Rachel's Precaution Reporter #100
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
From: The News Register (Aurora, Nebraska) ................[This story printer-friendly]
July 24, 2007
PREACHING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
[Rachel's introduction: Carolyn Raffensberger is challenging farmers to "change the story of agriculture." This can be done through use of the Precautionary Principle, an idea that Raffensberger shared Saturday with farmers from around the country recently at "The Grain Place" in Marquette, Nebraska. "The ethical way of proceeding is to prevent suffering, not just to fix it afterwards," Raffensberger said.]
By Jonna Michelle Huseman
Farmer and environmentalist Carolyn Raffensberger is calling all farmers.
She is calling them to change the face of cancer, to battle the struggles of autism and to beat diabetes head on.
Most of all, Raffensberger is challenging farmers to "change the story of agriculture." All of this can be done, according to Raffensberger, through use of the Precautionary Principle, an idea that Raffensberger shared with farmers from around the country Saturday afternoon at "The Grain Place." "The ethical way of proceeding is to prevent suffering, not just to fix it afterwards," Raffensberger said.
Developed in Germany by local citizens who were concerned that the Black Forest was drying, Raffensberger said that when applied to farming, the Precautionary Principle, which suggests that humans prevent suffering, can be life-changing.
The principle of which Raffensberger speaks and lives by has already changed her life.
The idea of preventing harm first entered Raffensberger's world when she was a child.
Her father, a doctor in Illinois, saw a steady increase in birth defects and brain tumors in children.
"He was convinced that they were related to the environment," Raffensberger said.
Touched by her father's concern for human life, Raffensberger has devoted her life to helping society through her unique farming methods.
Today, Raffensberger works with doctors and other health professionals and said the increase in debilitating diseases has only gone up since she was a child.
Raffensberger used breast cancer as a prime example and said the women of her mother's generation had a one in 25 chance of getting breast cancer. She herself faces a one in seven chance and her daughter's generation of women will face a one in three chance of getting breast cancer.
"Health statistics across the country are going the wrong way," Raffensberger said. "The genetics have not changed since my mother's generation." Raffensberger attributes such numbers to the environment and believes that diseases like breast cancer can be prevented by looking for alternative methods of farming.
"The old way of doing business was just to do a cross benefit analysis and a risk assessment," Raffensberger said, explaining that it was acceptable for some women to have breast cancer or some children to suffer from autism as a result of these "practical" farming methods.
Now, she is asking farmers throughout the country to look for different alternatives and experiment with different ways of growing crops.
"Rather than go ahead and evaluate the risk of this particular pesticide, what we do is evaluate all of the possible alternatives," Raffensberger said.
She also encouraged new ways of creating hybrid crops and called the Vetter's "Grain Place" farm a model for farmers around the world.
Though her words were encouraging, Raffensberger admitted that she understands first-hand how difficult change can be. She and her husband own farms in North Dakota and Iowa and sometimes receive negative feedback regarding the Precautionary Principle method, the main one centering around the fact that the Precautionary Principle has not yet been scientifically proven.
But, Raffensberger believes there is hope, especially through America's Midwest farmers who she calls innovative and creative.
And aside from applying the Precautionary Principal to farming, Raffensberger encourages all persons to apply it to their daily lives, in an effort to care for future generations.
"The Precautionary Principle and preventing harm to the commons is a key task of everyone," she said.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Lawn & Landscape Magazine .......................[This story printer-friendly]
July 16, 2007
THE YEAR OF EMOTIONALLY DRIVEN PESTICIDE ISSUES
[Rachel's introduction: The embattled pesticide industry's perspective: "Precautionary principle-based proposals continue to be introduced in state legislatures along with bills for 'toxic reduction,' local authority, biomonitoring and 'sustainability.' Such bills are driven by an active and vocal minority and have generally lacked any scientific foundation."]
By RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment)
Though we are just past the halfway mark in 2007, it is not too early, from a state and local policy perspective, to label this as the year of emotion. What does that label mean in practical terms? In state houses, county board rooms and town halls emotionally-driven public policy has trumped science and fact this year with respect to pesticide and fertilizer availability for professionals and homeowners. While momentum against science-based policy making has been building steadily for about three years, it is safe to say 2007 will be remembered as the year emotion and political expediency eclipsed science and common sense.
