By Dr. Joan Hoffman, Department of Economics, CUNY, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

THIS IS NOVEMBER 2009. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR WATER IS? Your water supply is currently being surrounded by influences which are hazardous to its health, and yours, too.

Since the 1800’s the force of gravity has delivered your water to you through an amazing tunnel system from upstate reservoirs. Some 90% of your water travels from the Catskill/Delaware (C/D) Watershed, which lies 120 miles north of the City.

Up to now those lands, streams and reservoirs have been so clean that nature has been able to provide the filtration services for your water, saving you the cost of a $10 billion filtration plant and $300 million in annual maintenance costs. Such costs would, of course, be quite a hit to your pocketbook, even in a city of 8 million. However, you should consider the current dangers to your health as well as what is in your pocketbook.

THE MARCELLUS SHALE: The C/D Watershed sits on top of deep (5000 feet) deposits of natural gas trapped in pockets of shale rock, called Marcellus Shale. While these deposits have been around for millions of years, only recently has the confluence of rising energy prices and technological innovation in extraction made drilling for natural gas in Marcellus Shale potentially profitable.

Unfortunately, every stage of the extraction of the gas involves some danger to the quality of your water, the supply of your water, the amazing infrastructure that brings the water to you, and also to the system that allows the City to filter the water naturally and to avoid building that expensive filtration plant!

What dangers do you and your water face?

One is the chemicals used in drilling. Some 435 chemicals used in drilling contain ingredients known to be carcinogens and hazardous to health. Some of these chemicals have leaked during some aspect of the gas extraction process in other parts of the country, with subsequent deaths among livestock as big as cows and serious illness in humans.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney used his influence to exempt natural gas companies from the protection of the Safe Water Drinking Act. Under federal law, the natural gas companies do not have to reveal what the ingredients of their drilling chemicals are. A New York representative (Hinchey) has sponsored a bill in Congress to change this, but that bill is not yet law. Recently radioactive substances have been found in the materials released by natural gas mining.  If these chemicals get into the water supply, the former head of the City’s Department of Environmental Protection testified that the City would have to provide not just filtration, but ultra-micro filtration.  There is also some question of whether the filtration system could clean out all of the chemicals from the water.  Another thought that should give pause is that if there were an accident requiring filtration, the plant would not be in place to filter the water for years.  So, in the meantime, the City would be receiving contaminated water!

But would the City be able to receive enough water?!  Some 3 to 9 million gallons of water is pumped into the ground for EACH well in order to push that gas out!  Where does that water come from?  In the Catskill part of your Watershed, there is no legal authority is place to assure that the gas companies would not use so much water that the City would have a shortage.  No regulation currently assures that the drilling will not interfere with an adequate supply of water to the City.

Also, the millions of gallons of fresh water that goes in the wells contain those chemicals when the water comes out. Some of the contaminated water stays underground and could leak into the environment.  Hundreds of thousands of truck trips are required to carry the dirty water out, and with so many trips, not to mention cell phoning and texting drivers, accidents and spills are a very real possibility.  Storage and treatment of the dirty water present other opportunities for escape of the contaminants into the environment. These are not comfortable thoughts.

Perhaps even more importantly, the underground infrastructure needed to supply you with your water is old, some built in the 1800’s.  There are already leaks in aqueducts and very clever, educated people are working together to figure out how to fix them without disturbing the flow of water.  Several aspects of the drilling process set off underground pressures which could harm the infrastructure.  One process used to get rid of the waste water in some parts of the country set off seismic pressures and have even triggered earthquakes by disturbing a fault in the earth. This is more discomforting information.

Given all of the dangers to a watershed supplying water to some 9 million people, you might expect that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYC-DEC) would act to vigorously protect this watershed.  However, NYS-DEC has failed to do so.  In a recently published generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) of 809 pages, the agency allowed drilling for natural gas in two thirds of your Watershed, only two months for comments, and no public hearings. One needs many varieties of professional insight to understand those 809 pages.  So far the NYS-DEC has had to back down and allow some public hearings and has extended the period of public comment to December 30^th. This is still not sufficient time to absorb the huge report. Also, New York City has a final report on drilling due out sometime during December, and people will require time to study that report.  The December 30^th extension is virtually useless to CUNY students and their families.  Students will be in exams in early December and hopefully rebonding with families after the rigors of the semester during the December holidays.

The NYSDEC could allow drilling in the Watershed at the end of the comment period if there is no law passed that explicitly prohibits drilling in the Watershed, even though there are many aspects of drilling for which there is not adequate regulation. The former head of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection was one of many experts who testified about the inadequacy of both the report and the protections. Neither the Governor nor the Mayor has taken a firm stand against drilling in the Watershed, despite the lack of protections and the many dangers.  New York State law favors exploitation of resources and does not require sustainable economic development in the state.

