The problem of environmental justice is not just one for inner cities. Particularly in AZ, where we have many depressed, rural communities it is important to lead to way to clean environmental damage, restore property value and help these communities come back and flourish.
ADEQ's Brownfields program is also looking at the depressed, rural communities in AZ for redevelopment. In a public meeting from Kingman in 2008, ADEQ addressed its Brownfields funding for rural communities:
Arcelious Stephens, ADEQ Brownfields Coordinator, explained that there are two segments of Brownfields funding – federal and state. There is a lot to the definition of “Brownfields”, but the bottom line is there is room for creativity and “thinking outside the box.”
Abandoned industrial properties can be associated with blight, environmental risk, decreased property values, and safety concerns. The federal and state Brownfields programs are designed to address all of these issues. Properties with hazardous substances, petroleum substances and mind-scarred land are eligible for funding. Asbestos, on the other hand, needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for funding. For state Brownfields funds, governmental entities and non-profit organizations are eligible. The program is designed to help move properties in rural Arizona toward redevelopment. There is no competition with the state’s metropolitan areas. “This is about you.”
Many rural communities have obtained funding, including Winslow, Avondale, St. Johns, Globe, Yuma County, Wickenburg and Willcox.
Javelina in the Front Yard
Our wild piggy neighbors!
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Environmental Justice for All
The articles this week discuss the problem of lack of justice, environmental justice for certain segments of the population. Primarily, people of color and those living in the inner-cities face a greater chance of exposure to pollution and environmental contamination than those in suburban, middle class neighborhoods. According to Konisky, Scholars have conducted scores of empirical studies evaluating whether areas with larger numbers of minority and lower-income populations are disproportionately
subjected to environmental burdens. On balance, there is now good evidence to support claims of inequities both in the location of polluting facilities and in the exposure to pollution (Ringquist, 2005).
Most improvements to open space and environmental clean up are directed toward the predominately white, middle class neighborhoods. These suburbs ignore the inner city issues at their own peril because the suburbs are only as prosperous as their city center. If the inner city dies, it won't be long before the suburbs follow.
The readings indicate that Bill Clinton attempted to address this issue. President Clinton's executive order in 1994 directly addressed how federal agencies should look at environmental justice issues for the programs pertaining to human health and the environment, to ensure that no race or segment of the population was taking a greater burden than anyone else. Since then there are improvements on the federal level, but the readings indicate that the trickle down effect to the programs of state and local agencies are still behind.
subjected to environmental burdens. On balance, there is now good evidence to support claims of inequities both in the location of polluting facilities and in the exposure to pollution (Ringquist, 2005).
Most improvements to open space and environmental clean up are directed toward the predominately white, middle class neighborhoods. These suburbs ignore the inner city issues at their own peril because the suburbs are only as prosperous as their city center. If the inner city dies, it won't be long before the suburbs follow.
The readings indicate that Bill Clinton attempted to address this issue. President Clinton's executive order in 1994 directly addressed how federal agencies should look at environmental justice issues for the programs pertaining to human health and the environment, to ensure that no race or segment of the population was taking a greater burden than anyone else. Since then there are improvements on the federal level, but the readings indicate that the trickle down effect to the programs of state and local agencies are still behind.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Panel Discussion in NM About AZ Water Settlements Act
This is an interesting article, shows how stakeholder groups interact sometimes...
Panel mulls Arizona Water Settlement Act
By Terrance Vestal Sun-News reporter
Silver City Sun News
Posted: 02/20/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
SILVER CITY -- A panel discussion on the basics of the Arizona Water Settlement Act revealed that opinions on the topic are as fluid as the Gila River itself.
The discussion, held Thursday at Western New Mexico University's Global Resource Center Auditorium, featured panelists Peter White, staff attorney for the New Mexico State Engineer's Office for 27 years; Charles "Tink" Jackson, district manager for the State Engineer's Office in Deming; Allyson Siwik, executive director of the Gila Conservation Coalition; Hugh B. McKeen, Catron County rancher and commissioner; and Anthony Gutierrez, Grant County planner.
The Arizona Water Settlement Act is the culmination of legislative battles that have raged for more than 50 years between California, Arizona and New Mexico over water rights and entitlements. It also will impact how and how much water southwestern New Mexico could use in the future.
The Act allocates some $66 million for any water utilization project that meets a water supply demand in southwest New Mexico. The spectrum for proposed projects, according to the Act, runs the gamut from infrastructure, conservation/water demand management projects to educational campaigns. There is another $128 million available for construction of a water development project to divert and consume 14,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Gila River and its tributary, the San Francisco.
A "stakeholders" group that includes a number of representatives from local, state and federal agencies as well as private interests will make the decision on what projects might be funded.
