Many are disappointed when we do not meet their expectations of what our positions should be.

For more click here.

Sierra Club Says: Keep push on for dioxin cleanup

IN OUR OPINION

Keep push on for dioxin cleanup

December 11, 2007

The toxic residues downwind and downstream of Midland have to be cleaned up. If any doubts remained, they should disappear after the past month's momentous discoveries -- one in some buried federal paperwork, the other in Saginaw River sediment.Accumulated dioxins from Dow Chemical Co.'s operations are extraordinarily high. Jaw-dropping would be a better word after the revelation last month that the sample of riverbed sediment showed a dioxin level higher than any test results ever reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Melissa Damaschke
Sierra Club Conservation Organizer
1723 West Fourteen Mile Road
Royal Oak, MI 48073
Phone: (248) 549-6213
Website: www.sierraclub.org/community/oakland

Together, we will keep the Great Lakes GREAT!

Whose Water is it Anyway?

A letter to the editor of the Detroit News from the President of the International Bottled Water Association restates all the old canards in defense of the private capture for profit of the public's water. Here are a few:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712060307

1) The headline implies that packaging and selling water from springs or rivers or lakes is just another 'use' like any other. But common law has traditionally linked the right to use water with its use in the watershed, not its export. Selling water to distant customers for profit is a radically different concept, and not a traditional use.

2) "Proponents of the bills are seeking to make radical changes to the law that are not based on sound science." Where is the sound science that justifies the current Michigan law's distinction between unlimited amounts of water leaving the state in containers less than 5.7 gallons (not a diversion) and water leaving the state in containers 5.7 gallons or greater in the same volumes (diversion)? A spring or river won't know the difference.

3) "Interestingly, the International Joint Commission determined in its 2000 final report to the U.S. and Canadian governments that the Great Lakes basin imports about 14 times more bottled water than it exports and is a net importer of bottled water." Interestingly, this was before Nestle's large-scale operations began in Michigan in 2001. Even more importantly, the issue is not current ratios of export vs. import but the potential for major water taking expansion in an industry which has been growing 5-10% per year.

4) "The bills ignore the fact that bottled water is a consumed use of ground water, as is the case with other beverage and food producers. The bills change bottled water into a diversion of water. If bottled water is produced according to Food and Drug Administration regulations, it is without question a product, and all products should be treated equally." Water is an ingredient in beverages and food; water itself is claimed to be the 'product' in bottled water.

Michigan's conservation and environmental community is right to seek reinstatement in Michigan law of the centuries-old principle that water belongs to the public and there is no right to export it for sale.

Source:
Dave Dempsey
http://www.davedempsey.org/index.htm
davedem@hotmail.com

Minnesota sets tentative CO2 price

Minnesota sets tentative CO2 price
By Ben Shousemailto:Shousebshouse@argusleader.com
Published December 7, 2007

A Minnesota agency set a non-binding price range on carbon dioxide emissions on Thursday, a move environmentalists say vindicates their past arguments against the proposed Big Stone II power plant in northeast South Dakota.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission told electricity providers to analyze emission prices between $4 and $30 a ton when planning how their systems will grow.

The change does not directly affect the Big Stone II proposal, which is awaiting approval of its power lines from the Minnesota commission next year.

But the St. Paul-based advocacy group Fresh Energy said the price range shows that the five utilities hoping to build Big Stone II were using an overly rosy analysis of the risk of future carbon regulation.

“Those few CEOs pushing new, dirty coal plants should level with their customers. They can’t say we didn’t know coal is a risky investment,” said Michael Noble, executive director of Fresh Energy.

Big Stone II spokesman Dan Sharp said the utilities used the price of $9 a ton because the Minnesota commission ordered them to. And the commission did not say on Thursday if the price was meant to be a carbon tax or part of a cap-and-trade system.

“It’s really hard to make any kind of comparison or any kind of judgement, because they weren’t specific,” Sharp said.