Some sites that will provide you more information on this vital topic include:

The GEIS Report: < http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html

City Preliminary Report: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/natural_gas_drilling/rapid_impact_assessment_091609.pdf

General Info: Natural Gas www.cwconline.org Your Watershed www.nyc.gov/watershed

Protest Sites www.riverkeeper.org www.catskillmountainkeeper.org http://www.un-naturalgas.org/

One out of seven is even terrible in baseball; it is an absolutely horrifying statistic for a judge who is being seriously considered for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sonia Sotomayor has had her cases overruled six out of seven of the times that they have come before the Supreme Court. That is how radical, and how incompetent as a judge, she truly is.

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) —decision pending as of 5/26/2009 [update as of 6/29/09: reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)].

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Sonia Sotomayor is a judge who has been humiliated with an 8-0 smackdown of her judicial reasoning.  She has been overruled – meaning her legal judgment was contradicted – six out of seven times.  And the ONLY time her decision was upheld (Knight vs. Commissioner), her reasoning for the decision was faulted by every single judge on the panel.

That’s bad.  That is really, really bad.

In the Ricci v. DeStefano (i.e. the “New Haven firefighter case) Sotomayor in a single paragraph tossed out the case of a dyslexic firefighter who had spent $1000 on teaching aids and simply outworked his competition.  Being dyslexic doesn’t count; only being black should count as a disabling “handicap” for these black robed liberal bigots.

This “judge” who makes racism a basis for her rulings has made repeated statements to indicate that she will make racial bias a fundamental element of her judicial philosophy.  Consider again her comment: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  She is unfit to be a judge on ANY court; let alone the Supreme Court of the United States.

The last thing this country needs is another radical in robes, who will ignore the US Constitution and impose her own biased and defective judgment upon people and institutions demanding justice.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Elizabeth Benjamin of the NY Daily News has been providing excellent coverage of the flap between RFK Jr. and…well, just about everyone here lately.

New York’s environmentalists, the mayor, the governor and of course, those evil bottlers of sugary drinks (that’s nearly every drink on the market) are all up in arms over his latest New York Times OpEd piece which harshly criticizes New York’s so-called “bottle bill.”

Environmentalists Say: Et Tu, RFK Jr.?

May 29, 2009

Read more: “The Daily Politics – NY Daily News” – http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/05/environmentalists-say-et-tu-rf.html#ixzz0HGRgwA9x&A

Sheekey To RFK Jr.: Put A Cork In It

May 29, 2009

Read more: “The Daily Politics – NY Daily News” – http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/05/sheekey-to-rfk-jr-put-a-cork-i.html#ixzz0HGZcpT5w&A

Empathy.  Who doesn’t want some?

I mean, I suppose that some part of me, as a conservative, would love for some judge to come along and say, “There, there.  I’ll make sure those mean Democrats don’t do stuff you don’t want.  I’ll overturn the election.”

Only that isn’t the direction the “empathy river” flows, is it?  It’s a manure river that springs and flows from the radical left and routinely runs its banks to flood over conservatives.

In the case of Sonia Sotomayor, that crap river has run pretty deep and pretty wide.  It has run over white firefighters who made the mistake of playing by the rules against a racially-biased system increasingly geared to flood over them.  And in the case of Sotomayor, it is a river that would have flooded over every single American to the tune of billions of dollars had the Supreme Court not reversed her decision.

If Sotomayor gets appointed to the Supreme Court, you can bet that THIS crap river will be flowing over you soon:

Sotomayor Ruling Could Have Cost Consumers Billions

Tuesday, May 26, 2009
By: Phil Brennan

A decision rendered by Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, fortunately reversed by the Supreme Court on April 1, 2009, could have been extravagantly costly to American consumers, according to the Steve Milloy’s authoritative Junkscience.Com.

Charging that her nomination represents a potential threat to U.S. Consumers and to the economy in terms of energy and the environment, Milloy reported on her 2007 Second Circuit decision in Riverkeeper, Inc. V. EPA 475 F. 3d 83′

Milloy wrote that in her ruling Judge Sotomayor sided with “extreme green groups” who had sued the Environmental Protection Agency because the agency permitted cost-benefit analysis to be used in the determination of environmental protection technology for power plant cooling water intake structures.

Cost benefit analysis involves the balancing of the total expected costs of a proposal or project against its total expected benefits in order to determine its economic feasibility. Do the benefits outweigh or justify the cost?