During the discussion, White and Jackson both touched on the historical aspects of the issue, which stretches back to 1935 and the Globe Equity Decree. White said the decree determines and regulates the rights of water users on the Gila River in Arizona and 10 miles up the Gila River in New Mexico.
White and Jackson pointed out that the issue didn't really start to get hot for New Mexico until the 1950s and 1960s.
Jackson said in 1952 Arizona sued California over Colorado River supply and the controversy grew to include the settlement of rights on the Gila River between New Mexico and Arizona. California claimed that Arizona could meet some of its needs with Gila River water.
New Mexico had neither the financial resources or political clout to keep up a legal battle, so it had to resolve its water needs through negotiations, Jackson said.
Negotiations, legal wrangling, agreements and amendments to agreements evolved into the Arizona Water Settlement Act, which was approved by Congress in 2004.
At Thursday's meeting, Siwik said making decisions regarding what projects to fund and whether to divert the Gila River is difficult, time consuming and requires studies and analysis to make the best decision. She said the stakeholder planning group has been doing this for the past five years.
Siwik said based on the most recent studies and reports, "no need for an additional 14,0000 acre-feet of water per year from the Gila River has been demonstrated.
"Conservation and sustainable use of groundwater can secure our water future cost effectively without building an expensive diversion project that will alter the Gila River forever," Siwik said. "Common-sense conservation saves the taxpayer money and protects the Gila River for our future."
McKeen, a rancher, said he didn't trust the makeup of the stakeholders group to represent the interests of ranchers and farmers in southwest New Mexico. He said "extreme environmental activists called The Center for Biological Diversity" is seeking "to remove all ranching from public land and virtually all public use of our national forests.
"They want wolves and grizzly bears to have full access to all portions of the United States," McKeen said. "Are environmental activists interested in supporting the watershed? I doubt it."
McKeen said with so many different parties involved in the stakeholders group, reaching consensus, which would be required to approve projects, would be impossible.
Terrance Vestal can be reached at tvestal@scsun-news.com (575); 538-5893, ext. 5803.
Panel mulls Arizona Water Settlement Act
By Terrance Vestal Sun-News reporter
Silver City Sun News
Posted: 02/20/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
SILVER CITY -- A panel discussion on the basics of the Arizona Water Settlement Act revealed that opinions on the topic are as fluid as the Gila River itself.
The discussion, held Thursday at Western New Mexico University's Global Resource Center Auditorium, featured panelists Peter White, staff attorney for the New Mexico State Engineer's Office for 27 years; Charles "Tink" Jackson, district manager for the State Engineer's Office in Deming; Allyson Siwik, executive director of the Gila Conservation Coalition; Hugh B. McKeen, Catron County rancher and commissioner; and Anthony Gutierrez, Grant County planner.
The Arizona Water Settlement Act is the culmination of legislative battles that have raged for more than 50 years between California, Arizona and New Mexico over water rights and entitlements. It also will impact how and how much water southwestern New Mexico could use in the future.
The Act allocates some $66 million for any water utilization project that meets a water supply demand in southwest New Mexico. The spectrum for proposed projects, according to the Act, runs the gamut from infrastructure, conservation/water demand management projects to educational campaigns. There is another $128 million available for construction of a water development project to divert and consume 14,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Gila River and its tributary, the San Francisco.
A "stakeholders" group that includes a number of representatives from local, state and federal agencies as well as private interests will make the decision on what projects might be funded.
During the discussion, White and Jackson both touched on the historical aspects of the issue, which stretches back to 1935 and the Globe Equity Decree. White said the decree determines and regulates the rights of water users on the Gila River in Arizona and 10 miles up the Gila River in New Mexico.
White and Jackson pointed out that the issue didn't really start to get hot for New Mexico until the 1950s and 1960s.
Jackson said in 1952 Arizona sued California over Colorado River supply and the controversy grew to include the settlement of rights on the Gila River between New Mexico and Arizona. California claimed that Arizona could meet some of its needs with Gila River water.
New Mexico had neither the financial resources or political clout to keep up a legal battle, so it had to resolve its water needs through negotiations, Jackson said.
Negotiations, legal wrangling, agreements and amendments to agreements evolved into the Arizona Water Settlement Act, which was approved by Congress in 2004.
At Thursday's meeting, Siwik said making decisions regarding what projects to fund and whether to divert the Gila River is difficult, time consuming and requires studies and analysis to make the best decision. She said the stakeholder planning group has been doing this for the past five years.
Siwik said based on the most recent studies and reports, "no need for an additional 14,0000 acre-feet of water per year from the Gila River has been demonstrated.
"Conservation and sustainable use of groundwater can secure our water future cost effectively without building an expensive diversion project that will alter the Gila River forever," Siwik said. "Common-sense conservation saves the taxpayer money and protects the Gila River for our future."
