WordPress.com



Chapter 3SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR “FAIR AND REASONED” CONTRIBUTIONSChapter AbstractThis chapter reviews the efforts of four environmental organizations and coalitions: (1) The Friends of the Everglades, (2) The Friends of the Columbia River Gorge, the (3) Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the (4) Riverkeepers organizations. They all illustrate the fundamental theme of this monograph, i.e. that our environmental coalitions and NGOs are necessary to satisfy the “fair and reasoned criteria” we require of public decisions. As established in previous chapters, this “fair and reasoned criteria” specifies that (i) the decision makers are uncorrupted by conflicts of interest, (ii) the decision makers are fully informed of the relevant scientific and socio-economic analyses, (iii) the decision process is fully open to considerations of all affected interests, and (iv) the decision itself is logical according to the “stability criteria” of Rawls as explained above. Introduction: The Public Input and the Engineering of Our Environment In the Spring of 1927, the US experienced the worst flood in its history to date. For several months, significant rains fell in various large sections of the Mississippi River Basin. This culminated in the overflow and destruction of levees throughout the lower basin. The Country discovered the lesson that building large levees upriver only pipes the water downriver where higher levees must now be constructed. The solution requires that we establish large floodplains at various points along the River’s length that enable the releasing of the flood water where populations are not domiciled. Otherwise we pit one locality against another in a sort competition of “You must flood your town so that ours is protected!” This competition turned violent in 1927 with both racial violence and violence between towns. The US Army Corps of Engineers was given the responsibility of managing flood control (as well as other civil engineering tasks) throughout the Basin. Managing this Mississippi River problem continues to today. The Corps is one of the significant government institutions that affects our environment. It does this through an open decision-process of cost-benefit evaluations, one that solicits scientific and socio-economic information thereby opening the door to fair and reasoned considerations.In the 1920s, hurricanes in South Florida caused massive flooding. The Corps of Engineers responded by constructing dikes, canals, levees and pumps to manage the fresh water of the vast wetlands we call The Everglades. This reengineering has not worked well. The area’s floods are managed, but the environment that attracts people to South Florida has been severely and negatively affected. Significant environmental amenities are disappearing. Currently, the public is demanding that the problems be remedied.In response, large environmental NGOs and coalitions have formed who are politically active and persuasive in government circles. Political pressure is currently sufficiently strong so that one of the Nation’s natural treasures, The Everglades, is likely to be partly restored to environmental health. “Big Sugar” opposes these efforts. Their fertilizer pollution largely caused the problem. The political battle is documented in this chapter as an illustration of fair and reasoned environmental discourse and its power to facilitate change.In the early 1980s, proposed development in the spectacular scenic area, The Columbia River Gorge, led to the formation of the politically powerful environmental NGO, The Friends of the Gorge. Their political acumen led to the establishment of the Columbia River National Scenic Area, and also to a “Land Trust” dedicated to preserving the natural environment and scenic value of the Gorge. Energy and other development interests have opposed the efforts of the Friends, but through the land-use planning institution of the “Columbia River Gorge Commission,” a compact between the States of Washington and Oregon that was also created as the result of the political efforts of the Friends, these efforts have been thwarted and the environment and scenic value preserved. To date, the Friends watch over this natural treasure to avoid obnoxious development within the Scenic Area, and to develop the “Land Trust” to preserve this natural wonder forever. The Friends are also establishing a 200-mile hiking trail that connects the towns and facilities on both sides of the Gorge. This is an example of a successful environmental group with sufficient political power so as to assure that the decision process related to this valuable resource be fair and reasoned. Their efforts are also documented below.In the late 1960s, concerns over the deterioration of the Chesapeake Bay led a group of businessmen with political connections to form the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. To date this Foundation has spurred new regulations and effective enforcements that have been restoring and preserving the Bay. The Foundation’s efforts are documented here as another illustration of the necessity of our environmental NGOs for making fair and reasoned decisions.In the 1960s, The Riverkeepers were formed to restore the Hudson River of New York, a task viewed by many knowledgeable analysts as being nearly impossible. Nevertheless, the Riverkeepers efforts were considerably successful so that offshoots, called Waterkeepers, have now proliferated across the Country. For almost every polluted US river we have a Waterkeepers Association spearheading its environmental restoration efforts. Without these organizations, those interests vested in pollution externalities would continue to degrade our rivers.The four cases reviewed above illustrate the necessity of our public organizations (coalitions and NGOs) to assure that our decision processes are fair and reasoned. Without these organizations, our environmental decisions would be made by business interests with obvious conflicts of interest; they would not be appropriately grounded in scientific and socio-economic facts; they would not be open to considerations of all relevant interests; and we would not be assured that their conclusions would be logical. Our environmental policy decisions would be “corrupted.” The Everglades and Its Defending OrganizationsOn January 9, 2020, the “35th Annual Everglades Coalition Conference” began. The “Coalition” consists of over 60 environmental organizations, mostly non-governmental organizations (NGOs) but with some government input as well. These organizations include NGOs such as Audubon Florida, The Everglades Foundation, The Everglades Trust, Friends of the Everglades, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and The National Wildlife Federation. The “Conference” lasted three days. It resembled a typical academic conference with sessions dedicated to a variety of topics such as “Removing Barriers to Sending