According to Milloy, had the EPA been required to abide by Judge Sotomayor’s decision, U.S. Consumers would have been forced to pay billions of dollars more in energy costs every year as power plants producing more than one-half of the nation’s electricity would have had to undertake expensive retrofits.”

Noting that President Obama said he wanted somebody “who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works,” Milloy said that in the Riverkeeper case Sotomayor didn’t display too much of a “common touch” and “practical sense” when it came to the cost-benefit analysis.

Senators, Milloy advised, should probe whether Judge Sotomayor “lacks the common-sense realization that the benefits of environmental regulation ought to outweigh its costs — a worldview with ominous implications given the nation’s present rush toward cap-and-tax global warming regulation and other green mindlessness.”

What is truly sad, truly pathetic, and truly laughable (in a hysterical-laughing-into-a-crying-jag-whilest-curled-up-in-a-fetal-position sort of way) is that Americans have already said, “Please, sir, may we have some more” when it comes to massive energy taxes that will do to our economy what a German U-boat did to the Lusitania.

Judge Sotomayor clearly doesn’t have a whole lot of that “common touch” or “practical sense.”  Indeed, writing for the majority decision that overturned Sotomayor’s ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia:

noted that forcing compliance under Sotomayor’s reasoning would make companies spend nine times the amount necessary to accomplish “nearly the same benefit to the environment that cheaper technologies would achieve.”

Spend nine times more for very nearly the same benefit.  And liberals wonder why conservatives call them “insane.”

Now, it just so happens that “common touch” and “practical sense” didn’t matter very much when we voted for our president, either.  So why should it matter to us when we put yet another black-robed master over us for the rest of her life?

Let’s hear what Obama said he wanted:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

The guy we voted for as our president said he planned to bankrupt fully half of our source of electricity.

“Empathy” means millions of Americans freezing to death in the dark.

Get ready for it.  Because Obama’s and Sotomayor’s crap river is going to flood right down your family’s throat.

Believe it or not, the Supreme Court isn’t just for ruling on abortion and prayer in schools. The Supreme Court can be enviros biggest boon or bane, depending on the rulings, examples of which are Massachusetts v. EPA� or Kelo v. New London respectively. With that said greens’ eyes have been as glued to the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice as anyone else.

The first thing I found on Sotomayor was that Steve Milloy’s opposed to her, which naturally means I like her. �That not being enough though, I dug a little deeper and have found that her environmental record is favorable – but thin. She appears to have only ruled in one controversial environmental case, Riverkeeper v. EPA, a case I’m familiar with. Short rundown is that the Riverkeeper organization disagreed with the EPA’s regulations on fish kills involved with power plant’s water intakes. Basically, the Hudson River Power Plant sucks in huge amounts of fish in its water intakes and though the power plant had made some efforts to reduce fish kills, and the EPA had sanctioned their efforts, Riverkeeper thought it wasn’t in keeping with the law. The Clean Water Act mandates that companies should use “the best technology available” to reduce aquatic wildlife death. The power plant had complained that the “best technology available” was hugely cost prohibitive, and the EPA applied a cost/benefit analysis and concurred with them. SCOTUSblog has a summary of Sotomayor’s ruling:

Sotomayor wrote and opinion holding that the EPA was not permitted to engage in a cost-benefit analysis to determine �best technology available�; instead, it could consider cost only to determine �what technology can be �reasonably borne� by the industry� and whether the proposed technology was �cost-effective� – which, she concluded, requires the EPA in turn to determine whether the technology at issue is �a less expensive technology that achieves essentially the same results� as the best technology that the industry could reasonably bear. Thus, she explained, �assuming the EPA has determined that power plants governed by the Phase II Rule can reasonably bear the price of technology that saves between 100-105 fish, the EPA, given a choice between a technology that costs $100 to save 99-101 fish and one that costs $150 to save 100-103 fish . . . could appropriately choose the cheaper technology on cost-effectiveness grounds.� On this issue, Sotomayor remanded to the EPA, finding it �unclear� how the EPA had arrived at its conclusions and, in particular, whether the EPA had improperly weighed costs and benefits.

Sotomayor also held that the EPA could not consider restoration measures – such as restocking fish to compensate for fish killed by an intake system – when determining the best technology available for a particular power plant. Sotomayor wrote that �[r]estoration measures are not part of the location, design, construction, or capacity of cooling water intake structures, and a rule permitting compliance with the statute through restoration measures allows facilities to avoid adopting any cooling water intake structure technology at all, in contravention of the Act�s clear language as well as its technology-forcing principle.� Finally, Sotomayor also determined that, at a minimum, EPA�s determination that the CWA provision at issue applies to existing and new facilities was a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s decision, essentially finding that the Clean Water Act’s silence on cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness meant it was granting latitude to the agency.�

While I find it encouraging that Sotomayor ruled for the environmental organization, and think that her part on restoration/restocking a whopping bit of good sense, I don’t find anything she said to be “pro-green.” At least not in the sense that she was dripping with sentimentality about the birds and the bees.�

So, do environmentalists have a clear ally in their cause? One case is shaky evidence at best, even if it is encouraging. Do we at least get a level-headed and fair judge out of Sotomayor? I think that can be said for certain.

