Last week I attended the annual ALI-CLE Environmental Law conference in Washington, D.C., as a law student guest. The almost two and half days of lectures were educational, interesting and hopeful for aspiring environmental lawyers-to-be.

One of the many topics discussed was about Environmental Justice. The three speakers were members of the U.S. E.P.A., the D.O.J.’s Natural Resources and Environmental Division, and the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The DEC agent spoke of the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). What struck me was not that he mentioned that SEQR is sometimes criticized as “job-killing” or “prohibitory on development,” but rather a push by the DEC to expand Title II categorical exemptions in urban areas.

The speaker discussed how the DEC wished to streamline the process of approval of developing abandoned/unused land in cities, especially paved spaces. By allowing such development to proceed without undergoing to the long process of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), urban areas can be improved or expanded much quicker. It makes smart economic sense.

However, this push runs into environmental justice problems. Quick development does not necessarily take into consideration the desires or best interests of current residents in a neighborhood. True, turning an unused paved surface is a better use of land than leaving it as is; but turning it into overpriced residential units or into inaccessible office buildings might damage the sense of community and price out the current residents.

New York’s Environmental Conservation Law §1-0101, the statutory authority for SEQR, includes as part of  New York’s environmental policy the declaration that the State shall “conserve, improve and protect . . . in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well being” (emphasis added). Moreover, subsection (3)(b) states that “future and present generations” shall be “[g]uarantee[d] that the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment is attained without risk to health or safety, unnecessary degradation or otherwise undesirable or unintended consequences” (emphasis added).

Thus, in laying out the State’s policy, the legislature directed the DEC and all state agencies to take a holistic approach and consider all the effects of a proposed action. Allowing more Title II categorical exemptions in the name of urban development might have benefits for some, but environmental justice consequences for others. Creating environmental justice consequences runs counter to the State’s environmental policy and contributes to the continuation of practices that give the word “justice” to “environmental justice.”

Matthew Tejada, a Houston activist and Executive Director of Air Alliance Houston, has been chosen as the next Director of OEJ. Tejada previously worked at the Texas Public Interest Research Group and served in the Peace Corps. He has Doctorate and Masters degrees from the University of Oxford (UK), and attended the University of Texas at Austin as an undergraduate.

In a recent interview with Environmental Health News, Tejada hinted at the kind of Director he will be. His answers should leave EJ communities and activists excited and hopeful about his appointment. The new OEJ Director sees himself as “a very reasonable but effective advocate for environmental justice issues” and feels like he has “the guts to speak truth” in a way that will make people listen. We certainly hope he is right, and we wish the new OEJ Director luck as he joins the EPA. Now we also wait for President Obama to nominate Tejada’s new boss – the next Administrator of the EPA.

Since it is my first post of the 2013, happy new year to any and all readers! There are many topics I wish to discuss, including highlighting certain portions of Governor Cuomo’s recent State of the State address, but I will reach them in the future.

Today, I am going to write about cleaning house, and not in the political sense. Instead, as I have enjoyed my winter break from school, I have been working on a number of home improvement projects and making long-term purchases. These projects and purchases, like anytime something new is installed or bought, results in leftover waste. Oftentimes, of course, waste ends up in landfills unless it is one of the relatively few items picked up for recycling. I prefer to contribute the least amount possible to the garbage and, while I could probably go further, my storage space (like anyone’s) is limited. Therefore, I would like to contribute to the ever-increasing Internet guides of how to dispose of products without adding to the trash, but with a focus on New York City.

