25 Years of Environmental Protection
a conference -presented by
CERC
xvEPA
Columbia
University
December 6, 1995
-------
PROGRESS & PROMISE:
25 YEARS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Transcript
-------
In 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began its
first efforts in developing coherent, effective national policies
to foster clean air and water in the United states. Positive
results were realized from these policy initiatives: pollution
levels have been reduced significantly. Programs developed in
this country were emulated worldwide.
The political environment has changed significantly since then.
Questions about the necessity of stringent environmental
regulation are frequently raised, and there is mounting pressure
to undo many accepted policies of the last quarter century.
Progress and Promise: 25 Years of Environmental
Protection, a conference presented by the Center for
Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), the U.S.
EPA, and Columbia University, was a series of frank
discussions between members of governmental and non-
governmental agencies, research and educational institutions,
and the private sector about the state of environmental policy
designed to shape the public debate in this crucial period.
-------
Table of Contents
The Center for Environmental Research and Conservation
Welcome and Opening
Don J. Melnick, Director
Center for Environmental Research and Conservation
Jeanne M. Fox, Regional Administrator
US EPA Region II
Panel Transcripts
PANEL 1: GLOBAL ISSUES AND POLICY PRIORITIES
Mary C. Pearl — Moderator
Wildlife Preservation Trust International
Eduardo Fuentes
United Nations Development Program
James E. Hansen
Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
PANEL 2: ENVIRONMENT AND HIGHER EDUCATION
Don J. Melnick — Moderator
Columbia University
Steven Cohen
Columbia University
John Robinson
Wildlife Conservation Society
PANEL 3: RISK ASSESSMENT
Fanny K. Ennever ~ Moderator
Columbia University
Suzanne Giani-Spohn
EPA
Frederica P. Perera
Columbia University
I. Bernard Weinstein
Columbia University
PANEL 4: WETLANDS AND RIVERS
Kevin Bricke — Moderator
EPA
Melanie L.J. Stiassny
American Museum of Natural History
Dennis Suszowski
Hudson River Foundation
-------
PANEL 5: REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PRIORITIES
Terry Garcia ~ Moderator
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Walter Mugdan
EPA
Edward Wagner
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
PANEL 6: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Charles M. Peters — Moderator
New York Botanical Garden
Francesca Grifo
American Museum of Natural History
Geoffrey Heal
Columbia University
Stephen Viederman
Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation
PANEL 7: URBAN ECOSYSTEMS
William J. Muszynski — Moderator
EPA
Steven D. Garber
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Marc Matsil
New York City Parks Department
John T. Tanacredi
Department of the Interior
PANEL 8: POLLUTION PREVENTION
Peter H. Lehner - Moderator
Natural Resources Defense Council
Conrad Simon
EPA
Darwin Wika
Dupont Company
PANEL 9: WATERSHED ISSUES
Stanley Michels — Moderator
New York City Council Member
Richard Caspe
EPA
Sylvie Le Blancq
Columbia University
George Morren
Rutgers University
PANEL 10: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Michel Gelobter — Moderator
Rutgers University
Melva Hayden
EPA
Vernice Miller
Natural Resources Defense Council
Judy Sze
New York City Environmental Justice Alliance
-------
PANEL 11: THE RISE OF PARTNERSHIPS: Business, Government, Academia 3 4
Emily C. Lloyd ~ Moderator
Columbia University
Herbert Barrack
EPA
PANEL 12: ENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALISM 3 7
Steven Ross — Moderator
Columbia University
William Bunch
Philadelphia Daily News
Paul Raeburn
Associated Press
Andrew Revkin
New York Times
Closing Session
OPENING REMARKS 40
George Rupp, President
Columbia University
KEYNOTE ADDRESS 41
Kathleen McGinty, Chair
White House Council on Environmental Quality
SUMMARY DISCUSSION - PROGRESS AND PROMISE 4 7
Jim Florio
Former Governor of New Jersey
Jeanne M. Fox, Regional Administrator
US EPA Region II
Marilyn Gelber, Commissioner
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
Don J. Melnick, Director
Center for Environmental Research and Conservation
Participant Biographies
56
-------
The Center for Environmental Research and Conservation
Preparing the next generation of environmental leaders
through education, training and research.
The Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), a consortium of five
education and research institutions, was created in response to critical environmental concerns
facing the Earth.
Within the next fifty years human influence will affect every place on the planet. That
impact will almost certainly result in species extinctions, ecosystem degradation, and a loss of the
benefits those species and ecosystems provide to people. CERC's goal is to create long-term
solutions to combat the loss of biological diversity and natural resource depletion, while meeting
the needs of a growing worldwide human population.
To do this it is essential to train professionals to face complex global environmental issues.
For over thirty years, in the United States and internationally, there has been a severe shortage of
university-based programs to prepare students in the study of plants and animals, the ecosystems
in which they live, and the applied sciences of conservation and environmental management. Too
often nature reserves, natural resource departments, and major policy-making branches of
government in countries around the world are staffed by individuals who lack adequate training.
Worldwide, students have not been prepared in the basic disciplines of biology and environmental
science, including systematics, ecology, population biology and biodiversity conservation. There
simply are not enough well-trained professionals to meet the growing number of environmental
challenges we face.
Those scientists who are trained in the disciplines of ecology and environmental biology
have proven integral in the search for a solution to die biodiversity crisis. They have identified
crucial new pharmaceuticals and other products to enhance human well-being. They have
demonstrated the important services of water purification, oxygen production, and climate
buffering that natural ecosystems provide. The work of these individuals has been crucially
important for creating policy and laws to protect wildlife, the environment, and the human
populations that depend on these systems.
What is required at this time is an interdisciplinary approach that calls upon the finest minds
and resources to prepare a new generation of professionals. We need a group of world
environmental leaders who understand not only the biology of natural resource conservation, but
also the economic and social context in which conservation must be placed.
This is CERC's mission.
CERC at Columbia University
CERC is based at one of America's most prestigious international educational institutions in
America's most international city. Columbia's outstanding and diverse schools, departments and
experts unite through CERC to exchange ideas, information, and resources.
CERC is a founding member of the Columbia Earth Institute, a cross-disciplinary
enterprise focused on research, education and innovations that will enable wise stewardship of our
planet. This network for environmental studies links CERC to the Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory, one of the world's finest geology centers, and the Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, a key research institution for tracking global climate change.
1
-------
A Multi-Institutional Effort
CERC's strength is based on the collaboration of its unique consortium.
• American Museum of Natural History has one of the world's most extensive collections of
animal species, as well as a staff that is world-renowned in the cataloging and identification
of animal diversity.
• The New York Botanical Garden contains the largest herbarium in the Western Hemisphere
and a botanical library that is unmatched in North America.
• Wildlife Conservation Society operates the largest urban zoo in America and extensive
ongoing field research around the world.
• Wildlife Preservation Trust International is a conservation organization known for
integrating research with community action at the grassroots level.
An Unmatched Educational Program
With its consortium institutions, CERC has designed an interdisciplinary program within
which undergraduate and graduate students build a strong academic foundation while gaining
practical experience locally or at sites around the world. More than a collection of natural science
programs, CERC's curriculum traverses many academic disciplines, including the social sciences.
CERC has also developed a training fonim for senior international conservation professionals,
further underscoring the need to bring the most experienced people together to learn and seek
solutions.
CERC alumni will be prepared to conduct ecological, behavioral, systematic, and molecular
research, as well as to formulate or implement environmental policy related to biodiversity issues.
Graduates of CERC will have the tools and experience necessary to pursue academic careers or
professional positions in conservation, environmental and multilateral aid organizations.
CERC Internationally
The greatest concentration of biodiversity lies outside the borders of the United States. A
comprehensive education and training program must have connections with these areas. The
establishment of affiliate centers in areas of high biodiversity around the world reinforces CERC's
program. These centers are prepared to take Columbia students for internships or research in
connection with major host country initiatives.
CERC, in turn, is a center for the education and training of future scientists and policy
makers from important habitat countries. Agreements between CERC consortium members and
universities worldwide allow for diverse international opportunities to pursue research and
training.
Education
CERC administers an undergraduate major, Environmental Biology, and a doctoral
program, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Students receive their degrees from Columbia
University. An important aspect of both programs is student involvement in field research.
Through CERC, its consortium members, and overseas affiliates, students have access to an
extensive array of research sites and summer internship opportunities. Among these are Biosphere
2 in Arizona, a unique facility for controlled environmental studies, and the Black Rock Forest in
2
-------
New York, a diverse temperate forest reserve.
Training
Many professionals in conservation-related fields have learned their trade "on the job"
because formal training was not available. A mid-career program, the Morningside Institute,
is devoted to providing such training. The Institute allows them to round out their academic
background, gain new skills, and profit intellectually from interaction with other professionals,
students and researchers.
Research
CERC teams conduct biological research to assess long-term viability of selected
populations, predict possible future extinctions of vulnerable communities and species, and
develop methods for ecosystem monitoring and management. Human ecology, policy frameworks
for biodiversity conservation, the economics of natural resource management, and the relationship
between ecosystem health and human disease are also integral to CERC's research agenda.
Through its international, multi-institutional, and interdisciplinary orientation CERC is well
equipped to lead the effort to preserve the diversity of life on earth.
For more information about CERC, call (212) 854-8186, e-mail cerc@columbia.edu
or visit the World Wide Web Home Page http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cerc
Center for Environmental Research and Conservation
Columbia University 1200 Amsterdam Avenue
New York, NY 10027-5557
3
-------
Welcome and Opening
Dr. Don J. Melnick: The Center for Environmental Research and Conservation is a
consortium which includes Columbia University, The American Museum of Natural History, The
New York Botanical Gardens, The Wildlife Conservation Society and Wildlife Preservation Trust
International. Quite appropriately for this Conference, which strives to bridge gaps between many
sectors of society, CERC's goals have been to cross academic disciplines and integrate the social
and natural sciences, in order to address the complex issues of environmental conservation.
We have created new cross-cutting positions in environmental economics, environmental
health science, ethnobiology and conservation genetics; crossing institutions, crossing academic
divisions, crossing intellectual disciplines. In doing so, political scientists talk to geneticists;
botanists to anthropologists; and economists to ecologists.
We recognize that unless we begin to exchange and integrate ideas and information, there is
little hope of solving the complex environmental problems we face today.
To truly understand the value of CERC, one must place it in its larger context. CERC is
part of a much larger effort here at Columbia University, to encompass the study of the earth and
its complex systems. Columbia is embarking on a grand but attainable scheme to build the most
comprehensive institute for earth study, The Earth Institute. This Institute includes many entities.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a NASA-supported world- class center for atmospheric
and climatological research. The Lamont-Dohertv Earth Observatory, perhaps the world's leading
geological research institute. The Earth Policy Center, a collection of economics, political
scientists, anthropologists, geologists, climatologists and biologists, working on interactions of
biological, geochemical and atmospheric processes and their impact on the everyday life of people
here and over the rest of the world.
And of course, CERC, perhaps the largest collection of biological scientists in the world
who seek to describe, map and protect biological diversity wherever it is found. The
interdisciplinary, intellectually-exciting nature of CERC and its parent, The Earth Institute, make
Columbia University the ideal venue for a meeting to discuss the future of environmental
protection.
Environmental protection has been the mandated goal of the U.S. Government's
Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. The EPA has maintained itself well over a period of
many political changes in our country, and over this time has had variable levels of support from
the government and the people.
Before introducing our next speaker, I would ask you to consider the value of the EPA by
conducting the following thought experiment: What would this city and region be like if we had
not regulated environmental protection over the last 25 years? And I'll give you a few hints, or I'll
ask you a few questions. Have you ever inhaled deeply in downtown Bangkok? I think that might
give you an idea. When was the last time the Danube was blue?
Our next speaker this morning is Jeanne Fox, the Regional Administrator at the U.S.
EPA. She is responsible for all operations of the EPA in this region and will speak to you this
morning about the EPA and the region we live in, its achievements and its hopes for the future.
Jeanne M. Fox: We will be discussing the history as well as the future of a lot of
aspects of environmental protection and environmental regulation in the country. To set the stage,
I would like to begin this morning, by describing what is going on now in environmental
protection at the federal level.
This country has a long history of neglecting efforts at environmental regulation. We have
4
-------
only had a short period of time, the last 25 years, where we've actually been working hard in that
regard. The first Earth Day was only 25 years ago.
And since that time, we have set up a very complicated regulatory structure that was built in
response to crisis after crisis in the 70s and early '80s. The public demanded action because of
these crises.
We had a burning river that led to the Clean Water Act. We had contaminated drinking
water that led to the Safe Drinking Water Act. And, Love Canal, as we all know, led to the
Superfund Program. That crisis-by-crisis, pollutant-by-pollutant response was what created EPA.
The EPA has developed over time, making additions when necessary. So we have a
media-by-media approach and parochial efforts at remediation, as well as pollution prevention.
This approach proved to be very effective over the last 25 years. That basic structure was
built within the first ten years of the Agency. When the Reagan Administration was set up in
1980, we had James Watt and Ann Gorsage as guardians of the Americans' natural resources.
Congress came to view the Agency's management as lacking commitment to the mission of
environmental protection. In response, Congress wrote legislation that in fact micro-managed the
Agency. So while, at that time, it may have jump-started EPA, it also served to tie the hands of the
Agency in terms of flexibility and implementation.
The original focus was to clean up the damage that had already been done to the
environment from our years of industrialization. We then began to shift the focus to preventing
pollution in the first place. We regulated the most obvious and easily controlled sources of
pollution. We came to recognize the cumulative nature of that pollution and the need to attack
smaller sources with ever-improving technology.
Despite those problems, efforts at The Environmental Protection Agency have achieved
very noteworthy results. Since 1973, lead has been banned in gasoline and that resulted in a 98
percent reduction in lead in the air and a 75 percent reduction in blood levels of lead.
In just a two-year period, from '89 to '91, recycling of hazardous waste has been increased
by 127 percent. Between 1970 and 1993, recycling of non-hazardous waste has more than tripled,
from 7 percent to 22 percent of the total waste stream in the country.
Since 1990, two-thirds of the metropolitan areas that had unhealthy air have now met the
air quality standards, resulting in improved air for 50 million Americans. That was the state of
environmental regulation when Bill Clinton became President and Carol Browner became the
Administrator of EPA. Obviously, there is still more to be done.
There are problems that remain within the Agency and problems that remain within the
environment. Criticism grew, and the Agency and its mission became vulnerable. Recently, we
have been hearing about two visions of reform for EPA, and they are starting to dominate public
debate.
There are stark differences between those visions. The vision that I will speak about
primarily is the one that will, hopefully, win out in the end. We will discuss today what these
visions are, and you yourself will participate in those discussions. Whatever the result is between
these two distinct visions, we will have a different America in the future.
First, I obviously have to admit that I do not come here as a neutral observer. I have a
definite opinion and a preferable course to take. I, in some small way, have helped shape that
course in this Administration, and I will be referring to it throughout as either the "Clinton/Gore
vision" or the "New phase of environmental protection."
5
-------
Time does not allow me to complete a rundown of all the Agency's priorities. I will focus
on several which reflect our vision and describe how we hope to achieve these goals.
First, the EPA is now slashing red tape. This past year, under orders from the President,
we have conducted a systematic review of every regulation in the Agency. We have eliminated
duplicative and outdated regulations. After an exhaustive review, which included consultation with
stakeholders, we have cut 11 percent of the regulations — 1400 pages of the Federal Register.
Another 70 percent are identified for future revision which is currently underway.
We have also begun reviewing our management systems. Our goal is to reduce paperwork
from the people who deal with us on the outside by 25 percent. The initial focus is on reducing
paperwork for small businesses and local governments.
We have already started expanding use of electronic reporting and record keeping. This
vision also seeks to streamline the permitting process. I co-chair, with Eliot Laws, the Assistant
Administrator for Superfund, the Agency's permit improvement team ~ a team comprised of
Agency people in the regions and the headquarters, as well as state representatives and some local
and tribal representatives who are delegated authorities.
We are now currently reviewing a draft of recommendations that will go to Administrator
Browner early next year. We have had over 50 meetings in the last year with stakeholders around
the country. These recommendations will result in changes in environmental permitting at EPA
and also in the delegated states.
Another goal of our vision is to change how EPA works with our stakeholders. To move
from being a disciplinarian to becoming a consensus-builder; from a referee to a partner. That goal
is reflected in voluntary partnerships we are building with businesses and organizations.
We have programs such as Climate Wise and Climate Challenge which help to reduce
global warming; the Waste Wise Program, to reduce waste; and our Green Lights Program, which
helps conserve energy. These are win/win voluntary programs. They not only contribute to
environmental protection and betterment of the environment; they also bring benefits to industry
and communities, encouraging efficiency and saving money.
Our goal is also reflected in our Brownfields Initiative, where we were working with local
governments and citizens in such cities as Rochester, Buffalo and Trenton to re-develop
once-contaminated sites which would generate jobs and revenue for the local community.
Our goals can also be seen in our efforts to expand negotiated regulations, rather than our
traditional method of imposing regulation. Today, EPA is seen as a leader in the federal
government, in bringing all stakeholders together to negotiate the most cost-effective way to
achieve health and environmental protection.
Our vision can also be seen in our performance partnerships with states. In these
partnerships, we meet with each individual state to identify their priority concerns, develop work
plans and goals, and tailor our oversight to reflect that state's particular capacity to achieve those
goals.
In our efforts to assure compliance with environmental laws, we're increasing our attention
to compliance assistance. Our traditional compliance tool — enforcement — is only successful in
punishing polluters after the fact; after our communities have already had their land, their air or
their water polluted.
We are helping companies comply with the law, and this prevents pollution before it
happens. So, we have created incentives for compliance, and we are establishing small business
compliance assistance centers for specific business sectors such as auto services and metal
finishing.
6
-------
Cooperation does not mean that the threat of a fine is not a legitimate enforcement tool. But
the large majority of companies do not need a threat of a fine, many of them simply need
assistance, assistance that will prevent pollution. And preventing pollution is always better than
pollution with a fine.
Our focus on environmental results is also reflected in effort to move our Agency beyond
traditional command and control regulations. This is particularly reflected in our Project XL.
Companies and communities will have the opportunity to demonstrate their leadership
capacity in environmental protection with project XL. There will be 50 companies involved in this
project. So far only six have been chosen.
In return for their commitment to protect the environment, beyond what is presently
required by regulation or law, they will be allowed to develop their own strategies to achieve that
goal. This plan would result in a better environment, better protection of the environment than
required by the current regulations, but would allow the entity to go around that current regulation,
reach an agreement with us on how they are going to implement their visions, and then achieve the
better goal.
They would save money, and have a better environmental result.
We believe the flexibility in process will result in better environmental protection, while
providing opportunities for regulated parties to create a more efficient system to comply with the
laws.
Our Commonsense Initiative is yet another way to reinvent regulation. The Agency is
working closely with specific business sectors to develop regulations that recognize the unique
nature of each sector, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach to regulation which has been
traditional.
The other vision for environmental regulation and environmental protection is the vision
now emanating from Capitol Hill and some other places around the country. Its advocates, acting
behind a smoke-screen of budget cutting, proposing an agency whose mandate is to protect public
health. The environment is subservient to its special interests.
