Bucking scientific consensus in the U.S. and around the world, Scott Pruitt on Thursday questioned the belief that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to climate change. Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will soon be rolling back many of President Barack Obama’s environmental regulations, perhaps as early as next week. And now, as Pruitt publicly undermines the widely accepted dangers of carbon dioxide, some worry that he will launch an attack against the EPA’s rule that the agency is obligated to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, also known as an “endangerment finding.” 

In 2009, the EPA issued this endangerment finding, which concluded that carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases, is a threat to “the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The agency reviewed thousands of published studies, poring over findings from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others.

Pruitt, in an interview with CNBC, undermined his own agency’s previous conclusions. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he said, referring to the impact carbon dioxide has on global warming. 

Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA stipulated that it was a duty of the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The American Chemistry Council and other groups appealed the findings to a federal circuit court in D.C. In June 2012, the court upheld the EPA’s decision. Soon after, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the endangerment finding has stood its ground ever since.

That is, until President Donald Trump chose Pruitt–a longtime ally of the oil and gas industry and a determined opponent of environmental regulations–to lead the EPA. In his Senate hearing in January, Pruitt was asked if he would consider revisiting the endangerment finding. “It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected,” he said.

Despite Pruitt’s apparent promise to respect the EPA’s finding, its future standing is not guaranteed. For one, the energy industry has been lobbying the Trump Administration to construct a legal case against the endangerment finding. Pruitt, or anyone else in the administration, does not have the unilateral authority to unravel the endangerment finding, because it was upheld in court.

If Pruitt decides to heed the calls of energy lobbyists, and balk the international scientific consensus, he would need to build a science-based legal challenge to the D.C. court’s 2012 ruling. Given the body of evidence supporting the EPA’s initial finding, that carbon dioxide does indeed contribute to global warming, and is a public health threat, Pruitt would have a difficult time building a successful legal challenge. But that does not mean he won’t try.

“President Trump’s campaign commitment was to undo President Obama’s entire climate edifice,” Myron Ebell, who worked on Trump’s EPA transition team, told the New York Times. “They’re thinking through the whole thing,” he said, adding: “I do think they are looking at reopening the endangerment finding.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Scott Pruitt Unravel the EPA’s Endangerment Finding? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has long promised to remove as many environmental regulations as possible in order to allow American businesses room to grow and prosper and now seems ready to follow through on his pledge. Conservatives and libertarians have spoken out in widespread support of reducing regulations and its ability to stimulate growth. However, many of the regulations that Republicans believe hamper business productivity are in fact key provisions in the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that form the legal cornerstone for American public health.

More broadly, this narrative that environmental regulations (or really any sort of environmental policy) are damaging to business in American is a timeless conservative stance. But is it really true? Have environmental regulations really dampened the ability of business to succeed in America? Can regulations really be blamed for more and more industries outsourcing to countries that have less stringent rules? Could Trump’s infrastructure plan fix our water contamination in areas like Flint? What is the real, quantified benefit of regulations on American public health and why is it never discussed in these conversations? This is one of the oldest arguments against environmental policy measures and it deserves to be analyzed in depth. Read on to learn about the history and impact of environmental regulations on business, public health, and America as a whole.

The Birth of the EPA and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts

The advent of environmental regulations in America really begins with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Prior to the 70s, environmental rules were up to each state to determine independently; regulations were generally loose and chemical dumping was a common, widespread industrial practice. It should come as no surprise that America also had significantly worse water and air quality than it does currently. Only about a third of U.S. fresh water was safe to drink from and watersheds across the nation contained dangerous quantities of unsafe pathogens and hazardous chemicals. With the creation of the EPA came the passage of two critical laws, the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Clean Air Act of 1972.

Using the Clean Water Act, the EPA permanently barred individuals from dumping their waste in navigable waterways and established a dumping permit system for industrial and municipal facilities. These permits could be revoked if any company exceeded the wastewater standards set by the agency, and the removal of a permit resulted in an operational shutdown. The Clean Air Act of 1972 gave the EPA the power to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six major pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide. The impact of these acts has been huge. Beyond their immediate environmental benefits, these laws set a legacy of top-down, federal environmental regulation ensuring that America has some of the cleanest water and safest air in the world.