The biggest and perhaps easiest of all recycling events is the NYC Department of Sanitation’s SAFE Disposal Event. SAFE stands for Solvents, Automotive, Flammable, Electronic. They happen once or twice a year with a location in all five boroughs, but the 2013 dates have yet to be announced. Nevertheless, the Department of Sanitation’s website for the event has a list of what items are accepted, which includes many materials that are illegal to put in the garbage such as motor oil, mercury thermometers and rechargeable batteries. Last year, I was able to get rid of old paint, household cleaners, an old car battery left around the house and a number of expired medications. The items are then supposed to be properly handled and disposed of by the Department. The Department alerts New Yorkers of upcoming events by mailing out notices–however, possibly too late in the year since many people will toss items when they are no longer needed. The main difficulty with the SAFE Disposal Events is getting to them. The one in Queens last year was at St. John’s University, which is near a number of Parkways and not far from Interstates, and in a relatively central Queens location. However, it is far from mass public transit and required the use of a car to be wholly effective. Still, I was pleased to see a long line that took at least half an hour the day I went, and included people bringing in carts full of old computers and televisions. In addition to the SAFE Disposal Events, one day every week people may bring the same items to Household Special Waste Drop-Off Sites in each borough.

Things like auto batteries can be taken to auto repair and retail shops that sell new batteries. The old batteries may be fixed to be reused in the future, or they may be properly disposed. There are furthermore a number of electronic recycling events put on by the Lower East Side Ecology Center (LESEC) at different locations throughout the city every season of the year (see the upcoming events here). Additionally, LESEC now has a permanent drop-off location in Gowanus, Brooklyn. Many retail shops that sell CFL lightbulbs, like Home Depot and IKEA, accept them for recycling, often near the entrance to the store. A large number of other shops in NYC are required to accept returns of plastic bags for recycling, again often at the front of the store. I like to keep a bag full of plastic bags to return them easily. Other times, I use them for indoor trashbags. Best Buy stores accept old cell phones, rechargeable batteries, CDs/CD cases/DVDs/DVD cases, and wires and cables for recycling. Whole Foods also collects old cell phones. The Union Square Whole Foods has a book recycling center, while the Columbus Circle Whole Foods now has a cork recycling program.

Build It Green in Astoria and Gowanus will accept almost any old construction materials, including cut wood, to be resold. One thing I recently purchased was a new mattress, and when I asked what would be done with my old mattress after it was hauled away by the company from which I purchased the new one, I was told likely thrown in the trash. Mattresses do not easily compress in landfills and their springs often clog machines in landfills. Moreover, there are many people who could use mattresses without having to pay full price, but many secondhand stores like Goodwill will not accept bedding because of things like bed bugs. My research into how to recycle mattresses in NYC led me to FreeCycle, which appears to be a Craigslist-like site that lets its members give away or request items for free. Another way to dispose of mattresses, I have seen and heard, is to wrap them in protective plastic sheets and leave them on the curb during the day, and they will be picked up by groups who will use them for their purposes. Since this latter option sounds sketchier, FreeCycle might be the way to go. However, there is always old fashioned word of mouth, asking people you know if they need your items.

GreenDisk lets customers send in miscellaneous technotrash, including old film at a small price. I find that my headphones and earbuds tend to wear out after a number of months, but finding the proper place to recycle them can be difficult. Now, I am a fan of ThinkSound, who will let you mail in your old products for a discount on future headphones. (More information about ThinkSound may be found here.) Earth911 is a guide to how and what may recycled, and has features that let a user search based on item and location. GrowNYC also has a guide on ways to reduce the amount of household waste placed in the garbage. I particularly like the compost option, which may be done in many ways. Many community gardens have drop-off points, as do many Green Markets. Build It Green runs projects that accept compost drop-off in many locations, and the Lower East Side Ecology Center accepts compost at its community garden site on the East River and at Union Square. Of course, one may also easily compost at home indoors or outdoors. More information, including where to purchase compost units and to attend short “how-to” workshops may be found here. After I attended one and started composting, I was able to take the trash out only once or twice a week since I rarely had rotting food scraps that smelled. I also now have free, nutrient rich soil available.

I hope this guide helps anyone who access it, and allows them to keep some things out of the garbage.

