Science and Environmental Health Network - Home Page
 about sehn   contact us   links  
 
T h e    N e t w o r k e r 

   Exposing True Costs - July 2007
The Networker
I. Exposing True Costs Carolyn Raffensperger and Nancy Myers
II. The Hidden Costs of the Landfill on Dunlap Road Jill McElheney
III. Cleansing the Round River Felix E. Smith

TO MAKE A SECURE DONATION,
CLICK HERE

  I. From the Editors: Exposing True Costs   TOP
By Carolyn Raffensperger and Nancy Myers

What is it about money that gets us so tied up in knots? Along with sex, it is one of the serious causes of marital discord. Entire states shut down when legislatures cannot agree on budgets. Recently, an unusually high number of people have come to me seeking financial assistance just to put bread on the table or help with medical bills. In that context I had a dream about the seeds of chaos. Those seeds had to be money.  

When I started working as an environmental advocate in the early 1980's, I was told that all the decisions about Lake Michigan's water quality or the Shawnee National Forest's management plan or a balefill and its impact on migratory birds were based on science. Yeah, right. It turns out those decisions were really based on money. It seemed to me that our environmental laws were protective, but not of the environment. They were protecting the wallets of the wealthy.  

A couple of years ago Josh Skov, an economist, and my colleague Nancy Myers analyzed the costs of coalbed methane to residents of the high plains, the environment, and future generations. (You can see that report on our website and in our recent book on the precautionary principle.) We distilled a few core principles from that investigation. First, a healthy commons – the things we share -- water, air, wildlife, public libraries – are essential for the economy and wellbeing. Second, count the costs to future generations. This means taking the long view and evaluating the consequences of our actions. Third, a key function of government is to protect the interests of this and future generations in the commons. Fourth, preventing harm is a lot cheaper than cleaning up messes. After the coalbed methane study was completed, we discovered that several of our colleagues were also assessing the costs of environmental damage. What was the cost of asthma or autism? How much public money got poured down rat holes of cleaning up toxic sites? Nancy began compiling these into a resource called the True Cost Clearinghouse. What follows is her description of the Clearinghouse and the essays in this Networker.--CR


In the True Cost Clearinghouse you will find landmark studies like the 2006 World Health Organization report attributing nearly a quarter of global death and disease to the environment; the Landrigan et al. study on the cost of environmental pollutants and disease in American children; the U.N. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; and the 2005 Pimental and Patzek analysis showing biofuel production requires more fossil energy than it produces.

The Clearinghouse also includes many smaller studies, informal analyses, and news articles on topics ranging from the costs of ADHD in adults to the economic value of happiness brought by cleaner air.

All of these studies, reports, and articles include but do not focus exclusively on monetary costs and benefits. The emphasis is on heretofore hidden social, health, environmental, and economic costs of economic activities--the debit side of the ledger, which has always received less attention than the credit side.

The Clearinghouse is searchable and arranged in an easy-to-browse list. Many full reports are accompanied by related news articles, press releases, and executive summaries. Initial response to the TCC has been enthusiastic.

Here's what we hope to accomplish by gathering these studies in one place:

Correct some of the huge distortions of current cost-benefit analyses. These new studies give weight and reality to the costs and benefits that fall to the public and to the commons, as opposed to industry and developers. They put numbers where there have been none before, or where they have been ignored. We don't want to get trapped in trying to prove everything by the numbers and assigning a price to things that are beyond monetary value, like health and life. But avoiding economic analysis can lead to the assumption that all economic arguments favor industry and economic enterprise as we know it. And they do not.

Get the attention of those who listen to economic arguments. That includes not only policymakers but also large segments of the public who are resistant to changes to the status quo. Studies that put numbers to the cost of harm and the benefits of precaution can give policymakers a rationale for rejecting arguments that privilege "the economy" over health and wholeness. They can help communities get a handle on the real choices they face in economic development.