Op-Ed: Praise for MDEQ & Corporate Staff

This is a letter forwarded to me about some noteworthy people in Michigan Dept. of Enviro Quality.
_____________________________________________
I would like to call your attention to some individuals who are noteworthy. I thought about saying “extraordinary” but they would probably feel uncomfortable with that. A bit of background is called for. A juice processing facility in Paw Paw, Michigan had historically sprayed fruit juice processing waste on adjacent fields. In July with 95-degree temperatures, sugar wastes smelled awesome! Since becoming the new operators, Coca-Cola upgraded and significantly expanded the facility. A new water reclamation plant replaced the spray fields. Effluent from the plant now enters the Paw Paw River.

Currently neighbors are concerned because of the uncertainty over where the groundwater might carry the wastes. As you might expect, neighbors wonder if the groundwater will impact their wells, health, or property values. The Coca-Cola, with MDEQ oversight has installed monitoring wells and is testing neighbors’ wells. To allay concerns, Coca-Cola is providing bottled water to some of the homes. Although never used at the facility, arsenic has been found in several wells including a school.

So is the spray field area responsible? If you lived next door, should you be concerned? Most people are not hydro-geologists, chemists, toxicologists, pediatrician, internists, nor pubic health experts. Yet all of these people may play a part in helping residents know if there are risks and
who may be impacted, and when.

Coca-Cola should be very grateful that they sent Dirk Lundsford, to the Coca-Cola as plant manager. Dirk deserves credit for creating a series of public meetings hosted by Julie Pioch, Van Buren Extension Director, to help the community understand by bringing together “credible experts”. The transparency of the meetings are due to the candor and participation of neighbors, Dirk, and state agency staff: MDEQ geologist, Eric Chatterson and MDEQ toxicologist, Amy Perbeck, along with Dan Fields, Coca-Cola plant environmental director. Coca-Cola should be grateful to the neighbors who have insisted on being heard and are willing to continue to refine their questions and gather and provide health information.

At last week’s meeting, Amy and Eric helped the neighbors better understand how groundwater moves and what the risks are from some of the substances found in the water samples. As a long time observer and participant in public meetings I can tell you that how you respond is as important as what you have to say. I believe that the majority of people felt that each participant actually cared about their concerns.

So, Dirk Lundsford and Dan Fields, Julie Pioch, Amy Perbeck, Eric Chatterson and neighbor Dianna Stump and the other residents, my hat is off to you. You deserve recognition for your part in insuring an atmosphere of respect and concern. It is so easy for pieces to fall through the cracks that always exist. There won’t be many here.

Regards,
Chuck Cubbage

Editorial: Dow Shall Not Pollute Our Water

Thanks Aviva!

The Saginaw River should be known as a river full of life, enjoyed by anglers, boaters, and citizens alike, with thousands of people flocking every year to the various festivals held on the banks of the river. Unfortunately, the Saginaw River now has a much darker, dirtier legacy. Thanks to industrial pollution by Dow Chemical Company, the Saginaw River is now making national headlines as home to the highest concentrations of dioxin ever recorded.

This is a massive environmental and public health threat that every Great Lakes citizen should be concerned about.

Dioxins are a class of chemicals that are highly carcinogenic and act as endocrine disruptors. According to EPA , "Dioxins are highly toxic compounds that pose serious risks to human health and the environment." Eating fish contaminated with dioxins can pose serious health threats, especially in pregnant women. And, dioxins have been shown to cause reproductive failures in birds and other wildlife. Dioxins are some of the most toxic chemicals out there- they were the toxic byprofuct of Agent Orange, and they contaminated and sickened the residents of Love Canal!

Early this month, Dow notified EPA and Michigan DEQ of measurements of over 1.6 million parts per trillion (ppt) of dioxin in one sample of sediment taken from the Saginaw River. This concentration is 50 times higher than the previous 32,000 ppt level. According to the AP story, that level is also about 20 times higher than any other level recorded in the EPA archives!

Despite the fact that this is the largest contamination of one of the most toxic classes of chemicals, Dow spokesman John C. Musser said, "We don't believe there's any imminent or significant human health or environmental threat."