Twenty-six years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last issued ambient recreational water quality criteria (RWQC) recommendations to recreational waters. On Monday, EPA announced, pursuant to a 2000 Federal Court Order and in compliance with the BEACH Act of 2000 amendment to the Clean Water Act, that the organization issued new recommendations regarding pathogens and human health. The press release states, “The science-based criteria provide information to help states improve public health protection by addressing a broader range of illness symptoms, better accounting for pollution after heavy rainfall, providing more protective recommendations for coastal waters,encouraging early alerts to beachgoers and promoting rapid water testing.” The agency reiterated that no new requirements come with the announcement; instead, the recommendations are “a tool that states can choose to use in setting their own standards.” (See the Implementation Materials here.)

I like that the new recommendations exist; and I like that they are to be measured against a 30-day water sampling period (as opposed to the 1986 recommendations’ 90-day period) to “especially account[] for heavy rainfall that can wash pollution into rivers, lakes or the ocean or cause sewer overflows.” New York State and City both could use these strengthened Federal guidelines in assessing water quality. It appears that the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) currently tests quality on an annual basis, with unclear guidelines. Independent non-profit groups like Riverkeeper do more in-depth testing of water quality of the Hudson River, but they are limited to one (albeit major) river. Since the New York City sewer system tends to overflow anytime it rains a few inches, and since massive overflows happened last month when Sandy struck, it is important for the City and State to at the least follow the EPA recommendations for testing. In my opinion, every state should be required to conduct 30-day testing and bring the ambient quality of water bodies at the minimum into the ranges set forth in the RWQC.

When people learn how clean or dirty their water bodies are, especially if they use those bodies of water for recreation such as swimming and fishing, then they might either rest easily or call for action to clean these bodies. Some bodies of water are surrounding by vacation homes and beach condominiums. Others are where people call home, either on a beach of a sea, a rural stream, or an urban river. Bodies of water are a symbol of unity; at some point, somehow, all the water connects with each other. What I do to the East River two miles from my house in Queens could impact a resident of Red Hook a few miles downstream. By-products of hydrofracking in the Ohio River Watershed might impact residents of Saint Louis, Memphis or New Orleans. Sewage overflows hit many New York residents living near waterways during Sandy’s flooding. Some might be able to afford proper cleanup methods more easily than others, or even the ability to move and/or stay somewhere else while their residence is clean. Others might be stuck with the option of contaminated residences or furniture, or nothing. A greater, more frequent indicator of water quality might very well be a tool in combating major water pollution and implementing sewage and industrial waste overhauls. Knowledge and access to that knowledge can very well spark the necessary public pressure.

As cleanup and recovery from Hurricane Sandy continues in the Caribbean and the Northeastern United States, so begins the reflections. These reflections undoubtedly range from horrific to thankful, and to angered and confused. Others are beginning to raise critical questions that, unfortunately, with history as our guide, will likely continue to go unaddressed.

The New York Times ran an article focusing on Dauphin Island, Alabama, and its cycle of constant rebuilding of bigger and more expensive houses in a hurricane-prone area. “Since 1979, nearly a dozen hurricanes and large storms have rolled in and knocked down houses, chewed up sewers and water pipes and hurled sand onto the roads.” Every time, Washington has been happy to assist in rebuilding, and its expressions of assistance for New York and New Jersey further show this happiness, but never stop to ask why we keep rebuilding in these areas. Indeed, another Times article critically points out that political changes are needed to address this very issue. Not only are general protective measures needed to protect metropolitan areas, but also other important matters should be attacked. To me, the political attitude of winning points with the public by helping after disaster strikes but doing minimal preventative work is a sentiment broadly sweeping across a spectra of concerns from health care to energy, agriculture, the environment and civil rights.