Congress proposed budget cuts for EPA which were the largest percentage cuts for any
major agency in the federal government; cuts that would reverse a 25-year trend of environmental
improvement.
The proposal is a 22 percent cut over last year's originally-enacted budget. This cut
includes a 25 percent cut in the Superfund program, which would delay work on toxic clean-ups
around the country. New York and New Jersey, in particular, have a large number of these sites.
They called for a cut in over $700 million in the state revolving fund program. This money
goes directly through EPA to the states for improvements in infrastructure of waste water and
drinking water. This cut will have a detrimental impact on the environment.
There is also a proposal to cut 27 percent from the President's proposal for EPA's
enforcement and compliance assistance efforts. This proposal will have a dramatic impact on (1)
finding the companies that are not complying with environmental regulations and (2) assisting the
companies that are.
There will be fewer environmental cops on the beat that protect the public's health. People
on Capitol Hill may say they are cutting EPA's budget for the greater good of a balanced budget.
What they are really doing is cutting polluters a break.
7
-------
This is a blatant attempt to gut environmental law in this country, and it is not what the
public wants. That is the other vision for the environmental future of this country; one that is
demonstrated by the efforts of Congress' leadership.
So, today, I ask you to listen to the various speakers and as you discuss with them your
concerns for the future of environmental regulation, bear this in mind. America is at a fork in the
road. What is happening today is not commonplace.
The direction we take will affect America's future. The alternatives before the American
people are starkly contrasting to one another. Most of America wants to protect the environment.
Most of America values our natural resources. Most of us believe that protection of public health
must be paramount. So, for most of us, I think, there is only one road and only one vision, and
our hopes rest in that direction.
Thank you.
8
-------
Panel 1: Global Issues and Policy Priorities
Panel Members:
Dr. Mary C. Pearl, Wildlife Preservation Trust International, Moderator;
Dr. Eduardo Fuentes, United Nations Development Program;
Dr. James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies;
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund.
Panel Questions
1) Global Warming
2) Loss of Biodiversity
The panel decided ahead of time that they would discuss two pressing global threats to the
environment: global warming and the loss of biodiversity. Each problem would be addressed from
both a scientific and a policy perspective. Drs. Hansen and Oppenheimer would primarily discuss
the first while Drs. Pearl and Fuentes would discuss the second.
Dr. Hansen: Began the panel discussion by speaking about the scientific evidence in
support of global warming. He noted that 1995 was the warmest year on record, narrowly edging
out 1990. He attributed the lower temperatures in the interim to the 1991 eruption of Mount
Pinatubo, an event which was expected to cool the earth for about three years. He noted that
1995's warmth was particularly significant since certain phenomena should have mitigated
warming; 1995 was not an El-Nino year (the regular occurrence of anomalous water temperatures
in the tropical Pacific) and upper-atmospheric ozone levels were low. Dr. Hansen believes that the
public, despite not being privy to all of the scientific knowledge, is already beginning to believe in
global wanning. They are starting to notice more frequent wanner than normal temperatures
during winter.
Dr. Oppenheimer: Spoke next about global warming in public policy terms. He stated
that no policy changes will occur unless both scientists and the public believe that global warming
is a real phenomena. He then described 1995 as both an exciting and a disturbing year for the
environment and policy. On the positive side, we can thank the Montreal Protocol for a decline in
chloroflorocarbons a mere ten tears after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. He compared
the Montreal Protocol to the treaty signed in Rio De Janiero. He expressed a belief that the Rio
treaty will provide the framework for combating global warming. More distressingly, speed limits
went up in 1995 causing cars to use fuel less efficiently. And, politicians called the voicing of
environmental concerns, "liberal clap-trap."
Dr. Oppenheimer proceeded to offer two recent examples of professional incompetence in
the scientific community. First, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences published
a report suggesting that chloroflorocarbons probably do not reach the upper atmosphere, despite
empirical evidence to the contrary. The second example of incompetence was a scientist who
down-played the significance of global warming on the grounds that natural carbon dioxide
emissions are 29 times larger than artificial C02 emissions. His argument ignored the 30 percent
increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution; a rise which can be
explained by the fact that human induced changes were imposed on a closed circuit system.
Dr. Oppenheimer then commented that global warming is an extremely complicated
problem but one which can be solved if we look to two lessons taught by the Montreal Protocol.
First, scientists should be allowed to participate in all phases of international policy agreements.
Second, a well-designed document has an organic quality - it continues to evolve.
He concluded by saying that positive changes can happen quickly, as long as the
messengers of bad news are not stifled nor the public misled. As long as the public knows that
science is worth supporting, it always will be.
9
-------
Dr. Pearl: Then shifted the conversation to biodiversity, which she defined as the variety
and variability of organisms and ecosystems. She went on to identify the three primary causes of
biodiversity loss: habitat destruction, over-exploitation of resources, and competition between
exotic species. Some ecosystems have been so compromised that they no longer cleanse polluted
air and water. The framework convention of 1992, signed by 170 countries, is cause for
optimism. The central goals of this convention are the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable
use of resources, and the equitable sharing of biodiversity's benefits between nations and people.
Dr. Fuentes: Added that while biodiversity loss is clearly occurring, there is uncertainty
about the implications that can be made and the best ways to attack the problem of biodiversity
loss. Some view conservation as the ultimate goal, while others say development should be the
top priority. The issue of who should pay is also contentious, as is the question of property rights
(intellectual and other). The incremental cost model, the cost incurred to secure global benefits, is
thought to be the best alternative, but it is not without problems. It offers little to regions not
considered globally important and does not help when the principals cannot afford the initial costs
of conservation.
Dr. Pearl: The protected area model is being reevaluated as we learn more about species
interconnectedness. Protected areas were often set up to protect a single species, but in some cases
the species has disappeared while the protected area continues to be supported. Most wildlife
reside outside of protected areas. Since wildlife are in increasing conflict with humans, we must
find ways to make people want wildlife to survive. It is notoriously difficult, however, to
convince people that it is in their best interest to keep a species with global importance alive at the
local level. This battle for biodiversity must be won in every human heart. A true grass roots
effort must be made.
Dr. Oppenheimer: Concluded the discussion by saying that battles over global
warming are more political than this. Individual lifestyle choices are significant, particularly with
respect to transportation, which is responsible for about one-third of the increase in
carbon-monoxide.
10
-------
Panel 2: Environment and Higher Education
Panel Members;
Dr. Don J. Melnick, Columbia University, Moderator;
Dr. Steven Cohen, Columbia University;
Dr. John Robinson, Wildlife Conservation Society.
Panel Questions
1) What is the role of universities in environmental study and management? Is
this role unique?
2) What types of professionals should institutions of higher education be
producing in the area of environmental protection and management for the next
century?
3) Is it appropriate for Universities to form partnerships with
governmental,non-governmental and private sectors to facilitate environmental
conservation and management?
Dr. Melnick opened by posing the first question: What is the role of universities in
environmental study and management? Is this role unique?
Dr.Cohen: Universities need to independently and objectively analyze the current
environmental situation with a responsibility to get involved in public policy issues. The university
needs to conduct basic research on long term environmental issues, rather than specialize on
immediate ones. He suggested several ideas on how to accomplish this task, including a
breakdown and broadening of disciplinaiy boundaries. He pointed out that a program and plan
such as this would have no immediate financial payoff, like in a private institution, but the focus
should always be on what kind of society and planet we would like to have. He finished by saying
that, specifically, ecological awareness should be a part of any general studies program (like the
great books of literature) and that the university system should both train the students for
environmental careers and train non-environmental professionals (like lawyers and MBA's) to
understand environmental issues.
Dr. Robinson: The university should be an institution of training; a place to find new
ideas and innovative answers. He went on to say that although the university is a unique space for
sifting and analyzing information in a systematic way, this is currently done in a haphazard
fashion. He noted that the university has a problem transferring knowledge into implementation;
thus, environmental issues are reduced to slogans, giving politicians and others a bad grasp on the
real issues. He suggested that this is perhaps because universities have not traditionally, and are
not now, good at promoting and getting into public debate. As an example he mentioned the recent
congressional Global Warming Hearings, of which universities played a part. He continued by
agreeing with Cohen that within the university, a variety of disciplines need to be pulled into the
environmental debate, in order to solve the contradictions that will inevitably arise.
Dr. Melnick: Education, facilities, infrastructure and a wealth of resources all exist
within the universities already. What these institutions need to do is craft education programs that
will draw connections between the disciplines. This is a unique challenge for the university
system, albeit a formidable one, since the cost to create such a program outside of the university
would be prohibitively expensive. He then went on to focus on two areas important to
environmental education. The first was training. He suggested that an environmental course of
study should have a training aspect to it, as in the professional schools. There should be programs
for mid-career professionals who require knowledge. This kind of program is rarely done in the
arts and sciences. Research is also important to environmental study within the university. No
other single institution has the breadth of resources to run such a tremendous research
infrastructure which, naturally, can produce a tremendous amount of research results.
Dr. Melnick then opened the panel up for audience questions.
11
-------
Audience Question: What will be the role of arts and literature in the interdisciplinary
structure that environmental study might take, or if it will be limited only to the addition of social
science into the basic curriculum.
Dr. Cohen: Replied that many artists and novelists have increased environmental
awareness and that the use of images rather than research can be very helpful in environmental
education.
Dr. Melnick: An example of a book called Landscape Memories by Columbia faculty
member Simon Schama. This book, he said, is about our images of the environment over the
centuries, and there could be a major place for this kind of text in environmental study. He then
stressed that study of the environment must move out of just the natural and social sciences to be
part of general education.
Audience Question: Can the panelists see or foresee any changes taking place in
primary and secondary education?
Dr. Robinson: The problem with environmental education is most clear on the
university level. College and post-graduate level students are asked to enter specific disciplines,
which keep them from retaining a "holistic grasp" like the primary and secondary students are able
to do. These younger students are not faced with having to solve environmental problems and
only have to see the issues.
Dr. Melnick: Environmental education is easier to integrate into the core curriculum for
younger students.
Dr. Melnick then introduced the second question to the panel: What types of professionals
should institutions of higher education be producing in the area of environmental protection and
management for the next century?
Dr. Robinson: Disciplines should be broadened, and they are now being subjected to a
reductionist process. Professionals should be trained to see not just a set of problems but a way of
interacting within the natural world. Institutions of higher education should be producing people
with authority in one area and a breadth in many (as opposed to the "Jack of all trades, master of
none"). The second issue he stressed was that of communication and the ability to function in the
real world ("real world analysis"). Dr. Robinson questioned the employability of those that come
out of higher educational environmental programs and also stated that the majority of graduate
students in environmental studies have Master's and not PhD's because of the need to pick one
specialized discipline as you advance in education. He suggested that universities should consider
a Doctor of Conservation degree.
Dr. Cohen: The university needs to be training students to be interdisciplinarians,
problem solvers, non-linear thinkers, and to be comfortable with ambiguity. These future
professionals need to be able to make connections between groups and disciplines, and they need
to have enough science and social science to communicate with both at the same time; students
trained in science having a working knowledge of political science, and vice versa. He continued
by saying there should be a special certificate program for those students who have taken courses
to earn a passing knowledge of "the other side of the fence." He concluded his response by
asserting that students are future professionals who need to be able to approach problems in a fresh
way and without preconception.
Dr. Melnick: Talked about environmental biology and the need to train people as
ecologists, population biologists, ethnobiologists and systematists. He said that 1.3-1.4 million
species have been studied up to now, but those are only about ten percent of the total number of
species and cover three to five percent of the planet's biological diversity. He also stressed the
12
-------
need for people to have some working knowledge of science or policy when they study other
disciplines, as it is "hard to speak when there is no common language." He finished by suggesting
that the hiring and reward system needs to be different within the universities in order to reward
those professionals coming out of school with a multi-disciplinary background. The current tenure
system does not reward this brand of scholarship.
Dr. Melnick again opened the panel for audience comments.
Audience Question: How can students be trained to be both the next generation of
faculty and well-rounded practitioners? One needs different skills for each of these settings, and it
might be hard to balance die two. The audience member suggested that one look to the established
professional environmental community to draw role models. Dr. Cohen replied that the university
had begun to train students/future professionals to achieve both these goals.
Dr. Robinson: Commented on the hiring practice of professional groups, noting that
people with interdisciplinary degrees are treated with suspicion.
Audience Comment: The environmental problem is both a lack of knowledge and
political will. In other words, lack of coherence in what is taught and also dissonance.
Dr. Cohen: His department has hired two environmental-economists with a knowledge
of biodiversity. He also suggested that the awareness must be changed as to what survival needs
are. He finished his response by saying that he has faith that the broader changes in society will
get reflected in educational institutions.
Dr. Melnick: The current situation is encouraging rather than discouraging, since there
is a lot of power to unleash. He thought that it must be done in incremental steps and added that it
is the students who "drive the market" of the university, and they are now more interested in the
environment.
Audience Comment: The largest number of individuals going into college are entering
community colleges. She wanted to know the role of Columbia University, specifically, in the
integration of other colleges with environmental education efforts.
Dr. Melnick: The university system needs to get into the area of dealing with "non-
traditional audiences." Certificate programs and Master's programs, for example, train people as
future practitioners and educators for all educational institutions.
Dr. Melnick then addressed the panel with the final question: Is it appropriate for
Universities to form partnerships with governmental, non-governmental and private sectors to
facilitate environmental conservation and management?
Dr. Cohen: Those partnerships are essential, and he stressed the need to tap into the
knowledge of these people and bring them into academia. It is important, he continued to say, to
bring the real world into the university world and foster ongoing relations. These kinds of
connections give students job and internship opportunities.
Dr. Robinson: Agreed and stated that from an educational perspective, professional
involvement makes a lot of sense.
Dr. Melnick then asked for some last audience comments or questions.
Audience Comment: Because the issues are really problem solving questions, the field
of environmental education is a lot like philosophy.
Dr. Melnick: Agreed and added that often times organizations and universities find there
13
-------
is not enough time to think about the issues when there are so many immediate concerns.
Dr. Robinson: Commented that the only place that the aforementioned thought
processes will proceed is in the university, so time needs to be made to think about humankind and
the limitations of its natural environs.
Audience Question: Did the panel feel it was succeeding in training people in the skills
needed to tackle the huge environmental problem?
Dr. Cohen: Ended the session by saying that his goal is to have students looking for
answers and to be confronted with more questions.
14
-------
Panel 3: Risk Assessment
Panel Members:
Dr. Fanny K. Ennever, Columbia University, Moderator;
Dr. Suzanne Giannini-Spohn, EPA;
Dr. Frederica P. Perera, Columbia University;
Dr. I. Bernard Weinstein, Columbia University.
Panel Questions
1) How can we improve assessment of the risk of low dose exposure to
carcinogens?
2) How can uncertainty in risk assessment be more carefully characterized and/or
quantified?
3) What role should risk benefit analysis play in environmental and other health
and safety decisions?
Dr. Ennever: Started the panel with a brief over-view of risk assessment and answered
the first question. She commented that risk assessment is a way of answering questions, such as
what the expected effects of certain toxin concentrations might be. The answer is usually known,
she went on, but this is not acceptable in risk assessment. As a result, the EPA uses four steps to
create a viable answer. These steps are:
1. hazard identification (which is qualitative)
2. dose-response assessment
3. risk from concentration due to exposure
4. risk characterization (where a dose below the lowest safety zone is deemed acceptable).
Dr. Ennever continued to identify two types of uncertainty in risk assessment.
Whom do you protect? She defined this question as central to the goals and process of risk
assessment. The EPA's approach to this problem, based on the bell-shaped curve, is to protect
against the central tendencies and help the most exposed. This group is at approximately ten times
greater risk then those on the periphery.
The second type of uncertainty in performing risk assessment is the dose-response
relationship. At lower doses certain toxins remain soluble in test animals, so they don't create
tumors. Since the uncertainty is still high and one can't prove the negative effects, the,EPA takes a
conservative stance; although the actual risk could be smaller than stated. She stated that when the
EPA makes risk management decisions they try to have both dose response and risk information
available.
Dr. Perera: The primary problem is how to improve risk assessment. We don't have
good numbers for humans; instead, researchers rely on animal experimentation data and extrapolate
this down over a wide response. These can generate linear and sublinear responses. The EPA and
other agencies assume a low dose response is linear. Dr. Perera supports this as biologically
plausible but adds that we need more data to be sure.
The second problem, according to Dr. Perera, is that animal testing does not reflect human
heterogeneity. It assumes humans have homogeneous responses, and this is false. Differential
susceptibility, the fact that one group of people show a varying degree of response to a toxin, is
shown in a broad array of biological markers. This range of reactions should be considered in risk
assessment in order to get a full picture. It should also be used to generate a scale for exposure
measurement.
She noted two specific areas for improvement:
15
-------
1. we neea to try to maKe better use of what researchers know. For example, in
susceptibility, the metabolic handling of one toxin within an ethnic group can vary one hundred
fold. Old data that does not reflect current consumption patterns, such as the increased
consumption of fish, cannot be depended on.
2. Improvement is needed in the translation of scientific data into policy measures.
Audience Question: Is risk assessment needed to be broadened beyond the human
scope?
Dr. Perera: Risk assessment needs to be more holistic and integrated. Researchers of
risk assessment (like herself) will become obsolete with increased pollution prevention.
Dr. Giannini-Spohn: Her work involves addressing molecular mechanisms in
pathology to determine low dose responses to carcinogens and markers of exposure to
non-carcinogens. She noted that current safety factors are highly questionable considering the
extent of human variability in response. In considering exposure amount, human variability is
crucial, and risk assessment must not assume that average consumption generates a "normal"
response. She gave as an example the variation between different ethnic groups' responses; the
average consumer protection is not suitable because it does not take this into account. Dr.
Giannini-Spohn emphasized that examining human variability was key to proper risk assessment.
The goal of risk assessment is to reduce uncertainty, if not quantify it. This is
accomplished best through gaining more human data (i.e. through surveys). However, money is a
prohibitive factor. The EPA used to publish a journal of environmental monitoring in the 1970's
but no longer can due to lack of funds. Also, risk assessment is not a sexy, ground-breaking
subject. Instead, it is costly and time-consuming. But it is, she is quick to add, still very
important.
Audience Question: How good is risk assessment at addressing cost/benefit analysis?
Dr. Giannini-Spohn: Cost/benefit analysis should play a role in risk assessment, but it
should not be the primary factor. Unfortunately, it is not easy to justly compare the buying and
selling of products with benefits such as health which are not easy to price. This gets even more
difficult in terms of ecology. She concluded by saying that cost/benefit analysis should not be the
whole measure to make a decision in risk assessment.
Dr. Weinstein: Studies the multi-step factors in the mechanisms of carcinogenesis. He
noted that risk assessment can be very difficult because the complexity (i.e. latency period of
tumors, heritable variations) and heterogeneity in human responses cause many uncertainties. As a
result, they set very broad parameters. A threshold is rarely shown since responses to the same
dose vary widely among subjects. Therefore, he explained, prudence dictates broad safety
guidelines because it is based on an estimate. It can be very expensive to get a wide response
curve and know its shape. He stated that he supports the assessment of biomarkers in humans as
an appropriate step to give a dosimetric of human response.