-Marc-

Brooklyn Independent Television’s Reporter Roundtable will tackle the controversial proposed EPA Superfund for Gowanus Canal.

The EPA is considering the infamous Gowanus Canal Area for its special Superfund status. While this may help the environmental issues in the area, it will potentially take several hundred million dollars and over 30 years to complete. Host Brian Vines is joined by Gowanus resident Lizzie Olesker, environmental lawyer David Yudelson and Joshua Verleun with Riverkeeper to discuss the many angles of the Gowanus Canal controversy.

Watch the entire episode now or tune in tonight on Time Warner 56, Cablevision 69, RCN 84 or Verizon 44 at 9:30pm for Reporter Roundtable.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” earlier this week to plug his annual Earth Day fundraiser:

Click here to watch the video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789#30344593

George Conk recently posted about Henry Hild, asking whether it was the last wooden workboat in the sixth boro.   I know of at least one, R. Ian Fletcher, shown below.  Fletcher has its own blog here.

What I recall from speaking with Captain John Lipscomb is that Fletcher began life on Delaware Bay as a patrol boat on commercial shellfish beds.

Anyone know of other wooden workboats?

I was lucky enough to attend the annual Riverkeeper Art Auction in New York City, this year’s taking place in Frank Gehry’s gorgeous glass IAC building in Chelsea. The event was star studded, with celebrities Richard Gere, Lauren Hutton, Matt Dillon, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (who is on the board of directors), hosting. Debbie Harry, aka Blondie, was the entertainment for the evening and brought back some memories for all of us, as well as some dance moves.

If you’re not familiar, Riverkeeper is “an independent, member-supported environmental organization founded on the premise that citizens themselves must roll up their sleeves to defend our waterways. They were originally founded in 1966 by fisherman and local community, to confront polluters for control of the Hudson River. They use a variety of tools to carry out their mission as environmental watchdog and advocate. These tools include: Enforcement and Litigation, Public Policy and Advocacy, Scientific Research, Smart Growth Initiatives, Citizen Watchdogs, Education and Public Awareness, and Grassroots Organizing. They have successfully investigated and prosecuted hundreds of environmental lawbreakers (including General Electric, ExxonMobil, Con Ed, the City of New York, the MTA, and the NY State Dept. of Transportation), and are credited with leading the battle to defend the Hudson River and New York City’s drinking water supply.”

The auction was very successful, due not just to Riverkeeper’s hard work and perseverance toward the cause, but also because of the amazing art work that was donated. Edward Burtynsky, Katherine Wolkoff, Tierney Gearon, Alexander Calder, David Maisel, William Wegman, and many other fantastic artists donated images, unique commissions, or photographs from their collections. But it’s not over yet, partnered with CharityBuzz, an international auction site with unique lots and experiences, has allowed Riverkeeper to maintain several items past their silent and live auction held the other night, one of which is a “study photography trip” to Santorini Greece for you and a guest with photographer William Abranowicz that includes daily photography lessons and excursions. I don’t know about you, but Santorini is sounding pretty good compared to the freezing temps here in New York. To bid on this exciting trip, visit the Riverkeeper Art Auction online via CharityBuzz by clicking here. The auction closes on February 2nd.

And to learn more about Riverkeeper, both for the Hudson as well as the many partner Riverkeepers they have founded all over the country, visit their website www.riverkeeper.org.

Here is a quick sneak peak at some of the photographs still up for bidding until February 2nd. You can click on the images to take you directly to the respective auction lot.

Amy's Theorem, Archival Pigment Print by Victor Schrager, 11"x13.5"

TV in the Sand, Archival Pigment Print by Stephen Wilkes, 24"x30"

This last week the Supreme Court has been hearing the case of Entergy v. Riverkeeper, which in layman’s terms boils down to Power Plants V. Fish, or, as always, The Bush Administration v. Environmentalists.

While not being directly relevant to the Rocky Mountain States at this stage, the case itself proves to be of relevance to just about anyone who is concerned about environmental conservation, clean water, and the role of the government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in protecting the environment.