I have heard the expressed feeling from people in different neighborhoods in NYC that the public attention and assistance now is nice, but where was it before? Anytime a disaster strikes presents a wonderful opportunity to address and reconsider business-as-usual. In some states, public officials have willfully avoided talk of climate change, rising sea levels, and their affect on residents. This avoidance reminds me of the general absence of a duty to rescue in American tort laws. Once a state legislator announces its awareness of the dangers facing its communities, its special relationship will then be at the point where a duty to act should exist. At that point, it should be within the state’s police powers to care for the welfare and safety of its citizens. Without addressing and taking a policy position that there are environmental dangers, then the state political officers can take a stance of plausible deniability. Stating an awareness of a major problem and then (seemingly) doing nothing about it is politically unpopular.

Meanwhile, other localities have taken an announced position and are talking about changes for the future. See also Massachusetts v. E.P.A. (2007). Any and all infrastructure overhauls and approaches must be done equitably in terms of economic, ethnic and social stratifications, but tough decisions that might be politically unpopular need to be made. Rebuilding in spots that will continuously be pounded by major storms is not a smart approach. It places individuals in harm’s way and threatens future increased tolls of death and injury, be it health, limb and/or economics.

The humanitarian disaster will increase with every instance of business as usual and the continuance of development for what seems to be development’s sake in any and every open spot of land. Now is a time to attack critical problems and start working with and for the future in mind, instead of always trying to correct or merely erase past mistakes. Sometimes, the work will be as simple as updating our maps to paying attention to the science, but will also be expensive and non-money-making ventures like sewage system overhauls and maintenance. Moreover, encouraging responsible development and possible relocation from disaster-prone areas to allow for the reintroduction, restoration and protection of barrier islands, wetlands, dunes, etc., will be slow, politically unpopular, but safer and necessary for the long run. We have for too long been static, but nature is dynamic and, thus, we should be dynamic too.

BP will plead guilty to 14 criminal charges related to the disaster, including twelve felonies and two misdemeanors:
► Eleven of the felony guilty pleas are for BP’s criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1115 (Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers), for negligence that resulted in the 11 worker deaths.  The twelfth felony guilty plea is for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Obstruction of Congress), by misrepresenting the flow rates from the wells – the company reported flow rates of 5000 barrels a day, despite internal BP data showing flow rates at least an order of magnitude greater.
► The misdemeanor guilty pleas are for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(c)(1)(A) &1321(b)(3), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 and 707(a).
Under the plea deal, BP will pay $1.256 billion in criminal fines, $2.394 billion for remediation efforts, and $350 million to the National Academy of Sciences.

In a parallel proceeding resolved along with the criminal charges, BP also agreed to $525 million to settle civil charges, brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, for misleading regulators and investors about the flow rate of oil from the well. With the SEC settlement, the aggregate amount of the deal announced Friday is approximately $4.5 billion, with payments scheduled over a period of five years.

Four and a half billion dollars, by many measures, is a lot of money.It is more than the nominal gross domestic product of 44 nations, including Belize and Montenegro, and roughly on par with that of Kyrgyztan. It is well over half of 2011 budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is $8.7 billion.

However, Context is everything!

$4.5 billion is significantly less than the $7.7 billion profits BP reported in the fourth quarter of 2011.  The criminal penalty assessed for the worst environmental disaster in the United States’ history did not even amount to one quarter’s profit for the main perpetrator!

Whether one views the goal of criminal punishment as retribution or deterrence, it is difficult so see how the proposed plea deal and penalty accomplish the goal.  Eleven people are dead because of BP’s criminal actions.  Untold numbers of fish, endangered turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds perished because of BP’s criminal actions.

Aerial view of spill a month after explosion, with inset locator map

During the 87 days it took BP to finally stop the leak, over 4.9 million barrels of crude oil (170 million gallons) gushed into the Gulf of Mexico. For perspective, that makes the BP spill about fifteen times the size of the Exxon-Valdez disaster of 1989. Vulnerable marine and coastal ecosystems were contaminated, perhaps beyond repair, because of BP’s criminal actions.