McKeen, a rancher, said he didn't trust the makeup of the stakeholders group to represent the interests of ranchers and farmers in southwest New Mexico. He said "extreme environmental activists called The Center for Biological Diversity" is seeking "to remove all ranching from public land and virtually all public use of our national forests.
"They want wolves and grizzly bears to have full access to all portions of the United States," McKeen said. "Are environmental activists interested in supporting the watershed? I doubt it."
McKeen said with so many different parties involved in the stakeholders group, reaching consensus, which would be required to approve projects, would be impossible.
Terrance Vestal can be reached at tvestal@scsun-news.com (575); 538-5893, ext. 5803.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Assignment 3 - NEPA and Valuing Nature
13) Public managers and environmental planners must engage the public even when they know the public's knowledge is limited about the science of an environmental issue. No one knows everything about everything. If we as public managers start to take it upon ourselves to make decisions because we perceive that the public is not knowledgeable, we are not much better than a monarchial government handing down decisions without representative discussion. The people deserve the right to be educated and understand an issue, then have an opportunity to speak out about it. To teach the public, an agency could hold public seminars, offer open meetings and distribute pamphlets and the like to educate the public. Then in later stages, hold stakeholder meetings where the public can come and listen in an open forum to the opinions of environmental groups and the regulated community. These options are critical to assisting the public to understand critical issues in environmental science which may be unknown to the average citizen.
14) Contingent Valuation ("CV") could be used when 1) a company damages the wildlife and ocean with an oil spill similar to the Exxon Valdez. or 2) When a company's toxic waste destroys wildlife, rivers and plant life. CV would be appropriate in both these cases because sometimes simply assessing the cost of clean up is not costly enough to the polluter to make an impression upon them that nature holds a higher value than simple clean up. In other words, sometimes you have to hit the deep pocket hard with punitive damages to discourage this kind of behavior from happening again. The punitive nature of the CV will make the company want to take greater safeguards and possibly improve practices to avoid such damages in the future.
15) CV could not be effectively used when 1) a person burns down part of a forest with a campfire or 2) a person damages a natural spring with dumping their discarded oil from a car there. While I think there should be fines and some sort of punishment that follows such careless acts, I don't think it warrants CV assessments. Generally individuals that find themselves in these kind of scenarios meant no harm, are not profiting from the destruction and the assessment of CV is not going to be a deterrent but could create a hardship which may create some unintended consequence, like loss of employment, loss of home because of the cost of the assessment, etc.
14) Contingent Valuation ("CV") could be used when 1) a company damages the wildlife and ocean with an oil spill similar to the Exxon Valdez. or 2) When a company's toxic waste destroys wildlife, rivers and plant life. CV would be appropriate in both these cases because sometimes simply assessing the cost of clean up is not costly enough to the polluter to make an impression upon them that nature holds a higher value than simple clean up. In other words, sometimes you have to hit the deep pocket hard with punitive damages to discourage this kind of behavior from happening again. The punitive nature of the CV will make the company want to take greater safeguards and possibly improve practices to avoid such damages in the future.
15) CV could not be effectively used when 1) a person burns down part of a forest with a campfire or 2) a person damages a natural spring with dumping their discarded oil from a car there. While I think there should be fines and some sort of punishment that follows such careless acts, I don't think it warrants CV assessments. Generally individuals that find themselves in these kind of scenarios meant no harm, are not profiting from the destruction and the assessment of CV is not going to be a deterrent but could create a hardship which may create some unintended consequence, like loss of employment, loss of home because of the cost of the assessment, etc.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Contingent Valuation and Existence Value
I enjoyed reading Portney's article about existence value and contingent valuation. I always believed that there was a value in knowing that there are fish in the ocean or that there will always be clean air to breathe. I am willing to pay to make sure these things never go away. Contingent valuation is an important component in protecting our environment because it is the only, even if artificial, way to assess punitive damages to corporations who would destroy the environment without a care. Portney uses the Exxon Valdez spill as an example of environmental destruction. I also understand Portney's point that contingent valuation is difficult to obtain because it most likely will have to come in the nature of voluntary contributions and those who voluntarily pay will likely use the parks or wildlife areas they support. This, according to Portney makes it difficult to provide and creates the tendency to "underprovide on account of free riding."
Pipeline to Las Vegas from Snake Valley Aquifer
We discussed this in class earlier and I thought it was an interesting commentary on just one of the obstacles we face in working out environmental and natural resource solutions.
Ruling may sink Snake Valley water deal
Snake Valley » Nevada Supreme Court decision puts the proposed $3.5 billion pipeline on indefinite hold.
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:01/29/2010 06:59:50 AM MST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A top water official moved too slowly on a 1989 Las Vegas request for certain water rights, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday -- a finding that could delay or even kill a $3.5 billion proposal to pipe water 300 miles from Snake Valley to Sin City.