Power Plants and the Environment Can Co-exist: Valmont Power Plant in Boulder uses circulating water from three reservoirs for cooling. The plant site is also recognized as a unique wildlife refuge.

The dispute in question is over what steps older power plants should take to limit water use and minimize damage to the environment. Currently older power plants pull water into intake pipes in order to cool machinery: in the U.S. an estimated 200 billion gallons per day. However, along with the water comes fish and other aquatic organisms which are killed in the process.

In order to prevent this carnage, a provision in the Clean Water Act requires power plants to install water intake structures that “reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” Whereas newer power plants have been constructed with closed-cycle cooling systems that to some extent alleviate the problem, the problem lies with the older power plants. Retrofitting older power plants with the machinery is costly and industry representatives argue that the costs could drive up the price of electricity and even cause some plants to close. All, they say, for the sake of a few fish.

In 2004, in response to industry pleas, the Bush administration passed a rule that allowed the power plants to chose among several alternatives to reduce environmental harm from cooling water intake structures. This rule allowed them to avoid installing the best available technology if the costs outweighed the benefits.

Without stating the obvious, the costs and benefits under consideration where not those of your average trout. And, in response to the rule, six states and a coalition of environmental groups, led by Riverkeeper, sued, arguing the Clean Water Act does not permit accounts of economic costs and benefits to be into account when deciding on cooling water intake rules.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed with this argument and struck down the regulation. However, this act only prompted the Bush administration and several utilities to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is now, therefore, considering legislation that will affect the economics of 550 power plants in the U.S. and the fate of many more fish.

The case, as presented, centers around Congress’s original intention in Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act and the phrasing of the provision. Did congress explicitly remove the consideration of costs and benefits from the calculation of the “best” technology? If so, the rule would be in favor of the fish. Or, is the provision ambiguous enough to allow the EPA to exercise control in considering the costs and benefits to all concerned?

U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer argued in the court on Tuesday December 9^th that the statute’s language is ambiguous and gives the EPA deference to balance costs and benefits. Arguing for the environmentalists, however, Georgetown University law professor Richard Lazarus said the statute clearly does not give the EPA this authority.

His argument was that best available technology “should not stop short of whatever is required to stop killing large quantities of river organisms.”

The judges, for the most part, were skeptical of the argument by Joseffer, and questioned how the economic costs and benefits of technology versus fish could be weighed in any meaningful way.

“Are 1,000 plankton worth $1 million?” said Justice Souter. “I don’t know.”

Given that it is almost impossible to put a price on the environment a cost-benefit analysis would be biased in favor of industry and would, Souter said, “basically eliminate the whole technology-driven point of the statute.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy said that his interpretation of the Clean Water Act was that best available technology meant “the most rigorous of standards,” and questioned where in the provision there were any suggestions with respect to cost considerations.

Lazarus, in discussing the role of the EPA, argued that the agency could consider whether the costs can be “reasonably borne by industry.” However, he argued that it is not in the position to determine whether the benefits are not worth the costs when considering the installation of the best technology.

While not all the justices were not in favor of the environmental stance, Justice Breyer attempted to strike a middle ground. He sketched out a vision of 316(b) in which costs were taken into account, and evenly balanced against benefits, but only in a limited fashion to prevent absurd results. He pointed out that for 30 years prior to the 2004 rule, the EPA has successfully “had a way” to consider whether the costs were “grossly disproportionate” and unreasonable to industry.

“Why not let sleeping dogs lie?” Breyer asked.

While the case is expected to be ruled on in the spring it raises broader questions than the well being of the fish and other aquatic creatures. A key issue is how we perceive and value the environment that we live in, and what sacrifices we are prepared to make in order to protect and preserve our national resources.

Can we afford the luxury of seeing ourselves as separate from our environment and trying to use the simple metric of economics to justify tampering with the ecosystem that balances the dynamics between the humans and the planet?

If the current state of the environment, natural resources, and world economics are anything to go on it would seem that the answer is not. While the well being of a few fish may seem insignificant in relation to our economics, that is simply a short-sighted and somewhat myopic perception. Unbalancing, wasting and destroying the natural environment is a course of action that could lead to no end of future problems, the least of them being economic.

Finally, we need to support and protect laws that have been put in place to protect vital resources and deliberately put them outside the realm of economic accountability. To interpret this particular provision in terms of a cost-benefits analysis would not only be disastrous but would be the start of a slippery slope towards an undermining of the intent of the Clean Water Act as established in Congress in 1974.

And who do we need to support this act? A government agency whose sole goal is to protect the environment. Now, there is a novel thought – an Environmental Protection Agency. Because right now you could be forgiven for thinking that the acronym EPA stood for the Energy Promotion Agency.