Audience Question: Can we be satisfied with such broad safety measures in public
policy when the demands are so many and varied?
Dr. Weinstein: It depends upon what the safety factors are. Because of these
uncertainties one must be careful to preserve the earth and be cautious about how we affect it. He
stressed the need for more research, especially an effort to make risk assessment more scientific,
such as collecting more interspecies data to get a better extrapolation of responses. He cited using
transgenic mice.
16
-------
Panel 4: Wetlands and Rivers
Panel Members:
Mr. Kevin Bricke, EPA, Moderator;
Dr. Melanie L.J. Stiassny, American Museum of Natural History;
Dr. Dennis Suszkowski, Hudson River Foundation.
Panel Questions
1) Have we made progress over the last twenty five years in protecting our
wetlands and rivers?
2) What challenges remain?
3) How can we build partnerships to meet these challenges?
Mr. Bricke began by asking the first question: Have we made progress over the last 25
years in protecting our wetlands and rivers?
Dr. Suszkowski: Yes, there have been dramatic changes made since the Environmental
Protection Act and the Clean Water Act (CWA) were approved in 1972. Change was especially
apparent in this region, including improvements in the Hudson river, the lower Hudson river, and
the Shore.
He noted that when one looks at the 1900's, the 1970's, and then at the present, one can
easily see the progress that has been made. Before the 1970's there were absolutely no
regulations. The CWA was a start toward regulation and progress. Much has been done in the
area of toxin controls. This is evident through the complete records kept since 1909. The bottom
sediments have been improved and contain two to six times less toxins than before the CWA.
There has also been an improvement in dissolved oxygen levels since 1930. Concerning habitat
loss, most of the wetlands in this area were filled during colonial times. There has been an
increase of 19,000 acres of wetlands due to the train tracks on the Hudson river, which, he pointed
out, is not necessarily a good thing. Due to regulations, there has been no filling in of wetlands
recently. Also, because of sewage treatment programs, there has been an obvious decrease in
bacteria levels in the recent past. There is also less solid garbage.
Dr. Suszkowski stated that the loss of living resources is a more difficult question. There
have been declines in the number of fish, but this is because of over-fishing, not pollution. One
sign that things are better is that there are more shore birds in and around New York City than 25
years ago. He concluded his response by saying, "We have a lot to be proud of."
Mr. Bricke: Agreed that substantial progress has been made in the conservation and
protection of our wetlands and rivers. In the 1970's the situation throughout the nation was
horrible. He named a few of the major problems: a half billion gallons of sewage was released a
day in New York alone; there was no pre-treatment of industrial waste; ocean dumping was
common; there were a great number of fish kills; there was less oxygen in the water; and toxins
were abundant throughout the environment. Lake Erie had extremely high levels of phosphorus;
the Delaware river had painfully low levels of oxygen which prevented the shag from swimming
past Philadelphia; and half the wetlands of the U.S. had been lost.
Mr. Bricke stated that today the situation is much better, and we can indeed be proud of our
progress. There is now a 95 percent compliance rate with permits for dumping; the government
has spent $10 billion in this region alone; there is no longer dumping of sewage or toxins in the
ocean; and there has been a substantial decrease in pollutants, PCP's, and fecal chloroforms and an
increase in oxygen levels. He pointed out that Lake Erie didn't die after all and that the shag are
once again swimming in the Delaware River. He ended with a reminder that, "we still have a lot of
problems to deal with."
Dr. Stiassny: The major achievement of the EPA is that they are now a model to the
17
-------
world. The message that water is a finite resource has finally reached the public. Progress has
been made, but crisis still occurs. The critical question is: why are we now at a crossroads, and
how can we act on the existing programs to build off of them in the future?
At this point the floor was opened for questions and comments by the audience members.
Audience Comment for Melanie Stiassny: In New Jersey there is a wetlands
protection program, but legislation is now being passed to reduce buffer zones. It seems the
government is making purely economic decisions, that the crossroads have been reached, and that
it now rests in the governments ability to listen to the community.
Dr. Stiassny: Ideally we would have ecosystem-wide programs, but we are dealing now
with only short term crisis.
Audience Comment: The treatment plant in Greenpoint Brooklyn has not yet been
upgraded to secondary. It was supposed to be done in 1979, but now it is planned for 2007. This
seems like a major failure on the part of the government. Also, the Hudson river has been given so
much attention while other rivers like the creek separating Brooklyn and Queens and the East river
are never talked about. What is being done to improve these areas?
Mr. Bricke: The Greenpoint plant is the only non-upgraded plant in the city.
Audience Question: What does passive filling in of the wetlands do? What is the effect
of sedimentation?
Dr. Suszkowski: Two questions have been raised; first what will the government's role
be in protection within the community, and secondly what can be done to alleviate natural
processes? He used the Hudson river as an example. Before 1900 every tree on the bank was cut,
and tons of soil fell into the water. Trees have been replanted to help, and there is now much more
forest.
Dr. Stiassny: Gave her "scariest statistic" — between the 1780's and the 1980's the
U.S. lost 60 acres of wetland every hour. She stressed that individuals and the government must
realize that the economic reasons are no longer valid. "It is anarchy to stop a river from getting to
its flood plane." The U.S. has to spend $25 billion just to maintain the navigability of the
Mississippi. This is not for the common good, neither economic nor social. The question that
remains is: how do we convey the madness of bio-economics?
The second question was then addressed: What challenges remain?
Dr. Suszkowski: There are still many problems. For example we still cannot eat many
fish caught in our rivers and off our shores. The challenge is now that the sources of pollution and
waste can no longer be easily identified. Eighty percent of the problem may have been solved, but
the last 20 percent will prove to be the hardest. We also lack the technology to deal with
everything. Disposal sites for tons of dredge are needed. And due to the ever improving
technology, it is hard to know what has been put out there before. It is a difficult task to inventory
the toxins in all areas. Better communication between localities, organizations, the federal
government, and the state governments is needed. There is a leadership void when trying to deal
with regional issues. Agencies lose responsibility to the government and who is really in charge is
a constant issue. Who will lead us in the next decade?
Mr. Bricke: Agreed with the previous commentary. Although there has been progress
made due to nation-wide regulations, regional problems need to be addressed. Each problem is
unique and has a singular answer that is specific to the geographic and pollutant variables. To
make further progress the balance between local and nation-wide programs must be found.
18
-------
Dr. Stiassny: Stated that the greatest challenge is to make the people aware of the
progress that has been made and that which still must be done. The question is, "How do we get
people to care?" People are easily convinced of problems that affect them, such as not being able
to eat shellfish, yet they ignore the real issue; there has been a 67 percent decrease in the diversity
of mollusk species.
Audience Question: Why are you ignoring the fact that many economic decisions are
still being made that hurt the environment but fall within the base regulations?
Mr.Bricke: While this may be true, the good things greatly outweigh the bad.
Audience Question: The CWA protects our rivers, but there is too little enforcement,
and we are now going to lose more habitat. Shouldn't the top priority be to protect the existing
fisheries? Why not focus on enforcing existing laws?
Dr. Suszkowski: The current laws are not at all visionary. They simply protect what
exists now. It is a challenge to work towards a future vision and policy which foresees problems
for our environment.
Mr. Bricke: What we should do now is protect. There must be increased enforcement
and increased compliance assistance. We must allow for more sensible regulations.
Audience Question: What are you deeming clean water? What determines this? Is it a
case by case issue?
Dr. Suszkowski: There are now 350 specific actions linked to the goals of cleaning the
Hudson estuary. The "wheels" are in place, and all that is needed is communication and
momentum.
Mr. Bricke: Refereed to his discussion earlier of the challenges of finding the proper
indicators and defining the progress with evolving technology and changing habitats.
Audience Comment: There is a great need for partnerships. The public does not realize
the inadequacy of environmental protection. All of this is important and must be sold to the public.
Dr. Stiassny: He agreed and stated that CERC is a wonderful example of a partnership,
but unfortunately it consists of scientists and not economists and advertisers. That is what is really
needed. We need to market environmental protection and "fight fire with fire."
19
-------
Panel 5: Regional Environmental Policy Priorities
Panel Members:
Mr. Terry Garcia, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
Moderator;
Mr. Walter Mugdan, EPA;
Mr. Edward Wagner, New York City Department of Environmental Protection.
Panel Questions
1) What does past experience tell, and what do you see as the future for State,
Federal, and regional cooperation for environmental priority setting in a time of
reduced budgets?
2) With point-source pollution largely regulated, what do you see as the future of
non-point source pollution regulation in coastal regions?
3) With the push by Congress to cut back on clean-up funding, how will ongoing
regional clean-up progress?
4) How would the existing balance between State and Federal regulation on
environmental matters be affected by passage of the environmental reform
legislation currently in Congress?
Introductory remarks by Mr. Garcia:
Changes in this century will have negative effects for decades, and no country or locality
has the money or resources to deal with them. The environmental problems he lists include: the
greenhouse effect, loss of biodiversity, growth of coastal counties, non-point source pollution, and
short term seasonal events. Recently governments have tried to break down every environmental
act by either cutting the budget or by eliminating them outright.
He then asks the first question: What does past experience tell, and what do you see as the
future for State, Federal, and regional cooperation for environmental priority setting in a time of
reduced budgets?
Mr. Mugdan: His answer focused on the Superfund program, which, he says has been
a success despite the fact that it is universally maligned. The two main goals were met: to clean
hazardous waste and to get somebody else to pay for it. The party responsible for the waste or the
people who own the property have traditionally been charged for the cleanup. Like all public
works projects, Superfund endeavors take about five to ten years from start to finish. The group's
real success lies in the programs that don't receive any attention; for example, the removal program
that has cleaned between 2000 and 3000 local dumping sites. The government cut a quarter of the
money for Superfund, and less money means less clean up. Also, Mr. Mugadan pointed out that
the liabilities scheme has been successful. About 70 percent of the incurred costs have been paid
by outer agencies and parties. But as research grows, so does the need for money. At times the
liabilities program may not be fair, but it is responsible for a change in attitude. Industries and the
public now recognize that they can be monetarily responsible for their pollution. The program
works, and it should not be discontinued. It is society's job to now ask what should be done in
the future and who will pay for it.
Mr. Garcia: There is now a bill in congress that will place a $50 million cap on natural
resource liability. The polluter will not be responsible for any amount over that. This, he
concludes, will result in the worst problems not being taken care of. There are many examples of
polluted areas that require more than twice that amount to clean. The Hudson river clean-up is one
example. It spanned over 200 river miles and took $100 million to renovate. What the polluter
doesn't cover is left for the public to pay through higher taxes. Citizens can either pay for the
cleaning, or they can live with the environmental scars.
Mr.Wagner: What is the relative role of government and particular localities to be in the
20
-------
future? He stated that although it seems fair to require the polluter to pay for all damage, it is often
not that simple. The past approach of government regulation is no longer applicable, we are now
left with non-point sources of pollution, so who will pay? The current political climate is not
giving us any clear answers.
Mr. Wagner addressed the question: how effective have the national, state, and local
governments been in dealing with problems in this region? He replied that since problems can no
longer be solved by setting uniform standards, the work rests on the localities' shoulders. We
need a new framework. Academia, the different levels of government, and private agencies must
come together, set up plans, reset priorities, and organize new management. This has been done in
the Hudson programs and with the Long Island Sound, but fledgling movements still rely on
federal support.
Mr. Mugdan: Agreed, adding that agreements must be made across political borders and
EPA zones. It is essential to maintain partnerships. There may be conflicts, and it may be
inefficient, but partnerships bring depth and an ability to achieve results where normally there
would be no hope.
Audience Question for Walter Mugdan: There has been a push away from federal
involvement and regulation by many environmentalists. Why and how can this attitude be
changed?
Mr. Mugdan: Responded by saying that the "control and command" methods of the
federal government worked when the pollution problems were self-evident. Air pollution in New
York City in the seventies was blamed on factory emissions, but now the problem is cars. The
solution of mandatory car inspections is very unpopular because it puts too much strain on the
public. And, there are not too many politicians who want to be unpopular with voters. Another
example for which regulations do not work is the wide spread pollution caused by lawn fertilizers.
Continuing Audience Comment: The air pollution problem in New York City is due
to the government's lack of fulfilling promises. Money from the bridge and tunnel tolls were
supposed to be put towards mass transit, and they weren't.
Mr. Mugdan: It remains a problem of enforcement. The tolls were supposed to be put
on all the bridges in New York, but the politicians at the time were not willing to do that. Both the
political and the public spirit needs to be behind the act in order for it to succeed.
Audience Question for Mr. Mugdan: With less money, will standards be lowered?
Mr. Mugdan: Replied that standards are not being lowered, but we do need to be
sensitive to the fact that sometimes urban areas do not need to look like the cleanest part of the
suburbs. Most people forget that the cleaner the area, the more business it will draw bringing
economic growth in that area. Due to technology, we are also now able to tell more precisely what
is really threatening and what is not so bad.
Audience Comment: Congress is irresponsible. They are passing bills with riders that
have no public forum. The public needs to react.
Mr. Garcia: There have been efforts to strip the riders, but they have not always been
successful. If many of these riders were subjected to public and scientific scrutiny, they would
never be passed. It is recognized that most people do not support cuts in areas of environmental
protection.
Audience Comment: The EPA needs to let the people know what is happening and how
they can help in the fight with Congress. They need to take a role in inter-state communications
and in communication between the local and federal governments. Ideally, a report from the EPA
21
-------
should be sent to every congressman that outlines a success story within their district. There needs
to be aggressive action on the part of the EPA generally.
Mr. Mugdan: The EPA is doing just that or at least trying. The great thing about the
environmental movement in the U.S. is the strong grass roots support, advocacy programs, and
lawsuits. Recently the EPA has tried to work more within communities and to educate their
individual members. Creating new partnerships is the only smart move. It is wise politically and
environmentally.
Audience Comment: In the early 1970's the EPA was seen as a friend to help with state
problems, but then in the 1980's and the Reagan years the EPA got lost. It is time that you "come
out of the closet."
Mr. Wagner: Agreed, pointing out that the EPA and other government agencies are
trying to reinvent themselves. The EPA plays the role of "environmental godfather," but the cries
are now from localities. The real issue is that money is now going to have to come from the people
and from the particular regions involved. Therefore, in order to succeed, partnerships must be
developed.
22
-------
Panel 6: Sustainable Development
Panel Members:
Dr. Charles M. Peters, New York Botanical Garden, Moderator;
Dr. Francesca Grifo, American Museum of Natural History;
Dr. Geoffrey Heal, Columbia University;
Mr. Stephen Viederman, Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation.
Panel Questions
1) What is sustainable development?
2) Why is sustainable development so hard to implement?
3) How can we make sustainable development work?
Dr. Peters began the panel with a brief history of sustainable development.
Prior to the 1970's our country's development was purely growth oriented, and increasing
the gross national product, standard of living, and volume of trade was emphasized. As a result,
by the 1970's damage caused by over-exploitation of resources was clearly manifest.
Dr. Peters offered a few explanations for and examples of the shift in perspective that has
occurred since. First, two publications, one by the United Nations and another by the Club of
Rome, led to the creation of the United Nations Environmental Program and the coining of the term
"sustainable development."
The discussion of the world conservation strategy for the first time incorporated social and
ecological factors and became a blueprint for sustainable development initiatives. Also, the
publication of Our Common Future in 1987 was central because it called upon all nations to
support sustainable development. In 1992 the Earth Summit linked principles of forest
management to sustainable development. Today, only 23 years after the phrase was coined, there
are over 300 internet sites devoted to sustainable development. Dr. Peters next turned to the other
panelists for a definition of this ubiquitous term.
Mr. Viederman: Defined sustainable development as being a participatory process based
on an alternate vision of society. Global warming is a symptom of a larger problem, a problem
based on the difference between where we are and where we are going. Ecological sustainability is
only part of the story; he also views economic vitality, equity, empowerment, and justice as central
to sustainable development.
Dr. Heal: Approached the question from an economic perspective, basing his answer on
how a sustainable approach would differ from our present economy. First, a sustainable society
would put more weight on benefits and costs which accrue in the future, unlike our present myopic
approach. Benefits often accrue before the costs, and this makes it particularly difficult to level the
playing field by tipping the scales towards the future. The second major change he envisions for a
sustainable society entails recognizing the value of non-market assets such as biodiversity.
Non-market values include the intrinsic, aesthetic, and cultural. It will be a central challenge in the
next few decades to find a way to incorporate these values into our economic system.
Dr. Grifo: Approached the question from a critical perspective. "How do we know if it
is sustainable development?" She feels ecology must be examined first in answering that question,
since all other questions are predicated on the continued existence of an environment which can
support life. She also thinks scientific questions should be addressed early on because we will not
be able to understand the future unless we can look back to where we started from.
Mr. Viederman: Wondered why we haven't achieved sustainable development, given
that so many people see it as necessary. He suggested that consumption is not merely a cultural
issue but is deeply ingrained in our sense of economic prosperity. It is easy to fall back on excuses
23
-------
rather than be pro-active. We say that we lack the political motivation to change or that we already
are improving or that technology will bail us out. We have to start somewhere, and people can
only know and love specific places. Ultimately, he believes we will have to think holistically and
systematically. If we ignore equity, for example, the environment will continue to be destroyed,
since poor people have no option but to destroy the environment. He views higher education as a
barrier to systemic thinking and likens academic reshuffling to "rearranging the chairs on the
Titanic."
Dr. Grifo: Echoed this general sentiment, underscoring the need to get people from
different disciplines talking to each other, which will only happen if the participatory approach is
encouraged.
Dr. Heal: Pointed out that simply looking at equity will not solve the problem, since
equity for future generations must be balanced against equity today. He added that the frontier
approach (the assumption that natural resources are ours to dispose of as we want), so common in
North American culture, will have to be done away with. Individual values will invariably clash
and evolve, and we will need new economic measures. Germany has begun to point its economic
indicators towards environmental assets and green markets; the statistics generated from this move
challenge traditional conceptions of prosperity. Changing accounting methods is one thing, but it
will be much more difficult to change behavior. Will people be willing to pay $5 for a gallon of
gas, or change their residential patterns in order to make public transportation more feasible? He
concluded by noting that at least we have the scientific understanding needed to achieve
sustainability.
Dr. Peters: Argued that our tendency to view sustainable development and conservation
as synonymous would be challenged in future years. He suggested that there may be hard choices
ahead as a result of this distinction.
Mr. Viederman: Said we should think about how change occurs (and does not occur).
He compared universities to medieval guilds in their attempt to stigmatize alternative viewpoints.
He singled out the discipline of economics as being particularly insular.
Dr. Heal: Agreed that many institutions have become relics which have failed to adapt to
a changing world, and mentioned the damage done by the World Bank. He does find it fortunate
that some companies, particularly pharmaceuticals, are opening their eyes to traditional medicines
but thinks the ultimate question will be whether or not the political motivation to change exists.
Dr. Grifo: Closed the discussion by stating that fundamental change occurs at the
individual level and entreated us all to be critical thinkers.
24
-------
Panel 7: Urban Ecosystems
Panel Members:
Mr. William J. Muszynski, EPA, Moderator;
Dr. Steven D. Garber, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey;
Mr. Marc Matsil, New York City Parks Department;
Dr. John T. Tanacredi, Department of the Interior.