The ruling prompted Utah officials to stand down on a pending Snake Valley water-sharing agreement with neighboring Nevada. A recent Salt Lake Tribune poll of Utah voters shows across-the-board opposition to that plan.
"Based on the additional requirements imposed by the Nevada Supreme Court," Gov. Gary Herbert said, "an agreement, at this time, is premature."
The unanimous Supreme Court decision said Nevada state Engineer Tracy Taylor "violated his statutory duty" when he failed to make a decision by 1991 on 34 applications made by the Southern Nevada Water Authority for rights to water in aquifers under three Nevada valleys. Government scientists and other geology experts say those aquifers are connected with Snake Valley.
The decision focused narrowly on Taylor's timing on the water-rights applications for hundreds of wells, and points out that, in 1989, Nevada law required such requests to be decided no later than a year after the end of a formal protest period, in this case 1991.
In 2003, the Nevada Legislature amended the law to let the state engineer postpone action on water-rights applications for municipal use, but did not make that change retroactive.
Therefore, the court said, the Vegas applications weren't active past 1991.
The ruling stems from a "due process" appeal of Taylor's 2006 decision to deny petitions from at least 54 individuals and groups representing thousands of people who wanted Nevada to reopen the water-rights application protest period.
The 54 plaintiffs wanted to comment on how the Vegas pipeline drawdowns could affect landowners in both states, Utah air quality, animal and plant species and the frail hydrology of the entire Great Salt Lake Basin, matters not understood nor addressed during the original protest period.
In 2008, while that appeal was before the court, Taylor approved Southern Nevada Water Authority water-rights applications in the Cave, Delamar and Dry Lake valleys of central Nevada.
But a Nevada judge in October struck down that action, saying Taylor hadn't provided sufficient scientific proof for his estimates of the three valleys' available underground water.
The separate due-process matter now must go back to the lower court, which has two choices: Make the southern Nevada utility reapply for water rights or reopen the protest period.
Either choice would mean Utah counties, environmental groups, west desert ranchers, wildlife advocates, scientists and residents, heretofore shut out, could have a say in the proceedings.
"I'm absolutely elated," said Cecil Garland, a rancher in Callao, Utah, and staunch opponent of the pipeline and the proposed two-state water deal.
The ruling "is a dramatic change. It gives us reason to hope," Garland said. "The [Nevada] state engineer has had a kind of hegemony over the whole process. Against our will, against our protestations, we had become disenfranchised citizens. ... In my 84 years on this Earth, I have never seen politicians bow their neck and go against public opinion like this."
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, who has made opposition to the Snake Valley accord part of his gubernatorial campaign, welcomed the ruling.
"This confirms that now isn't the right time to sign the agreement," Corroon said. "In a state where water is at an extreme premium, we need to protect it as much as possible."
Great Basin Water Network coordinator Rose Strickland called the ruling "a home run for the public."
"If we follow the law and the science," she said, "there will be no misguided pipeline threatening the environment and economies of rural Nevada and Utah."
Bob Conrad, spokesman for Taylor's office, declined to comment, saying Nevada officials still were studying the ruling.
"We now have additional opportunities to continue to look at the issue," Herbert said, "and ensure that Utah's interests are protected well into the future."
What's next? Issue will return to Nevada state court
The matter must go back to the Nevada state court, which has to decide whether to make the Southern Nevada Water Authority reapply for the water rights or reopen the original protest period. The Utah-Nevada deal is on indefinite hold.
Ruling may sink Snake Valley water deal
Snake Valley » Nevada Supreme Court decision puts the proposed $3.5 billion pipeline on indefinite hold.
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:01/29/2010 06:59:50 AM MST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A top water official moved too slowly on a 1989 Las Vegas request for certain water rights, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday -- a finding that could delay or even kill a $3.5 billion proposal to pipe water 300 miles from Snake Valley to Sin City.
The ruling prompted Utah officials to stand down on a pending Snake Valley water-sharing agreement with neighboring Nevada. A recent Salt Lake Tribune poll of Utah voters shows across-the-board opposition to that plan.
"Based on the additional requirements imposed by the Nevada Supreme Court," Gov. Gary Herbert said, "an agreement, at this time, is premature."
The unanimous Supreme Court decision said Nevada state Engineer Tracy Taylor "violated his statutory duty" when he failed to make a decision by 1991 on 34 applications made by the Southern Nevada Water Authority for rights to water in aquifers under three Nevada valleys. Government scientists and other geology experts say those aquifers are connected with Snake Valley.
The decision focused narrowly on Taylor's timing on the water-rights applications for hundreds of wells, and points out that, in 1989, Nevada law required such requests to be decided no later than a year after the end of a formal protest period, in this case 1991.
In 2003, the Nevada Legislature amended the law to let the state engineer postpone action on water-rights applications for municipal use, but did not make that change retroactive.
Therefore, the court said, the Vegas applications weren't active past 1991.