Resources

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/oral-argument-recap-entergy-v-riverkeeper/

Monday, December 8th, 2008 12:37 pm | Max Schwartz

Highest U.S. Court Ponders Power Plants and Fish Protection

J.R. Pegg

So I made it down to DC for Thanksgiving to see both family and friends (family for food, friends for debauchery), and upon my return was mildly thrown off my game when I realized that it’s already December.  I suppose that, since the advent of the Gregorian calendar over 400 years ago, one could have predicted that this past Monday would be December 1st.  In any case, suffice it to say that it snuck up on me this year.

December, of course, means holiday parties, and I’ve noticed that — despite my general aversion to the holidays and holiday parties in particular –  my proverbial dance card is slowly filling up.  And because misery loves company, I’m plugging the following in hopes that people might join me…

Tonight I have a company holiday party to attend on the early-ish side, work permitting, then the folks at Hamptons Undercover and Social Life Magazine are hosting a holiday party at Cain Luxe that a few friends are planning on hitting up.  Tomorrow, in addition to having last weekend’s host from DC up for the weekend, is the first Friday shindig at the Guggenheim, which I hear is pretty fun and have been meaning to check out.  While not a party per se, the Basic NYC folks are bringing in Mark Farina to DJ at the Sullivan Room on Saturday and I might have to get my house fix in, especially given that (despite their redesign being a bit wack) their sound system kicks ass. On Wednesday a friend of several friends is hosting a charity event for the Riverkeeper organization… That does it (I hope) for the next week or so. Please… Help me.

Also, I’m putting out advance notice that my old friend from Seattle, the lovely and talented Chloe Harris, is in town next Saturday at the Sullivan Room, and while I missed her last time I’m hoping I get a chance to stop by…

Not only am I overjoyed to hear this, I would love to see Obama offer him the Cabinet post.  He is perfect for the job.  No one has fought harder for the environment, IMHO, than Robert Kennedy Jr. 

Truthout has more on Obama’s considerations.

Obama’s transition planners are weighing several other celebrity-level political stars for Cabinet posts, including retired Gen. Colin L. Powell for secretary of defense or education, the officials said.

Kennedy’s cousin, Caroline Kennedy, who helped Obama lead his vice presidential search, is being considered for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, although some Obama officials doubt she would take the post. Obama is indebted to the Kennedy family for a hearty endorsement at a crucial point in the Democratic primaries.

The selection of Kennedy would be a shrewd early move for the new presidential team. Obama advisers said the nomination would please both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

The EPA enforces clean air and clear water laws. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and son of the late senator and attorney general Robert F. Kennedy, has long championed a cleaner water supply for New York City.

As an officer and attorney for the environmental watch group Riverkeeper, Kennedy has taken on governments and companies for polluting the Hudson River and Long Island Sound.

Kennedy gained Washington experience by fighting anti-environmental legislation in Congress in 1995 and 1996, when Newt Gingrich took over as House speaker.

Kennedy talked to Huffington Post about the consideration of the EPA post.

“You know what, I would be of service in any way that the administration asked me to be,” Kennedy told the Huffington Post. “But I am also very happy and I believe I am being effective doing the stuff I am doing currently.”

This would give the EPA unprecedented stature unlike anything I can ever recall.  It would also signal that Obama is going to make a strong commitment to the environment.  After what we have witnessed with George W. Bush’s willful neglect and push to deregulate this agency; it will send a resounding message to the world that he is very serious about environmental issues facing our nation.

Update:  Join me in the fight to protect our environment, our democracy, and our American Values.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions. Mr. Kennedy was named one of Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his success helping Riverkeeper lead the fight to restore the Hudson River. The group’s achievement helped spawn more than 130 Waterkeeper organizations across the globe.

Mr. Kennedy serves as Chief Prosecuting Attorney for the Hudson Riverkeeper and President of Waterkeeper Alliance. He is also a Clinical Professor and Supervising Attorney at Pace University School of Law’s Environmental Litigation Clinic and is co-host of Ring of Fire on Air America Radio. Earlier in his career he served as Assistant District Attorney in New York City. He has worked on several political campaigns including the presidential campaigns of Edward M. Kennedy in 1980, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

Here is his website link.  (H/T to muse)

I drive downstream on US 17.92 again this morning. But unlike last weekend— when I was actually headed for the river—today, I was headed for a legal hearing about the river. Huge difference: A few hours on the St. Johns yields infinite rewards, each carefully wrapped in a vision of a singular natural place. A legal hearing about it can rip logic into tiny shreds. And the visions? Unless they are inspired by Machiavelli, forget about them.