Water South,” and “Seagrass: The Regrowth of Florida’s Natural Infrastructure.” Sessions consisted of panels of experts with a moderator who directed the discussion and presentations. This “Coalition” is an expression of the public’s desire to fix a gigantic mistake of trying to engineer nature, namely the attempt to control the freshwater flow of the lower one-third of the Florida Peninsula, the area we call The Everglades. In attempting to control the floods of the 1920s, the US Army Corps of Engineers replumbed South Florida. This provided fresh water for the population growth of this area, but it destroyed one of the main attractions for why the population growth occurred, i.e. the environmental amenities of the area. A redo of this “replumbing” is now underway. With the public’s “Coalition” input, the expertise involved might be sufficient to restore this natural treasure of environmental amenity.The Everglades is a vast freshwater wetland that covers the lower one-third of the Florida peninsula. It is home to a large number of aviary species, and is also the spawning grounds of large numbers of fish species and other aquatic life. It extends from Orlando in Central Florida through Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay, i.e. the shallow bay north and west of the islands of the Florida Keys. This area is essential for the fishing and ecotourism industries of South Florida. Their life depends upon the Everglades. In 1976, The Everglades National Park was declared an International Biosphere Reserve, and also a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. But this area has been under increasing threat during the entire post WW II era. It has been encroached upon by suburban and agricultural development and its demands for the freshwater upon which the Everglades depends.The development of the problemIn the 1920s, significant hurricanes flooded wide areas in South Florida. The US Army Corps of Engineers responded by constructing a four-story dike around Lake Okeechobee in South-Central Florida. This dike cutoff a large portion of the freshwater supply to the Everglades. Then in response to the flooding caused by the hurricanes of 1947, the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project (C&SF) was created to reconstruct the area of the Everglades through canals and levees; 1,400 miles constructed during the 1950s and 1960s. The C&SF established Water Conservation Areas in more than a third of the original area of the Everglades. These “areas” acted as reservoirs for the fresh-water supplies to South Florida cities. But the C&SF also established the Everglades Agricultural Area which grows the majority of sugarcane in the US. This “area” encompassed over one-fourth of the original Everglades. The remaining portion of the original Everglades is protected by the Everglades National Park, but this area is dependent for its health on the C&SF’s provision of fresh water. The metropolitan areas of South Florida began to impede the Park area in the 1960s. Insufficient freshwater threw the ecosystems into retreat, and fertilizers from the cane areas began to alter the soils and hydrology of the area. As a result, the Everglades became the subject of environmental conservation concerns.Between 1940-1980, the populations of Dade, Broward and West Palm Beach Counties, all of which lie directly on the Eastern border of the Everglades, expanded by a factor of 8.3 to 3.2 million. This rapid population growth converted the eastern 12 percent of the Everglades into other than the natural wetlands. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that no more than two percent of the original ecosystem remains intact, but that about thirty percent remains in an altered state that could be restored with proper management. The politics of pollutionOne of the fundamental factors that have been destroying The Everglades is the pollution produced and the irrigation-water demanded by the “Big Sugar” industry of South Florida. This agricultural industry is located south of Lake Okeechobee, and heavily uses the fresh water from the Lake, and discharges the fertilized water back into The Everglades which produces algae that degrades the natural environment. These wetlands need unpolluted fresh water to thrive. On March 30, 2018, the Everglades Trust joined eleven other environmental groups in sending a letter of support for the “Sugar Policy Modernization Act” to various Congressional representatives who sponsored the “Act.” The letter reads,“The sugar industry has used this windfall to fund political candidates, campaigns, consultants, law firms and lobbying efforts in Tallahassee and Washington to monopolize water and drainage in the Everglades Agricultural Area, and to force taxpayers to bear the costs of cleaning up its pollution. The political power this program has given to sugarcane producers continues to wreak havoc on our state’s tourism, fishing and real estate economies that depend on clean water, which is blocked, diverted and muddied by the practices and stranglehold on policymakers.” Kemberly Mitchell, Executive Director of Everglades Trust, stated that “Loosening the stranglehold Big Sugar has had on our political system for decades, bolstered by the archaic corporate welfare scheme, is the single greatest thing we could do to ensure the survival of America’s Everglades.” This political problem of pollution has a lengthy history. The US Sugar Program began in 1934. It offers subsidized loans to sugar growers, import quotas, and tariffs to support the industry. Sugar is an internationally-traded commodity with a world-wide price established by the twin forces of supply and demand as with oil, or capital flows. But in the US, it is produced by those with considerable political influence due to their large political contributions to politicians across the political spectrum. The Fanjul family, for example, were successful cane growers in Cuba prior to Castro’s revolution in 1958. They fled to South Florida in 1959, and reestablished their cane fields in The Everglades, 200,000 acres of cane. The family owns American Sugar Refining, and Florida Crystals. Domino Sugar is one of their brands. The family’s companies benefit from the subsidies and import restrictions, they hold the dominant position in the US market. (Grunwald (2005) documents the Fanjul family’s pollution of The Everglades.)David Guest, and attorney with the environmental law firm Earthjustice argues that the sugar industry’s expertise is not growing sugar, but in soliciting federal subsidies. Virginia Chamlee writes,“Guest says that Big Sugar operates differently than most agricultural industries – trading cash in the form of campaign donations for political favors in the form of subsidies. If the companies gain enough legislative support, they can ensure that legislation is written to their specifications, keeping sugar prices and subsidies high.” During the presidential election campaigns of 2016, the