The ruling stems from a "due process" appeal of Taylor's 2006 decision to deny petitions from at least 54 individuals and groups representing thousands of people who wanted Nevada to reopen the water-rights application protest period.
The 54 plaintiffs wanted to comment on how the Vegas pipeline drawdowns could affect landowners in both states, Utah air quality, animal and plant species and the frail hydrology of the entire Great Salt Lake Basin, matters not understood nor addressed during the original protest period.
In 2008, while that appeal was before the court, Taylor approved Southern Nevada Water Authority water-rights applications in the Cave, Delamar and Dry Lake valleys of central Nevada.
But a Nevada judge in October struck down that action, saying Taylor hadn't provided sufficient scientific proof for his estimates of the three valleys' available underground water.
The separate due-process matter now must go back to the lower court, which has two choices: Make the southern Nevada utility reapply for water rights or reopen the protest period.
Either choice would mean Utah counties, environmental groups, west desert ranchers, wildlife advocates, scientists and residents, heretofore shut out, could have a say in the proceedings.
"I'm absolutely elated," said Cecil Garland, a rancher in Callao, Utah, and staunch opponent of the pipeline and the proposed two-state water deal.
The ruling "is a dramatic change. It gives us reason to hope," Garland said. "The [Nevada] state engineer has had a kind of hegemony over the whole process. Against our will, against our protestations, we had become disenfranchised citizens. ... In my 84 years on this Earth, I have never seen politicians bow their neck and go against public opinion like this."
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, who has made opposition to the Snake Valley accord part of his gubernatorial campaign, welcomed the ruling.
"This confirms that now isn't the right time to sign the agreement," Corroon said. "In a state where water is at an extreme premium, we need to protect it as much as possible."
Great Basin Water Network coordinator Rose Strickland called the ruling "a home run for the public."
"If we follow the law and the science," she said, "there will be no misguided pipeline threatening the environment and economies of rural Nevada and Utah."
Bob Conrad, spokesman for Taylor's office, declined to comment, saying Nevada officials still were studying the ruling.
"We now have additional opportunities to continue to look at the issue," Herbert said, "and ensure that Utah's interests are protected well into the future."
What's next? Issue will return to Nevada state court
The matter must go back to the Nevada state court, which has to decide whether to make the Southern Nevada Water Authority reapply for the water rights or reopen the original protest period. The Utah-Nevada deal is on indefinite hold.
Friday, February 12, 2010
NEPA and EIA's
"The underlying, if not central, purpose of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is to provide decision makers, and the public, with a systematic, comprehensive and objective assessment of the environmental consequences of an action." (Weston)
The EIA grew out of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to the readings, the roots of EIA come from the radical social and cultural change we experienced in the 1960s. The conservative, don't question your authorities age of the 1950's was over. The public was awakening to the increased environmental damage that was being done by both government and industry and there was an emergence of environmental groups that demanded public inclusion and participation in enviromental decision making.(Weston)
Sometimes, though we often get more or less than we bargained for with our protests and demands. The reading points out how the goverment created standards for public input and notice of decision making but this was met with some fairly strong weaknesses. Accoring to Weston, the EIA process requires public trust in the experts, and science which really does not exist. Additionally, EIAs are value based, there is no right or wrong answer. In fact, a right answer can be a wrong one for another issue. When I first started in the UST program at ADEQ, I was baffled when the "science guys" could not tell me exactly how fast or with what manner they were going to clean up gasoline contamination. One of them smiled at me and said, well Kristi, you are new, let me tell you...there are no exact answers in environmental science. There are too many variables and we just gather as much background as we can and apply the knowledge we have in the best way we can! Wow, was I surprised!
Shepard and Bowler tell us that we need to include the public, no matter how distrustful they are or appear to be. This is because "[alienated] citizens become skeptictal citizens and, once citizens begin to lose trust in a project proponent, it is difficult, if not impossible for the project proponent to regain citizens' trust." (quoting Bradbury et al, 1994) Ultimately, EIAs are a necessary evil. We must include the public in decision making processes, even if the public does not want to be part of it. This will insure that everyone has an opportunity to speak and share whatever special knowledge they may have.
The EIA grew out of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to the readings, the roots of EIA come from the radical social and cultural change we experienced in the 1960s. The conservative, don't question your authorities age of the 1950's was over. The public was awakening to the increased environmental damage that was being done by both government and industry and there was an emergence of environmental groups that demanded public inclusion and participation in enviromental decision making.(Weston)
Sometimes, though we often get more or less than we bargained for with our protests and demands. The reading points out how the goverment created standards for public input and notice of decision making but this was met with some fairly strong weaknesses. Accoring to Weston, the EIA process requires public trust in the experts, and science which really does not exist. Additionally, EIAs are value based, there is no right or wrong answer. In fact, a right answer can be a wrong one for another issue. When I first started in the UST program at ADEQ, I was baffled when the "science guys" could not tell me exactly how fast or with what manner they were going to clean up gasoline contamination. One of them smiled at me and said, well Kristi, you are new, let me tell you...there are no exact answers in environmental science. There are too many variables and we just gather as much background as we can and apply the knowledge we have in the best way we can! Wow, was I surprised!