“Smog” courtesy of Isengardt; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Costs and Benefits on the National Scale

The technological changes required by these laws have been significant. Power plants throughout the nation were required to update their systems and install filters on their smokestacks. The transportation sector has perhaps experienced the greatest changes out of all the affected industries as the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) required massive modifications to engine efficiency and emission filtration systems. Congress created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975, which required certain fuel efficiency rates for different fleets of vehicles. The combined effects of the NAAQS and CAFE standards have dramatically increased the fuel efficiency of our transportation sector and subsequently reduced petroleum use and its pollutant emissions.

And did we gain anything? Actually, yes. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and its subsequent amendments, the percentage of drinkable fresh water in the United States rose from about 30 percent to well over 60 percent. The six major air pollutants in our atmosphere dropped by over 69 percent between 1972 and 2014. One of the reasons analyzing regulatory costs and benefits is complicated is because the losses are felt by private businesses, but the gains are felt in a completely different area: public health. In 2010 alone, Clean Air Act regulations led to the avoidance of an estimated 160,000 premature deaths from respiratory-related illnesses, 130,000 heart attacks, and millions of cases of acute bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. By 2020 the effects of the act are projected to prevent over 230,000 premature adult deaths annually.

These benefits don’t just lengthen lives, they also increase productivity throughout a lifetime. In 2010, over 13 million lost workdays and 3.2 million lost school days were avoided. All this has a direct benefit to the productivity of our workforce and the academic success of our students, which eventually aids American businesses by creating educated workers. Furthermore, employers provide health insurance for 59 percent of U.S. citizens, meaning that businesses will often end up directly shouldering the burden of increased health care costs when their workers get sick. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended to create a regular review of its costs and savings, the conclusion of which was that the benefits of these programs exceeded their compliance costs by a factor of over 43 to 1, based on the average of the estimated range of savings. In the 20 years since the annual review was first conducted, estimates suggest that the Clean Air Act has generated a staggering $22.2 trillion in savings for the United States compared to only $0.5 trillion in compliance costs for the businesses forced to adapt to new regulations.

But did it stifle the overall growth of American business? No, not really. Between 1970 and 2011, U.S. GDP increased by 212 percent and private sector jobs increased by 88 percent. Even the fossil fuel sector, the industry that stood to lose the most from new regulations, grew dramatically. Oil refineries experienced a sharp uptake in refinery productivity and coal production has increased by 70 percent since 1970.

What About Outsourcing?

It is sometimes incorrectly claimed that environmental regulations are one of the central causes for the significant trend in outsourcing that has swept through American businesses. President Trump certainly seems confident that removing regulations will help to bring back manufacturing to the U.S. But pollution abatement spending by American manufacturing is under 1 percent of the value of their total shipped goods. The primary driver in outsourcing is and has always been a desire to reduce labor costs. It would require much more than just dropping environmental regulations to actually induce companies to return to America (it would also most likely require slashing the minimum wage and dropping most workers’ rights) and the impacts of allowing large industries to pollute freely in this country would be significant.

One only needs to look at the difference in a citizen’s life expectancy and the staggering public health costs in industrialized nations without regulations compared to countries like our own. The World Bank has an exhaustive report on the available data. To do away with regulations will cause a dramatic drop in human health in the United States and would lead to an explosion in public health costs.

It is also overlooked that environmental regulations do encourage growth, as new regulatory mechanisms have consistently led to an increased demand for private tech providers, which are needed to create newly required technology. The American environmental technology sector is actually huge, generating around $300 billion in annual revenues, consisting of 119,000 companies, and providing more than 2.6 million jobs to American citizens. Air pollution control equipment alone generated $18 billion in revenue in 2008. Currently, the United States has the largest Environmental Technology industry in the world, making up about a third of the global market.

Pollution control industries create jobs for engineers, scientists, project managers, construction workers, etc., meaning there are employment opportunities for people of all educational levels. The growth of the pollution control sector also benefits some of the industries it was ironically, and incorrectly, predicted to disrupt–such as steel and plastics manufacturing–which are required to provide the materials for newly developed technology.