Fanjul family hosted fundraising events for both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Issues of RestorationThere are currently 800 square miles of sugar cane lands in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). As reviewed above, these lands have been dammed, drained, and ditched for the sake of development, and now the water cannot flow south through The Everglades. In 2000, The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was authorized by Congress to “restore, preserve, and protect South Florida’s ecosystem.” This “plan” seeks to purchase cane growing lands (and end cane-growing leases of public lands) that are south of Lake Okeechobee to allow fresh water to flow into and through The Everglades and into Florida Bay. The 800 square miles of cane blocks the flow of water south through The Everglades, and this poses the biggest problem facing restoration. To protect these miles of cane from annual flooding, when Lake Okeechobee fills the Army Corps of Engineers channels billions of gallons of phosphorous filled water to Florida’s east and west coasts. This feeds the algae blooms in the coastal estuaries, which has been a very significant problem in recent years. In response to this problem, the CERP seeks to purchase lands from sugar growers south of the Lake, and to use these lands as a reservoir during flood times, and then to allow the continued flow of fresh water south during the dry periods of the year.The Miami Herald hosted the 2019 day-long conference, the “Florida Priorities Summit,” which focused on the issues affecting the State: the economy, education, the environment, health care and transportation. The fifty top “thought leaders” of the state – including Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber, Eric Eikeenberg of the Everglades Foundation, and Julie Wraithmell of Audubon Florida - indicated that the environment was the top issue, and that establishing the reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee was the top environmental issue. With respect to this reservoir, Kimberly Mitchell, the Executive Director of The Everglades Trust, stated,“After agreeing to it in 2000, the sugar cartel has fought it at every turn, dragging out the process to their benefit while the Everglades and Florida Bay deteriorate more each year from a lack of freshwater and both coasts of Florida are tortured by toxic, polluted water discharges.”and also“We’re thankful for progress. This year brought the end of one of sugar’s leases (from State lands). Building filtration marshes and the reservoir in the EAA is now the top priority. WE are hopeful for shovels in the ground before year end. The bridging of Tamiami Trail and the removal of the roadbed is in its last phase, and for the first time in 100 years, water can flow south under the trail into the southern part of the system.” (Parentheses added.) In October of 2019, Florida Crystals notified the “South Florida Water Management District” that it would agree to terminate its lease on the land that is crucial to establishing the EAA reservoir. The lease extension was granted the prior Governor Rick Scott in a gift to Big Sugar (the Fanjul family) just before the new Governor DeSantis could be sworn in. Instead of allowing the land to return to its rightful owner – the State – the former governor placed another roadblock to restoration. The “35th Annual Everglades Coalition Conference,” reviewed above, was organized around the Everglades restoration issues. The session topics included among others:“Water Quality: From Crisis to Action,” Moderator Rae Ann Wessel of the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation.“Restoration Ready: Removing Barriers to Sending Water South,” Moderator Celeste DePalma of Audubon Florida.“Lake Okeechobee Management: The Big Water,” Moderator Mark Perry of the Florida Oceanographic Society.“Acronym Soup: The ABC’s of Everglades Restoration,” Moderator Doug Gaston of Audubon Florida.“Clean Water Connection: Everglades Restoration and Marine Health,” Moderator Caroline McLaughlin of the National Parks Conservation Association.“Protecting the Everglades Headwaters (Multi Agency Conservation Efforts),” ModeratorJon Andrew of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.“National Wildlife Refuges: 800,000 Acres in Support of Everglades Restoration,” Moderator Dr. Jim Metzler of the Darling Wildlife Society.“Funding and Leadership to Expedite Restoration,” Moderator Jessie Ritter of the National Wildlife Federation.“The Road to Everglades Restoration is … Not Paved: How Oil, Residential, and Toll Road Development Threaten the Western Everglades,” Moderator Alison Kelly of the Natural Resources Defense Council.The other issues addressed by this conference include (i) how to rally the small businesses that depend upon a healthy Everglades for their income (fishing, touring, hotels and restaurants), (ii) how to fight the invasive plants and animals that are changing the ecology of the Everglades, and (iii) regenerative agriculture and climate change and the Everglades. All of the above issues have environmental NGOs and coalitions representation at the State government, at federal agencies, and at Congress. Sixty-four of these organizations participated in this conference. The Columbia River Gorge and Its DefendersThe Columbia is one of North America’s major rivers. It rises in the Canadian Rocky Mountains (in British Columbia) and flows into Washington State past the Richland-Pasco-Kennewick area. East of Umatilla Oregon, it turns west to provide most of the border between Oregon and Washington States. On its east-to-west stretch between these states, it carves The Gorge as it passes through the Cascade and North Cascade Mountains (a range of peaks of up to 14,000 feet). The Gorge is approximately 4,000 feet deep and 80 miles in length. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area is one of the Country’s scenic treasures. It covers 292,500 acres, seventy percent is in private hands. It begins roughly twenty miles east of The Dalles, Oregon, and extends to approximately fifteen miles east of Vancouver, Washington. This Scenic Area has high mountain vistas, numerous spectacular waterfalls of great height, and high mesa views of great distance east and west along the River. It has many hiking trails of spectacular rain-forest scenery in its west side, and dry grasslands in its east side.Response to a threatIn response to the increasing threat of development in the Gorge, the Friends of the Columbia River Gorge was formed in 1980. Its initial goal was to achieve passage of the “Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.” This was established in November of 1986. This protected the Gorge across six counties and two states. Since then, the Friends has continued its active Gorge- related member-driven conservation work. This has involved:Land conservation: The Friends has brought 41,000 privately owned acres of Gorge land into public