Shepard and Bowler tell us that we need to include the public, no matter how distrustful they are or appear to be. This is because "[alienated] citizens become skeptictal citizens and, once citizens begin to lose trust in a project proponent, it is difficult, if not impossible for the project proponent to regain citizens' trust." (quoting Bradbury et al, 1994) Ultimately, EIAs are a necessary evil. We must include the public in decision making processes, even if the public does not want to be part of it. This will insure that everyone has an opportunity to speak and share whatever special knowledge they may have.
Arizona, in Switch, Pulls Out of Regional Emissions Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/science/earth/12climate.html?scp=2&sq=arizona&st=cse
Article from the New York Times today discussing Arizona's decision to not participate in the Western Climate Initiative made up of seven western states.
Article from the New York Times today discussing Arizona's decision to not participate in the Western Climate Initiative made up of seven western states.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Kristina's Op-Ed
Environmental Policy Trends in the U.S: 1970’s to G.W. Bush Administration:
In the early years of the nation, environmental policy largely consisted of resource conservation and land management. During the 1960’s, under President Johnson, we started looking at the “growing scarcity in world resources.” (Vig, 10) Air and water pollution were long considered to be strictly local or state matters and were not high on the national agenda until the 1970’s. (Vig, 10)
Enter Earth Day:
The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. The public was now demanding more federal attention be placed on environmental issues, the politicians eagerly supported the public’s wishes, and as a result, laws were enacted and implemented in the 1970’s. Congress set the stage for this new wave by passing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. Shortly thereafter, President Nixon declared the 1970’s the “environmental decade.” (Vig, 11) According to Vig, the Democratic Party controlled the leadership on the issue of environmental policy during the Nixon and Ford administrations. (Vig, 11) It was during this time that we saw the first pesticide regulation, endangered species protections, control of hazardous and toxic wastes and ocean and coastline protection, among others. Furthermore, the 1970’s brought us the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Population and energy policy were largely caught in a “stage of gridlock” according to Vig. President Carter tried but was unable to secure a national energy policy because he could not reach consensus with the public or Congress on the issue.
The 1980’s and the Reagan administration brought new attitudes to environmental policy. President Reagan wanted smaller government and sought to have greater state control and privatization of environmental regulations. Initially Congress went along with the budget cuts but eventually criticized Reagan and his appointees for lack of action. (Vig, 14) Congress went on to strengthen the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts. Reagan ended up strengthening the environmental resolve of these national environmental groups; they began to appeal to the American public, successfully, and as a result, the membership in these organizations soared. Two broad functions that these interest groups provide is: 1) they aggregate and mobilize like-minded citizens, and 2) they represent aggregated interests in government. (Vig, 61) President George H. W. Bush was more environmentally motivated and pushed for Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. (Vig, 14)
Moving into the 1990’s President Clinton was impressive to environmentalists by choosing environment-friendly running mate, Al Gore. Unfortunately, coalitions of environmental groups and business clashed regularly on all of the initiatives and congressional leaders and the White House were unsuccessful in resolving the disputes. (Vig 108-109) George W. Bush elected in 2000, shifted things back to federal control, nay-administrative control of environmental issues and policy. Bush appointed Christine Todd Whitman to administer the EPA. (The first of five appointees Bush would make to that post.) Whitman’s series of policies expanded the federal role over states. Some of these shifts could be blamed on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but appear to reflect a shift of power to the executive branch. Bush was dubbed “the most anti-environmental president in our nation’s history” by the League of Conservation Voters. (Vig, 43) His appointments to environmental and natural resource agencies were largely drawn from business corporations or from conservative think tanks and law firms. The Bush administration was repeatedly shown to have ignored the advice of scientific experts or distorted scientific information to justify policy decisions. (Vig, 87)
President Obama Elected and Reflected:
President Obama made it clear that he would depart radically from the environmental policies of Bush. (Vig, 90) He vowed in his campaign to make global warming a top priority, instead of the Bush reaction to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. He further vowed to reinvigorate the EPA, respecting its professionalism and scientific integrity. (Vig, 91) Obama virtually promised to change all of the policies from the Bush era and adopt a more transparent approach, with collaboration in decision-making. A sampling of his policy proposals were: 1) to invest $150 billion over ten years in advanced energy technologies and to help to create millions of new jobs in clean energy; 2) to set national building efficiency goals toward making all new buildings carbon neutral (zero emissions) by 2030 and 3) to uphold the Roadless Area Rule and to increase funding for national parks and forest management and for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (Vig, 91) Obama started early in making efforts to change the federal government's way of viewing greenhouse gas issues. He took the lead by having federal agencies mandated to reduce their emissions by 28 percent. President Bush, by comparison, (Vig, p. 132) refused to use his authority to meet the challenge of global warming.