This is the final days of the legal suit filed by the St. Johns RiverKeeper (with Jacksonville and their nearby county) against the regional water management district and Seminole, the county where I live. It’s all about water squandering—and allowing water hogs to continue use as much as they want. Problem is, this bovine mentality is draining our aquifer, and in five years, the “District” will allow no more large groundwater permits.

The solution? Strictly enforced conservation ? A determination of the real value of water—with a related surtax on those who squander more than the rest? Or maybe a calculated slow-down in building until we can get a handle on our disappearing resource ?

Nope, folks. The solution is to allow business as usual. Except now, new water will come not from our mysterious creeks that flow through the soft karst conduits under us. It will come from the nation’s most historic river—one of only l4 in the country to be named as an ‘American Heritage River’. The waterway illustrated first by LeMoyne, then later by W.M. Hunt and Winslow Homer. The river that inspired Delius to write his most beloved orchestration. The liquid god that was once the Timucua’s sacred “River of the Sun.”

A 19th century river vision by Winslow Homer

An environmental expert from the City of Jacksonville was on the stand this morning when I walked in. The venue was a modest auditorium with folding tables and chairs with a tiny stage up front. Flanking the judge and the “witness stand” were two large plastic plants that were trying to be ferns, and one very sad American flag.

The expert, who supported the RiverKeeper’s perspective,  said the District’s very own “Florida Water Star” program—which they heavily promote on their website—clearly states that if all new homes were built with water efficient technology, they would not only save the homeowners money—they would conserve enormous amounts of water. What a concept! In fact, they would save so much that the removal of 5.5 mgd from the St. Johns as planned by the county to make up for the groundwater deficit wouldn’t even have to happen.

Seems reasonable. Especially since the District played the program so big, touting it as one of the reasons that they really, really cared about our water. A prominent headline on the site even bragged: “Taking the Lead in Water Conservation.” The county attorney, natch, tore the argument apart, insisting it was only “theoretical”—a hopeful dream— and thus, could not be applied to real life. It was another perfect Orwellian moment, where people with way too much money turn truth on its head, just because they think they can.

How about a reality check, right here in Seminole County ? A couple years ago, I had the rare misfortune to sit in on a public ceremony where a Young Republican-supported developer was wedged onto the Seminole Soil & Water Conservation Board, due to massive funding for his very first campaign. No conservation credentials, and apparently, very little regard for his fellow non-Republican humans. The developer, Chris Dorworth, was full of bluster, and during his first meeting he said he was a believer in “less is more.” He actually said that. Not long after that, Dorworth—after ignoring his duties as chair of the SSWCD, ran for a state house seat and won, although only barely. After he left, the SSWCD shut down its office because its new “leaders” did little to sustain it.

Not too long ago, the Orlando Sentinel reported Dorworth— the poster boy for conspicuous consumption—was among the greatest water hogs in all of Seminole, averaging up to 89,000 gallons a month. (Dorworth blew it off, blaming it on faulty irrigation, somehow broken by the city utility workers.) Just for the record, an average homeowner uses about 150-170 gallons a day—or 4,500 to 5,100 gallons monthly.

Yep, less is more. And in a fair world, mindless users of our commonly-shared potable water from the Floridan Aquifer might take a lesson from that.

I thought of this weirdness when I drove away from the modest little auditorium where the hearing was held, past the Seminole County Historical Museum, where county budget cuts had laid off the long-time director and the entire staff—not far from the Seminole County Environmental Studies Center where the county also tried to scuttle their $1 million budget because of shortfalls. (Indeed, some 72 county workers were downsized without any warning because of this recent crunch.) Yet, Seminole County is now spending over $2 million in taxpayers’ money—my money and your money—to use the best Orwellian spin money can buy to absolve themselves and their developer buddies of responsibility for their inability to conserve. Less is more. Right up to the point where it isn’t.

Within this “might is right” perspective, away goes the liquid—and all that it has touched for centuries in the watershed of the venerable St. Johns River.

I had hoped the media would have been there to more fully report this story. But their new corporate bosses— over extended with leveraged buy-outs and obsessed with short-term quarterly profits— have laid off some of the best and brightest of their staffs. Gotta tighten the belt, you know. Cuz after all, less is more.

RFK JR. AT FORECASTLE FEST THIS WEEKEND

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is this year’s keynote speaker at the annual Forecastle Festival in Louisville, Kentucky (happening all weekend, with RFK Jr.’s speech scheduled for Sunday at 2:30 p.m.).

In advance of his appearance at Forecastle, Kennedy gave an interview to Velocity Weekly, in which he discusses green solutions to our energy crisis, the 2008 election, why he’s supporting Senator Obama for president, and hints at his own political plans for the future.