ownership.Land Trust: The Friends established the Columbia Gorge Land Trust that has purchased over 1,000 sensitive acres of land for permanent protection. It removes non-native species, replanted native vegetation, and protected fragile resources on land-trust owned properties. Monitors Gorge development: Each year, the Friends reviews approximately 250 applications submitted to county planning offices in order to assure sensitive ecological development. Court challenges to development: The Friends has defeated numerous attempts at large-scale development incompatible with the protections mandated by the Scenic Area Act, including a massive Casino.Public education: For educational purposes, the Friends leads more than 100 guided Columbia Gorge hikes annually. Ecological development: In 2011, the Friends launched “Towns to Trails,” a long-term vision for a comprehensive trail network that connects Gorge communities and that strengthens local economies.The Mission of the Friends is:“Friends of the Columbia Gorge shall vigorously protect the scenic, natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Columbia River Gorge. We fulfill this mission by ensuring strict implementation of the Columbia River National Scenic Area Act and other laws protecting the region of the Columbia River Gorge; promoting responsible stewardship of Gorge land, air, and waters; encouraging public ownership of sensitive areas; educating the public about the unique natural values of the Columbia River Gorge and the importance of preserving those values; and working with groups and individuals to accomplish mutual preservation goals.” The six bullet points listed above fulfill this “Mission.”The “Land Trust” is a subsidiary of Friends. It acquires Gorge properties that preserve the scenic beauty and cultural heritage of the Gorge,preserve or restore the natural habitat for wildlife, and thatcreate recreational opportunities and trail connections.In 2017-18, the “Land Trust” paid approximately $52,000 in local property taxes. The “Trust” emphasizes the control of non-native plants, the maintenance of trails, and the restoration of the natural environment. The “Trust” places signage on trails that explains how to not spread invasive species along hiking trails. In order to protect the Gorge from subdivision development and uses opposed to public enjoyment of the area, the founder of Friends, Nancy Russell, personally purchased the original 30 properties that became the “Trust.” She also lobbied for federal funds for Forest Service purchases in the Gorge. She helped establish Oregon’s “Trust for Public Lands,” which eventually purchased 30,000 acres of Gorge lands for preservation. In proximity to Portland on the Oregon side of the Columbia River, the famed “Waterfall Alley” attracts most of the Gorge’s visitors, sometimes in crowds harmful to the area’s ecology. To spread this usage beyond the “waterfall corridor,” the Friends and its “Trust” are developing hiking trails and vista lookouts on both the Washington side of the Columbia, and in other locations in the Scenic Area. In the Friends “Preserve the Wonder Campaign” of $5.5 million in land acquisitions completed in 2018, seven Washington State properties were added to the “Trust,” including the “Cape Horn Vista.” This does not complete the Friends’ “Towns to Trails” 200-mile hiking loop trough the Gorge, but the trail is substantially close to completion. The fossil fuel highwayOn June 3, 2016 a Union Pacific oil-tanker train derailed within the Scenic area. Sixteen tanker cars leaked 42,000 gallons of oil into the town of Mosier’s sewage draining system and into the Columbia River. The volatile oil ignited. It took 14 hours to extinguish the blaze. The 2012 production boom caused by the new fracking-technology in the Bakken Oil Fields of North Dakota resulted in oil-train traffic increasing from zero to 60 million gallons per week through the Gorge. Multiple proposals to build oil terminals in the Pacific Northwest, including what would have been the Country’s largest terminal at Vancouver Washington (on the Columbia River), would have resulted in an additional 100-plus oil trains rolling through the Columbia Gorge weekly. This would have yielded 15 million gallons of crude travelling through the Gorge per day. These have been defeated through state-permit denials, but only due to the efforts of concerned environmental groups such as the Friends. In May of 2018, numerous permits for the proposed “Millennium Coal Terminal” in Longview, Washington, were denied by Washington State agencies. The historic campaign conducted by the Friends and other environmental groups in the “Power Past Coal Coalition” made this denial possible. If approved, the “Millennium Terminal” would have been the largest coal export facility in the US. The coal would have been shipped to Asia. Forty-four million tons of coal per year would have been shipped through the Gorge in open-topped cars. From an original seven proposals to build coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest, only a relatively small one in Vancouver, BC, has not been denied. The proposals of significance all involve shipping coal by rail in open-topped cars through the Gorge. The coal comes from the ‘Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana,” and is destined for Asian markets. If these plans were to go through, dozens of additional coal trains, each over a mile long, would go through the Gorge every day. Each open-topped coal car loses one pound of coal dust per mile. Coal debris now litters the Columbia River shoreline, its parks, vineyards and sensitive habitat. This threatens the plant, animal and human health in the area.The environmental analyses associated with these “fossil fuel highway plans” indicate that since the Columbia Gorge’s rail capacity is near its limit, to accommodate the significant increase in rail traffic for coal, new tracks would have to be constructed in environmentally sensitive areas. River access would effectively be cutoff at many sites due to the increased traffic, and the accompanying delays would hurt business and delay emergency vehicles. The coal would be burned in Asia, but westerly winds carry toxic mercury pollution across the Pacific. Twenty percent of airborne mercury pollution in the Northwest own comes from Asian power plants. The initiative, bring these analyses to our governmental decision makers. The “Columbia River Gorge Commission” and land use issuesThe “Columbia River Gorge Commission” was created in 1987 by the “Columbia River Gorge Compact” between the states of Washington and Oregon. It consists of 12 voting commissioners, six appointed by each state, and a thirteenth non-voting member appointed to represent federal interests. The Commission serves as the land-use regulatory body for the Scenic Area. The issues confronted largely concern extensions and variations of the thirteen urban-area boundaries: their expansions, their use within the