Business v. Environmentalism: Flint, Michigan

Much of Trump’s campaign was focused on revitalizing the rust belt through manufacturing and Flint can act as a viable case study for how Trump will impact public health and manufacturing. Flint, Michigan attracted national attention when elevated lead levels were found in many citizens’ blood from drinking contaminated water. Governor Rick Snyder appointed an Emergency Manager to Flint, Darnell Earley, who took control of the city’s budget and switched water sources from the drinkable Lake Huron to the toxic Flint River. The citizens took their complaints to the state Health Department and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality but both agencies largely ignored their concerns. It took nearly a year before the EPA heard about the problems with Flint’s water and the agency has been strongly criticized for not mobilizing rapidly and effectively enough to address the situation after it knew about it. Flint is a very serious story of how poor communication and utilization of federal resources failed a community in a serious way. What it is not is a story that indicates the EPA should be defunded and environmental regulations should be pulled.

The willful flouting of environmental regulations and requirements was what created the crisis in Flint to begin with. While untreated lead pipes used to be the norm in the United States, numerous laws have been passed over the years to protect American communities from lead poisoning. The Safe Drinking Water Act, amended in 1986, prohibited new pipe installations from using lead and the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (originally devised under Ronald Raegan and put into action by George H.W. Bush) required all lead pipes in America to either be replaced or be used in tandem with additional water treatment. While replacing existing pipes by using less dangerous alternatives, such as PVC, was heavily encouraged, many municipalities, especially in poorer areas, chose to go the cheaper route and use corrosion inhibitors. The Flint City Water Treatment Plant ignored these federal regulations and made the decision not to use anti-corrosion chemicals for their water system during a time when chemical costs were spiking. Skipping corrosion control saved Flint $140 a day, which pales in comparison to the costs of addressing the damage. Automotive factories witnessing their approaching collapse due to foreign competition chose to ignore federal water protection rules. Years and years of dumping toxic waste made the water in the Flint River particularly corrosive. These sorts of things are exactly what the preventative measures the EPA has set in place are there to prevent, and generally, those measures have been successful. Only one-third of American water was safe to drink before the Clean Water Act whereas that number has doubled because industrial dumping has been cracked down upon.

Addressing Environmental Problems 

The most important service the EPA provides is preventative, in the form of regulations protecting people and the environment from pollution. However, a major part of the agency is also focused on pollution restoration through the superfund program. Defunding the EPA will both remove these preventative measures and take away the safety net in place to fix things when pollution does happen. The EPA superfund program was created in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter in order to restore polluted areas, although it has faced legitimate criticism for not accomplishing enough and not addressing many of the sites that have applied for superfund assistance. The superfund program works on a “polluter pays” principle that requires the industry responsible for the contamination to fund a large part of the project. In areas like the Rust Belt, where many of the industries responsible for pollution went bankrupt, there is often no one to hold accountable and restoration projects are severely underfunded. However, this is not to say that the program is worthless; since its conception, the EPA has restored over 1,100 sites from severe pollution to healthy and livable communities and created circumstances for businesses to grow and thrive within those areas.  Superfund is one of Americans most critical programs for protecting marginalized and endangered American communities and it needs not to be abandoned but to have improved efficiency, administration, and a more reliable funding system for when industries can’t be held accountable for pollution.

President Trump’s proposed solution would be to allocate $1 trillion toward American infrastructure at what he claims would be no cost to taxpayers–by giving $160 billion in tax credits to companies that get involved with new projects. However, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the advisers behind his plan, admit that the plan can’t actually be self-financing. The private sector will require tens of millions of collective tolls and fees for the infrastructure projects taken from the communities in which the work is done. This means that while wealthy investors stand to make a profit through the infrastructure credits, the poorest and most in-need communities like Flint likely won’t benefit because such projects would not yield the profits necessary for private investors. Infrastructure improvements also won’t replace the direct medical benefits that the EPA has been supplying to the community in the form of lead absorption food packages and chemical treatments to restore the waterways. Now that they have a majority in Congress, Republicans have already started to chip away at environmental regulations, blocking the stream protection rule that controlled coal mining and dumping near waterways. The party’s deregulatory efforts will likely continue over the coming years.

Conclusion

Trump and his team of fossil fuel friendly advisers can do plenty to change the balance of environmental regulation and public health over the next several years. Opening up protected land to drilling, mining, and fracking while also removing environmental regulations places our water and air in harm’s way. Undoing regulations will not, in any sense, be the deciding factor that brings back outsourced manufacturing jobs to the United States, not as long as we have basic labor rights and mandated benefits that prevent companies from putting their staff in sweatshops and paying them a dollar a day.