Source:
Aviva Glaser
Communications Manager
Michigan League of Conservation Voters
aviva@michiganlcv.org
http://www.michiganlcv.org/blog/

The BICEP Bulletin, Few Comments But Much Satisfaction

I've been pretty busy lately doing some freelance research and editing. So this is my first opportunity to post in several days.

It was pointed out to me recently by someone that, while they found the BICEP Bulletin very interesting, the blog gets few comments. They asked me do I ever get discouraged, or do I find confirmation elsewhere that the blog is useful. (See comment here). I appreciate the question because, of course, people who take the time, effort and trouble to create and maintain a blog like mine wants it to be useful. Also, it given me the opportunity to evaluate my vision, mission, goals and objectives for myself and the Bulletin. Thankfully, I can say that while comments are few, I gain satisfaction from the effort for several good reasons.

First of all, I'm exercising my 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. I think that most Americans and citizens of other democratic/constitutional nations can identify with this. I'm proud that I have the opportunity to express my thoughts and opinions openly, unlike generations of my African American ancestors.

Secondly, this is great skill building exercise. I'm sharpening my research, writing and critical thinking skills. I'm building on my current expertise and gaining new base knowledge on many topics and subjects. Continuing educating in whatever form is important to me. Also, I've been able to promote myself as a freelance writer, researcher and editor. And who doesn't need to make a little extra cash?

Third, on your side of the blogosphere, you may not see many comments on the Bulletin. But, using tools like Site Meter and Feed Burner, I can track site traffic and know that people are reading or visiting the BICEP Bulletin daily. I have a few subscribers and the blog often produces visits by people doing Google searches. Big shout out to my subscribers (all 15 of you)! Thanks a ton for reading!

Finally, I like to think of the BICEP Bulletin as a form of public service. My main mission is to be be an advocate for responsible environmental management and promote the inclusion of minority groups in the community planning process.

Well, there you have it. I hope that this helps readers to understand why I do what I do and maybe get to know me a little better. I love to get comments from you. But I also get great pleasure from the fact that I can make some sort of mark on the practice of community & environmental planning. Thanks for reading and come back real soon!

Sincerely,

George Jackson
Editor & Chief Contributor
The BICEP Bulletin
Blog for Innovation in Community & Environmental Planning
bicepbulletin@gmail.com
http://bicepbulletin.blogspot.com/

Does Elitism Exist in the Environmental Movement?

I must say that although I've only been a part of the environmental movement for a few years, I like to think that most environmentalists are enlightened, tolerant people who have the ability to behave civilly even when they disagree. My optimism was shaken this past week when a colleague of mine, African American Environmentalist Association (AAEA) President Norris McDonald (above) and his son, who were invited guests, were told to leave the Southeast Convergence for Climate Action on the third day of the gathering in Asheville, NC because, as one of the organizers stated, "We do not share the same beliefs and goals." Read the full story at http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/. To the organizers of the Southeast Convergence for Climate Action, I say this:

I find it outrageous that Mr. McDonald, an African American, environmental activist for over twenty years (an extremely rare find, believe me), was treated in such a demeaning way for simply having a difference of opinion in what is supposed to be an enlightened discussion forum. It's bad enough that minorities have been, and still are, grossly ignored by the environmental movement in the community it is supposed to serve and in hiring practices, but to be shut out that manner is disgraceful. You and many others in your elitist circle need to take a good look at yourselves in a mirror, reevaluate what your priorities are and decide what and who you really stand for.

Radical Environmentalism Doesn't Work

In May 2007, eight members of the group that called itself "The Family" stood in federal court and apologized for the damage they caused over the last decade -- $40 million worth. These terrorists (yes, make no mistake these are terrorists) committed various acts of arson, property destruction, and endangered people's lives in the name of "Mother Earth". I think that these ecoterrorists should go to jail for there natural lives. Earth Liberation Front has been broken up and with the arrests of these and other misguided individuals, it should be apperant that radical evironmentalism does not work in a society of of law.