As we sit here in 2012, looking back on his four years in office, President Obama held true to his promise to positive environmental agendas. Where he could initiate and make change he did. Unfortunately, even though Obama wanted to emulate the largely environmental presidents past, Carter and Clinton he was thwarted by the serious economic state in which he stepped into office. The economic recovery took center stage, followed closely by the Obama Health Initiative of 2011. Even though President Obama made promises toward an administration bent on environmental change, only baby steps were achieved.
In the early years of the nation, environmental policy largely consisted of resource conservation and land management. During the 1960’s, under President Johnson, we started looking at the “growing scarcity in world resources.” (Vig, 10) Air and water pollution were long considered to be strictly local or state matters and were not high on the national agenda until the 1970’s. (Vig, 10)
Enter Earth Day:
The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. The public was now demanding more federal attention be placed on environmental issues, the politicians eagerly supported the public’s wishes, and as a result, laws were enacted and implemented in the 1970’s. Congress set the stage for this new wave by passing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. Shortly thereafter, President Nixon declared the 1970’s the “environmental decade.” (Vig, 11) According to Vig, the Democratic Party controlled the leadership on the issue of environmental policy during the Nixon and Ford administrations. (Vig, 11) It was during this time that we saw the first pesticide regulation, endangered species protections, control of hazardous and toxic wastes and ocean and coastline protection, among others. Furthermore, the 1970’s brought us the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Population and energy policy were largely caught in a “stage of gridlock” according to Vig. President Carter tried but was unable to secure a national energy policy because he could not reach consensus with the public or Congress on the issue.
The 1980’s and the Reagan administration brought new attitudes to environmental policy. President Reagan wanted smaller government and sought to have greater state control and privatization of environmental regulations. Initially Congress went along with the budget cuts but eventually criticized Reagan and his appointees for lack of action. (Vig, 14) Congress went on to strengthen the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts. Reagan ended up strengthening the environmental resolve of these national environmental groups; they began to appeal to the American public, successfully, and as a result, the membership in these organizations soared. Two broad functions that these interest groups provide is: 1) they aggregate and mobilize like-minded citizens, and 2) they represent aggregated interests in government. (Vig, 61) President George H. W. Bush was more environmentally motivated and pushed for Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. (Vig, 14)
Moving into the 1990’s President Clinton was impressive to environmentalists by choosing environment-friendly running mate, Al Gore. Unfortunately, coalitions of environmental groups and business clashed regularly on all of the initiatives and congressional leaders and the White House were unsuccessful in resolving the disputes. (Vig 108-109) George W. Bush elected in 2000, shifted things back to federal control, nay-administrative control of environmental issues and policy. Bush appointed Christine Todd Whitman to administer the EPA. (The first of five appointees Bush would make to that post.) Whitman’s series of policies expanded the federal role over states. Some of these shifts could be blamed on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but appear to reflect a shift of power to the executive branch. Bush was dubbed “the most anti-environmental president in our nation’s history” by the League of Conservation Voters. (Vig, 43) His appointments to environmental and natural resource agencies were largely drawn from business corporations or from conservative think tanks and law firms. The Bush administration was repeatedly shown to have ignored the advice of scientific experts or distorted scientific information to justify policy decisions. (Vig, 87)
President Obama Elected and Reflected:
President Obama made it clear that he would depart radically from the environmental policies of Bush. (Vig, 90) He vowed in his campaign to make global warming a top priority, instead of the Bush reaction to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. He further vowed to reinvigorate the EPA, respecting its professionalism and scientific integrity. (Vig, 91) Obama virtually promised to change all of the policies from the Bush era and adopt a more transparent approach, with collaboration in decision-making. A sampling of his policy proposals were: 1) to invest $150 billion over ten years in advanced energy technologies and to help to create millions of new jobs in clean energy; 2) to set national building efficiency goals toward making all new buildings carbon neutral (zero emissions) by 2030 and 3) to uphold the Roadless Area Rule and to increase funding for national parks and forest management and for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (Vig, 91) Obama started early in making efforts to change the federal government's way of viewing greenhouse gas issues. He took the lead by having federal agencies mandated to reduce their emissions by 28 percent. President Bush, by comparison, (Vig, p. 132) refused to use his authority to meet the challenge of global warming.
As we sit here in 2012, looking back on his four years in office, President Obama held true to his promise to positive environmental agendas. Where he could initiate and make change he did. Unfortunately, even though Obama wanted to emulate the largely environmental presidents past, Carter and Clinton he was thwarted by the serious economic state in which he stepped into office. The economic recovery took center stage, followed closely by the Obama Health Initiative of 2011. Even though President Obama made promises toward an administration bent on environmental change, only baby steps were achieved.