Undoing regulations will, however, damage the growth of the pollution control industry. Extensive deregulation could even cause a notable increase in health care costs and result in a dramatic increase in cases of respiratory illnesses and eventually increased rates of premature deaths. Allowing manufacturers to dump freely poses a huge danger to American citizens’ drinking water and replacing the superfund program with incentive based infrastructure programs will do little to address environmental concerns in poor areas.

Safe water and air are privileges unique to the developed world and benefits that we’ve had for so long that they may be easy to overlook. However, they are critical to the health of our population and undoing the regulations that enable us to drink clean water and breathe clean air would be a disaster for our nation’s public health.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Impact of Environmental Regulations on Business appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump took a significant step in fulfilling his promise to scale back the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, announcing Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the agency’s next leader. Pruitt, 48, has spent years waging legal battles against the agency he is now set to steer. In his six years as attorney general, Pruitt has been a consistent and vociferous critic of government overreach; President Obama’s environmental regulations have frequently been targets.

“For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn,” said a statement from Trump’s camp, adding that Pruitt will “reverse this trend and restore the EPA’s essential mission of keeping our air and our water clean and safe.”

Pruitt, who has voiced his disdain for government overreach in editorials and in his work as attorney general, said he will run the agency in “protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses.” Working as the attorney general of Oklahoma, one of the country’s leading producers of oil and natural gas, Pruitt partnered with energy companies to fight Obama’s environmental regulations on things like greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution.

“There’s a mentality emanating from Washington today that says, ‘We know best,’” Pruitt said during his 2010 election campaign for attorney general. “It’s a one-size-fits-all strategy, a command-and-control kind of approach, and we’ve got to make sure we know how to respond to that.” He also has a cozy relationship with wealthy energy industry players: the CEO of Continental Energy was the co-chairmen of Pruitt’s 2013 re-election effort. 

Perhaps the most maligned target of Pruitt’s crusade against federal overreach is Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which imposed caps on emissions at power plants. Writing in the National Review on Obama’s key energy achievement in May, Pruitt said: “The checks and balances built into our system of government were simply ignored as inconvenient impediments to the president’s agenda,” referring to Obama’s executive action on the bill, which circumvented Congress. Oklahoma and 28 other states filed an anti-regulation suit against the act. The suit is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

A Kentucky native, Pruitt went to the University of Tulsa law school, started a private practice upon graduating in 1993, and five years later served in the Oklahoma State Senate, before running a successful campaign for attorney general in 2010. An avid baseball fan, Pruitt co-owned and managed the Oklahoma City Redhawks, a minor league baseball team, from 2003 to 2010.

Environmental groups and some lawmakers were unhappy with Trump’s latest cabinet appointment. “Scott Pruitt has a record of attacking the environmental protections that EPA is charged with enforcing. He has built his political career by trying to undermine EPA’s mission of environmental protection,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called Pruitt a “sad and dangerous” choice. “I will vigorously oppose this nomination,” he added. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is Scott Pruitt? appeared first on Law Street.

Wood is the oldest and most reliable source of heat known to man. Twelve million Americans still use wood stoves to heat their homes. Wood is less expensive than natural gas or electric, and is readily available in rural areas that may not have reliable gas or electric lines. However, there have been some concerns about the environmental inefficiency of wood burning as well as its health effects. Read on to learn about the arguments for and against regulating woodburning stoves.

What are the concerns about wood burning stoves?

The pollution caused by burning wood has been linked to asthma, damaged lungs, and early deaths in areas where woodburning is common. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its desire to institute regulations that would ban all woodburning stoves that release more than 12 micrograms of particular matter per cubic meter, a requirement that 80 percent of stoves currently in use would not meet. This regulation would cause all new wood stoves to burn 80 percent cleaner than stoves manufactured under the existing 1988 regulations. While the EPA regulation promises to cut down on air pollutants and would not affect wood stoves already in use, the proposed ban has been met with opposition by those who believe it will have adverse effects on the wood-stove industry and prohibit many buyers from purchasing. Opponents also dispute the actual impact this ban would have, arguing that the areas with the most air pollution are the areas that contain the least amount of wood stoves in use.

What are the arguments in favor of regulating wood burning stoves?

Supporters of the EPA’s proposal argue that while current wood stove owners will not be affected, future wood stoves will reduce harmful emissions by 80 percent, cutting down on air pollution and saving Americans money on health care. The particles released by burning wood have been linked to lung damage, asthma, shorter life expectancy, and climate change. The EPA estimates that these regulations will provide Americans with $1.8-$2.4 billion in annual health savings, and will reduce carbon dioxide, methane, and black carbon emissions as well.