Had the company lost at trial, BP could have faced up to $40 billion in fines for its criminal actions. Instead, BP has agreed, with great fanfare, to pay less than one quarter’s profit as a penalty. When measured against the devastation BP wrought, as well as BP’s profit margin, this settlement for one-tenth the potential criminal liability looks like a pretty sweet deal for the company. Moreover, under the terms of the settlement, BP will have five years to pay the assessed penalties, with nearly half the penalty not due until 2017.    At standard present value calculations, the fine will actually cost BP somewhere around $3.74 billion. There is another context that matters as well.

BP is a criminal recidivist – a repeat offender.

In 2005, BP pled guilty to felony Clean Air Act violations in relation to a catastrophic explosion in its Texas City refinery that killed 15 workers and injured more than 180. The civil and criminal fines stemming from this incident topped $300 million.  For subsequent violations at the same facility, BP racked up another $87.7 million in civil fines. While still on probation, BP again engaged in criminal activities, pleading guilty in 2006 for criminal negligence associated with an oil spill that released 300,000 gallons of oil in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.  For this, BP paid a $20 million criminal fine.
All of these criminal violations had their roots in ill-advised cost-cutting on maintenance, intended to boost profitability.

Twenty-four states and the federal government have adopted “3 Strikes” rules, under which criminal recidivists, regardless of the severity of their third crime, can receive enhanced sentences. BP has had three very significant strikes – compiling up the worst safety record of any oil company operating in the United States. In my view, the Department of Justice should seriously consider not only criminal fines, but the even more significant punishment of “debarment,” which would disqualify BP from getting federal contracts.  That is probably the only deterrent that will work for a company that can readily absorb billions of dollars in penalties, fines and expenses.

While no amount of money can restore what we lost in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, BP will certainly wind up paying very substantial sums of money. Even after the criminal penalty is settled, BP will still owe compensatory payments to businesses and individuals for economic losses caused by the company’s criminal actions. A settlement of those claims, in the amount of $7.8 billion, is likely to be approved soon.  The government is also proceeding against BP civilly under the Clean Water Act. These damages could amount to $21 billion –  $4,300 per barrel spilled – if BP is found to have been grossly negligent, with a minimum of $1,100 per barrel –  or a total of $5.4 billion – if BP’s conduct does not rise to the level of gross negligence. BP may also be liable for around $5 billion in natural resource damages flowing from the spill.  This is in addition to the $14 billion BP claims to have spent on operational response and cleanup costs, $1 billion spent on early restoration projects, and $9 billion paid out to individuals, businesses and government entities through the Gulf Compensation Fund.  All tolled, BP’s total expenditures are likely to exceed the $38.1 billion charge against earnings that the company took for costs associate with the disaster.

BP is not the only perpetrator facing criminal charges for the Deepwater Horizon disaster:
►  Transocean, as operator of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and Halliburton, as the contractor whose faulty cement work failed in the well, also face potential civil and criminal liabilities.
► Additional charges have been filed, moreover, against three BP officers.  The two top officers aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig were charged with 11 counts of manslaughter, and BP’s former vice-president was charged with obstructing Congress and making false statements.

crossposted from: http://www.intlawgrrls.com/2012/11/bp-guilty-plea-vindication-or-drop-in.html#more

I’ve previously written about sewers and the potential environmental justice implications that extreme weather might pose in New York City. Again, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, I feel like I am seeing weather that I expected to see when I lived in Alabama, but not in New York. NYC is clearly not a well-prepared area for such a natural disaster, and its approximately 520 miles of waterfront are susceptible to flooding during a hurricane. New Jersey, of course, also faced massive damage–it is a sea-facing state, and its counties across the Hudson from NYC are in marshland and surrounded by rivers.