Begin to break the stranglehold of money as the sole measure of what we value as a society and how we make our decisions. The precautionary principle directs us to go ahead and take necessary protective action based on the best available information, not to wait for science's standards of proof. That doesn't mean ignoring science; it means incorporating science into our decisions but not backing off and letting science decide. Nor does it mean ignoring economics; it means incorporating what we value into our decisions, and monetary value is only a part of this. We cannot let monetary values alone make the decisions.

Encourage more studies like these in the next several years. Paradoxically, we may have to use money and numbers to help us get beyond making our decisions by money and numbers alone. Over the next few years we have a chance to change the terms of the debate about money and numbers by pushing them as far as we can toward reality. In this process we can make explicit what we value, what can be monetized, and what cannot. We have a chance to shift the debate through numbers to value, ethics, and responsibility.

Most important, we want to encourage new thinking habits in ourselves and our policy makers. Looking at hidden costs is more than new-and-improved cost-benefit analysis. It is an exercise in systems thinking. The challenge to scientists, policy-makers, and all of us common folk is to learn to see and calculate the wider, (often deliberately) hidden, secondary, long-term, expanding consequences of human actions. This kind of thinking is difficult and challenging, ethically as well as intellectually. But in a full and stressed-out world, it is essential.

Following are essays by two people who have learned to do this kind of thinking. Jill McElheney, a citizen activist, inventories the costs to a community that radiate from a local landfill. Felix Smith is a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who testified recently to a California House subcommittee on the crisis in the San Joaquin watershed. We excerpt his testimony.

What these writers have in common is an ability to look at and understand complex systems and consider all kinds of costs, not only monetary ones. Smith quotes Aldo Leopold on nature as the "round river" that flows into itself in an endless circle; destroying one part can destroy all. He concentrates on the scientific, legal, and ethical arguments for action, but at the end he makes clear the economic implications of that action. That's putting economics in its place.

Please visit our True Cost Clearinghouse, look for information on your favorite topics, and contribute to our growing list of articles and studies.--NM


  II. The Hidden Costs of the Landfill on Dunlap Road   TOP
By Jill McElheney

On the weekend of Cinco de Mayo, when several Northeast Georgia counties were walking to raise money for a well-known cancer organization, residents of Dunlap Road were walking to raise awareness at the 2nd annual Making the Link Environmental Health Awareness Walk. Over 50 people turned out to highlight the associations between chronic diseases that come from repeated exposures to toxic chemicals like those that lurk in our local landfill.

Hidden cost #1: the price of safe air, soil, and water for the residents on Dunlap Road. What is the dollar value of their loss?

Cancer is not a stranger in this community, which has suffered tremendous environmental damage from the Athens Clarke County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill for the past thirty years. Groundwater contamination prompted the ACC government to make city water available to residents, but not everyone has chosen that option.

Hidden cost #2: decreased value in property of Dunlap Road. Who wants to purchase land that could kill you?

When the state Environmental Protection Division (EPD) came to Athens in 2006 to discuss renewing the air permit for the landfill, residents were shocked to discover that no ambient (outdoor) air monitoring is done to determine which gases/particles migrate from the landfill to the air they breathe. There is also some concern that vapors could potentially intrude into homes from the contaminated groundwater. Residents will not know the extent of their exposures until reliable testing is done. What residents do know is that the smell can be unbearable enough to make them stay inside on given days.

Hidden cost #3: How much do residents pay for odor trespassing that results in decreased quality of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Along with the Dunlap Road Community, the event was sponsored by Billups Grove Baptist Church, the Northeast Georgia Children's Environmental Health Coalition, and MICAH's Mission. Members of all four groups came together before the walk with Athens Clarke County Commissioners, Kelly Girtz and Doug Lowry, to discuss their concerns over the possible expansion of the landfill. Dr. Richard Field, ACC Environmental Coordinator, was also in attendance, and listened to the requests of citizens.

Hidden cost #4: How much have residents spent in time, emotions, and discouragement in the past 30 years asking to be treated like decent human beings only to be constantly ignored until now?