State Issues
As of this writing, nine state legislatures are still in session and RISE has been tracking some 521 bills in 41 states -- with focus on more than 200 bills with the potential to impact pesticide and fertilizer availability and use. Precautionary principle-based proposals continue to be introduced in state legislatures along with bills for "toxic reduction," local authority, biomonitoring and "sustainability." Such bills are driven by an active and vocal minority and have generally lacked any scientific foundation.
This year saw much "feel good" legislation addressing a phantom problem and will ultimately have little or no measurable impact. Good examples are state proposals to restrict or ban phosphorus fertilizers or regulate their content in Florida and Wisconsin -- other sources of phosphorus in water have not been considered, nor has the biological plausibility of asserted "harms." Even state-specific university turf research is being deliberately ignored.
On the pesticide front, the eastern United States has seen the most action with Connecticut expanding its ban on school pesticide use to include playgrounds and playing fields for grades kindergarten through eighth grade. New York, Rhode Island and Washington contemplated similar bills for day care centers and schools.
Lawn and landscape professionals will continue to see proposals impacting product choice for the remainder of this year and into 2008 in -- New York, Minnesota, Oregon, Maine, Tennessee, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California and Washington.
Local Issues
While many in the U.S. lawn and landscape industries continue to monitor Canadian bans and restrictions on product use, Canadian-style local proposals are here in the lower 48 and have morphed into all sorts of policies. The village of Schaghticoke, N.Y., earlier this year passed an ordinance requiring a fee and permit for each and every pesticide application, even though such laws are illegal because the state has a pesticide preemption law. Westchester and Suffolk Counties in N.Y. continue to contemplate bans on phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers used on lawns despite university research specific to their geography showing such bans are unnecessary. The debate about the benefits of urban turf has been mostly one-sided at the local level with detractors winning the day.
What Can You Do?
Given the number of state bills and the possibility of local policies in some 85,000 municipalities, everyone in our industry needs to actively monitor what is happening where they live and operate. One good first step is to get to know your local elected officials and their voting records; another good step is to become aware of your town and county meeting agendas and plan to attend periodically during the year. Also, contact RISE when you learn about a state or local proposal with the potential to impact your product choice.
Each of us has a role to play in balancing the public debate and ensuring science and not emotion drives good public policy. Drop us an e-mail at grassroots@pestfacts.org or contact Elizabeth Grotos, RISE grassroots manager at egrotos@pestfacts.org.
Copyright 1997-2007, GIE Media, Inc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Maine Sunday Telegram ..............................[This story printer-friendly]
July 22, 2007
TOXIC CHEMICALS INSIDE US ARE A NIGHTMARE WE CAN END
[Rachel's introduction: Hazardous substances found in citizens of Maine should arouse government to remove the health threats.]
By Nancy Ross
[Nancy Ross, an associate professor of environmental policy at Unity College, is on the steering committee of the Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine (www.cleanandhealthyme.org).]
Toxic chemicals lurk within innocent people. This isn't the tagline of a horror movie or summer science fiction.
It's "Body of Evidence," an analysis by the Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine of pollution in the bodies of 13 Mainers who generously consented to publicize the results.
The 71 chemicals the study measured don't come from terrorist poisonings or toxic spills. Much worse. They're in everyday household products and in our food, air and water.
Phthalates in perfume and baby toys: Phthalates are used to soften plastics, including baby toys. They also permeate personal care products, labeled as "fragrance" in perfume, hair spray, deodorant, nail polish and soap. Minute levels of phthalates have been statistically linked to sperm damage in men and genital changes in fetuses.
"Body of Evidence" found that frequent perfume users Vi Raymond of Winthrop, Hannah Pingree of North Haven and Paulette Dingley of Auburn had twice the national median level of phthalates.
Brominated flame retardants in dust: These retardants, called PBDEs, are added to TV and other electronic casings and to upholstery, curtains and other fabrics. From there they leach into air, food and household dust -- and into people and wildlife. Studies in lab animals show harm to memory, learning and behavior from low levels of PBDEs.
Lauralee Raymond, Vi's daughter, also from Winthrop, and Bette Kettell of Durham had total PBDE levels above the median found in 62 women from California and Indiana.
Mercury in fish: Mercury comes in products like fluorescent bulbs and thermostats, but most mercury in Maine arrives airborne from coal-fired power plants. It's washed into streams and lakes and builds in the food chain -- with exposures highest for people who eat lots of fish such as tuna.