Obama Environmental Policy Piece
Obama sets targets on agencies' greenhouse-gas emissions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904145_pf.html
President Obama "set specific greenhouse-gas emissions targets for the federal government Friday, saying it would aim to reduce its emissions by 28 percent by 2020." His executive order covers 35 agencies and is supposed to "take aim" at the largest energy consumer in the U.S., the federal government. The federal government spent in excess of $24 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 according to the article. "According to Nancy Sutley,who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the government operates about 500,000 buildings and
600,000 vehicles."
Vig (p.34-35) states that the United States has commonly been perceived as disengaged regarding climate policy. In 2001 we withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol and watched as both the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to enact any policies to reduce emissions. President Obama is attempting to create change and move forward in the U.S. effort to reduce emissions.
According to our readings, the EPA, back in 1999 refused to set or regulate greenhouse gases stating that the Clean Air Act "does not authorize regulation to address global climate change." (Vig, p. 131) Additionally, at that time the EPA thought that voluntary actions to curb emissions would be better to encourage technological development with incentives. Obama appears to be making efforts to change the federal government's way of viewing greenhouse gas issues. He is trying to have the federal government lead by example. President Bush, (Vig, p. 132) refused to use his authority to meet the challenge of global warming.
We have to start somewhere. President Obama's administration "has been pressing for legislation that would reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 17 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, which would affect everything from power plants to private vehicles." (see article) As the author of the attached article states, and I agree, this is a good start but hardly the sweeping change that is required. President Obama is trying to show Americans and world citizens that the U.S. government is beginning to take this issue seriously. I applaud that. Where I disagree is that this just is not enough of a huge leap I think is necessary now... The target does not go far enough. Why does it not go far enough? Simply because the target is on federal agencies only. It does not include private contractors working for these agencies, nor does it track the carbon footprint of federal employees. President Obama is taking baby steps when he needs to be stretching his stance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904145_pf.html
President Obama "set specific greenhouse-gas emissions targets for the federal government Friday, saying it would aim to reduce its emissions by 28 percent by 2020." His executive order covers 35 agencies and is supposed to "take aim" at the largest energy consumer in the U.S., the federal government. The federal government spent in excess of $24 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 according to the article. "According to Nancy Sutley,who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the government operates about 500,000 buildings and
600,000 vehicles."
Vig (p.34-35) states that the United States has commonly been perceived as disengaged regarding climate policy. In 2001 we withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol and watched as both the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to enact any policies to reduce emissions. President Obama is attempting to create change and move forward in the U.S. effort to reduce emissions.
According to our readings, the EPA, back in 1999 refused to set or regulate greenhouse gases stating that the Clean Air Act "does not authorize regulation to address global climate change." (Vig, p. 131) Additionally, at that time the EPA thought that voluntary actions to curb emissions would be better to encourage technological development with incentives. Obama appears to be making efforts to change the federal government's way of viewing greenhouse gas issues. He is trying to have the federal government lead by example. President Bush, (Vig, p. 132) refused to use his authority to meet the challenge of global warming.
We have to start somewhere. President Obama's administration "has been pressing for legislation that would reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 17 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, which would affect everything from power plants to private vehicles." (see article) As the author of the attached article states, and I agree, this is a good start but hardly the sweeping change that is required. President Obama is trying to show Americans and world citizens that the U.S. government is beginning to take this issue seriously. I applaud that. Where I disagree is that this just is not enough of a huge leap I think is necessary now... The target does not go far enough. Why does it not go far enough? Simply because the target is on federal agencies only. It does not include private contractors working for these agencies, nor does it track the carbon footprint of federal employees. President Obama is taking baby steps when he needs to be stretching his stance.
Environmental Policy in the Courts
The week's readings were especially interesting to me with regard to the role that the courts play in environmental policy. The courts determine who has the standing (right) to sue. Vig points out that this power affects environmental policy agendas. Courts also shape this policy stream by determining which cases are ready (ripe) for review. The alleged wrong, according to Vig must "be more than merely anticipated." Courts also interpret the law. The role of the courts is to make clear what the legislators' intent was and in some cases to cure an ill that the legislation did not anticipate. Courts determine if the actions of agencies are fair and equitable. They also punish by means of punitive damages, jail time for offenders or both.
This point of view, the courts shaping environmental policy, may not be obvious to most. It is interesting to think that beyond presidential policy, legislation and agency politics there is yet another hurdle keeping environmental policy in check.
Here comes the judge.
This point of view, the courts shaping environmental policy, may not be obvious to most. It is interesting to think that beyond presidential policy, legislation and agency politics there is yet another hurdle keeping environmental policy in check.
Here comes the judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)