While eco-friendly wood stoves are more costly to make and purchase, the EPA and its supporters argue that individuals will see returns in the long run in reduced healthcare costs and improved overall health. Some states have already needed to decree woodburning bans for short periods of time. In December 2013, Utah banned wood burning in five counties when weather conditions and increased wood burning led to dangerous levels of particular matter in the air around these areas. Similar actions have been taken in parts of Alaska. Advocates of the EPA’s ban see these events as signals that stronger federal action needs to be taken to ensure wood-stove pollution does not produce lasting damage. Supporters also emphasize that the proposed regulations would only come into effect in 2015, and that they would not affect wood stoves already in use.

What are the arguments against regulating woodburning stoves?

Opponents argue that these regulations will destroy the wood-stove industry, costing many Americans jobs and financial stability. The regulations will make the production of wood stoves more expensive, and with the majority of wood-stove buyers being rural, low-income families, this ban on cheaper, less-environmentally friendly stoves could cause a reduction in stove sales and cause many wood-stove manufacturers to go out of business.

Although the ban will only affect newly manufactured stoves, citizens will be prevented from selling their old, inefficient stoves, making them incapable of trading their old stoves for a new one. Many opponents also see these regulations as an example of what they call the EPA’s “Sue and Settle” policy. Opponents accuse the EPA of working in tandem with large environmental groups and state agencies in a process whereby the group will sue the EPA for not going far enough in its restrictions and regulations, and instead of going to court the EPA will settle out of court by offering to impose what some believe are pre-determined regulations on manufacturing, allowing both the EPA and environmental groups to get what they want through the façade of a lawsuit. Shortly after the wood-stove ban was proposed, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, and Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against the EPA claiming it did not do enough to reduce air pollution and demanded that the EPA add woodburning water heaters to the list of regulated woodburning appliances. Opponents of the regulations have cried foul and accuse the EPA of using a corrupt scheme to impose regulations that will force wood stove manufacturers out of business and will make it more difficult for rural families to heat their homes.

Conclusion

Woodburning stoves are a simple way that people can provide energy — particularly heat — for their homes. But they’re not always the most efficient or environmentally friendly way to do so. The potential health concerns have also led to worries. As a result, the EPA has taken action to try to change the ways in which woodburning stoves are regulated. There are many proponents of the stoves, as well as those who want to see them done away with, but change and regulation will be slow to develop.

Resources

Primary 

Environmental Protection Agency: Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters

Additional

Climate Progress: No, President Obama is Not Trying to Make Your Wood-Burning Stove Illegal

Fox News: EPA Proposes Restrictions for New Wood Stoves

Washington Post: EPA Moves to Regulate New Wood Stoves

NewsMiner.com: Feds Announce Plans for Stricter Wood Stove Regulations

Climate Progress: EPA Unveils Long-Awaited Regulations to Make New Wood Heaters Burn 80 Percent Cleaner

Clovis News Journal: People Justified to Get Heated on Stove Rules

Forbes: EPA’s Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

New American: EPA Wants to Snuff Out Wood and Pellet Stoves

Inquisitr: EPA Wood Stove Bans Include 80 Percent of Burners Now on the Market

Independent Sentinel: EPA Bans Most Wood Burning Stoves in a Corrupt Scheme, Fireplaces Next

Troy Record: EPA Wood Stove Ban is Heating Debate

Newsmax: EPA Wood-Stove Proposal Prompts Rural Backlash

Rural Blog: EPA Proposes Regulations Limiting Particle Pollution From New Wood-Fired Stoves and Furnaces

National Conference of State Legislatures: Regulating Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Stoves

Gazettenet.com: U.S. EPA Issues Tougher Regulations For Residential Wood-Burning Devices

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Heat is On: The Debate Over Woodburning Stoves appeared first on Law Street.

Environmental policy is a hollow shell if it lacks the crucial component that is the interest and engagement of the people. An Ossining, New York-based conservation organization called Riverkeeper seeks to merge these arenas by sparking communal engagement and care for their surrounding ecosystems, in particular the Hudson River, so as to more effectively pursue regulations and values that are conducive to a healthy environment and lifestyle. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in Riverkeeper’s eponymously titled biography, “…environment is not something distant and inaccessible to most Americans. It is not an issue that can be separated out and dealt with on its own. The environment is our neighborhood, our community. It is our quality of life.”