boundaries, the preservation of agricultural lands within the Scenic Area, and the preservation of recreational and cultural resources of the Scenic Area. The significant land-use planning issues include:The counties with lands included within the Scenic Area are large. They mostly consist of county area outside the Scenic Area. Urban boundary extensions associated with suburbanization can occur there instead of within the Gorge Area. The scenic nature of the Gorge can be maintained without restricting housing growth.The thirteen urban areas within the greater Scenic Area, need to coordinate their regional services. As examples, not all need hospitals or new hotels. The land-use planning can be comprehensive across the region rather than aimed at self sufficiency for each local entity.Urban areas can plan for greater density of housing than rural areas. Planning larger lot sizes should not be used to justify extensions of the urban boundary.With global warming, wildfires have increased within the Gorge. Forests and grasslands are drier during summer months as compared to previous decades. Planning can facilitate the natural settings that help limit wildfire spreading. Also, political entities within the Scenic Area can recognize the value of the Gorge to their area, and therefore not attempt examples, consider that fire departments can be enabled to fight wildfires anywhere within the gorge. The “Commission” can and should encourage, and to the extent possible, facilitate those local efforts that enable the Scenic Area to be the most effective resource for the local entities. The “Strategic Plan” of the “Friends of the Columbia River Gorge”The Friends of the Columbia River Gorge composed a “2018-2012 Strategic Plan.” Their first broad goal is, of course, “Protect and Enhance the Columbia Gorge.” Under this goal, some of their more interesting specific objectives include:Under land use and development objectives, it listsStop energy production, transport and terminal proposals that would harm the Gorge.Prevent urban sprawl by limiting urban expansion.Discourage inappropriate land use and residential, commercial and industrial development. Under improve protection laws, it listsImprove the National Scenic Area Management Plan, including climate adaption.Advocate for government agency funding to support protection.Oppose legislation that weakens Gorge protection.Under land acquisitions, it listsReview holdings for appropriate long-term ownership and priority stewardship for Friend’s held lands.Transfer three or four “Preserve the Wonder” properties to appropriate agencies.Control invasive weeds “Trust lands.”Under the establishment of the “Gorge Towns to Trails” initiative.Build three or four new trail segments.Hold a series of “Town to Trails” meetings to build a coalition of local government officials in support of this initiative.Under the broad goal of “Building Public Support for Lasting Gorge Protection,” some of the more interesting objectives include:Under the “Deepen Membership, Activist, and Volunteers, it listsEnsure membership remains above the current 7,000 members.Recruiting 200 new activists, 50 mid-level activists, and 7 high-level activists.Increase the volunteer ratio of three actions per every volunteer.Generate 1,000 volunteer hours annually to steward Gorge lands.Under educate and engage the public, it listsEnsure 20% or more of those attending guided hikes become new members.Undertake a new communication and branding process.Under deepen and broaden Friend’s network, it listsWork with public education partners to reach new audiences.Build and collaborate with environmental coalitions to further Gorge conservation.Increase the “Financial Stability and Organizational Effectiveness,” some of the more interesting objectives include:Generate $1.2 million for land acquisitions, and $800,000 for a stewardship endowment.Increase planned giving by 50%.The Friends past accomplishments and its strategic plan indicate the likely future success of this environmental organization. It has obtained a reputation for accomplishment and political power in its region. It has been inclusive in its scientific analysis and in its socio-economic input, and it has provided these to the public’s discourse thereby enabling it to be “reasoned.”The Chesapeake Bay FoundationThe Chesapeake Bay is one of North America’s largest estuaries. It lies within the states of Maryland and Virginia, and the rivers of six states - New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia plus the District of Columbia - drain into the Bay. Since WW II, the Bay has deteriorated environmentally with reductions in its sea life, plus reductions in its bordering wetlands and forests, and also the growth of algae blooms that have been fed by agricultural non-point pollutions and sewage discharges. The algae blooms have led to oxygen starved “dead zones” for aquatic life. Recently, efforts begun in the 1980s have shown some environmental restoration benefits. These efforts were largely driven by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an NGO that monitors Bay health and lobbies for environmental regulations. The Foundation educates the public concerning the Bay’s health; it exercises considerable political influence with government authorities; and it has successfully challenged some of our federal and state governments’ environmental decisions in court.The Chesapeake Bay Foundation began in 1964 by a consortium of Baltimore businessmen who saw environmental problems looming over the Chesapeake: more boats in the Bay, more people visiting the Bay, a greater density of housing along the shore, poor sewerage treatment, and more industrial pollution. Congressman Rogers Morton of Maryland’s Eastern Shore stated, “There is a great need for a private sector organization that can represent the best interests of Chesapeake Bay. It should build public concern, then encourage government and private citizens to deal with these problems together.” In 1967, that group of businessmen formed and chartered the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) to be that private sector voice. They recruited a “Board of Trustees” that represented a variety of interests that depended on the watershed, and adopted the slogan “Save the Bay!” In the 1970s, the CBF helped spur Maryland’s and Virginia’s Tidal Wetlands Protection Acts. In hearings that determined the granting of permits for wetland development, the CBF’s staff of biologists pressured for strict enforcement of Maryland’s Act, which was designed to help strengthen the state government’s ability to halt wetland loss. For example, in 1977 the CBF’s “Bay Care” campaign successfully defeated the development of an oil refinement facility for Elizabeth River in the Bay, thus preventing more wetland loss. In addition, and of considerable importance, in 1976 the political influence of CBF initiated a seven-year EPA “Chesapeake Bay Study.” CBF Staff’s 42-foot research workboat