As talks begin (and hopefully progress) about prophylactic means to address potential natural disasters in the future, it is important for majorly-affected communities to ensure they have a voice and are included in the protective measures. Seawater–a threat to all kinds of life–, storm surges and rising rivers are not all that should be addressed. Residents and workers in the proximity of the Federal Superfund sites of Newton Creek and Gowanus Canal in Queens and Brooklyn, and Raritan Bay in Sayerville and other towns in New Jersey, understandably have concerns about possible exposure to toxic chemicals. Beyond the Superfund sites, toxic chemicals have been found from the Financial District in Manhattan to up the Hudson. Some of these chemicals are not from long term polluted sites or waterways; they originated with automobiles, boats, industrial sites and contaminants from flooded roadways and subways. Like nature, harm from chemical exposure doesn’t discriminate. However, unlike nature, many parking lots, industrial sites and major zones of travel are placed near low-income and minority communities in a  discriminatory manner.

Sewage exposure is also an increasing risk with flooding and future large storms. NYC’s, not to mention much of the nation’s, sewage system is in need of a major infrastructure overhaul. Already too often on days of heavy rain, sewage overflows into the waterways. The ability of citizens to learn about such leaks is limited. Indeed, only this year did New York State pass a sewage right to know act. Increased awareness of potential sewage exposure and the system’s overflows is necessary for increased public pressure on elected officials to enact such an overhaul. Too many environmental justice communities are near or on the waterfront, and more mixed-income and mixed-use waterfront communities in NYC are planned. As more residential and commercial units are added to the already struggling infrastructure, the problem will only increase. Future hurricanes and major storms carry with them an increased risk of sewage exposure to environmental justice communities and to all waterfront communities.

Any and all plans the City, State and Federal governments implement to address potential future Superstorms need to address the location of industrial sites, the storage of vehicles, the location of communities, and the sewer system. Owners of industrial and other sites near waterfronts and any residential area should take steps to ensure that any possibly dangerous chemicals are on higher ground and safely handled, both by personnel and in storage. The sewer system is in need of a major overhaul. All residents can help by using less water generally, work to reduce runoff from their homes, apartment and office buildings, and “let it mellow” and avoid showers or washing clothes during storms. Each of these protective and preventative measures, however, must ensure that the protection is equal across the population regardless of income or neighborhood, yet with a greater concentration of measures on communities in City Flood Zones A – B. Storms are not fair; it is time for people to be.

At 10 a.m. on Friday, a few friends and I headed to Occupy Sandy Clinton Hill’s hub to volunteer with relief efforts from Hurricane Sandy.  The Church of St. Luke and St. Matthew bustled with volunteers unloading trucks, sorting goods, or waiting for dispatch to either Coney Island or the Rockaways.  Pews served as shelves storing food and supplies.  In the second floor choir area, tech people fielded phone calls and entered information on spreadsheets.  Downstairs in the kitchen, volunteers cooked pasta, soup, and other hot foods.  We, along with about twenty other volunteers, headed to the altar for a general orientation on Occupy Sandy operations, and stayed for a more specific orientation for those volunteers interested in going out into the field.

After checking in with the driver dispatch people, we were on our way to the Rockaways.  We drove through the Broad Channel beach town before driving over the last leg of the Cross Bay Bridge.  “Why are all these cars parked by the median?” I asked, which no one had an answer.  Then I saw one car on top of another car, and a few feet further down, there was a boat on the side of the road.  Then it dawned on me – the cars and the boat had floated there during the hurricane.

When we arrived at the beach, it looked like a war torn village.  Piles of debris lay like islands.  Dirt roads replaced paved streets.  Metal gates covered storefronts – without electricity they could not open for business.  After getting out the car, we covered our mouth and noise to keep from inhaling kicked up dirt from passing trucks.  What remained of the boardwalk were concrete support columns jutted aground like dominoes arranged to be knocked over.