Panel Questions
1) How does an urban ecosystem differ from what people may believe make up a
traditional ecosystem? What are its components?
2) How can environmental issues compete with issues such as crime, health care,
housing, etc.?
3) How will the environmental issues we face in the next 25 years differ from
those of the last 25 years?
The panel began with William Muszynski talking about New York's environment as
defined by ozone saturation, the world's largest landfill, the treated waste water, and the crowded
streets. He continued by noting that we need to insure that we can study and improve the
communication between systems and groups and that we need to come up with solutions for
improving habitats and understanding them. He then posed the hypothetical question: what if there
had not been the foresight to build Central Park? He then addressed the first question to the rest of
the panel: how does an urban ecosystem differ from what people may believe make up a traditional
ecosystem? What are its components?
Dr. Garber: Urban ecosystems are traditional ecosystems, where ecology can be defined
as the place where plants and animals live and how they interact. Urban ecosystems are different
because they are the newest, fastest growing and most important ecosystems in the world. Its
newness gives us a chance to create an environment from scratch and to turn it into whatever we
want. He continued by explaining that New York is unique because we get our water and food
from outside of our system; also, most of the birds in the area were not even living on this
continent one hundred years ago. We are essentially creating a new habitat.
Dr. Tanacredi: Defined urban ecosystems in one word: altered. However, he
continued, there is still a lot considered unchanged. For example, in our area the flora and fauna
on the Hudson River Estuary remains unchanged. In urban ecosystems, the niche filling rate is
high. Also, the "wildlife" is not so wild (i.e. deer, raccoon, etc.). He went on to talk about the
importance of the three "I's" to planning an urban system. (1) Intensity. The city, New York
especially, is a very intensely packed area, and we must remember to leave open spaces. (2)
Ignorance. He explained that there is a paltry level of understanding about the natural level of
functioning and of natural systems. (3) Insensitivity. There should be the creation of a naturalist
ethic (i.e. sea ethic, shore ethic, etc.).
Mr. Matsil: Explained that New York City is in a unique position on the Eastern
Seaboard because all the species from Maine to the Carolinas come to a head in Staten Island. He
added that the encroaching wildlife problems alter the function of ecosystems and that we should
try to save the remaining island, especially the fragments which sustain significant populations.
He added that, as an urban ecosystem, we are at a critical juncture brought upon us by polluters.
We have been able to bring back one mile of shoreline. However, if laws pass saying that
corporations are not fully culpable and that the tax payer should share some responsibility for
environmental disasters, there will be some radical changes. And not for the better.
Audience Question: How is it possible to reverse the trend of abuse versus relationship
to the environment?
Dr. Garber: One way to reverse the trend is to educate kids through "nature" classes.
25
-------
He suggested that these classes may have been widely eliminated by now. People need to be
concerned not just with conservation but with their aesthetic sense about the environment. He
concluded his answer by saying that most people in the environmental community don't know as
many species names as they should.
Dr. Tanacredi: Educating children is critical, noting that New York City has almost a
million children in its school systems. The study of nature needs to be integrated into the child's
basic life functions; the children need to live it (i.e. through camping) rather than just observing
nature. Aside from education, he went on to say, the Endangered Species Act is not strong
enough, and there needs to be a law protecting habitats.
Mr. Matsil: Within the Congressional Committee on Commerce and Transportation,
only one out of seventeen members had ever done work in the field. We need to educate people
with a legislative bent. He finished by saying that the habitat islands are all we have left.
Dr. Muszynski: Began his answer with a question: "whose property is it?" The
Congressional debate is whether the environment is ours or future generations'. Some want to use
it, regardless of the affect on future society. He finished by saying that the debate that needs to be
occurring right now is whether or not one has the right to ruin an ecosystem just because he or she
owns it.
Audience Question: Is nature being taught in the public schools? She commented that
Staten Island is being more environmentally abused than any of the other five boroughs. She
described it as "the world's largest dump."
Dr. Garber: Responded to the question of whether kids are being taught about the
environment by saying that a basic vocabulary does not exist for school children. He then added
that the problem with New York City's environmental policy is that everyone fights over every
little issue and that nothing gets done, or a lot of time or effort is wasted.
Dr. Tanacredi: Answered by asking a question: "how does one preserve every living
thing when human use makes such a large impact?" He added that he doesn't know about
systems, but decisions have to be made about how to get it done. He finished his answer by
saying that he doesn't think these issues will change as long as people are in the natural ecosystem.
Mr. Matsil: We need to look at all functions of natural areas. The army corps in Staten
Island are not enforcing the laws. Federal agencies charged with enforcing are not enforcing laws.
This lack of action will ultimately end up costing the tax payer.
Mr. Muszynski: Regional compromises have been made and must continue to be made.
It seems to be falling apart because there is too much regional concern; regional plans almost totally
deal with localities. Interrelationships among regions are the key for success in the next 25 years.
26
-------
Panel 8: Pollution Prevention
Panel Members:
Mr. Peter H. Lehner, Natural Resources Defense Council, Moderator;
Mr. Conrad Simon, EPA;
Mr. Darwin Wika, Dupont Company.
Panel Questions
1) Trying to give as many specifics as possible, what have been the most and
least successful pollution prevention efforts in the last 10-15 years, and what are
the greatest opportunities in the next 10 years?
2) Given that pollution prevention can save money and be the most effective and
efficient means of reducing environmental degradation, there arguably should be
much more of it than there is. What are the most significant impediments to
pollution prevention efforts including those posed by government actions,
accounting or financial factors?
3) Most pollution prevention is currently focused on operational changes within
plants; should they be better focused on an earlier stage of product and process
design changes, and if so, how can efforts be thus refocused?
Mr. Wika began the panel discussion by addressing the first question: Trying to give as
many specifics as possible, what have been the most and least successful pollution prevention
efforts in the last 10-15 years, and what are the greatest opportunities in the next 10 years?
Mr.Wika: The most successful pollution prevention programs were voluntarily
introduced initiatives like the 33:50 ratio. These were the best, he said, because it allowed the
companies to set voluntary reductions in their pollution, benefiting both the environment and the
economy. He gave two examples where Dupont is voluntarily addressing pollution problems. In
Towanda, Pennsylvania the Dupont Company is driving for zero emissions from methylene
chloride, a widely-used hazardous cleaning solvent. They have already achieved an 80 percent
reduction and in the process have saved over 2.5 million dollars. In Chamberworks, New Jersey
Dupont was able to spend 90 thousand dollars on a new process with positive results. They have
saved 15 million dollars and the environment in the meantime.
The least successful pollution prevention methods, Mr. Wika continued, occur when you
invest money and get no economic return. He conceded that this is sometimes necessary to help
the environment, but the best choices were voluntary initiatives — in which the company aims
below set pollution standards and still achieve an economic benefit.
Audience Question for Mr. Wika: Should the government encourage industries to
use nontoxic chemicals (and fund research)?
Mr. Wika: Awareness is key. Since consumers drive the marketplace, the fastest way to
generate change in companies is from the marketplace (direct input from individuals). Dupont is
trying to do this from the inside, but it is difficult for such a large industry because of its diversity.
The company has many different lines of production. Dupont has a commitment which all its
sub-companies sign. This pledge is an effort designed to change the mind-set of employees and
encourage them not to pollute. You cannot reduce yourself to zero production, but you can
actively try not to produce the toxins in the first place. This more than anything, Mr. Wika
suggested, is a mental change.
Mr. Simon: Made the statement that congress' budget impacts the EPA greatly.
Recycling is not included in the definition of pollution prevention unless it occurs during the
process of creation. Source production of pollutants needs to change (i.e. through reformulating
the product and materials substitution) to decrease waste. With the introduction of the possibility
of recycling, one can reuse what was traditionally wasted, putting it. back through the original
27
-------
process or sending it to another company to be used there. Recycling requires process
redesigning.
Mr. Simon does not like command-control but believes that through it we have achieved the
greatest amount of pollution prevention. The government asks industry to invest in technology not
yet tested for waste reduction. The EPA has achieved much with the existing laws, but there are
still many problems: a 25 percent population growth increases demands for goods and services,
which increases energy use (this is up 60 percent in the past 25 years), and this in turn creates
more pollution.
Voluntary initiatives, he would agree with Wika, are one of the most notable achievements.
In 1988 the EPA proposed the 33:50 program, in which industries voluntarily decrease their total
releases 33 percent by 1992 and 50 percent by 1995. As a result of this initiative, a lot of progress
was made, and industries have decreased total emissions from 1.5 billion pounds per year to 0.8
billion pounds per year. Mr. Simon believes more can be achieved through the EPA. For
example, he thinks that there could be a decrease in greenhouse gases. He feels the greatest
opportunities in the future lie in government investments in pollution preventing technologies, such
as those that help industries improve processes like food packaging, the production of green
chemicals, and recycling.
Mr. Lehner: Believes the biggest step towards pollution prevention involves changing
awareness about energy consumption. We have the ability to produce the same amount with less
energy. This would decrease pollution because less waste is generated and less input materials are
used. He stated that energy is not accurately priced. In fact, government efforts and price fixing
actually encourage greater energy use, not less, so it acts as a disincentive for initiating pollution
prevention efforts.
An area which has improved little in prevention efforts is non-point-source water pollution.
A major way to get at this problem is to decrease use of pesticides and fertilizers. Since the Clean
Water Act of 1972 this has been the least successful of the water pollution prevention programs
and is becoming the biggest area of concern. Indoor air pollution from outgassing of materials is
another problem, and it's not easy to get at because it requires a change in building and office
materials. Mr. Lehner feels we can change these goods and still provide the same comforts.
Mr. Wika's response to the second question: Given that pollution prevention can save
money and be the most effective and efficient means of reducing environmental degradation, there
arguably should be much more of it than there is. What are the most significant impediments to
pollution prevention efforts including those posed by government actions, accounting or financial
systems, management issues, product development processes or other factors?
Mr. Wika noted that command-and-control methods may have worked in the 1970's and
1980's to initiate a start, but it is no good now because it is end-pipe treatment, a very expensive
method that comes too late. We must recapitalize processes to become greener and cleaner, just
like our counterparts in Germany, Japan, and Indonesia are doing. It is hard for American
companies to compete because we are still throwing money at the end-pipe. It is necessary for us
to change our process. Dupont is currently taking steps in this direction.
Mr. Simon: Nothing in federal law requires zero emissions, so no automatic incentive
exists. Currently, businesses benefit using new methodology or face a penalty they wish to avoid.
Economists are a major factor, and fines are used to encourage change, but nonproductive
investments just to avoid a fine are not the best incentive within the industry. A major hindrance to
amend this problem is the lack of public support for pollution prevention. This is due to a number
of factors: economists, the lack of widely held knowledge, absence of life-cycle pricing, the
problem of growth, and customer satisfaction. Mr. Simon thinks the EPA has done much in the
past 10 years, but believes that industry has to do a better job. This includes taking an active role
in educating the public about products and their hazards. Control and communication are key, he
28
-------
added.
Dr. Lehner: Questioned the progress of pollution prevention in developing countries.
These countries were getting along as they were before, and this causes a great deal of inertia.
This plays a large role in the lack of improved standards in these places.
Competition and product quality are also factors. Two things which contribute to the
inertia are: (1) government mandates for change are seen as less credible due to delays and other
complications, and (2) there is a lack of communication between various sections and heads in
corporate management. The size of the company also limits its latitude. The largest tasks require
that we refocus our efforts and views about processes and products currently considered
sacrosanct. Energy rebates are a good example. Big businesses can purchase them, but the small
businesses do not have the ability to redesign their systems to get the rebates. Mr. Lehner believes
the next step is to bring small companies into the environment^ regulations of pollution
prevention.
Mr. Wika then approached the last question: Most pollution prevention is currently
focused on operational changes within plants. Should they be better focused on an earlier stage of
product and process design changes, and if so, how can efforts be thus refocused?
Mr. Wika commented that Research and Engineering needs to be geared up. It takes time
to make the necessary changes. Our concept of waste needs to change; it is just another product
that can and should be reused to make something else. An example, he noted, was that polyester
can be recycled and reused. Waste is a marketable product waiting to be used.
Mr. Simon: The major problem lies in the rigidity of existing plants; they're not able to
do much with current pollution prevention efforts in terms of improving processes. They must
rethink and re-engineer their processes. While doing so they must address the very mind-set of
their people. The EPA has a seven point program to work with industries, shareholders, and other
related organizations. These are people who can make a change.
In answer to an audience question on how small businesses gain clout, Lehner and Wika
both responded that they should and have gone to Washington, D.C. Traditionally, it has been
difficult for small businesses to make changes due to lack of time and scale. They were not
considered as a pollution source and held liable when environmental regulations were formulated.
Now they must be taken into consideration.
Audience Question: Why is industry getting involved with Republican government
efforts?
Mr. Wika: The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) does not support the
Republican government. He added that we need a base of regulations, but many big industries
comply more than small ones. Small businesses are a large constituent, 42 percent, and were left
out of negotiations to set regulations, even though they generate 50 percent of the waste. They
now have the Republicans' ears.
29
-------
Panel 9: Watershed Issues
Panel Members;
The Honorable Stanley Michels, New York City Council Member, Moderator;
Mr. Richard Caspe, EPA;
Dr. Sylvie Le Blancq, Columbia University;
Dr. George Morren, Rutgers University.
Panel Questions
1) For Mr. Caspe: Please explain the dynamics of the watershed accord and the
various concerns that needed to be addressed in order to reach agreement? For
other panelists: If you were to develop a "model" land acquisition plan for the
Catskill/Delaware Watershed that, from a theoretical rather than a practical
perspective, would be designed to address only the preservation and enhancement
of water quality, what would your plan consist of and how would you structure
such a plan?
2) Does precedent exist for utilizing phosphorus offsets in the context of
watershed protection and do adequate mechanisms exist for measuring
phosphorus loadings?
3) What is the opinion of the panel members as to the efficacy of the enhanced
surface water treatment rule? Would such a rule require removal of
cryptosporidum by filtration? What potential impact do the panelists believe this
would have upon the watershed accord and nitration avoidance in general?
Mr. Caspe opened the discussion for this panel.
He stated that the dynamics of the watershed issue involve many aspects, including land
acquisition, the 1986 Safe Drinking Act, and the EPA's Safe Treatment Act. The last is based on
nine objectives: eight quantitative and one qualitative. This accord actually allowed the city to
avoid filtration. He went on to say that there were two central factors in the watershed issue: land
acquisition and the qualities around it. The city owns only eight percent of the watershed area,
which is not much, and the state only three percent, compared to other states which own most of
the land around their watersheds.
Mr. Caspe noted that an agreement with the EPA required the city to purchase 80,000 acres
around the watershed by a given date and proposed that in 1997 the city buy 50,000 more.
However, there is a history of mistrust between upstate residents and downstate. Upstate residents
were suspicious of the 80,000 acres including all the appraisals, processes, and costs they entailed.
They wanted to be more involved. Eventually the 80,000 acres were increased to 355,000 to be
solicited by a ranking of priority within each reservoir. The EPA will continue to oversee this
process. They are looking for an agreement on the issue in a couple months after each concerned
town ratifies it. He pointed out that the filtration avoidance is outdated by what the EPA is doing
here. The accord is being updated and will be available to the public by January 1996.
Dr. Morren: Addressed the audience. His perception as a cultural anthropologist and
activist is that small towns respond negatively to authoritative orders. Now command-and-control
actions are not so easy to levy because small towns have the muscle to resist, and there is much
more participatory action among their members. There is more face-to-face interaction between
public officials and people. He asserted that the agreement model would have to be open and
dynamic. Dr. Morren expressed concern about removing phosphorous from non-point suppliers
like stores (e.g. fertilizer). He then asked the panel if filtration was giving a false sense of
security.
Dr. Le Blancq: They must protect the watershed and do more research to come up with
adequate answers.
30
-------
Mr. Caspe addressed the second question: Does precedent exist for utilizing phosphorus
offsets in the context of watershed protection, and do adequate mechanisms exist for measuring
phosphorus loadings?
Mr. Caspe remarked that the agreement with the EPA only deals with areas experiencing
phosphorus problems, which are treatable. As a technical issue, it is a small program, but it poses
a large political issue. When asked by Dr. Le Blancq, he noted that there would be some trading
between the five plants but nothing large-scale. It would run on a three-to-one ratio. This ratio
requires that the permit for said discharge being traded would require a three-fold reduction in other
total discharges. This stipulation was placed because trading is difficult to measure. All five
facilities have micro filtration. If the agreement works, the EPA will see how it affects the process
changes. If it does not work, they will discontinue the project.
Audience Question: How does the agreement plan to address non-point source
phosphorous inputs as part of the watershed issue?
Mr. Caspe: Using farms that pollute as an example. The farms would be given an
option to buy an easement. If they feel the financial pressure to sell their land, the city might buy it
for agriculture of certain types performed in certain manners in accordance with agreed upon
farming practices. He also noted that the best place to control sewage input is from the source (i.e.
within housing developments). Mr. Caspe remarked that historically the city has done little to
protect its water system. It took the EPA and the Safe Drinking Water Act to motivate change.
Dr. Le Blancq: She agreed that land acquisition was a major issue. She also felt that
more attention should be paid to the role of point sources and the key role of sewage treatment.
Dr. Le Blancq reminded the audience that clean water is the cornerstone of public health. She
urged more research on O.S.'s in watersheds, and supported the agreement as a very exciting plan.
It is difficult to determine phosphorus inputs from non-point sources such as agriculture. She
cautioned that Ph trading between basins would be dangerous. Mr. Caspe replied that there
wouldn't be anything of this nature included in the agreement.
Mr. Michels: Noted that the program will cost the city $1.3 billion dollars, and more
funds will be directed upstate to farmers. He asked whether sewage treatment plants would be
upgraded and Mr. Caspe replied that they would. He remarked that new rules and regulations,
both state and federal were being updated, but that they were not the issue here today.
Dr. Le Blancq's answer to the third question: What is the opinion of the
panel members as to the efficacy of the enhanced surface water treatment rule?
Would such a rule require removal of cryptosporidum by filtration? What
potential impact do the panelists believe this would have upon the watershed
accord and filtration avoidance in general?
There is very inadequate technology for measuring Cryptosporidium accurately. It is very
difficult to develop regulations from imprecise technology; therefore, we need to conduct more
studies. At this point it is hard to assess the viability of cysts. Any assertions are conservative at
best. Filtration is not a panacea; the situation is more complex. Cryptosporidium outbreaks are not
necessarily associated with water supply as with a traditional disease. Experts are not certain of all
the ways it is transmitted; in one case, infected cows grazing in an orchard caused it to be
transmitted into the cider.
Mr. Caspe: Mentioned an instance where a number of factors including heavy rains and
the brief breakdown of a water treatment plant led to a small outbreak in Milwaukee.
31
-------
Panel 10: Environmental Justice
Panel Members:
Dr. Michel Gelobter, Rutgers University, Moderator;
Ms. Melva Hayden, EPA;
Ms. Vernice Miller, Natural Resources Defense Council;
Ms. Judy Sze, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance.
Panel Questions
1) How is the environmental justice movement changing environmental
protection?