were significant resources for the EPA in conducting this research. In 1983, the EPA reported the results of its seven-year study which indicated that there were several accumulated causes for the Bay’s decline. These interrelated causes are reviewed here. For example, this research led to the CBF’s “Resource Protection Program,” which monitors and reports violations of the wastewater-discharge permit compliance by industries and sewage treatment plants in Virginia and Maryland. This research also led to the significant other developments reviewed below.In December of 1983, as a result of the CBF’s lobbying and political pressure, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed by the Governors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. This “agreement” set goals for Bay restoration, and the CBF spurred effective funding for this initiative. This initiative greatly expanded public education and set goals of forty percent reductions in the runoff flows of agricultural fertilizers and other runoffs into the Bay. It also set goals for elimination of other toxins into the Bay. In the 1990s, the Bay showed some improvements in various environmental indicators. Underwater grasses returned to areas where they had disappeared, striped bass had returned after a fishing moratorium in the 1980s, but oyster stocks had continued to decline. The provisions of the “Clean Water Act” for point-source sewage-treatment plant discharge and other industrial waste began to be enforced, but this was largely motivated by CBF monitoring. In the late 1990s, the monitoring emphasis then shifted to non-point source pollution, that is runoff from urban and suburban areas, and from farms. In 1996, the CBF began a long-term monitoring and planning process that established nine indicators and benchmarks: (1) the extent of healthy wetlands in the Bay area, (2) the restoration of underwater grass areas, (3) the extent of forested stream buffers, (4) the health of migratory fish stocks, (5) the health of oyster beds in the Bay, (6) the discharge of toxins into the Bay, (7) the extent of dissolved oxygen in Bay waters, (8) the clarity of Bay water, and (9) the erosion of lands along the Bay. To achieve the established goals for each of these metrics, the CBF placed greater emphasis on constituent development, and the expansion of those engaged in its cleanup activities. Working in coalition with other environmental groups such as Ducks Unlimited, by 2005 the CBF had helped restore 20,000 acres of healthy wetlands in the Bay area. The new threat to the Bay, however, began from agricultural wastes generated from “concentrated animal feeding operations” (CAFOs). Wastes from concentrated hog farms and chicken farms washed into the Bay destroyed fish and caused illnesses in fishermen and monitoring workers. The material below examines this and other current problems. In 2004, CBF lobbied for and helped to write Virginia’s Non-Tidal Wetlands Protection Act. Virginia had lost over forty percent of its natural wetlands through land-fills and dredging. Wetlands acts as filters to provide natural water improvements. They also provide flood protection, recreation, and natural environmental amenities. Virginia’s current goal is to lose no additional wetlands through alterations of natural lands. Virginia has 144 of these named wetlands, and the Protection Act allows the State in conjunction with federal authorities, to deny permits for further dredging or filling in of these natural areas.In 2004, the CBF also worked with Maryland to establish its Bay Restoration Fund to combat the decline in the Bay’s water quality due to its effluent from sewage and wastewater treatment plants, from urban and suburban runoffs, and from agricultural runoffs. The Fund is established through fees on sewage treatment plants, and sceptic system users. Over $127 million is raised annually from these fees. These funds are used to modernize the older waste treatment technologies, and to develop cover crops for sensitive areas so that nutrients do not flow into the Bay. The CBF lobbied for Maryland’s establishment of this Fund, and also for its changes in regulations related to these effluents.Agricultural runoff, and other stormwater runoff, is emphasized in the CBF led Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, which was established in 2015 by the Chesapeake Bay Commission, i.e. the six governors of the bordering states plus the Mayor of DC. This Program followed from the CBF’s successful suit against the EPA for its failure to enforce the “Clean Water Act” with respect to agricultural pollution from CAFOs in the Bay Area. The resulting EPA “consent decree” enforced limits for waste discharge specified in the EPA’s “Clean Water Blueprint.” This plan established two-year monitoring schedules. The “Blueprint” further specifies the consequential fines that result from failures to meet these limits. The CBF also sued to prevent several large developments in the Bay Area such as the “King William Reservoir,” an “unnecessary wetland reservoir” that would have destroyed 430 acres of wetlands in the York River’s headwaters. This would have been the single largest wetlands loss in the history of the Clean Water Act. Also, as spurred by the CBF, Maryland regulators blocked the “Cross Country Connector” highway project in Charles County. This would have facilitated suburban development in a largely forested area. This development would have polluted one of the Bay’s most productive fish-breeding grounds. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and six current significant interrelated issuesSince its inception, the CBF has worked on six significant but interrelated issues:the elimination of “dead zones” in the Bay,the restoration of the fish and other sea-life of the Bay,wetlands preservation and restoration along the Bay,the prevention of agricultural and suburban runoffs, and also industrial and sewage effluents into the Bay,the prevention of Bay contamination from chemical pollutants, including air pollutants, the control of land use permits for developments that would negatively affect the health of the Bay. The plans and resulting improvements in the Bay’s environmental quality were all precipitated by the CBF’s political influence to initiate the EPA’s seven-year “Chesapeake Bay Study,” started in 1976. This research was considerably aided by CBF associated scientists and resources. It enabled the CBF to facilitate the formation of the Chesapeake Bay Commission for monitoring the “Agreement” with the established goals and metrics listed above.More recently, the CBF advocates for farming projects that limit the polluting runoff via establishing stream buffers, cover crops, rotational grazing, and other “best practices.” CBF associated scientists estimate that two-thirds of the nitrogen and phosphorous reductions necessary to restore the Bay can be achieved through these practices.The CBF’s public education initiatives have