In the 1960s, a group of fishermen banded together to patrol the Hudson in search of environmental law violators. As the strength and breadth of the coalition that would become Riverkeeper grew, they became increasingly effective at pinpointing and prosecuting individuals and corporations who polluted the waters of the Hudson. After a half century, Riverkeeper is now a respected organization with various departments and manifestations throughout the country. Its founding principle of a “neighborhood watch,” which sparked its initial coalescence, remains a treasured and vital practice.

I recently joined my fellow Riverkeeper interns aboard the patrol boat, Fletcher, for an abridged estuary survey. Now in his fourteenth year at the post, Captain John Lipscomb detailed that a full patrol requires thirteen days, from New York City up to the mouth of the Mohawk River, the largest tributary of the Hudson. The key to a successful patrol, he explained, is to “…look, but also be seen looking.” Having people on the shores see the vessel and “Riverkeeper” emblazoned on the side of the hull is a deterrent; this is a powerful and often more preferable means of keeping the Hudson clean than catching violators red handed. Furthermore, it is advertising as well as policing. The boat’s presence and visibility raises environmental awareness; it gets the concepts into people’s heads and hopefully influences their behavior.

The Fletcher on patrol

Riverkeeper’s patrol has many other functions that tie into this philosophy of engaging the community. The organization seeks to empower the community with data, primarily with water quality sampling and subsequent output of its findings in reports. The EPA’s recommendations for testing in recreational waterways occasionally meets opposition on the basis that it is unnecessary because nobody swims at particular points on the river; however, designated beaches are not the only points at which people partake in river activities. During our patrol, as it was a hot and sunny day, we encountered a group of kids jumping from a low rocky precipice into the water and swimming about. The captain drew the boat near, and acquired their permission to snap a few photos. He intends to present this evidence of countless examples that clearly the people are partaking in recreational activity all along the water. This raises several points. First is that water sampling is undoubtedly warranted. Second, it speaks to the role of community members in environmental policy formulation, as well as the fact that such responsible policies are in the best interest not just of nature but the people as well.

Scenic Surprises on the Hudson

Riverkeeper has been passionately engaging the problems raised by the Tappan Zee Bridge construction project. In addition to outrage over the discovery that Albany was using clean water funds to finance the endeavor, the actual work is being done in a somewhat careless and haphazard fashion with regard to the delicate ecosystem by which it is surrounded. Captain Lipscomb has been documenting the number of dead fish discoveries, particularly the species as some teeter on the endangered list, in an effort to raise public awareness and induce a more responsible approach to the project with regard to the Hudson River’s biodiversity.

It goes without saying that an additional responsibility of the Hudson patrol involves active, first-hand clean up. Unfortunately, I was not surprised to see a substantial amount of trash choking the waterway. In fact, at one point we slowed the boat so as to draw out a fully intact television bobbing at the surface. Hopefully in time, through the work of Riverkeeper and other like-minded organizations and citizens, the amount of garbage that finds its way into the water will diminish to a negligible amount.

Captain Lipscomb wants to extend the range of the patrol into the Mohawk. If this is to be accomplished, Riverkeeper will need to cultivate relationships with other organizations in that area so as to effectively take on a mission of such large scope. This is already a philosophy of the organization. “We promote positive sustainable relationships; it is not in our best interest to sue everybody” clarified Dana Gulley, manager of the Community Outreach & Volunteer Programs at Riverkeeper. Rather, she added, it is important to communicate. Riverkeeper seeks to open dialogue and educate; if they encounter a violator, they approach them and ask if they knew they were polluting.

Beneath the Bear Mountain Bridge

These activities are not just for aesthetic conservation. More than nine million people in New York City and the surrounding area drink from the Hudson watershed. Human health and human culture are at stake in environment-society relationships. As Robert Kennedy Jr. and the first Hudson Riverkeeper John Cronin put it: “As Riverkeepers we protect nature, not so much for nature’s sake, but for the sake of humanity. Nature enriches us economically, but we have other appetites besides money. These hungers — spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic — must be fed if we want to grow as we are meant to — if we are to fulfill ourselves.”

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

All images courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Riverkeeper: Patrolling the Hudson to Keep NYC’s Water Clean appeared first on Law Street.