2) What is one example of how environmental justice is affecting a specific
project you are working on?
3) What is the environmental justice movement's vision of the next 25 years?
Ms. Sze: Stated that the pervading perspective has shifted away from protection of
natural resources such as air, land, or water, and towards people. The movement looks at
categories of race, gender, and class, and focuses attention on low income communities and
communities of color. One of the main goals of this movement is to improve public health and
promote general human welfare for all people. Ms. Sze used the recent "Shell Oil" tragedy in
Nigeria as an example. People died as a direct result of environmental injustice, and she quoted the
group's leader as saying, "[this is] a movement for social justice and environmental protection."
She concluded that people from around the world are realizing how interrelated these two goals
are.
Ms. Sze described some of the issues her organization is actively involved in. These
include the discriminatory Metropolitan Transit Authority fare hike and service cuts, diesel exhaust
and asthma rates (which in poor neighborhoods are three times higher than the city average), and
the switch to less pollutant forms of fuel as a possible way to curb this trend.
Ms. Hayden: Stressed that the EPA's paradigm has always been to protect the
environment. She also emphasized that the paradigm has become more holistic; pro-active
community based policies have become the norm. The EPA is making a strong effort to reach the
underrepresented who usually lack access to the pertinent information. They are using multi-media
forms of communication to come in contact with the people who tend to suffer the most from poor
air and water quality. Another effort to ensure that the underrepresented will not be exploited in the
future is that each individual sub-agency within the EPA must write a proposal addressing the
question of how they will promote environmental justice.
Ms. Hayden discussed how the environmental justice movement has become manifest in
the projects she now works on. She mentioned all four divisions of the EPA (water, air,
superfimd, and external programs), noting that environmental justice is evident during the entire
process (from start to review to implementation). She also mentioned that the EPA is looking into
possible applications of the Global Information Systems (GIS). They have been very active in
Puerto Rico where they are working to provide clean water and post fishing advisories for the
indigenous people. The EPA also awards small grants to projects furthering the cause of
environmental justice. Within her branch, GIS and Iroquois projects have been funded. She
closed by saying that while positive strides have been made in recent years, environmental justice
must become more broad-based in the future and should begin to look toward sustainable
communities.
Ms. Miller: Added that grassroots movements have led to major changes in recent years,
rhe central tenet of environmental justice is equal protection under the law, so it applies to all
groups, from minorities to working class whites. She discussed some recent advances towards
snvironmental justice. In the Autumn of 1992 the Environmental Defense Fund proposed a plan of
action for the EPA in future years. These suggestions revolved around people and public health.
32
-------
Environmental protection issues (she used the example of wetlands) cannot be discussed without
considering the people who live in the area.
Environmental justice involves assuring certain rights to everyone. This emphasis has
helped make the movement more broad-based; its members include the clergy, academics,
organized laborers, and housewives. While the movement is primarily comprised of women, it is
very diverse ethnically. Ms. Miller believes the diversity of the participants has helped people see
that community preservation is essentially synonymous with sustainable development. The
incorporation of different world-views and different experiences has also helped reveal
commonalties between people.
Ms. Miller then discussed the waste treatment plant in Harlem. This plant was originally
scheduled to be built in an area west of Lincoln Center but was rejected for aesthetic reasons.
Some of the reasoning used included that the people in the Lincoln Center area were not protected
since their air is static. Ms. Miller made it clear that she is not advocating moving the plant to a
white community but rather that no one should have to live near hazardous facilities. If anything
positive has come out of the waste treatment plant, it may be that people are placing more value on
their natural environments and forging new partnerships to think about the future.
Dr. Gelobter: Pointed out that in thinking about the future, we must address the lack of
environmental equity which results from the severe underrepresentation of women and people of
color. He noted that we should also expand our notions of environmental issues to include urban
design and questions of access. He mentioned that today's New York Times contained three
articles about environmental justice. This underscores the fact that it is a matter of international
importance and a battle which by no means has yet been won. He pointed out that international
law has to be supported and strengthened in the coming years to help redress the north's historic
exploitation of the south and to insure that individual governments do not hold the world hostage.
He then thanked CERC and other non-governmental organizations for helping to balance
the scales, in part by offering training to people from developing countries. He views their work
as essential since governments are failing and poor citizens often believe their governments are out
to harm them. He closed the meeting by pointing out that we need look no further than
Washington, D.C., where the Republican right is defining human beings by the property they
own, thereby excluding and alienating many from the process of attaining environmental justice.
33
-------
Panel 11: The Rise of Partnerships: Business, Government, Academia
Panel Members:
Ms. Emily C. Lloyd, Columbia University, Moderator;
Mr. Herbert Barrack, EPA.
Panel Questions
1) Where do avenues of mutual interest lie between business, government, and
academia?
2) Where are the conflicts?
3) What form should partnerships take? New organizations? Government and
private sector underwriting?
Ms. Lloyd: Began the panel discussion with her experience of environmental
partnerships. She said the key to a successful partnership was community involvement. She gave
as an example the city's efforts at paper recycling. The community wanted to reduce pollution
resulting from growing landfills and incineration of solid waste, and this was best accomplished
through reducing the solid waste input. The question became how can we make paper recycling
work.
The problem of creating a recycling market could be broken down into three main issues:
1. A good supply of feedstock (New York City certainly has plenty of this).
2. A good market for the processing and consumption of the recycled paper. The
technology was already available, but the cost was higher than that made from virgin timber and
the second generation paper was not as white as people were used to using.
3. An attempt to get the virgin paper businesses to invest in a deinking capacity. In many
cases these businesses owned their own timber reserves to supply their paper making. In order to
form a partnership with these groups, an economic link had to be reached.
She noted that the key to the whole creation of this partnership was the market. She noted
that the government was able to step in and help here. In many cases they passed regulations for
recycled paper. In New York they negotiated with newspaper companies to introduce recycled
content into their newsprint. At the White House an executive order was signed to mandate the use
of recycled paper by all federal offices. In New York City, a policy of preferentially purchasing
recycled paper was implemented. All of these actions led to the drop in recycled paper costs. As
businesses invested in deinking facilities they had more of an incentive to aggressively market
recycled materials.
Ms. Lloyd indicated that research also played a major role in the creation of recycling
partnerships. For example, the Environmental Defense Fund conducted a study on markets for
paper and explored how to develop recycled markets. The Urban Research Center at NYU looked
at the characteristics of businesses that did recycling and whether they could thrive in an
environment like New York City, and the Natural Resources Defense Council performed a study
on the environmental impact of deinking facilities. What is remarkable about this is that all projects
were funded by foundations (with one minor exception).
She then raised two bad examples of attempts to implement recycling:
1. An effort to diminish the use of paper diapers. This was unsuccessful because of
incomplete research. People in the community were unsure if they were really helping the
environment at all by using cloth diapers; conflicting reports led to confusion.
2. The failed attempt at recycling old tires. There were quite a few possible outlets for old
34
-------
tires, but none were deemed appropriate. Disposal was either too costly or overly pollutant to the
environment. It failed, she noted, because there was a lack of research into what could be done
with the tires. There is now enormous progress being made in the area of plastics, so there is hope
for the future.
So how should a successful partnership be structured? One needs to have all the relevant
groups working together: EPA, state, local, and federal governments, environmental
organizations, and universities. She noted that it is important for universities to turn open-ended
research into applied research. All the groups, she continued, need to focus on an approach that
works for everyone. CERC is a promising example of such a partnership.
Mr. Barrack: Began his discussion of partnerships. He first commented on the fact that
there have not yet been very strong ties between the EPA and New York City academic
institutions.
He described the history of the creation of the EPA and their basic structure. He noted that
the EPA is so successful because it has a fairly decentralized power base. Each of the ten regions
is relatively autonomous and as a result has been able to concentrate its efforts on problems close to
home. Mr. Barrack did comment that they probably had done too good a job of regulating the
environment ~ over-regulation. Conclusion: even though the EPA had been very successful, the
future of environmental protection necessitates a change of method.
Mr. Barrack feels the American public wants clearer, cheaper, and smarter strategies to
achieving goals in the government, and they want the way they do business reinvented. One needs
to take advantage of the public's enthusiasm and energy and combine volunteerism with the
traditional partnerships. He gave an example of one of the early success stories of the EPA, Green
Lights. This was a prime example of the positive partnership between volunteers, the government,
and the business industry. This program has saved over 447 million kilowatt hours and $42
million a year through the collective efforts of American corporations.
He described how the EPA was initiating contact with many companies in an effort to
improve the performance of protection efforts. They have built a Customer Service Center for
small businesses which plans to offer plain English guidelines for compliance and electronic access
to information about pollution prevention. They launched an Environmental Leadership Program
with ten companies to facilitate innovative approaches to accountability for compliance and
maintaining environmental standards. Mr. Barrack stressed that, although the EPA is working
with businesses, that does not mean they were not punishing them when they infringed upon the
existing rules. Just last week, he commented, General Motors was assessed a major penalty for
building cars that did not meet emissions regulations.
Not only has the EPA forged partnerships with businesses, he pointed out, but with
non-profit agencies and state communities too. The EPA has grant programs that empower low
income and minority communities to research and address pollution issues in their communities.
Mr. Barrack commented that he was currently trying to help state governments find ways to raise
money and finance, since the federal government is backing away from mainstream environmental
laws and regulations.
The main pattern in all these efforts, Mr. Barrack noted, was that the EPA is moving away
from command and control systems of regulation and towards volunteerism. He then stressed that
the EPA is not a partisan party; it transcends politics.
Ms. Lloyd: Commented on the extreme success of the EPA. She stated that the success
was because they were able to stay close to the nation's heart. Even without substantial funding
they were able to uphold their mission through regulations.
Audience Question for Mr. Barrack: Asked about the internal consistencies between
35
-------
two of EPA's partnerships, brownfields and environmental justice initiatives. Some would argue
that taking brownfields that are generally contaminated but unused and restoring them to industrial
activity is creating problems for people who live in economically disadvantaged areas.
Mr. Barrack: Twenty-five years ago that concern would be valid, but today the
brownfields initiative is bringing industry back to areas that need it. The present regulations would
cut down on much of the possible pollution, and the state of the communities would be greatly
improved through the addition of jobs. He cited Trenton as a good example. There are miles of
unused property in the middle of a large labor pool. A once bustling neighborhood could be
revitalized.
Audience Question: How could the failed diaper recycling campaign have been handled
better?
Ms. Lloyd: It failed on two counts. Not only did the lack of proper research into the
true capability of the biodegration of the disposable diapers in landfills cause this movement to fail,
but many individuals in the public secretly wanted to be told that it was all right for them to
continue using their disposable diapers. They failed to rally widespread public support.
Audience Comment: Partnerships are appealing because they bypass regulation and
achieve results more quickly. But is industry getting out of its requirements? Are there any public
records of these agreements? How would the public know if they are really working?
Mr. Barrack: The EPA is the most publicly oriented of the federal agencies. They are
required to inform the public and do so in a variety of ways. If the EPA is forced by busnesses
to do a balancing act, they are fully prepared to enforce their regulations.
Audience Question: How can the EPA improve partnerships with the business and
academic communities, or do you think everything is fine?
Mr. Barrack: No, not everything is fine. The EPA needs to continue to cultivate a
balance between volunteerism and compliance with regulations. More needs to be done, but
CERC and this conference were a very good start for partnerships.
36
-------
Panel 12: Environmental Journalism
Panel Members:
Mr. Steven Ross, Columbia University, Moderator;
Mr. William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News;
Mr. Paul Raeburn, Associated Press;
Mr. Andrew Revkin, New York Times.
Panel Questions
1) Are journalists who write about environmental issues "biased" against
industry? Or perhaps too likely to report "scare" stories from environmental
groups? Offer examples.
2) Describe the current situation - what do you think is the most important
environment or EPA story or trend? Why?
3) Where are we going, given the current political climate? To put it another
way, what will the biggest environmental story be a year from now? A decade
from now?
Mr. Ross began with an introduction of environmental journalism. Mr. Ross said that he
does not know a journalist or industry person who does not consider him or herself
pro-environment. Naturally this creates an ethical dilemma and keeps journalists from being able
to write straight news stories. They can only write opinion pieces. Mr. Ross then addressed the
first question to the rest of the panel: Are journalists who write about environmental issues
"biased" against industry? Or perhaps too likely to report "scare" stories from environmental
groups? Offer examples.
Mr. Bunch: Environmental groups are the best sources for information about the
environment. They call him with tips, as their job is to uncover environmentally hazardous
programs. The industrial plants will not call, as it is not their job nor in their economic interest to
report bad news. The nature of environmental reporting is anti-industry. However, environmental
reporters have gotten better at treating the tips given by environmental groups with a certain grain
of salt. The initial reaction had been to report all scare stories, while there is more balance and
increased objectivity in what is reported.
Mr. Raeburn: Some environmental reporters probably are biased. He jokingly
commented that good reporters should be biased in everything they do. He continued to say that it
is difficult to write any story about the environment without it being perceived by companies as
biased, even if those companies were allowed to comment on the situation and defend themselves
within the article. He added that he thinks everyone should be more skeptical and critical of all the
players.
Mr. Revkin: Stated that the question is whether journalists are biased (i.e. everyone has
a slant) versus whether the stories themselves were biased. The latter he perceives as a more
important issue because it takes a lot of work to get over one's preconceptions. Overall, he
continued, journalists are getting better at making stories more fair. Press releases from companies
can be biased, as can environmental groups' scare stories. He concluded with a comment on the
nature of the scare story. He said that if the media seem to focus on these types of horror stories it
is because they have to "sell" a story to the editor(s); often times, he added, an editor will expand
on an already written environmental story to make it more fantastic.
Mr. Ross posed question two: Describe the current situation ~ what do you think is the
most important environment or EPA story or trend? Why?
Mr. Bunch: There is not nearly enough environmental coverage within news reporting.
He is fearful that issues like global warming will not garner enough attention because many
newspapers do not even have environmental writers. Environmental writers are not deemed a
37
-------
priority because environmental stories are not the most sensational news events. This is true
especially in urban areas where people are getting shot and killed nightly. Compared with these
stories, environmental issues do not seem "sexy" enough. He finished by saying he is generally
pessimistic about the situation for environmental journalism and journalists in the future.
Mr. Raeburn said he would respond to the second question as a newspaper reader rather
than in his traditional role as writer. He thought the budget cuts going on in Washington, D.C.,
were the most important of the environmental issues facing us today. He noted that he does not
feel that he has read enough to fully understand how this will effect the environment and all those
associated with it.
Mr. Revkin: There has been a shift away from the early forms of regulation to a softer
process of regulation, where the focus is on goals and means.
Audience Question: Why aren't environmental issues reported on as much as they used
to be?
Mr. Revkin: It is the nature of most environmental stories. Because these stories are
incremental, editors are far less interested.
Mr. Bunch: Most environmental coverage takes place in the suburbs because fewer
newsworthy events happen there (i.e. crime, celebrity appearance, etc.). "A landfill next to
someone's house is a big deal." In New York City, he went on to say, there are environmental
problems like lead paint and high asthma rates in Harlem, but these issues are not covered because
there are "worse" things happening all the time.
Audience Question: What are the effects of broadcast media on the environment?
Mr. Ross: Noted that Turner Broadcasting Network has an environmental reporting unit
called Network Earth, which is now an independent unit within CNN. He pointed out that this
unit includes about fifteen people on its staff, which is a huge amount for an environmental
reporting unit.
Audience Comment: Reporters and editors are too often afraid of their papers appearing
to be not perfectly balanced between the environment and industry; therefore, a distortion occurs.
If the facts have a liberal slant, the paper is afraid of seeming biased. William Bunch commented
that stories such as that do exist, and the article winds up with "bogus sources" saying "patently
ridiculous" things that seem to give every side their say.
Audience Question: What is the use of scientists and other sources within the articles?
Mr. Raeburn: Used the example of global warming. A number of years ago, articles
would report on it by saying that some think it will be a problem and that some do not. The issue
of global warming is no longer reported that way. Now articles will read, "large scientific
consensus with some differing opinions." That has definitely changed over the years.
Mr. Revkin: Scientists and journalists have to sometimes create a pact. Otherwise it is
like a "ping-pong match," and no one learns from the process.
Mr. Bunch: One needs to be wary of "bad science" and "junk science" ~ stories or
sources with an inherent bias.
Mr. Ross: Continued with a story to illustrate his point. A town called Woods Hole
studied a little oil spill near them for thirty years. The responsible oil companies then funded small
studies to rebuke the findings of the Woods Hole scientists. The Woods Hole team will say their
study is only valid and relevant to their area, whereas oil company scientists will take small
38
-------
findings and send them to every major newspaper in the country. He finished by adding that he
does not trust all environmental groups either.
Audience Question: Is there enough knowledge on the part of the environmental
writers about issues such as science?
Mr. Revkin: He did a lot of research before and after his three month trip to Brazil for
his book.
Mr. Ross: A lot of environmental journalists have technical backgrounds which are not
that useful to their reporting.
Mr. Raeburn: It is important to always get your information from experts.
Audience Comment: Expressed concern over the reason why editors decide not to have
more environmental coverage.
Mr. Bunch: Claimed that the reason is not advertisers or businesses but the fact that
newspapers are under more pressure than ever to sell papers, and this selling largely depends on
street sales. Whatever sells is going to end up in the most visible places in the paper. Global
warming, for example, cannot make it to the front page in the current atmosphere. He added that
local environmental stories that are covered in large newspapers will make it only to the local news
page.
Mr. Ross: A lot of environmental reporting is actually embedded in other stories and not
at all obvious.
Audience Comment: There seems to sometimes be a hostility on the part of reporters, a
kind of competition that might lead them to misquote or make up quotes altogether.
Mr. Revkin: Everyone in the business is braced, defensive and suspicious. He
suggested that the closer one can get to scientist or engineers, the better.
Mr. Ross: When he is doing a story in New York City he finds himself much more
adversarial because of the politicians. As a result, he comes to a story with skepticism.
Mr. Bunch: Agreed that if an office, political or otherwise, is hostile, then the reporter
will be adversarial.
The panelists addressed the next question: Where are we going, given the
current political climate? To put it another way, what will the biggest environmental story be a year
from now? A decade from now?
Mr. Raeburn: He does not think there is a real bias in environmental stories. He
pointed out that some environmental issues are interesting and that some are not, like any other
story. He ended the session by stating that there has been positive change in environmental
reporting, and there probably will continue to be.
39
-------
Closing Session
Don J. Melnick: I think, so far, the program has lived up to the billing I gave it this
morning. It's been a very exciting program and also a very active one. And I want to thank you
all for being here throughout the day. I want to start this afternoon's program by introducing
George Rupp, the President of Columbia University.
George Rupp: Thank you very much. I'm delighted to have this late opportunity to
welcome all of you to the University. We are pleased that you're here and excited that we've been
able to host this Conference.
Our goal, as I'm sure Don has told you in kicking off the meeting, has been to enlist our
country's best environmental scientists, to meet with those who design environmental policies and
report on environmental issues, as together we engage the great environmental challenges
confronting our city, the nation and our world.