The Occupy Sandy distribution center operated out of St. Camillus Church’s gymnasium on Beach 99^th Street.  Water, hot and cold food, clothes, cleaning supplies, toiletries/hygiene, and baby products were stacked on top of tables.  Residents of the community lined up outside the entrance.  Volunteers helped one person/family to find what they needed, while the rest waited outside for an available volunteer.  I helped three families find goods, and then sorted and organized a shipment of donated goods.  It was a lot of exhausting work.  My favorite moment of the day was seeing an 8 year old boy’s eyes light up when I found him a Darth Vader blanket!  My worst moment was having a resident curse at me and the whole operation because we were rationing diapers and could not give him a second pack.  I understood his distress but I could not do anything for him.

The Rockaways was ravaged by Hurricane Sandy.  If not for the distribution center and generous donations, the low-income hurricane survivors confront a difficult time getting food.  The A train towards the Rockaways remain out of service, and without vehicles, the residents face a major inconvenience of getting to the shuttle buses by Beach 25^th Street and are then met with extremely crowded shuttle buses.

The National Guard was present in the Rockaways cleaning up the debris, and I saw a few Allstate National Catastrophe Team vehicles assessing insured homes.  Notably, what I did not see was any sign of FEMA or the American Red Cross.

The low-income Rockaway residents are disproportionately affected by Hurricane Sandy.  The Financial District was submersed in water and suffered without electricity, yet it was up and running within a week.  The social and environmental justice implications are obvious.  Restoring the high-income Financial District was the city government’s primary goal, while low-income neighborhoods like the Rockaways and Coney Island suffer without food, water, and heat.  As the government plans for disaster restoration and preventative infrastructure, immediately I wonder how the allocation of resources will be invested, and whether the low-income communities will continue to get the short end of the stick.

Occupy Sandy is a people powered movement for the people.  Volunteers have filled the gaps where the government and huge non-profit organizations cannot.  Occupy Sandy volunteers do not impose their beliefs on what the community thinks they need, and instead they ask the community what they need,  and tries their best to meet those needs.  I sincerely applaud their whole operation and mission, and look forward to continue volunteering with them on my free time.

Last Wednesday CUER jointly hosted a Research Seminar on Urban Sustainability with the U.S. Forest Service and the NYC Urban Field Station at CUNY School of Law. Keith Tidball, Ph.D., of Cornell University’s Civic Ecology Lab, and Erika Svendsen, Ph.D., of the U.S. Forest Service’s NYC Urban Field Station, spoke on separate yet related topics within the theme of urban sustainability.

Dr. Tidball’s presentation was a focus on his concept of Greening in the Red Zone. This idea focuses on bringing the individual, societal and ecological benefits of community-based environmentally sustainable practices to disaster preparedness, relief and mitigation. His presentation at CUNY was more specifically about his studies in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. As part of the rebuilding process, people from neighborhoods with traditionally differing demographics were coming together to plant trees and literally green the red zone.  Dr. Tidball discussed FEMA and a lack of funding for projects like greening the damaged urban landscape. The discussion then progressed to ways in which people look to trees and nature as symbols of life, or biophilia, as ways of moving through difficult times of death and destruction. Not long after, the love of life helps create a sense of, or love of, the place of living (topophilia), which assists with redevelopment and care for urbanscapes. Over time, the natural cycle is that people start to exploit the available resources as topophilia changes, and then conservation movements start. The cycle might repeat itself.

Dr. Svendsen discussed the evolution of urban stewardship groups, with a focus on her experiences in Baltimore and NYC. After reviewing a brief history of modern NYC stewardship groups, Dr. Svendsen detailed how these groups have grown less content with merely doing neighborhood “cleanups” and plantings, and have now moved into more of a “hands-on” civic steward role. The history of these groups was telling as to their current roles. In the 1970s, when NYC was broke and a symbol of a failed city, these groups first appeared to take over roles that were previously left to the government that could no longer handle them. As the City improved and retained money, in the 1990s groups would push back and politically challenge the City, establishing urban gardens on empty lots. Now, in the 2000s, the groups have increasingly worked collaboratively with the City government, and public-private relationships have popped up in almost every neighborhood. Many groups are now involved with formal rulemaking, technical expertise, fiscal management and urban design.