Mercury hurts brains, particularly developing brains of fetuses and children. Even at low levels, exposure in the womb leads to deficits in memory, attention and motor control.
Pingree, Lauralee Raymond and Elise Roux of Windham, all of childbearing age and frequent eaters of fish high on the food chain, had mercury levels twice the national median.
WHAT TO DO?
In the environmental policy classes I teach, the first question students ask when we look at toxics in everyday products is "How can I lower my risk?"
It's a teachable moment. Sure, you can search the Internet for deodorant without phthalates and stop eating big fish, but how do you avoid household dust?
After reflection, students usually argue for an approach known as the precautionary principle: We don't know for sure the effects of toxic chemicals in our bodies. But we do know that what we don't know can hurt us. And we shouldn't have to live in a world any more dangerous than it has to be.
Maine families have thousands of chemicals to worry about aside from those sampled in "Body of Evidence" -- chemicals whose effects on human health are suspect or unknown. The solution to toxic chemicals in our bodies and our children's bodies isn't careful consumption. This is the time and place for government action to protect us.
FEDERAL FAILURE, STATE PROMISE
Unfortunately, the federal regulatory system treats chemicals as innocent until proven guilty. In 30 years, only six chemicals have been banned of the 80,000 in use in homes and workplaces. Only 10 percent have been tested for safety.
If the feds can't do it, you may ask, how can the states?
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said the states are laboratories of democracy. That was good advice 75 years ago and it's good policy today.
California requires labeling of carcinogens. Washington State has phase-out plans for chemicals with long lives in the environment and humans.
Maine's record on toxic-chemical reduction to date is good. We've banned many products containing mercury, lead and arsenic. A new law requires safer alternatives to PBDEs. A Governor's Task Force on Safer Chemicals will make recommendations this fall on a comprehensive chemical policy.
Your support of a solution can make it happen. Call on your state legislators (federal, too):
** To require safety of all chemicals;
** To require full health and safety information for all chemicals;
** To support research and development of safer alternatives.
These policies will not only end our toxic nightmare but provide incentives for a "green chemistry" marketplace to flourish.
Copyright 2007 Blethen Maine Newspapers
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: eGov Monitor (London, UK) ...........................[This story printer-friendly]
July 20, 2007
BRITISH MPS CALL FOR BAN ON DEVELOPMENT NEAR POWER LINES
[Rachel's introduction: Members of the British Parliament have called for a precautionary approach to development near high-voltage power lines because of evidence linking power lines to leukemia in children.]
MPs [Members of Parliament] have urged the Government to ban new homes and schools within 60m of existing high voltage overhead power transmission lines.
That call has come from a cross-party group of backbench MPs who have published a report considering the association between overhead power lines and the risk of childhood leukaemia.
The MPs' report also makes a case for a moratorium on building new homes and schools within 30m of lower voltage overhead power lines.
The report was published following the setting-up of a parliamentary commission on childhood leukaemia and electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
Dr Howard Moate, the Dartford Labour MP who chaired the group, said the Government should act on their advice and adopt the precautionary principle in this instance.
He said: "The most recent scientific research has indicated that there may be a link between childhood leukaemia and proximity to electricity pylons. It would be wrong to wait any longer before taking action."
Earlier this year a joint Government/industry working party (the Stakeholder Advisory Group on EMF) failed to decide whether a moratorium on development near power lines could be justified.
http://www.egovmonitor.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Standard (Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia) ....[This story printer-friendly]
July 20, 2007
SEISMIC TEST BAN CALL
[Rachel's introduction: "We should really give whales the benefit of the doubt and take greater care of them, including timing (testing) so it won't have any impact," Councillor Ermacora said.]
By Shane Fowles
Seismic testing should be banned from Logans Beach around key calving times, according to a Warrnambool councillor.
Cr [Councillor] Jacinta Ermacora called for stricter controls on offshore seismic exploration following a lack of southern right whales at the key habitat this season.
Their absence heightened speculation about the effects of seismic testing, with Santos exploring as close as 14 kilometres off the coast in May and June. Cr Ermacora called for the precautionary principle to be used while scientific data on the issue was inconclusive.