Dunlap Road community leader and organizer Charles Nash led the walk which journeyed to the Oglethorpe County line and looped back. ACC landfill shares a cooperative agreement with Oglethorpe County: ACC uses Oglethorpe's C&D (construction & demolition) landfill while privileges to Oglethorpe County are given for the ACC municipal solid waste landfill. 

Dunlap Road lies in both Athens-Clarke and Oglethorpe counties. Is there contamination migration into Oglethorpe County? Will both county governments adopt better recycling and reduction ordinances which will promote a shift from the burden of taxpayers to continue burying waste to a more excellent and greener way? When will producer responsibility be taken for the disposal of toxic materials such that product life cycles never require shoveling them into the ground at all?

Hidden cost #5: How much money has been paid and will be paid out in legal fees and settlements to compensate for the ecological damage done to Dunlap Road from ultimate product liability?

Commissioner Carl Jordan brought along his two canine daughters who also completed the walk. He noticed how poorly maintained Dunlap Road is which was another indicator that the community is constantly bothered with high traffic of large diesel-emitting, waste hauling trucks.

Hidden cost #6: What price tag shall we put on the perpetual health effects from these polluting commercial trucks and the poor planning of the built environment, which placed an unwanted dump in the middle of a residential community in 1976?

While many in NE Georgia were remembering their loved ones stricken with cancer this past weekend, Dunlap Road residents also wondered how many of their children never made it because of the landfill? How much premature death has been caused on Dunlap Road from the holes in the ground to which our throwaway society transports its trash?

Hidden cost #7: What is the price tag on a lost human being?

If one adds up all these irretrievable losses on Dunlap Road, it is plain to see the negative bottom line for them: a travesty of justice for three decades. And yet, there is hope for residents to be heard for we live in a country where democracy gives all a place at the table. Pull up a seat Dunlap Road. Come, let us reason together.



  III. Cleansing the Round River   TOP
By Felix E. Smith

Adapted from testimony presented to the California House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, Hearing on "Extinction is Not Sustainable Water Policy: the Bay-Delta Crisis and Implications for California Water Management," July 2, 2007 at Vallejo, California.

My name is Felix E. Smith. I held the first deformed migratory bird, an American coot hatchling, found at Kesterson NWR in 1983. At that time I was a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist recently assigned to look into the emerging issues involving agricultural drainage and wastewater. That experience impacted my life.

Water is the environment in which fish and other aquatic resources must carry on all their life processes. Such resources, associated uses and values are inextricably tied to the physical, chemical and biological aspects of that aquatic environment. Healthy and diverse aquatic populations are indicative of good water quality conditions (flow, temperature, oxygen and chemical parameters). The total aquatic environment (the water, the bed, the riparian vegetation and associated insect life, the food web) all interact and therefore must be suitable for aquatic life at the individual, population, and community levels.

The Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, and the Public Trust embrace affirmatively and positively that the people are to be protected against all unwise and unreasonable uses of Federal and State waters. Uses of water can be considered unreasonable because they pollute, because they offend our sense of aesthetics or natural beauty, because they interfere with the right of the public to enjoy a natural resource of state or national significance, because they threaten in a harmful way to upset the ecological balance of nature, or because to allow this unreasonable use confers a valuable privilege which is inconsistent with protecting the public trust.

Agencies like the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California’s EPA were established to protect the public interest and quality of the Nation’s lands and waters. Such agencies are not to squander clean air, allow the pollution of our rivers, streams and groundwater, allow the pollution or other degradation of our land leaving a degraded legacy for our grandchildren or allow the pollution of the bodies of our children, our fish and wildlife resources or our food supply. These same agencies should not look like shills for corporate farms or massive water districts.