While these presentations primarily stayed within the parameters set by their respective speakers, I thought that law and environmental justice were pervasive in both. Administrative and property law are at play underneath the actions Drs. Tidball and Svendsen described. Sometimes the law facilitates, sometimes it slows down and sometimes it turns a blind eye. According to Dr. Tidball, for example, FEMA now reserves money for post-disaster greening projects—at least in New Orleans. The establishment of community gardens on unused city plots is an example of a good use of property with an authority figure looking the other way. Public-private partnerships, on the other hand, are tools for facilitation of the goals of urban stewardship groups.  Mayor Bloomberg’s Million Trees NYC and other PlaNYC initiatives come to mind.

Moreover, environmental justice exists in what both Dr. Tidball and Dr. Svendsen were saying. Urban stewardship groups sprung up to handle environmental, health and urban issues that government failed to properly deliver. As the groups these days get more involved with rulemaking, technical expertise and urban design, neighborhoods become increasingly poised to deal with challenges presented by environmental and social injustice—especially those that have existed because of the former uses of surrounding lands, or from historically unequal burdens (economically, environmentally, etc.). Dr. Tidball focused on post-Katrina New Orleans, but the blog inspired by his original Greening in the Red Zone work (to which he seems to be a frequent poster) gives examples of how urban blight is a type of a red zone. Dr. Svendsen talked about how in NYC some of the most interactive and outspoken stewardship groups are in areas like the Brooklyn-Queens border and in The Bronx—areas that are developing residentially; formerly industrial; and that have historically had heavy environmental and health burdens.[1] These neighborhoods that are more heavily burden and environmental justice areas seem to fit within Dr. Tidball’s example of Red Zone. It is interesting and important to see the variety of fields that must interact to address urban and environmental justice problems.

Lhaq’temish, the Lummi People, are the original inhabitants of Washington state’s northernmost coast.  They have the U.S.’s largest Native fishing fleet, and have fished off Xwe’chi’eXen (Cherry Point, Washington) for thousands of years.

The natives recently protested against terminals that would allow coal to be brought to the Pacific Coast from Montana and Wyoming that would ultimately be transported to China and the rest of Asia.  They are concerned with a very real and potential threat of the transport systems affecting their health, natural resources and their economies.  If the coal should spill, there is a possible injury to their religious and sacred sites.  Moving millions of tons of coal through the region could affect road traffic and economic life on the reservations.  Dust and particulate matter from the train and barges invoke environmental hazards.

Also, Pacific Northwest tribes’ fishing rights will be affected by the coal terminals.  The tribes have a right to half the harvestable salmon, establishing tribal co-management of Washington State fisheries.  Polluted waterways in Washington have already resulted in the lowest yield of salmon in about 40 years, and transporting coal by railway through these areas will yield even lower quantities of harvestable salmon.

The Lummi Nation is a part of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians which requested that the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers perform a full environmental analysis of the six proposed shipping terminals along Oregon and Washington waterways.

The tribe’s mission is to protect the natural resources into perpetuity for the benefit of their community.  The Chairman of the Lummi Nation stated “It is our Xw’xalk Xechnging [sacred duty] to preserve and protect all of Xwe’chi’eXen.”

Indigenous People’s Day, which is a counter-celebration to Columbus Day, was formed as a protest to the historical conquest of North America and to the demise of Native American people and culture.  Indigenous people all over the world have been substantially impacted by the environmental hazards of industrialization while benefitting the least from industrial practices.  Conversely, industry actors have been least effected by environmental threats and benefit the most from their practices.

Here, if the coal transport system is developed, the Lummi Nation will bear the burden of the environmental degradation cause by the coal terminals.  In stark contrast, the coal industry actors will profit and hardly feel the impact of the environmental hazards within their own lives and communities.