"We should really give whales the benefit of the doubt and take greater care of them, including timing (testing) so it won't have any impact," Cr Ermacora said.
"It makes sense from a planning perspective...to check the testing against environmental, heritage and safety concerns. We have to be responsible in all our actions in relation to the whales _ particularly now the council has a provision to protect them."
Santos has argued there was no proof seismic testing affected whales and work halted immediately if any were seen in the area.
However, with no sightings of the threatened species this year, the city council resolved to examine the limited research on the subject.
"The whales add a valuable dimension in attracting tourists to Warrnambool," economic development director Bill Millard said.
"If any external impacts has the potential to jeopardise it, we should develop our own views on that."
Cr Ermacora's call came as the Federal Government improved guidelines for protecting whales in areas of gas and oil exploration.
A key plank of the new policy backed her recommendation to plan seismic operations around important areas, like Logans Beach.
"In these biologically important habitats operators are encouraged to operate at times of year that will avoid overlap with the presence of whales," it reads. The revised guidelines also indicated baleen whales, like the southern right species, were likely to be sensitive to sounds generated by seismic testing.
However, the extremely limited data did not allow easy conclusions to be drawn, with no research at all done on the impact on southern rights.
A typical seismic survey may involve many hundred thousand signals spread during several weeks of parallel passes.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Berkeley (Calif.) Daily Planet .................[This story printer-friendly]
July 13, 2007
UC REGENTS EXPECTED TO APPROVE LAB'S EXPANSION
[Rachel's introduction: "As for the city's plea for the lab to adopt the precautionary principle, the DEIR [draft environmental impact report] says following existing laws and regulations are adequate mitigations.... While acknowledging new programs will lead to significant increases in the amounts of dangerous materials stored and created on site, the lab contends existing rules and laws cover the dangers."]
By Richard Brenneman
The UC [University of California] Regents are scheduled to approve two key environmental documents Monday, setting the stage for a major expansion at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The most significant is the environmental impact report (EIR) for the lab's master plan for the next 18 years. The two other environmental documents pave the way for demolishing the Bevatron and building a 25,000-square-foot guest house for visiting experts and researchers.
First on the agenda of the board's Committee on Grounds and Buildings Monday meeting is the final draft of the lab's Long Range Development Plan 2025 (LRDP).
Calling for 884,000 square feet of new buildings and up to 500 new parking spaces and 860 new employees, the document also spells out the planned demolition of 272,000 square feet of existing buildings.
While the regents will vote on a full EIR for the LRDP, the documents for the guest house consist of an environmental initial study coupled with the declaration of no significant environmental impacts.
Construction on the guest house, a $10.9 million hotel-style building with 73 beds in 60 rooms, could begin in December, with completion planned for March, 2009.
A third environmental document has been completed by the lab, but isn't on the agenda -- the final EIR on demolition of the lab's Building 51 and the Bevatron, the world's first large-scale atomic particle accelerator.
All three documents are posted at the lab's website, www.lbl.gov/Community/env-rev-docs.html, and the full LRDP EIR is posted at ww.lbl.gov/Community/LRDP/index.html.
The committee meeting is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. on the UC Santa Barbara campus.
Comments, responses
A large part of the LRDP final EIR is composed of critical comments from the city, community organizations and members of the public concerned about the impact of both the lab's massive expansion and its cumulative effects when added to UC Berkeley's own plans for the nearby southeast campus.
One issue complicating site development is the presence of toxic compounds in the soil and groundwater created by past activities at the lab.
Listed contaminants include volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, "very small amounts of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons," hazardous metals and tritium, a radioactive isotope of the gaseous element hydrogen.
In response to concerns by the East Bay Municipal Utility District about possible exposures during installation of underground utilities at the site, the document promises that all the contamination sites are documented, and precautionary measures would reduce any possible exposures to less than significant levels.
The document contains two letters outlining City of Berkeley concerns: a 29-page summary from City Manager Phil Kamlarz and a nine-page letter from Public Works Transportation Division Principal Planner Matt Nichols detailing the specifics of city transportation concerns.
One overarching city concern is having to deal with two separate LRDPs involving developments with concentrated impacts on one finite area of the city.
A city lawsuit is already underway and linked with actions filed by neighbors and environmentalists challenging the regents' adoption of the final EIR for the university's Southeast Campus Integrated Projects, which will add another third-of-a-million square feet of construction immediately downhill from the lab.