Any effort at maintaining sustainable water quality, agriculture and wetland ecosystems (fish and wildlife resources) must involve an understanding of the interaction between the soil and the flow of water over, through, and under the soil well beyond the point of application. Preserving soil fertility is critical to sustaining its productivity. Preserving and maintaining water quality is critical to the productivity of water as an ecosystem and as a commodity for domestic and industrial uses. Unlike soil, which can be built up over time, water can’t be built or enhanced. A river can be lost to a farmer; to a species of fish or to fish resources; lost as a place to recreate or as a water supply. It can be diverted, polluted, misused or over appropriated. Aldo Leopold’s Round River makes the principles of ecology clear and vivid, suggesting that nature is a "Round River," like a stream flowing into itself, going round and round in an unceasing circuit, going through all the soils, the flora and fauna of the earth while supporting many resources, beneficial uses and values. Destroying one part can destroy it all and all its benefits to society.

A use of the lands and waters of a watershed that so degrades the sustainability of a downstream ecosystem or a component of that ecosystem to make it unsuitable for sustaining viable agriculture, wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, or which makes fish unsuitable for human consumption, or which is a hazard to other fish and wildlife, or which degrades ecological, aesthetic, recreational uses, small craft navigation, and scenic values, is inconsistent with public trust protection. The unreasonable use of water is therefore a nuisance. When chemicals enter the bodies of children, or enter the domestic or wildlife food supply to toxic levels without our consent, it is a trespass.

Here is an example brought to you in part by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Valley Project. 

It was known for a long time that the soils of the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley were derived from parent material formed in an old seabed. The California Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 89, Lower San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Investigation – 1960, discusses concerns about the chemicals and various salts in the soils and drainage from the area. The soils and parent material extend throughout the Westside, south to the end of the Valley. The sodium ion was a major concern along with a variety of sulfates, boron and numerous trace elements. Even at that time drainage was believed to be a serious and emerging problem. Drainage from the Panoche area was highly concentrated from a quality standpoint and "unusable for beneficial purposes." At that time the San Joaquin River was already seriously polluted from agricultural drainage and wastewater.

The observation that "the drainage was highly concentrated from a quality standpoint and unusable for beneficial purposes" sparked little attention. With the application of vast quantities of Bureau of Reclamation water to the highly saline / seleniferious soils, the need for drainage works quickly become apparent. Surface waters and the San Joaquin River showed additional evidence of pollution.

By 1982 some people, including a few Grassland duck club owners, believed that something was wrong in the northern Grasslands. They had noticed sick and dead birds in 1981 and 1982. In 1983 the first deformed young of migratory birds were found on Kesterson NWR by researchers from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kesterson Reservoir (NWR) was the then terminus of the San Luis Drain. People were disturbed by the pictures of dead and grossly deformed waterfowl and shorebirds obtained from Kesterson Evaporation Ponds that were appearing on the nightly television news at dinnertime. Selenium (Se) in the agricultural drainage accumulated via the food chain to high levels in their tissues resulted in dead adults, dead and deformed young. Several species of fish had elevated Se levels in their tissues.

From 1986 to today (2007), Selenium contamination is sufficient to cause deformities and threaten reproduction of key species within the area of the greater Grasslands, in the San Joaquin River to the Bay-Delta estuary. Deformed migratory birds have been found in every year field investigations were conducted for such evidence. Selenium concentration was also high in eggs that were sampled, which in turn could have led to deformities. Fish resources continue to show high levels of Se because of a Se -contaminated food chain. Selenium has been found in what is usually called edible tissues and in reproductive organs of birds and fish.

Human health advisories have been issued against consuming Se contaminated edible tissues of fish (bluegill and largemouth bass) and of migratory birds (ducks and coots). Women of childbearing age and children are cautioned against eating such tissues. State Board reports indicate that in the Bay-Delta, surf scoter, greater and lesser scaup and particularly white sturgeon appear to be the most at risk to Se toxicity because they feed on filter feeders (i.e. bivalves). Concentrations Se found in 62 white sturgeon muscle samples and 42 liver samples far exceed tissue thresholds for reproductive effects. Recent findings add the Sacramento splittail to the list of species exhibiting elevated Se levels.