been a priority since its beginning. Over the last decade, the CBF has emphasized the destructive nature of the algae “dead zones” that starve other aquatic life of oxygen. These “zones” have extended more than 30 miles between Mathias Point and Nomini Bay at the Virginia-Maryland Border. As indicated above, the cause is the discharge of wastewater effluent and agricultural and other runoffs that provide nutrients for the algae. The CBF campaign against these contaminations continues.Fisheries management is comprised of two functions: (1) conservation of the fish and shellfish available, and (2) determining who gets to harvest these resources. The second function is the rationing of harvests among licensed fishermen. The CBF focuses, however, on the first function, conservation. To be successful, conservation should be based on the best available scientific information, and this is what the CBF has sought to assure through its associated scientists and studies.Rainwater runs off streets and lawns having picked up pet waste, pesticides, fertilizer, motor oil, and other contaminants. This pollution is usually not filtered by wastewater treatment plants. If the runoff is not filtered through natural buffers, then the pollution flows into creeks, rivers and ultimately bays such as the Chesapeake. Soil erosion also comes with rain runoff, and the soils destroy spawning grounds for fish and other aquatic habitat such as oyster beds. But in the Bay Area, Maryland cautions people to not swim in Bay waters after heavy rains because of the poisons, and also because the agricultural runoff breeds bacteria. In addition, wildlife is also poisoned by this runoff. With global warming we are likely to have more frequent intense storms so that the problem is exacerbated. None of the six states within the Bay Watershed are currently meeting its Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint goals for polluted runoff. Suburban sprawl is the culprit in that it is built upon the green areas that would naturally filter this runoff. The CBF promotes a “green filter approach” of building green drainage areas that act as filters. The CBF also shows local jurisdictions how to finance these “filters.”Traditional sewage treatment plants reduce bacteria, but not the nitrogen and phosphorus that plant effluent feeds into the Bay, and that therefore cause the “dead zone” problems reviewed above. Upgrades in technology to these older treatment plants, however, have steeply reduced these nutrient pollutions. This has been spurred by the CBF. The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint was established in 2010. It established nutrient reduction goals which were exceeded by 2018, and already meet the 2025 goal. In Maryland, in 2004 the CBF helped pass the bay Restoration Fund to upgrade Maryland’s aged plants, and also its separate sceptic systems. (This was reviewed above.) In Virginia, however, the CBF continues to advocate for sufficient funding for upgrades to existing plants so as to meet its Blueprint goals by 2025. More importantly, the CBF has filed suits to force the EPA to require permit enforcements on nitrogen and phosphorous pollutions in the states in the basin. The CBF continues to track these permit issuances and pollution levels.In 2015, the EPA finalized the “Clean Water of the United States” in a way that provided clarity about what types of wetlands should require “Clean Water Act” permits, which are essential to Bay restoration. In response to a Donald Trump executive order titled “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule,” the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers initiated a repeal and replace of the “Clean Water Act” by redefining the waters requiring permit to be changes. This “repeal and replace” was completed on January 23, 2020. The new rule narrows the definition of wetlands, and also leaves out wetlands that cross state borders. Upon this repeal, the CBF Vice President for Environmental Protection and Restoration Lisa Feldt stated, “These actions continue the Administration’s assault on clean water. The repeal ignores the EPA’s own science and lengthy and inclusive process that was used to develop the 2015 rule. Maintaining the health of these waterways and wetlands is crucial to protecting downstream waters.” The Chesapeake Bay Foundation continues to (i) educate the public about Bay problems, (ii) provide political pressure to enact effective environmental regulation, (iii) monitor the enforcement of these regulations, and (iv) when necessary bring court cases to ensure enforcement of those regulations. When the CBF was formed, the Chesapeake Bay was degraded and deteriorating further. The Foundation’s efforts substantially brought about the restorations in Bay Waters, border wetlands, and aquatic life. Without these efforts, the process of commercial and industrial exploitation would have continued. The CBF initiated the countervailing power necessary for “fair and reasoned environmental decisions.”Riverkeepers: “Not radical, but American in disposition.”The Hudson Riverkeepers did not seek to change our environmental policies, but rather to enforce existing environmental law. In doing this, however, they brought the existing laws to life through citizen empowerment. In so many cases, they instilled the notions of “fair and reasoned” into the law’s intent. They brought faith in the applicability of this slogan to environmental restoration. The origination of the Riverkeepers is linked to the journalist and fishing enthusiast Robert Boyle who published articles critical of those who did not recognize the environmental knowledge of fellow fishermen. The precipitating event behind the Riverkeepers formation was the electric utility Consolidated Edison’s attempt to build a hydropower facility on Storm King Mountain in the Hudson Highlands. Local environmentalists, led by the Hudson River Fishermen’s Association (HRFA) responded by forming the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, which challenged the Federal Power Commission’s (FPC) decision to grant a permit for this utility location. Consolidated Edison hired a biologist to claim that the location’s surrounding waters were not critical for fish, but Robert Boyle exposed this “paid for science” as fraudulent; that actually the area was a crucial striped-bass spawning ground. In December of 1965, the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the original FPC decision that the environmentalists should not be given standing in the permit process. The Court held “that injury to aesthetic or recreational values was sufficient to provide an aggrieved party with constitutional standing.” This “Storm King Doctrine” was a precedent. For the first time environmentalists were given standing to object to scenic or recreational injury without showing tangible economic harm. The newly formed HRFA, founded by Boyle, also persuaded the Atomic Energy Commission to consider fish