While the lab's EIR insists the lab and the university are separate entities, the city has raised questions, and the lab acknowledges that both UC Berkeley and the lab -- a U.S. Department of Energy complex operated under contract by UC -- share staff and some of the same facilities. The lab also owns two buildings on campus, the Calvin and Donner labs.
But lab officials insist that two separate LRDPs are appropriate, and contend that nothing in the California Environmental Quality Act says otherwise.
Multiple concerns
Some of the questions raised by the city concern one site designated as a city landmark and buildings considered eligible for landmark status.
The Bevatron building, which housed the world's first large-scale particle accelerator, was rejected as a landmark by Berkeley's Landmarks Preservation Commission, but commissioners did give recognition to the site itself. Two other buildings considered candidates were already covered in the lab's existing LRDP 2006, lab officials contend.
As for the city's questions about the lab's impacts on a potential designated cultural landscape, the report contends that developments will respect the landscape and protect views to the maximum extent possible.
While the report acknowledged the city's contention that a catastrophic earthquake could lead to prolonged road closures, it said that "LBNL has in place policies and procedures" to maintain staff health and safety and "manage traffic through the hill site."
The university rejected outright the city's contention that "significantly increasing the population in a high-geologic hazard area cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level solely through engineering."
As for the city's plea for the lab to adopt the precautionary principle, the DEIR states following existing laws and regulations are adequate mitigations.
Declaring the lab isn't covered by the city's Manufactured Nanoparticle Disclosure Ordinance, which requires reports on facilities making or using the microscopic technology, the lab "intends to provide on-going information of interest to the City in regard to the Lab's work" in the nano realm.
While acknowledging new programs will lead to significant increases in the amounts of dangerous materials stored and created on site, the lab contends existing rules and laws cover the dangers.
Response to concerns over nanotech in a letter from Pamela Shivola, the EIR replied that the lab has safely worked with nano-sized bacteria and viruses.
Responding to her concerns about the BP-funded Energy Biosciences Institute, which will be included in the Helios Building described in the EIR, the document states that a separate, full environmental review will be prepared for that building. The structure will also be built so that it won't disturb an existing underground plume of tritium in the area, according to the LRDP EIR.
Other worries
In responses to concerns that the large number of faults in the lab area might trigger quakes, the report contends that the only likely surface rupture would come from the Hayward Fault itself, which is located south of the lab buildings, offering reports by the state Geological Survey as support.
Several hundred area residents signed petitions from the Preserve the Strawberry Creek Watershed Alliance, which has called for a moratorium on building in the canyon and warned of the reported dangers of nanotech.
Among the measures urged by the Sierra Club were: Leaving stands of trees intact and preserving the natural corridor of Strawberry Creek (a plea seconded by the Urban Creeks Council); minimizing truck traffic during construction by relocating excavated topsoil locally; using biodiesel-powered new construction equipment; shifting research toward peaceful uses of technology; disallowing any net gain in parking, and installation of a funicular railway to reduce car use.
Gene Bernardi, a frequent lab critic, offered the simplest solution: Close it down, clean up the toxics and let the radioactivity decay in place.
Ignacio Chapela, a UC Berkeley microbial biologist and an outspoken critic of the BP project, decried the lab's increasing emphasis on creating genetically modified organisms in search of new fuel sources -- research he said would created transgenic organisms which threatened "the entire canyon and the city and bay below."
Chapela also said construction of the new buildings would interfere with the use of the canyon and environs for teaching by university faculty.
The report rejected his worries about genetically modified organisms, and said his concerns about the use of the canyon for teaching weren't relevant to the EIR itself.
Significant Error
One obvious error in the document came in a response to a letter from Wendy Markel, president of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association.
Joining with the Berkeley Planning and Landmarks Preservation commissions plea to locate development elsewhere than in the hills, Markel asked what university property in Richmond could serve as an alternate location.
"Is any of the university property in Richmond contaminated?"" she asked.
In response, the EIR noted that the university's Richmond Field Station "has a history of soil and groundwater contamination," adding that "UC Berkeley is working with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement a cleanup and restoration plan" for the site and adjacent marshland.
In fact, the water board was ousted from its oversight of the field station two years ago after community protests and intervention by the Richmond City Council and Assemblymember Loni Hancock.