Selenium bioaccumulation is a major water quality problem. The combination of California’s climate, hydrology, Se loading, Se reactivity, and Se bioavailability poses a significant threat to the aquatic ecosystem of the Lower San Joaquin River and Bay-Delta. Selenium contamination is damaging beneficial uses, degrading food sources of humans and wildlife, aesthetic, recreation and ecological values. Risks to fish and bird reproduction could lead to extinction via contamination of the invertebrate food supply. Filter feeders are great concentrators of Se. Aquatic insects were the primary food item of shore birds. The Report concludes that bivalves appear to be the most sensitive indicator of Se contamination in the Bay-Delta. In the Bay-Delta and the lower San Joaquin River tidal action will increase the resident time of Se, exposing all aquatic organisms and increasing the ability of food organisms to accumulate greater amounts of Se and pass it up the food chain to predators. The bottom line is that saline / seleniferious soils of the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley contain a reservoir of Se, other trace elements and a variety of salts that, with irrigation, will continue to leach from the soils to the shallow groundwater for years and years to come. This Se leachate / drainage will continue to degrade down slope lands, surface and groundwater, fish and wildlife habitats and other beneficial uses of the receiving waters including the San Joaquin River and Delta.

Today we have the longest Selenium hazardous waste site know to man, extending from at least the Mendota pool and the Grasslands (near Los Banos), downstream via the San Joaquin River to the Delta, Suisun Bay and adjacent marshes. This involves 130 miles of San Joaquin River, miles of waterways in the Delta and 1,000s upon 1,000s of acres of San Joaquin Valley lands and aquatic ecosystems.

With the above information one could allege that the continued irrigation of saline / seleniferious soils of the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley and Se contaminated discharges to the San Joaquin River constitute a waste and unreasonable use of the State’s water, and a nuisance.

Some Suggested Actions
Control of agricultural pollution also might be achieved by instituting best management practices, land retirement, and by economic incentives (substantial fines, forfeiture of all or a portion of appropriated water rights or contract allotments). Land retirement is an important option. Prevent Federal irrigation water from being used on the Se source lands. Taking the land out of production that is the source of the majority of the salt and selenium problems should have quick and positive results and many public benefits. This can be attained by direct purchase of land or the irrigation rights, leasing land, purchasing the irrigation water allotment to such lands while prohibiting the use of groundwater on those lands.

Retiring lands containing significant levels of selenium or other toxic materials would have just a one-time cost. A long-term lease might also work, for there would be little if any maintenance costs. Land not needed for conservation purposes such as restoring native grasslands and related fauna of the San Joaquin Valley could be sold, with title restrictions, for selected compatible uses such as dry-land farming, grazing, etc. Within the Westlands Water District problem soils have been estimated at 100,000 to 275,000 acres.

At a cost of $1,000.00 per acre it would cost $100,000,000.00 to retire 100,000 acres or $275,000,000.00 for the 275,000 acres. Lands acquired should be purchased with today's realities in mind. This includes limited or poor ground water and extensive selenium and sodium sulfate problems. Any value added to the price of land should not be based on speculation, the availability of federally subsidized water, or on the potential construction of Federal drainage facilities. A reality is that problem soils without water are just about worthless.

For each acre of irrigated land retired, there would be commensurate saving of about 2.0 to 3.5 acre feet of water per acre (depending on crop) or about 200,000 to 350,000 acre feet for each 100,000 acres taken out of irrigation. This water is firm yield water imported from northern California. For each irrigated acre taken out of production there would be a reduction of 20 to 60 pound of pesticides (active ingredients) plus 80 to 250 pounds of carrier materials, (oils, etc.) not applied to the soils. There would be a reduction of the amount of drainage and wastewater generated of about .6 to .8 acre feet per acre of land retired or 60,000 to 80,000 acre-feet for each 100,000 acres retired. There would be a saving in electrical energy by not having to pump water from the Delta. There should be benefits to fish resources and associated fisheries as up to 600,000 to 900,000 acre-feet would not have to be pumped from the Delta.

The water savings could be used to restore or otherwise benefit fish resources and fisheries throughout the waters of the Bay-Delta watershed. Any remaining water could be sold for municipal uses.



Print Friendly Page
 
| SEHN