Although the interview is quite good, we did have to wonder, “what’s up with that photo?” As for the cutesy caption, we think what the cutline editor meant to say was “Don’t mess with this Kennedy” rather than “don’t miss with this Kennedy.”

Perhaps Bobby should consider sending one of his hawks over there to demand a correction.

Robert Kennedy Jr.
Sound environmental policy is in our economic and security interest, the Forecastle keynoter says

+ enlarge   Don’t miss with this Kennedy. He’ll sic a hawk on you. (File photo)

By Joseph Lord

What got you involved in environmental activism?

I’ve been interested in the environment from when I was a little kid. I went hunting and fishing when I was very, very young. I was just involved with animals. I was raising homing pigeons when I was 10 years old, training hawks when I was 9, which I still do today. My father took us to lakes and to see the wildlife in the area, and he was very careful about explaining to us that this is part of our American heritage. The environment was a source of our virtues and our values as a people. I always looked at the environment as a civil rights and human rights issue — the most important one.

You co-host a program on Air America Radio, but what other environmental work do you do?

For 25 years I’ve been working for the Riverkeeper and the National Resources Defense Council. As an attorney, I’ve worked on several hundred public interest cases against polluters on the Hudson River and waterways across North America. Riverkeeper was a group started by a blue-collar coalition of commercial and recreational fishermen to protect their livelihood. And it was very much consistent with the kind of values I’d been raised with, to believe that a clean environment was a democratic right, that the best measure of how a democracy functions is how it distributes the goods of the land: the air, the water, the wildlife, the fish — assets of the community. Does the government allow those to be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy people, or corporations, or does it maintain it in the hands of all the people?

Are you encouraged by the recent surge of interest in environmental issues?

There’s a vested interest by powerful people in continuing to pollute — it’s not a battle that you “kind of” win. It’s one you have to keep fighting. But today, there’s much more of a realization that good environmental policy is also 100 percent of the time good economic policy. For individual corporations, governments and nations, we need to start focusing on our environment.

So what is the most serious environmental issue we’re facing?

In the United States, the most critical issue is the way we use energy. We use it in a way that weakens our national security and makes us more prone to entanglement with foreign dictators who hate democracy and who are despised by their own people. We’re more likely to be involved in trillion-dollar wars. And it causes global warming. It also destroys our economy. We’re buying oil mainly from nations that don’t like us, that don’t share our values. Are we going to continue down that path or are we going to look at the alternatives? We have really extraordinary alternatives in this country. Every country that has de-carbonized its economy has experienced immediate prosperity. We’re losing jobs abroad — if we invested in a clean economy, we’d be creating an economy that can’t be outsourced. We’d be building solar and wind and geothermal plants in this country and growing our economy and creating jobs that can’t be sent to other countries.

What one action, if every American took it, could improve the environment?

One small thing: Vote for Barack Obama. That’s the one small thing that’s more important than recycling your garbage or buying a Prius or a compact fluorescent light bulb. There are these politicians who are just indentured servants of Big Coal and Big Oil.

You were an early Hillary Clinton supporter, right?

Yes. I’ve always loved Barack Obama, too. I always thought we had two great candidates. I’m proud to be supporting him and working for him now.

Have you ever considered seeking public office yourself?

You know, I’ve got six kids, and my priorities are there. But if something opened up, I would definitely consider it.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will give the Forecastle Festival keynote address at 2:30 p.m. Sunday at the Belvedere.

Editor’s Note: Thanks to a fellow kayaker I’ve learned that there was no bald eagle attack. It was an unfortunate hoax by the Riverkeeper blogger (no, not on April Fool’s Day). That’s glad news for both species involved, but I’m sorry to pass along misinformation that was presented in a straight fashion by what’s normally a terrific organization. The Riverkeeper photo blog has now inserted a “just kidding” clarification.  

Here’s the original post that has been revealed as a hoax:

This is a little out of our usual range, but it’s hard to resist mentioning this odd, brief note in the Riverkeeper photo log. It seems that on April 17 a Hudson River kayaker was attacked by a bald eagle near Castleton, New York. Local paddlers got word of the incident through the NYCKayaker email list hosted by the Hudson River Watertrail Association. With Bald Eagles becoming more common as far south as the Bronx (nearby Westchester County is home to a thriving annual Audubon Society-sponsored Eagle Fest), urban paddling daytrippers have taken an understandable interest in the news. 

Riverkeeper records no outcome (from which we can infer it was brief and all parties went home safely), and the eagle is a small smudge in this photo. But wow! We’ll research some of the possible causes for the aggression, or misguided defense.