The site is currently under the jurisdiction of the state Department of Toxic Substances Control, which recently issued letters declaring that the university had illicitly disposed of thousands of truckloads of contaminated soil when the water board was in charge.
The university had argued against a change of oversight agencies, with two officials insisting the school had been doing an adequate job.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Record (Waterloo, Ontario) .....................[This story printer-friendly]
July 23, 2007
WATERLOO MORAINE IS TOO VALUABLE TO BE DEVELOPED
[Rachel's introduction: Professor calls for use of precautionary principle to protect unique geographic features near Waterloo in Ontario.]
By Gordon Nelson
[Gordon Nelson is a distinguished professor emeritus of the University of Waterloo, with four decades of experience in land use, environmental and heritage analysis and planning. Second opinion articles reflect the views of Record readers on a variety of topices.]
I am opposed to the proposals for the westside moraine subdivision in Waterloo because they threaten the vital ecological and social services this natural system brings.
Looking at the big picture, the moraine provides a range of benefits including water quality and quantity, the conservation of forests, woodlands and species at risk, outstanding natural beauty, and wide ranging educational opportunities.
The economic worth of similar woodlots has been determined in places like New York City, where the focus is on the value of trees in an intensely populated area. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg initiated the study indicating that the city's approximately 600,000 trees were worth an estimated $122 million, it was recently reported. That breaks down to $11 million for filtering air pollutants, $28 million in energy conservation, $30 million for containing storm water run-off, and $53 million for their esthetic benefits.
The moraine forest also assists with the control of soil erosion, sedimentation and pollution. As well, there is a scientific value in protecting the area's diverse species and monitoring climate change -- which is not so easily done in the "heat island" of urban subdivisions.
Another big value is community education. With rising urbanization, people spend much of their lives in cities distant from nature. Such separation means less understanding of the ecological services performed by areas such as the moraine. This applies especially to young people, and notably to low-income urban youth.
The moraine could also be a place where immigrants from other lands learn to appreciate and conserve forests and natural systems. Future cities need to include large natural areas so people understand and support the diverse environments necessary for their well-being.
These values have also been recognized in West Vancouver, where a large forested area was protected for water supply and conservation reasons.
In Ottawa, forest and natural area values led to the creation of nearby Gatineau Park, and in Toronto, the Oak Ridges moraine is protected by provincial law for similar reasons.
Other communities such as Hamilton, St. Catharines and Owen Sound benefit from the forests and natural areas of the Niagara Escarpment.These examples offer lessons for Waterloo. The services provided by the Oak Ridges moraine to Toronto parallel those of the westside moraine to us.
And New York is instructive in another way. With rising growth and demand, plans were made to upgrade water supply and treatment facilities at projected costs of hundreds of millions of dollars. This high price tag led to studies into the cost of agreements for protective land use practices in the Upper Hudson Valley, the long- time source of the city's water supply. All this led to new agreements with rural landowners and a decision to go with the traditional sources, saving vast sums for the city and its people.
Forests, woodlands and natural areas are vital symbols of the image and livability of a city. It's better to envision the moraine in future as a landscape of forests, farms, hiking paths and other amenities.
This could be accomplished by a mix of public protection, easements and other agreements to encourage willing owners to allow citizens to benefit, enjoy and learn from these uncommon lands.
The technical improvements generated for these subdivision proposals could be less successful than expected by experts. Some ground water wells in the region have already been damaged or lost to unanticipated industrial and other pollution. It seems wise to base the subdivision decision on a precautionary principle, knowing that faulty decision now could have costly, long-term consequences for the city and region.
Objections will be raised to my position by people arguing that these proposals should proceed because the city committed these lands to development in the 1990s. and that the developers have subsequently invested in their plans. But these approvals were given before science and society gained a greater understanding of the vital services that areas such as the moraine perform for us.
Buying out the investment of the developers would likely be considerably less costly than the ecological and social services foregone with such development.
The city and the region should not be in a rush to decide until some pending relevant studies have been completed and made available to the public. Of potentially special importance is an Ontario Ministry of the Environment review "to determine if there is a need to develop provisions to protect ground water and source water of the Waterloo moraine beyond those already provided for in existing policies and regulations."
A focus solely on water does not, however, comprehend the range of other ecological and social benefits the westside moraine offers to us and those who will follow.
Copyright 2007
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::