Columbia is proud to have several wonderful Centers for innovative research on
environmental issues. Prominent among them is the Center for Environmental Research and
Conservation, CERC, the sponsor of this Conference commemorating the 25th anniversary of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
I'm very pleased that a trustee, a very crucial trustee of the Foundation that has provided
crucial seed funding for this Center, namely the Kann-Rasmussen Foundation, is here. Marty
Kaplan, why don't you stand and just say hello for a second?
Complimenting CERC, as you may have read in recent weeks, in the newspapers, we have
recently taken over management of the Biosphere 2, as a one-of-a-kind, to put it in understated
form, a one-of-a-kind laboratory for the study of global climate change, biodiversity and
sustainable agriculture.
For many years, the scientists of our Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have devoted
themselves to observing the Earth from its deepest interiors to the outer reaches of the atmosphere.
Columbia is firmly committed to the study of the Earth and environmental sciences. There is no
more exciting or important field of study.
This Conference represents exactly what this University, through CERC and other
initiatives, can contribute to the efforts all of us must make to protect the environment and preserve
diversity of life on Earth. Today's discussions, as I am reliably informed, and I trust you will
agree, have ranged across the traditional academic disciplines to give us the benefit of the best
thinking available.
They pushed the boundaries of the conventional political categories, as well. The old ways
of thinking about the environment and acting on it have not worked for some time. We must think
and act anew. We must; we can; and we will work together to link good science with good public
policy.
Just as our predecessors 25 years ago did, when new thinking and shifting political
alliances came together to shape the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, we are
delighted to conclude this conference with presentations from outstanding leaders of environmental
thought and action.
Kathleen McGinty, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is
President Clinton's senior advisor on environmental and natural resources issues. Among her
many other distinctions, Miss McGinty ... or Katie as I gather she's still widely known ... is also a
graduate of Columbia Law School.
40
-------
Prior to joining the Clinton Administration, Ms. McGinty served as then Senator Albert
Gore's senior legislative assistant for energy and environmental policy and as a congressional staff
coordinator for the Senate delegation to the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in 1992.
Jim Florio serves as Professor for Public Policy and Administration at Rutgers
University. Throughout his career in public life, Governor Florio assembled an impressive record
on the environment. As Governor, he was responsible for implementing the Clean Water
Enforcement Act — one of the toughest of its kind.
While in Congress, he co-authored the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act - the so-called Superfund Law ~ and was involved in almost all
environmental legislation. He holds degrees from Trenton State College and Rutgers University
Law School and attended Columbia in 1963 as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow.
Marilyn Gelber, Commissioner of New York City Department of Environmental
Protection, oversees more than 6,000 employees and budgets of nearly $600 million and, in the
last fiscal year, over $1 billion in capital expenditures. DEP is responsible for operating and
maintaining the city's water supply and its waste water treatment system.
Prior to this position, she worked as Executive Assistant to the Borough President of
Brooklyn, where she was responsible for policy development and staff management, including the
Borough President's RECYCLE FIRST plan. Commissioner Gelber received her BA from
Queens College.
Jeanne Fox, Regional Administrator of EPA Region n, needs no introduction to this
audience. Along with Don Melnick, she helped start our program this morning. Before joining the
EPA as Regional Administrator, Ms. Fox served as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection and Energy. She has held a variety of appointed positions, including
on the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Middlesex County Commission on the Status of
Women. She is a graduate of Douglass College at Rutgers and Rutgers Law School at Camden.
Ms. McGinty will speak first and then take some questions because her schedule requires
her immediate return to Washington. We will then hear from our other distinguished presenters.
Professor Don Melnick will be the moderator for this final session. Thank you again very much
for attending. We hope you had a good conference. We are honored that we were able to host it.
Please join me in welcoming Katie McGinty.
Ms. McGinty: Thank you all very much and congratulations to Columbia University for
the very structure of the Center that you have established. The multi-disciplinary,
multi-institutional kind of partnership that seems to be embodied in this initiative is really what we
need now and increasingly will need in the future. The truth is that the issues that we deal with are
increasingly complex. They do not admit single kinds of solutions, and it is important that we
have the type of diversity that this Center can bring.
I am also enthused about this Center because of the educational mission that you will
undertake here. Frankly, I cannot wait until there are troops of educated people on the
environment out there, caring about these issues, working on them and understanding the
complexities that really are involved.
Just a story on that front. Yesterday I was in another of America's great cities. Now, I
know that's a hard concept for New Yorkers to get their heads around, but there are indeed other
cities out there. I was visiting with various people, but I wound up the day visiting with the
editor-in-chief of one of the city's leading newspapers.
41
-------
He sent me off with a little message, "Please tell our dear Vice President that I really don't
buy his hair spray theory because that ozone stuff comes and goes all the time anyway." So much
for Nobel Prizes. The mission you undertake here is incredibly important.
We are in the middle of a fairly significant battle on the environment in Washington. I want
to talk to you about that battle, tell you about the fights that we are engaged in. Battles that, in
many ways, may be the sexier part of the current topics and discussions on the environment.
But if you permit me, before jumping into that, I would like to step back for a moment. I
would like to share with you some of what we have tried to build up before I tell you what we are
now committed to bringing down. Since all of you have worked throughout the day, I think it is
especially appropriate to assess where we have been and begin to look forward.
Almost three years ago, the President said, "I hear two loud refrains on the environment;
on the one hand, I hear and I feel the amazing verses of America the Beautiful, and I know that
those aren't just words, but there is life in that music that appeals to Americans and resonates with
us because we know that part of our greatness and part of our country's greatness resides in our
rich, natural heritage."
"But," he said, "There's another refrain that I hear too, equally loud... I'll see you in
court."
Somehow the issue of the environment that should unite us as a people and unite us as a
country polarizes us and sees us into litigious battles instead of remaining a tool that brings us
together.
Some of our folks from EPA will testify that a lot of what they have to do is not necessarily
the product of this collective will on the environment. It is the product of court decree.
And as the Departments of Interior and Agriculture will tell you, on the natural resources
side, in many ways we have been a country in receivership. For 25 years, 50 years, sometimes
100 years, the courts have managed our waterways and have managed our forests. Something has
gone desperately wrong.
And the President said to me something else that I think he was able to articulate in a way
that I only understood fully in the wake of a tragedy like Oklahoma City. In these days, when
there are so many stresses and strains on the multi-cultural, multi-hewed fabric that is the United
States, we as a people can ill-afford to take something that truly does unite us and see it, too,
become a tool of polarization.
It is especially true with regard to the environment because the environment is not just any
old issue. In fact, it is one of those things that, I believe, Abraham Lincoln talked about when he
said there are those issues and those causes that truly call forward the better angels of our nature.
And so, we were determined to seize the environment back, to utilize it as a positive thing
for all of our people in the country. And, with that lofty kind of goal, there were three phrases that
we have tried to keep in mind. First, shatter the myth. Critique and correct. And, third, count
your blessings.
The Three Phase Plan
1. Shatter The Myth:
When the Junior Senator from Tennessee joined the ticket at a convention here in 1992, all
of a sudden the environment became an issue in the Presidential campaign. And the principle
42
-------
concept of the discourse was you have to choose; it's either jobs or the environment.
We could not imagine a more polarizing kind of choice than that. We were determined to
show that soundly-developed environmental policy is far from being a drag on economic growth
and can actually be a stimulus to growth.
For years, auto companies and environmentalists have battled on how to produce a more
environmentally sound car. The auto companies feared that pollution controls and other
environmental standards would put them out of business.
We looked at cities around this country and around the world that were beginning to "just
say no" to automobile traffic. In Mexico City and Los Angeles, cars were being barred from the
streets, if not every day, then on alternate days. And what that said to us is far from being the
death knell of the automobile industry. An environmentally-sound car will be its future.
Rather than continue the old battles, we built a new partnership. We brought the
automobile companies and the environmentalists together and utilized all of the technologies, all of
the science, and all of the research that had been pent up in our prodigious resources at the National
Laboratories.
And now, we are on a path committed, working together, to produce a car that achieves
three times the current fuel efficiency within the next decade. That is a commercially-viable car,
one you will see on the road. Again, achieving economic opportunity out of environmental
imperative.
Similarly with environmental technology, rather than having a clash between jobs and the
environment, there is a 200 billion dollar market for environmental goods and services. And we
have been determined to seize that market, to show once again that environmentalism and
capitalism can come together, that we don't need the ultimate polarizing choices of one or the other.
Now, I also know that the Center is focusing on biodiversity and biological resources.
And, there too, we have tried to turn a new page, to move away from the crises that are associated
with the Endangered Species Act. Years of mismanagement and looking the other way had us
using the Endangered Species Act as emergency medicine rather than as a preventative medicine
that it was designed to be.
And we have committed ourselves to working on an ecosystem basis, undertaking
ecosystem management which looks out at the whole landscape and tries to see the diversity of
species. Ecosystem management plans ahead to protect those species, so we are not driven by a
crisis mentality.
With that kind of approach, we have been able to bring private land owners to the table
who now, rather than battle us in court, are working with us. We are signing historic agreements
where those landowners are setting aside huge chunks of their property as critical habitat for
species.
And we are giving them a guarantee — if you do that, you have met your Endangered
Species Act requirement, and you can move forward in managing your business. That is the kind
of partnership that has allowed us to show that it is not true that you have to choose between jobs
and environment.
2. Critique and Correct:
Many of you have been involved in the environment longer than I have and know the
history better than I do. Washington is not always leading the way on difficult environmental
43
-------
issues. Rather than serving as a sentinel and seeing problems come and addressing them before
they become crises, crises had been allowed to build. And so, we get a Clean Water Act, not
because we want to protect the water necessarily, but because the Cayahoga River burst into
flames. And we get a Superfund Law, finally, only after a situation like Love Canal. Created in
crises, many of these statutes then were built in distrust.
I have found that Congress does not particularly like it if they think you are not doing what
they told you to do. Over the years, environmental laws have been built on the basis of the
Congress distrust. The various Administrations have been varyingly committed to implementing
environmental laws.
So, Congress has created amendments to the various statutes so that now they are very
prescriptive. There is often little opportunity to be creative or flexible in implementing the law.
And while raising the environment as a priority in this Administration, we have been honest
about that history and said that the statutes are not perfect. Changes are needed. One of the first
acts that the President took in this area was to issue an executive order that talked about risk and
cost benefit analysis.
Now, to listen to some of the debate on Capitol Hill, far from launching this idea, you
would think that the Administration was absolutely opposed to it. The truth is that cost benefit
analysis, risk analysis, is a tool, an important tool that we have to use to better hone these statutes,
but it is not a panacea.
As an example, in the Save Drinking Water Act, we have employed this distrust. Congress
got so fed up with previous Administrations, they said they did not want to hear anymore about
what was important or not important. Rather than regulating 25 contaminants every three years,
just do it.
But, the President said that made no sense. Use the best science; identify those things that
actually pose a threat to human health and the environment; and take action on those things. That's
risk and cost benefit analysis properly applied. We've been committed to it, and we are instituting
it.
3. Count Your Blessings:
While I cannot make a habit of going around the country quoting Lamar Alexander, he has
one little phrase that I cannot subscribe to but has currency because it has a kernel of truth. He
likes to talk about the arrogant empire.
In Washington we are not really arrogant, but we do have a tendency of thinking we know
how to do things that nobody else does. On the environment we have been guilty of that. We look
back at 25 years of investment, a proud history that the government has made and everyone has
participated in. We think we really know how to implement laws.
But, sometimes we have failed to look beyond the beltway and notice that the states know
how to do this too. Local government, individuals and companies have invested a tremendous
amount in protecting the environment.
What we need to do is pull that all into the tent. As our environmental challenges have
gotten increasingly complex we must look at those efforts not as a threat or competition, but as
resources to use and count on to achieve environmental progress. Just recently the President, Vice
President, arid Administrator Branner announced a new initiative that really speaks to this need for
partnership with those who have made investments in the environment.
44
-------
The initiative is called Project XL and stands for Excellence in Leadership. I will tell
you, however, we announced it, and, in the flurry of trying to get the brochures published, we
first saw the name of this program in print. Excellence in Leadership, shortened to Project XL.
We had a few heart palpitations about a new federal project that was extra large.
But, we were committed to it. The idea behind XL is simple, despite what you hear on
Capitol Hill. Businesses said to us that they did not want dirty air or dirty water, but that they
know their business better than we do, so they wanted some flexibility in how they achieve their
goal of cleaner air and water.
We gave them greater flexibility, and in return they agreed to give greater environmental
assurance. These companies go beyond compliance, above and beyond what the current law
requires. They are willing to do it because they know they can get there cheaper, cleaner and
faster.
We will give them flexibility; they will give us added environmental protection. That is the
kind of partnership that can help us to move forward. We have launched similar kinds of
partnerships with states and local governments.
When I step back and I try to assess where we have been and where we would like to head,
three different words come to mind:
1. subject
2. stakeholder
3. citizen.
Subject evokes the days when those in Washington dictated to those who actually
implemented. We have moved from that. In everything we have done, a revision of the statutes,
the initiatives the President has taken, it is all about bringing various parties together, bringing the
diverse interests around the same table.
Now, no doubt, our Superfund reforms, our safe drinking water reforms have all been
improved because of that, because we had everyone from environmental justice groups to Fortune
500 companies joining with us and lending their perspectives. But what has it really been?
Well, it's been a coming together of people with special expertise and special knowledge,
around the table, for the purpose of expressing their special interest. A step forward, but can we
do more?
That is where the idea of citizenship comes in for us. Can we move from the expression of
special interest to the gathering together of people with special information, special expertise,
special life experience? Can they come together to express not their special interests, but to find the
common interests?
We think we can do that. In fact, we are beginning to take those steps. XL that I
mentioned, in addition to bargaining for extra environmental protection, there's another piece. And
the piece is for any company that wants to be part of that program, they've got to show us that the
community has a seat at the table.
If you have additional profits because your environmental requirements are less costly,
how are you investing them in the community? What are the community's priorities? Are you
being a good neighbor working with the citizens that surround your facilities?
Just yesterday I was in Chattanooga, down in Tennessee. Not ten years ago, Chattanooga
was famous because it was the place where you had to drive at noon with your headlights on. It
was the dirtiest city in the United States. But we partnered with them, and they launched a
45
-------
precedent-setting exercise, brought some 2000 people from the Chattanooga community to the
table.
And the vision that came from that has helped make Chattanooga one of the most livable
cities in the United States. It has the largest freshwater aquarium; and rather than a despoiled river
area, there is a 22-mile river walk that is beautiful and now teeming with business and activity.
The people of Chattanooga are manufacturing people. That is what their history has been.
Yet, they are about to break ground on a zero-emission industrial complex. That is environmental
progress.
When you think of the Bronx, you think tough economic times combined with some tough
economic circumstances. But I'll tell you, one of the largest economic development projects in
New York State in the last five years is coming from the Bronx.
The heart of this new economic project was driven by the local community's concern about
the environment ~ their determination to take back an abandoned railway site that had become a
magnet for crime and a dumping ground for toxic waste and other dangerous kinds of materials.
They partnered with the Natural Resources Defense Council and started discussions with
paper companies. Some of the largest paper companies in. the world are now going to situate
themselves there, alleviating what was a trash burden and making it part of their product.
However, if we recycle this paper, where is it going to go? This is where President
Clinton has helped. He issued an executive order that said, if you produce it, we will buy it. And
the federal government has committed to buying recycled paper with the highest post-consumer
content of anywhere in the country. The product is not only economical but has created a safer and
more environmental community.
These are the things that I wish we all now were working on. These are the kinds of seeds
that I want to be planting and I want to be spending my time on. Rather than nurturing this kind of
progress that will pull us together and move us forward, we are in the trenches fighting a campaign
that will separate us and hinder our progression.
It is a winner-take-all campaign. It is a campaign that is about more litigation and more
polarization, not less. Money should not be our only incentive for action. Will we never act again,
simply to protect a human life?
For the scientists here, how many of you think it makes good sense for the courts to
determine whether or not you should have used 300 or 500 rats in your experiments? That is
exactly what these bills will dictate; for every action an Agency tries to undertake, there will be 100
new opportunities to litigate that action.
This week we are going to be battling one of the most extreme proposals that Capitol Hill
has seen on the topic of citizenship.
We cannot survive long as a people, dedicated to one another and this country, if we are
determined to be individuals, turning our back on the people who need our help.
This is the fight that we are fighting, and the President will fight it to the end. I am looking
forward to joining forces with the people who are benefiting from this Center and can think and
talk reasonably about the environment. People who have developed creative and constructive
outlooks about the challenges we face.
States like Washington where even though the people were outspent three to one are
fighting back. They have defeated that margin by 20 percent. There is hope, and I think the
46
-------
people's voice will be heard. As the poll that was released today says, our commitment to the
environment will see us through this, and we will come out the other end with increased
determination and hopefully improved understanding but definitely with the vision and
commitment to move forward together.
Thank you for all of your efforts that will help make that so.
Audience Question: Both GATT and NAFTA, as you know, encourage as much free
trade as possible. Much of that trade is in the form of exportation, of very unsustainable
equipment, machinery and products, from this country to Germany and other European countries,
but also to Third World countries.
One of the reasons we are getting pollutive things from China is that China is using a lot of
very pollutive processes that businessmen from this country are pushing upon China, which are
encouraged by GATT and NAFTA.
So, in Germany, for instance, much of the machinery that they are selling to China is, in
fact, less pollutive. In that regard, the provisions that you talk about in GATT and NAFTA do not
really address that question. Both the products that are being encouraged in GATT for exportation
and the machinery used to make those products are very unsustainable.
Ms. McGinty: I think that is a fair point. Certainly some of what you say is true. It is
part of the reason, for example, why the President has insisted on what is commonly known as a
circle of poison provision in the farm bills that are being debated.
The issue in the farm bills is the kinds of pesticides that make their way out of the United
States — pesticides that are not used in the United States, but that are exported for use.
The President's idea of the circle of poison is that we have got to look at the exportation of
things that we do not permit in our own country. What ends up happening is they go to another
country and then wind up back here on our dinner tables. That is the kind of process we have to
stop. Stop the export of things that we do not allow the use of here.
Speaking positively, we now have most of our big energy companies making much more
sound, energy-efficient and renewable energy investments in places like Brazil, India and China.
These advancements have been part of the President's Climate Initiative.
I do not want to discount the importance of what you are saying, but there is progress
being made. My only point about the provisions we have argued for in these trade agreements is
that they finally give us the hope and the opportunity to meet the challenges you are citing.
Dr. Melnick: Thank you, Ms. McGinty. I will briefly re-introduce all the panelists.
They will come up and make a short presentation; after their short presentations we will have
questions for each one. And then, if questions still remain, there will be time at the end.
First allow me to introduce Governor Jim Florio. We have Regional Administrator Jeanne
Fox and Commissioner Marilyn Gelber. We will proceed in that order. I will ask them each to
comment roughly about five to ten minutes in length, and then after each one they will entertain a
few questions, and then we will move on to the next person.
Mr. Florio: Usually I have difficulty saying hello in five minutes, but I will attempt to
summarize 25 years as rapidly as I can. I am interested and appreciative of the opportunity to be
here.
My professional career has paralleled the period of time when we have focused on
environmental policies. And as was stated in the introduction, I have been intimately involved as a
47
-------
Congressman, as a Governor and even as a State Legislator with environmental issues.
