theday.com (New London, Conn.), July 1, 2007

A LIVING CHEMISTRY LESSON

[Rachel's introduction: "When our water supplies or coastal environments are at risk, applicants should have to prove their project will not cause harm. Of course this is difficult, but denying some projects that might have been safe may be necessary for adequate long-term protection. This precautionary principle needs to be built into our environmental planning."]

By James N. Kremer

What we might call "the n problem" is a curious one. The pollution of coastal waters by inadvertent over-fertilization with nitrogen is arguably the most serious threat to coastal ecosystems worldwide.

As with other high-profile environmental issues, several interesting characteristics aggravate our attempts to manage the problem effectively. First, it came upon us quickly. The nitrogen problem in coastal waters became apparent largely in the last 30 years, and few scientists and engineers saw it coming. We've reached the present level of impact many times faster than global deforestation, human population pressure, or greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere.

Second, we can't blame "bad guys." While some environmental crises can be blamed on corporate entities, nitrogen is essential for all life and is linked to our normal daily activities, especially diet. The sensitivity of our environment to bio-active forms of nitrogen is not surprising, since all plants and animals on land and sea need it. Admittedly, nitrogen from fossil fuel combustion by vehicles and industry aggravates the problem so gas guzzlers and energy wasters deserve some blame, but the larger share of nitrogen pollution locally comes from the benign activities of domestic waste (septic systems and commercial sewage treatment facilities) and fertilization of yards, gardens and crops.

Third, the links and pathways of nitrogen connecting us to the sea are surprisingly complex. Many forms of chemicals containing nitrogen move around in dust and gasses in the atmosphere, in rain, surface waters and underground aquifers, in soils, plants and in the food and waste of all animals.

Some processes are direct and obvious: some of us apply fertilizer to our lawns and ornamental plants. Other processes are indirect and obscure: nitrogen entering our coastal waters in groundwater today may have left septic systems far upland 25 years ago. (Even properly functioning, standard-technology domestic waste treatments do not remove nitrogen well.)

Fourth, the culture of science is surprisingly conservative. Science is slow to embrace new information. We cannot always make the right decision, and scientists prefer the mistake of not accepting a true result right away to the mistake of accepting a false one. Therefore, information used to inform policy may be scientifically incomplete or obsolete.

In my view, the following factors in the fabric of the nitrogen problem have implications for effective local response. The parts of the nitrogen problem that we can deal with most effectively are linked to personal decisions and to development in coastal watersheds. I'm not an expert on municipal government, but I've watched cases where towns are having difficulty preventing development applications in areas that I agree are inappropriate. It's not the development, per se, it's the wrong place for the project.

Parts of the approval process appear to facilitate development. Local regulations by planning, zoning and wetlands commissions have features originally built-in as safeguards that can work against solving such problems.

** Burden of Proof: Our judicial presumption of innocence lets some guilty persons go free in preference to convicting the innocent. Presently, many towns must approve development plans that meet the technical regulations. Should proposed developments be presumed safe unless proven unsafe? Shifting the burden of proof makes sense when there are potentially dire consequences.

oPrecedent: Change is difficult. It seems unfair to change the rules. If a development plan would have been approved in the past, is it unfair to deny it today? Yet, we have to be willing to do this, or we restrict new information and changing conditions from informing our decisions.

oRole of Science: Scientists reach consensus slowly. It's not surprising that the information transferred from science to public policy lags behind, and as a result current regulations are not based on the most recent scientific knowledge.

The public needs to realize that nitrogen pollution is a serious problem that everyone can do something about, even before official policies change. Using less fertilizer (or none) is easy and direct. Ten to 50 percent of the nitrogen pollution is from fertilizer in local watersheds. Also, the typical Americans' diet is protein rich, and most of the "N" in what we eat passes as waste, is not removed by on-site or municipal treatment, and eventually reaches our waters. Shifting to a "Mediterranean diet" of more veggies and less protein could reverse the predicted increase in "N" fertilizer use nationwide.

Regulations and policies need to respond effectively to change. To some extent we do this now, but perhaps not effectively enough. "Adaptive management" is a widely appreciated theory, but difficult to implement.

Regulations should enforce general goals, with details evaluated and changed in response to new problems and new knowledge. This adaptive strategy conflicts with the primacy of precedent and it can be abused. But society must be able to change when new information shows our present course has high risks.

Finally, who bears the burden of proof needs to be considered together with risk. When consequences are serious, it is appropriate to require proof of no damage from a proposal rather than to require the public to prove that damage is likely.

When our water supplies or coastal environments are at risk, applicants should have to prove their project will not cause harm. Of course this is difficult, but denying some projects that might have been safe may be necessary for adequate long-term protection. This precautionary principle needs to be built into our environmental planning.

James N. Kremer is a professor of marine sciences at the Avery Point branch of the University of Connecticut.

Copyright 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co.