kills in relicensing Consolidated Edison’s existing Indian Point Nuclear Plant. Knowing that because of the “Storm King precedent,” fish kills would now be an issue in future litigation, the Consolidated Edison cancelled the offending expansion. “The Storm King Doctrine” then became coded into environmental law through the “National Environmental Policy Act” of 1970. The efforts of the Hudson Riverkeepers changed our national environmental policy.Why was such precedent law needed? Did we not have other environmental laws for the control of pollution? The Country actually had old laws that were applicable, but they had not been enforced. The Refuse Act of 1899 assigned fines of $500 to $2,500 for pollutant discharges into navigable waters. This law also allowed individual citizens to enforce it by showing evidence in court that a violation occurred. The HRFA took note. By the early 1970s, it was an organization of working-class environmentalists who locally sought redress for environmental degradations, the first of which was Penn Central Railroad. It had been releasing petroleum products into the Croton River, a tributary for the Hudson. Suit was brought by the HRFA. It won, and this brought the first fines transferred to a private organization since the Act was passed in 1899. A subsequent case involved Anaconda Wire and Cable Company’s release of oil and solvents directly into the Hudson. One-hundred counts of violation of the Refuse Act were successfully brought by HRFA against Anaconda. In the 1980s, HRFA evolved into the Riverkeepers. This organization created a “riverkeeper” position of someone who would monitor violations of the existing environmental law. John Cronin, who already had some involvement in the Hudson River monitoring, became the Riverkeeper. He was warned by the State Police that Exxon was discharging petroleum products into the River. In his Riverkeeper assignment, Cronin was able to document seventy-seven Exxon tanker violations. Cronin’s proof was so substantial that Exxon settled, and paid $1.5 million in fines with some of this going to the Riverkeepers.Riverkeepers have also pursued two other categories of “local causes:”Riverkeepers have pursued issues of “environmental justice.” It successfully sued to assure that those in poorer city neighborhoods have the similar transit capabilities to reach the Hudson River and area parks than those in wealthier neighborhoods. They have also successfully sued to assure the availability of clean water in cities such as Newburgh where the children of poorer neighborhoods were being poisoned by their public water supply.The Riverkeepers have successfully sued the city’s lackluster enforcement agencies to assure that its water sources (reservoirs and streams) are clean. In 1992, under the direction and leadership of the Hudson Riverkeepers, the National Alliance of Riverkeepers was formed. This now includes over 300 organizations working on the Nation’s waterbodies. It shares resources and accredits new programs. Their grassroot local enforcements and activism are different from organizations that focus more on national policy. But all of the environmental organizations essentially come down to involvement in local issues: local preservations, affecting local environmental responses, and locally enforcing national regulations. The advantage of having grassroots environmental movements, however, is that by involving many local activists with broad backgrounds, it further popularizes the environmental movement. It gives an appearance that is “less elite.” It demonstrates that environmental amenities are essentially a significant portion of every individual’s wealth. In this sense, the National Alliance is a substantial advance in the environmental movement.Environmental Organizations and the Process of DecisionsTwo of the four environmental organizations reviewed above – the Friends of the Gorge, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation - sought from the outset of their creation to influence the political processes of environmental decisions in their particular areas – the Columbia River Gorge and the Florida Everglades respectively. Both succeeded in establishing the monitoring and land-use planning necessary for environmental preservation and restoration of their areas. The coalition we call The Friends of the Everglades was created relatively late in the environmental movement (2018). It seeks to oppose Big Sugar in its political domination of the Everglades. Big Sugar’s subsidies and trade protections facilitate its pollution of one of our most important wetlands. The Friends seek to halt these protections in order to restore the Everglades. It is a coalition of more than 60 other environmental groups with the common purpose of Everglades protection. The Friends of the Everglades now seeks the political influence capable of opposing the influence of Big Sugar. The Hudson Riverkeepers did not set out to establish new environmental law, but to enforce the existing law for the purpose of establishing environmental justice. They did, however, establish new precedent law for enforcing the 1899 Refuse Act, an environmental law long ignored in the Hudson Valley until the Riverkeepers utilized it. In addition, through the Storm King Doctrine, the environmental groups who had no previous standing under federal law for enforcement of the Clean Water Act, obtained that “standing.” The Riverkeepers established that “standing” through the Storm King Doctrine. All four of these environmental organizations have common characteristics:They are all citizen organizations created in response to a lack of government environmental action.They all provide the countervailing power to industry and real estate sprawl that is necessary to restore the environment. This countervailing power stems from their organization and presentation of the science and socio-economic information that the environmental decision process must require to be “fair and reasoned.”They all facilitate uncorrupted (free of conflicts of interest) and logically inferred environmental decisions. (Note the HRFA’s revealing of the conflicts of interest in the Storm King Decision by the FPC as reviewed above.)They all represent and bring to the public consciousness the common benefits of our environmental amenities.If environmental organizations of the sort examined here had not developed in our society, then we would not be able to envision having “fair and reasoned” environmental decisions according to the generally accepted criteria reviewed by this monograph. These organizations represent the countervailing power to industrial and other development interests. They redirect “development” towards environmental amenities, and they do this in the public’s interest and at its demand.ReferencesGrunwald, Michael (2005), The Swamp, Barry, John M. (1997), Rising Tide, Simon and Schuster – Touchstone, New York, NY. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download