Our attitudes have changed dramatically in the past 25 years with regard to practices of
disposal. There are things that we no longer even contemplate doing that were the norm 25 years
ago. What used to be commonplace is no longer acceptable.
Little kids know about the importance of recycling — something that we never even thought
of 25 years ago. We have gone through a number of stages in this country in the last 25 years.
We had the pipeline stage, the smokestack stage, then came the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air
Act, pieces of legislation that were relatively simple, that have had demonstrable good results.
In the end of the 70's and in the early 80's, we went into the more exotic types of
legislation: RECRA (Resource Conservation Recovery Act), Superfund, TOSCA[?], and
Asbestos. These pieces of legislation were a little more complicated to deal with due to a
somewhat hostile environment in Washington. Unfortunately we did not get all of the results that
we had hoped for, but we got through that period.
At the end of the 80's and down into the current times, we have taken a different approach.
With pollution prevention we have started to think globally ~ "the right to know" approach, citizen
involvement. You get citizens involved, helping the deficient public sector to respond to
environmental problems. I believe that on balance we have moved very rapidly forward. This is
not to say that there is not a lot more to do, but this has been a good 25-year period.
November of 1994 brought with it an ideological approach to the environment,
superimposed (or at least attempted to be superimposed) upon our policies. If I may speak of
Gingrich to personify that philosophy, he very proudly proclaims himself as a revolutionary. And
that is probably the case.
In the environmental field, the revolutionary approach clears away everything, starting all
over with a different set of assumptions.
Whereas a reform approach tries to modify, make midcourse corrections, change things
that are in need of changing. The best way to evaluate the difference between the reform approach
and the revolutionary approach, which is attempting to be put into effect now, is to look at the
difference between the Superfund proposal of the last Congress, which was almost enacted into
law. The clock ran out at the very end.
The Congress, in a bipartisan way, came to a proposal and a conclusion that was just on
the verge of being enacted, which would have, I think, satisfied most of our concerns. The clock
ran out. A new Congress was elected; the bipartisan approach was traded in for the new
revolutionary mode of how we operate.
We have now put forward truly revolutionary proposals for Superfund that reflect no commitment
to previous values. The polluter does not pay. At one point, there was an effort to try to scrap the
whole concept of the polluter pays, the retroactive liability discussion.
Now, the newest proposal, HR2500, which is thought of as a moderate approach (it is
clearly not), enacts something that I have labeled as "The Polluter Entitlement Act;" we will provide
discounts and rebates to polluters.
The combination of that and new wholesale exemptions will both be part of EPA's
Superfund budget, which in fiscal 1995 was $1.3 to 1.4 billion. HR2500 and the new whole sale
exemptions will take out $1 billion of the original 1.3 or 1.4 billion.
Likewise, the states are now going to have more responsibilities. The state laws will be
pre-empted so that if New Jersey wants to do more, they will not have the ability to do that. And
48
-------
over and above that, the states will be stuck with the standards that are now being incorporated into
the Superfund law.
Those standards are dramatically different than the standards that we have previously
attempted to emphasize. The preference for a permanent treatment approach to cleaning up toxic
waste dumpsites sort of goes off the side.
We talked about minimizing on a cost benefit ratio. You do not have to be brilliant to
understand; if you are doing a cost benefit analysis, an exposure control is the key operating
principle. You will always be able to come to the conclusion that it is cheaper to put a fence around
something than to clean it up.
If you are talking about drinking water, you will always come to the conclusion it is
cheaper, on a cost benefit analysis, to provide bottled water to people rather than cleaning up the
drinking water system which may have been polluted.
The last point that I think deserves some emphasis on the new revolutionary Superfund
approach is that, at a time when I think most people are committed to the proposition that we
should be expediting clean-up, this is a bill that provides a veritable arsenal of weapons of delay.
RODS, the record of decisions are now going to be stopped before they even start.
Anyone can intervene to open them. You now have a good example of this new
revolutionary mentality that is designed not to get things cleaned up, but is designed to maximize
profit to a whole lot of people.
Let us think back to the debate that Katie made reference to: jobs versus the environment. I
thought we were beyond that. Apparently we are not. And I am just hopeful that, as more and
more people understand what is going on, we will come back to the proposition that we are a
pragmatic people.
We are not ideological. We want to know what works. And we want to be in a position to
make sure that the environmental progress that we have made over the last 25 years is not undone.
I am hopeful that this will be the case. We will all find out in November of 1996 whether we are,
on the environmental matters, reformists or revolutionaries.
Ms. Fox: I want to thank CERC and Columbia again for having this anniversary
celebration for EPA. This conference has been interesting, as well as enriching.
As you look forward to the next 25 years of the environmental movement, I believe that
there is light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not an approaching train. The most significant
achievement of our first 25 years is the fundamental change in which Americans, as a whole, view
the world.
We do not see the world as a place of infinite resources anymore. We do not see our air,
our water and our natural resources as things that we can casually use and discard without thought
to the consequences. Today Americans are keenly aware that our actions reverberate throughout
the environment and can come back and haunt our future generations.
We still need to educate ourselves further about how to conduct our lives in an
environmentally benign manner. But, the seeds of change have already been planted. In a
democracy such as ours, where the public insists on strong environmental protection, the
government carries out many of the critical environmental actions.
A democracy also means that politics can be a major factor in environmental protection.
Some may be inclined to paraphrase Gloria Steinham and say that environmentalists need
politicians like fish need a bicycle. But like it or not, politicians and environmentalists must work
49
-------
together; the public insists on it.
Today there are anti-environmentalist forces that lash out like never before in Washington
and elsewhere. The good news, however, is that the American people will not stand to have their
health bargained away for short-term gains of some special interests.
And politicians, some earlier, some more now, are beginning to realize how very important
these issues, clean air, clean water, hazardous waste clean-up, are to their constituents. Just today
at this conference, the Harris Poll released a study showing that 86 percent of respondents believe
that EPA is needed as much or more than it was 25 years ago.
And 53 percent of respondents in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll said they wanted
environmental regulations strengthened. And 55 percent in a Time/CNN Survey said they wanted
to see the government increase spending in environmental protection.
Obviously, some special interest groups can use their deep pockets and their lobbying
operations to influence legislation. But as Thomas Jefferson said, all authority belongs to people.
And the people in this country obviously want their environment protected.
Because of the people and democracy, I personally believe that, in the long run, protecting
the environment will continue to be a vital part of this country's agenda. For my part, I can
continue to educate the public, industry, elected officials on the effects of the proposed budget and
legislative changes.
I believe that we can all learn from the past 25 years and already have. We can use these
lessons of the past to build a better, more intelligent, more commonsense system that reverses the
effects of our past negligence and enhances the common environment.
Ms. Gelber: I am honored and delighted to participate in the closing session of this very
important conference. I also want to thank the Center and Columbia University for bringing
together this most impressive group of environmental policy makers, to reflect on 25 years of
environmental policy.
Clearly, today's Conference comes at a very special moment in our time. The last election
rekindled a national debate regarding the proper role of government in helping us to meet our goals
and responsibilities as a society.
In the environmental sphere, however, the call for less government is matched by an
equally-strong demand by the American public for a clean and a safe environment. This tension
was played out quite vividly recently in the House of Representatives when a coalition of moderate
Democrats and Republicans defeated an attempt to limit a range of EPA programs through the
appropriations process.
In the end, it was the depth of the public support of environmental protection that enabled this key
legislative victory. The same strong public support 25 years ago inspired the advent of the modern
environmental movement. Today, two-and-a-half decades later, the public hunger for
environmental protection, I believe, is only stronger.
Perhaps more than anything else, when all the samples are taken, the numbers crunched and the
data reviewed, it is the public's unwavering support for environmental protection that is the
greatest endorsement of the last 25 years' effort and the greatest insurance policy against the
current misguided attempts to retreat to the days when smokestacks billowed freely and raw
sewage poured into our rivers.
But let us talk about our own urban environment here in New York City. Our city, the
most urban of all cities, has 25 years of investment in environmental protection and has yielded
50
-------
important benefits. Carbon monoxide levels have declined from over two-and-a-half times the
national health standards in the 1970's, to now currently being below that standard.
Airborne lead levels have fallen 95 percent. Ozone levels, while still not where we want
them, are declining. And nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide pollution levels are also far below
federal standards.
Water quality in many parts of New York Harbor is at its highest level in over half a
century. Fish and other wildlife, which fled the Harbor years ago to avoid certain extinction, today
are coming back to spawn and enjoy this renewed environment in our harbor.
For the fourth year in a row, New York City beaches were all open to the public. Again,
something that we take for granted — but something that could not have been achieved without the
investments in our environment that we have been making over the past 25 years.
The quality of New York City's drinking water remains exceptionally high — so much so,
that the city supply has been designated one of the few in the nation not requiring filtration. And
thanks to an array of conservation initiatives, including leak detection programs, installation of
meters, installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures, the city has now cut its daily consumption by
an average of 100 million gallons of water a day.
Now, much of this progress finds its roots in landmark federal statutes: the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act. These laws have provided essential framework
against which environmental progress could be measured and could be understood.
An equally essential ingredient, though, has been the cooperation that has developed by
necessity among the federal, state and local levels of government. When hard legislative
compromises are hammered out, state and local decision makers are the ones who must sift
through this statutory and regulatory language and fashion sensible policies.
While this is not always easy, New York City has a long history of being a leader, not a
follower, in this area. A little piece of environmental trivia might be interesting because 25 years
ago, when the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the White House Council on
Environmental Quality were being created, a team of federal policymakers visited this city to see
how the New York City Environmental Protection Administration worked. This is the precursoi
of our Agency, and 25 years ago, we in some ways were a model for a national policy.
And the reason they looked to New York City was because at that time, New York City
had already built 12 waste water treatment plants using a very innovative process that was also
created here in New York City. By the late 1960's, New York City plants, using this process,
were removing 65 percent of conventional pollutants at a time when most urban plants were
achieving only 35 percent removal.
The city's commitment to water quality was such that funding for all 12 of those plants was
local. So, New York City was a partner then and a partner today. We take no pleasure in
watching the current assault on the EPA, and we urge those who would undo the federal role in
environmental protection, to heed the American public's call for a clean and livable environment.
At the same time, though, we must recognize that the vexing question facing all
environmental policymakers today is how do we continue to improve the environment during an
era of tremendous fiscal restraint? At a time when precious dollars are needed to house the
homeless, educate our children and ensure adequate health care?
The answer, I believe, is that we can accomplish more by challenging conventional
wisdoms and embracing new strategies. Although it is important to have national environmental
goals, it is equally important that localities have the flexibility they need to develop innovative
51
-------
strategies to meet those goals.
I have worked closely with Jeanne Fox and EPA on crafting some of these strategies. As
many of you today are aware, after many months of negotiation, New York City recently entered a
historic agreement with the EPA, the state and upstate counties and communities within the city's
three watersheds, to protect upstate sources of the city's drinking water supply.
The agreement envisions protection of our water supply through a combination of
regulations governing certain land use practices around the reservoirs; the acquisition of sensitive
buffer lands; and environmentally-sensitive and sensible economic partnerships with watershed
communities.
At least three extremely significant results will flow from this agreement. First, and most
importantly, the agreement will safeguard New York City's drinking water supply well into the
next century. Second, the plan will enable New York City to meet the requirements of the 1989
Federal Surface Water Treatment Rule, and this rule, as you know, required that all water supplies
that get their water from surface sources filter or demonstrate that they have a plan to protect their
watershed. I believe that the accord we have come to will meet that rule.
Third, rather than use a purely regulatory model, we are joining residents of our living
watershed, and it is a living watershed; a quarter of a million people live and work in our
watershed. We will be joining them as partners in a mutual enterprise that will enable
environmentally-balanced growth and yet protect water quality.
The city's comprehensive watershed management strategy emphasizes examining the entire
spectrum of pollution loads, setting priorities to maximize benefits, and, whenever possible,
selecting least-cost, non-structural solutions over expensive technologies.
At its core, this approach is not just the watershed protection program. We are using this
same model in other programs in New York City. In Jamaica Bay we are taking an approach to
raconteur the bay, to try to restore the bay to a habitat that is more natural, and thereby end up
probably saving a billion dollars of construction costs to control combined sewer overflow.
Similarly, in Staten Island, we are working on a Blue Belt project, probably one of the
country's largest wetland protection projects, to ensure protection of that wetland and avoid major
capital construction cost in building a stormwater system. Again, plainly, the fiscal realities of
1995 suggest that we all must adapt to a new era of scarce resources.
The mandate from the American public, however, makes it clear that while these limitations
do pose challenges, they must not stand in the way of further environmental progress. We cannot
slow the progress towards cleaner waters, more breathable air, and the continued availability of
safe, delicious drinking water.
With continued strong leadership at all levels of government, with determination and with
creativity, I believe very, very strongly that the Conference that I hope Columbia will hold in the
year 2020 will be able to reflect on yet another 25 years of progress towards our goal of a
sustainable society and a livable city.
Audience Question: Earlier a statement was made for a call to have less government
interference. And an answer to that has been that state and local governments may know how to
protect the environment better for their local environmental issues and regional environmental
issues. In keeping with the conference title, Progress and Promise, how can the state and local
agencies promise to progress when their budgets and their staffs are threatened to be cut as well?
Ms. Gelber: I think, certainly from the city's perspective, continuing to have federal
standards, continuing to have federal goals that need to be met is critical. However, what we have
52
-------
argued for is sufficient flexibility on a local level to achieve the results through a locally-adopted
plan, rather than necessarily the sort of traditionally rigid approach that we have seen from
regulators.
Some of the things that I very quickly alluded to, such as the protection of Jamaica Bay by
taking softer solutions, as opposed to building a big holding tank or treatment facility, are
examples of low cost solutions. A non-construction solution is one thing that certainly can be done
on a local level. We want to achieve the result, but give us the flexibility of figuring out the best
way of doing it.
Ms. Fox: Results are really the word. Results are what we want. We want to protect the
environment, and we want to prevent pollution up front. It was a need for regulators to be
heavy-handed initially. Now, we are in a new generation of environmental protection, and it
works.
Environmental indicators that are being worked on by EPA with the states and some other
associations demonstrates to us that if what we are doing is successful, we should continue. Our
goal is to protect the environment and hopefully enhance it.
We have performance partnerships that we are working on, for the first time, with maybe
ten states - states that are doing a good job, states that have done a good job, states that have
demonstrated that they have the capacity to do the job.
I note that some states do not have and will not have the capacity to do these activities.
Therefore, we will work with them to help develop the capacity. We will work with them, and
hopefully they will have the essential will to get the job done.
It is EPA's job, as the backstop, to make sure people's health and the environment are
protected, that national standards are reached. Air and water do not know critical boundaries. The
federal government will always be needed to ensure those standards are met.
The Delaware River and the air shed obviously do not have boundaries. So, there is a
responsibility. Also, it is very clear that this Administration believes that smaller government is a
possibility. And in fact, we have cut back on the number of federal employees by about 150,000
since the beginning of the Administration.
We are doing a much better job in a lot of areas, not just in this Agency. There are ways to
do things smarter and cheaper. And we are doing just that. One of them is working with states,
with EPA and the performance partnerships. We will also work with local governments, our
partners in protecting the environment.
Mr. Florio: There is something truly bizarre about saying the quality of drinking water
that you have should depend upon the actions of what state you are in. We are starting to move in
the direction where, because there is not enough money to give to the states and because there is a
realization that there is not going to be the money at the local level, everyone should be able to
make their own decisions about things.
It is the block grant mentality that is being incorporated into policy areas. That is
something that sets up competitive pressures as to who can race to the bottom.
Once you accept the premise that was just outlined, that there should be standards, and that there
should be maximum flexibility and discretion to meet those standards, you are on your way to a
truly cost effective approach.
I would just suggest to you that that is not exactly what is being incorporated into the policy
growing out of Washington. Part of the frustration for those who are committed to good policies
53
-------
is that when people want to make some of these policy changes they cannot get the policies altered
because they are deemed too radical, changing the law by defending programs. This deceptive
process is clearly illustrative of an arrogance that is antithetical to the whole democratic process.
Audience Comment: I spent eight-and-a-half years at EPA, and I am finding it very
hard to accept the line that I am hearing. I am upset by the fact that I am hearing it from the
Democratic Party and the Presidential leadership. To me, it sounds like it is Tweedle Dee or
Tweedle Dum.
You cannot have enforcement of regulatory laws without a vigorous administration to
enforce them. If the Republicans have their way and they cut the kind of funding they are planning
to cut, I do not see how EPA is going to employ the kind of people they are going to need; people
will be needed to issue the permits, to come up with the regulations and to figure out how
standards apply, as opposed to ambient water quality standards.
If they do not start to make a strong stand against the Republicans and start to co-opt some
of their ideas and policies, we are going to lose more grants. I think it is a strategy that will, in the
long run, lose the 40 percent of people that were supporting Clinton because he stood outside of
what George Bush wanted.
Mr. Florio: Well, I guess, in my presentation, brief as it was, I tried to illustrate the
dramatic change created in the context of one bill, the Superfiind.
I happen to believe that if there is any sense of proportion, what we have to do is be willing
to talk about and explain how radical some of the proposals are. I believe that the American people
do not want to subscribe to the new policies that are coming through.
But if they do not understand them, do not know what it is that is happening, everyone will
be in favor of austerity.
We have got to pierce through language and semantics and get to the essence of substance.
There are lots of examples we can give. The property rights movement — it is as if someone just
discovered that there is something in the Constitution of the United States of America that prohibits
the taking of other's property.
That is not what is being talked about by the property rights reformists. They are talking
about not being concerned with the taking of property. They are talking about intimidating
authorities into never putting restrictions on the protection of the wetlands, which is what this is
really about.
One has to be out there explaining to people what the real issues are. No one should have
any difficulty with risk assessment, applied sensibly. But if you somehow write into law that there
is scientific degree of certainty on risk assessment that is going to be the formula built into the law,
you will come up with the conclusion that you cannot do anything. This is the conclusion that
some want to come up with.
We can quantify the cost of the actions to eliminate lead from concrete water pipes so that it
does not leech in. That is relatively easy to calculate. How do you calculate the benefit of not
having had the lead in the pipe leeching into the water, which causes mental retardation with
children?
That is not easily quantified. All of these things have to be talked about because the people
who are in ascendancy to the Congress are out there with a full head of steam. In some respects
this is like fighting a war in Russia. You continue to retreat just a little bit at a time and ultimately
you wait for the winter. Then you will be able to decimate your opponents.
54
-------
Ms. Fox: We certainly are not disregarding enforcement. I think what it comes down to
is enforcement is always necessary. But there are a lot of small businesses or even municipalities
that do not have the resources to have the expertise in-house to deal with the detailed and
sometimes very bureaucratic and hard-to-understand regulations and policies that we have. So
what we are doing is assisting them — compliance assistance.
On the other hand, if we assist companies and make things more understandable and
develop regulations with industries and other regulators and environmental communities and then
they disregard those rules and regulations, I will hit them over the head with a hammer.
The law is the law, and the standards have to be met, but we should help them. The
purpose is not to put fine money into the federal treasury. The purpose is to have the environment
protected.
Regarding what drives industry, it is clearly the bottom line. The business of businesses is
to do business. So, you deal with them on a bottomline value. Pollution prevention saves money.
Preventing pollution saves money.
DuPont, down on the Delaware River in southern New Jersey, had an enforcement action
taken out against them by EPA a couple of years ago. In this settlement, DuPont agreed to pay
their economic benefit but to also spend money to do studies of approximately 36 different
manufacturing processes. These studies cost $6 million.
They are now saving $15 million per year, based on a one-time investment of $6 million.
They did not do that on their own. They did it because of an enforcement action, but that
demonstrates that pollution prevention can work, and, in fact, other companies are now doing
similar things.
That is pragmatic business sense. They win, we win, the environment wins. And that is
the way to go about it.
Audience Question for Ms. Fox: I am glad to hear you reiterate that you have not
forgotten about enforcement, along with promoting a pollution prevention aspect, but in the news
we hear that EPA's budget has been decimated lately. Or at least, that it is the plan to use one-third
of the money for inspections.
I am just wondering, how can you enforce without the money to go out and do the
inspections?
Ms. Fox: I think what the Governor was talking about is that there is a philosophical
debate going on in Washington. I said this morning that I think this country is at a crossroads, and
we are going to go in one direction or the other to protect the future of generations and to protect
the environment.
I think the public is going to cause the right direction to be taken. Which is down from the
over 50 percent cuts the House recommended and is therefore at least a slight improvement.
Clearly, with that type of cut in enforcement, we will not be able to do what we are meant to do.
We won't be able to help small companies and small municipalities to actually know what they
have to do to comply with the law and help them out.
We obviously will be hurt in both of those areas. The President has said that bill is
unacceptable. He has not received it yet, but he intends to veto it. It is something that the public
will not like. More importantly, it will not help protect the environment. I don't think the public
will put up with it.
55
-------
Participant Biographies
Mr. Herbert Barrack is the Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and
Management at the Environmental Protection Agency. While at the EPA, Mr. Barrack has served
as Chief of the Financial Management Branch and Director of the Management Division. He has
also worked at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Mr. Barrack has served on many
committees while at the EPA including Chairman of the Office of Research and Development
Laboratory Project Committee, Executive Director of the Administrator's Environmental Financial
Advisory Board, and a representative on the Regulatory Policy Council. Mr. Barrack is now a
member of the Buildings and Facilities Committee and the Committee on Integrity and Management
Improvement. He has received numerous awards including the EPA's gold and silver medals for
exceptional service. Mr. Barrack is a graduate of New York University, where he received a
Bachelor's degree in Economics and an M.B.A in Finance.
Mr. Kevin Bricke is the Deputy Director of the Environmental Protection Agency's
Water Management Division. He specializes in the development and implementation of
management plans to restore and maintain the quality of the major waterways in this region,
including Long Island Sound, the New York-New Jersey Harbor, the New York Bight, the
Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Prior to his current position, Mr. Bricke held positions as Chief
of the Office of Federal Activities and Chief of the Policy and Program Integration Branch. He
received a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Master's degree in Environmental
Engineering from Manhattan College and a Master's degree in Public Administration from Harvard
University.
Mr. William Bunch works as a reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News. Prior to his
current position Mr. Bunch worked for New York Newsdav. where he wrote on environmental
issues. His articles have included a recent seven part article which disclosed major problems with
contamination in New York City's drinking water, the uncovering of toxic-waste sites around New
York City, and PCB-contamination at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Mr. Bunch was a key member of
the reporting team that won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of a fatal subway crash in New York
City, and he recently won the 1995 Jesse Laventhol Prize for deadline reporting from the American
Society of Newspaper Editors. Mr. Bunch has also worked at Newsdav and the Birmingham
News (Ala.). He is a graduate of Brown University.
Mr. Richard Caspe is the Director of the Water Management Division at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. He previously has held all management positions in this
division including Deputy Director. Mr. Caspe has worked as a civil engineer and as a consultant
designing airports, highways and airports. He received his B.S. from the City College of New
York and his Master's from the Polytechnical Institute of New York in Civil Engineering.
Dr. Steven Cohen is the Associate Dean at the School of International and Public Affairs
at Columbia University. In addition, he is Director of Columbia's graduate program in Public
Policy and Administration. Dr. Cohen has served as both a policy analyst and consultant for the
Environmental Protection Agency. He is currently serving as a management consultant to the
EPA, the Philadelphia AIDS Consortium, The Rockefeller Institute of Government, and Brooklyn
College. He also serves on the Executive Committee of the Barnard-Columbia Center for Urban
Policy. Dr. Cohen is the author of several books and articles including Environmental Regulation
Through Strategic Planning (1991), Total Quality Management in Government (1993), and The
New Effective Public Manager (1995). Dr. Cohen is a graduate of Franklin College of Indiana and
received a Master's and Doctorate degree in Public and (Urban) Environmental Policy from the
State University of New York at Buffalo.
Dr. Fanny Ennever currently lectures for the Division of Environmental Sciences at the
Columbia School of Public Health on risk assessment. Prior to this appointment she held a
teaching position at Case Western Reserve University, worked in the Office of Enforcement for the
EPA as an Environmental Scientist, and worked for Life Systems, Inc., preparing documents for
56
-------
government agencies. Dr. Ennever has researched widely during these positions on topics
including hazard identification, genotoxity, radon risk, areas of environmental exposures,
molecular epidemiology, antioxidants, and general risk assessment. Dr. Ennever graduated from
Harvard-Radcliffe College with a degree in Chemistry, received a Master's from M.I.T., and a
Doctorate in Applied Physics from Harvard University.
Mr. Jim Florio is a professor for Public Policy and Administration at Rutgers
University. He also serves on the Board of Directors of Bally Gaming International, Inc., the
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Dehere Foundation. In addition he serves as Co-Chair
of the Task Force on Excellence in State and Local Government through Labor-Management
Cooperation and is National Chairman of America's Coalition for Transit NOW. Mr. Florio is a
former Governor and Congressman of New Jersey. As Governor, he was responsible for
implementing the Clean Water Enforcement Act (one of the toughest of its kind), the Quality
Education Act equalizing the public school's financial system, and the nation's toughest assault
weapons ban. While in Congress he authored the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act and the "Superfund" law and was involved in almost all
environmental legislation. He has received degrees from Trenton State College, Columbia
University's graduate school, and Rutgers University Law School.
Ms. Jeanne Fox is the Regional Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. She is directly responsible for all operations of the EPA in this region. Prior to her work
here, Ms. Fox served as commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy. She was also the New Jersey Commissioner on the federal/four-state Delaware River
Basin Commission. Ms. Fox has served as Vice President of the National Women's Political
Caucus and President of the Women's Political Caucus of New Jersey. She is a charter member
and served as chair of the Middlesex County Commission on the Status of Women. In addition,
she was a gubernatorial appointee to the Commission on Sex Discrimination in the Statutes. She is
a founding member of Choice PAC New Jersey's Board of Directors. She is a graduate of
Douglass College at Rutgers and Rutgers Law School at Camden.
Dr. Steven D. Garber is a Wildlife Biologist for The Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey. He has published more than 100 scientific articles and four books, including The
Urban Naturalist (1987) and Biology (1995). He sits on the Sierra Club's Board of Governance
and has worked at the American Museum of Natural History, Yale University's Peabody Museum
of Natural History, the National Park Service, and New York City's Department of Parks and
Recreation and has taught at many universities. Dr. Garber received his B.S. in Natural Resources
from Cornell University, his M.A. in Ecology and Systematics from the University of Kansas, his
M.B.A. in Management from Stern School of Business at New York University, and his Ph.D. in
Ecology and Evolution from Rutgers University.
Mr. Terry Garcia is the General Counsel for the Department of Commerce at the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. As chief legal officer, he is responsible
for all legal matters that arise in connection with the conduct of the functions of the NOAA
administration. Prior to this position Mr. Garcia was a partner in several law firms including
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Mr. Garcia's responsibilities have included Chairman of the Financial
Services Group, where he was responsible for the development and supervision of the practice,
recruitment, hiring, and training of attorneys. He also has represented various institutions in all
aspects of their operations. In addition to his experience in law firms, Mr. Garcia served as
Counsel to the California Democratic Party, and was a Legislative Consultant to the International
Development Cooperative Agency. Mr. Garcia received his Bachelor's degree in International
Relations for American University and his Juris Doctor degree from George Washington
University.
Ms. Marilyn Gelber is the Commissioner of the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection. She oversees more than 6,000 employees, an annual operating budget
of nearly $600 million, and, in the last fiscal year, over $1 billion in capital expenditures. Ms.
57
-------
Gelber and the DEP are responsible for operating and maintaining the city's water supply system
and its wastewater treatment system. Prior to this position she worked as Executive Assistant to
the Borough President of Brooklyn where she was responsible for all policy development and staff
management. Ms. Gelber was instrumental in developing the borough President's "recycle first"
policy, making Brooklyn a leader in public participation in the city's curbside recycling program.
She also directed the work and formation of the Brooklyn Solid Waste Advisory Board, and
worked as an Urban Planner for the New York City Department of City Planning. Ms. Gelber
graduated from Queens College with a B.A. in English Literature.
Dr. Michel Gelobter currently works in the Graduate Department of Public
Administration at Rutgers University. Prior to his work at Rutgers, Dr. Gelobter was Assistant
Professor and Co-Director for the Program on Environmental Policy at Columbia University's
School of International and Public Affairs. He has also served as a consultant for the Office of the
Administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as Assistant Commissioner of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, and Assistant Producer at Cable News
Network Science News. Dr. Gelobter has served on the Clean Air Act Federal Advisory
Committee at the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy's Expert Panel on Weapons Facility
Cleanup, and the National Advisory Committee on Environmental Policy and Technology on the
EPA's Superfund Reauthorization Committee. He received a B.S in Conservation and Resource
Studies and a Master's and Ph.D. in Energy and Resources Group from U.C. Berkeley.
Dr. Suzanne Giannini-Spohn is an Associate Professor of Microbiology and
Immunology at the University of Maryland's School of Medicine. She also works at the
Environmental Protection Agency as a Biologist in their Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
At the EPA Dr. Giannini-Spohn serves as Section Chief for Superfund and a Member of the Risk
Assessment Forum. In addition to her current teaching post, she has held positions at Columbia
University and York College of the City University of New York. Dr. Giannini-Spohn has
published widely on her interests and her research, which include molecular parasitology and
chromosomal organization of parasitic protozoans, molecular epidemiology, immunoparasitology
and photimmunology and ultraviolet B effects. She graduated with a B.A. in Biology from New
York University and received a Ph.D. from Rutgers University where she specialized in
Parasitology.
Dr. Francesca T. Grifo directs the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the
American Museum of Natural History. Dr. Grifo has over ten years experience in managing and
conducting biodiversity research and conservation projects in the Neotropics. In addition to these
interests she has taught biology in the West Indies, done research on the Andean cloud forests, and
had an AAAS Diplomacy Fellowship in the Office of Research at the Agency for International
Development. Prior to coming to the Museum she was Program Director of the International
Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Program, an NIH, NSF, and USAID program to fund efforts to
integrate biodiversity conservation, drag discovery, and sustained economic activity. Dr. Grifo
received her Doctorate in systematic botany from Cornell University in 1992.
Dr. James B. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New
York. He is an Adjunct Professor of Geological Sciences at Columbia University and Principal
investigator of the Pioneer Venus Orbiter and Galileo (Jupiter Orbiter) Photopolarimeter
Experiments. In the last fifteen years he has worked on studies and computer simulations of the
Earth's climate in order to understand humans' potential impact on the global climate. He received
his education in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen.
Ms. Melva Hayden is currently the Environmental Justice Coordinator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in this region. In this position she concentrates on applying
environmental justice to all people and communities equally, a mission to which she has devoted
her whole career. Ms. Hayden actively supports her community through her position as an
ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. Previously, Ms. Hayden
worked as legal counsel to the EPA and participated on the Region's Environmental Justice Work
58
-------
Group. Ms. Hayden was named in 1994's Who's Who in America Law and was nominated again
in 1995. She received her Bachelor of Arts from Hunter College and went on to earn her Juris
Doctorate from the CUNY School of Law at Queens College. In addition, Ms. Hayden recently
received a Master's of Divinity from New Brunswick Theological Seminary's New York campus
at St. John's University.
Dr. Geoffrey Heal is Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility
and a Professor of Economics and Finance Program on Information and Resources and Graduate
School of Business at Columbia University. Prior to these posts Dr. Heal was the Senior Vice
Dean of the Columbia Business School. Dr. Heal has published over a hundred articles and
numerous books on subjects including the economics of natural resources and the environment,
economic theory and mathematical economics, international economics, regulation and increasing
returns, and resource allocation under uncertainty. Dr. Heal has served as consultant to companies
such as the UK Department of the Environment, the US Federal Energy Administration, the UK
Department of Energy, Phillips Petroleum, the IRS, and the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development. He received a B.A. in Economics at Churchill College, Cambridge, and earned
a Ph.D. in Economics from Cambridge University.
Dr. Sylvie LeBlancq is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Environmental Health
Sciences at Columbia University's School of Public Health. She has completed extensive
post-doctoral work in Parasitology, Molecular Biology and Genetics at Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Merck Research Laboratories, and Columbia. Dr.
LeBlancq's work in genetics and Parasitology has been well published in journals and books,
including the Transaction of the Roval Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. She is a
member of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene and the American Society for
Microbiology. She received her B.Sc. in Zoology and her Ph.D. from London University.
Mr. Peter Lehner is Senior Attorney in the Department of Clean Water and Coastal
Programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Dr. Lehner also teaches at Columbia
University's Law School. He has worked in the New York City Law Department, Environmental
Law Division and the Affirmative Litigation Division. Dr. Lehner has won several honors for his
work including the U.S. EPA's Environmental Quality Award, the Hudson Riverkeeper's
Environmental Leadership Award, and the City Club of New York's Earth Day Good Government
Award. He currently serves as Chairperson for the Environmental Law Committee of the
Association of the Bar of the City of New York and was Chair for the Planing Group for the
Symposium on Water Supply at the New York Academy of Medicine. Dr. Lehner has published
on his interests, including The Efficiency of Citizen Suits (1995). He graduated from Harvard
College receiving a degree in Philosophy and Mathematics, and graduated with his J.D. from
Columbia University Law School.
Ms. Emily Lloyd is Executive Vice President for Administration at Columbia
University. Ms. Lloyd is the former commissioner of the New York City Department of Sanitation
in both the Dinkins and Giulianni administrations. While there, she successfully implemented
city wide residential and commercial recycling, won city and state approval of the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan, and led the department through two severe winters. Ms. Lloyd has
also worked for The Port Authority of New York and was Commissioner of Traffic and Parking in
the city of Boston. Ms. Lloyd has also worked as a consultant, developing transportation,
economic development, and public space management plans for a number of cities including Los
Angeles, Washington, D.C., New Orleans, Paris, and Jerusalem. She earned her B.A. Degree at
Wellesley College and a Master's degree in city planning at the University of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Marc Matsil is Director of the New York City Parks Natural Resources Group. As
Director, he has overseen projects such as the registering of rare and endangered species and the
creation of major natural resource damage claims. Mr. Matsil is recognized for his environmental
restoration projects, winning several awards including the Society for Ecological Restoration
Theodore Sperry International Award for Restoration Ecology, the Nature Conservancy Oak Leaf
59
-------
Award, and the New York State Conservationist of the Year Award. Prior to his position at NRG,
he served as a specialist for the National Park Service. Here he undertook grizzly bear and flora
surveys for the Alaska National Parks System and was a Restoration Ecologist at Mount Rainier
National Park. Mr. Matsil is a Columbia University graduate.
Ms. Kathleen McGinty is Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Ms. McGinty serves as President Clinton's senior advisor on environment and natural resources
issues. She is responsible for administering and implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, making dispute resolution, coordination of federal environmental actions, and reform
of environmental law processes the priority of the CEQ. Prior to her work in the Clinton
Administration, Ms. McGinty served as then Senator Albert Gore's senior Legislative Assistant for
Energy and Environmental Policy and as Congressional Staff Coordinator for the Senate delegation
to the United Nations' Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. She graduated with
a B.Sc. from Saint Joseph's University and received her Juris Doctorate from Columbia
University's School of Law.
Dr. Don J. Melnick is a professor in the departments of Anthropology and Biological
Sciences at Columbia University and is the Director and primary founder of the Center for
Environmental Research and Conservation. Dr. Melnick's major research interests include the
influence of social organization and individual behaviors on the genetic structure of primate
populations, biogeographic history and molecular Systematics of Asian Old World monkeys, and
the conservation genetics and wildlife management of primate and non-primate mammals. He has
published more than 60 research articles and was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto, California. Dr. Melnick received his undergraduate training at
New York University and his graduate training in Biological Anthropology and Genetics at Yale
University.
The Honorable Stanley E. Michels is a full-time Councilmember representing
northern Manhattan. He also serves as Chair of the Committee on Environmental Protection and
Chair of the Manhattan delegation. While a Councilmember, Mr. Michels led a movement to
oversee the city's Solid Waste Management Plan and revised it to make recycling the principal part
of the final plan. As a result of his work to protect the city's water supply, Councilmember
Michels was awarded the City Club's 1995 Earthling Award for Good Legislator. He received his
Bachelor's degree from Hobart College and his Juris Doctorate from Cornell University.
Ms. Vernice D. Miller currently serves as the Director of the Environmental Justice
Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Ms. Miller is responsible for coordinating all
environmental justice efforts within the NRDC. She has developed NRDC's strategies to fight the
disproportionate influx of pollution on people of color and the poor. Ms. Miller is also currently
serving on the board of directors at the Washington Office on Environmental Justice. Ms. Miller
co-founded West Harlem Environmental Action (WHE ACT) and served as a research assistant for
the landmark report Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. Ms. Miller also is a founding
member of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance and the Northeast Region
Environmental Justice Network. Ms. Miller frequently lectures on environmental justice and
policy issues and has published several articles on these subjects. Ms. Miller is a graduate of
Columbia University.
Dr. George Morren, Jr. is Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Human
Ecology at Rutgers University's Cook College. His interests lie in human ecology and biological
anthropology, rural ecology and development, tropical ecology and conservation, urban-industrial
societies and responses to problems or hazards in these systems, and general systems approaches.
Dr. Morren has conducted field research in rural ecology, development, and environmental change
and in environmental hazards and responses and has authored four books and countless journal
articles on these subjects. In addition he has helped edit numerous publications, including
American Anthropologist. Science. Human Ecology and Oceania. He received his B.A., his
M.Phil., and his Ph.D., all in Anthropology, from Columbia University
60
-------
Mr. Walter Mugdan is Acting Regional Counsel in the Office of Regional Counsel at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Mugdan has worked several jobs at the EPA
including Chief of the Superfund Branch, Chief of the Waste and Toxic Substances Branch, and
Chief of the General Enforcement Branch. His main interests in environmental law include
hazardous waste regulation and litigation, and he has published numerous articles in this area. Mr.
Mugdan has taught at Pace University Law School and is a co-chair for the Hazardous Site
Remediation Committee at the EPA. He also serves on the Executive Committee and has chaired
the Nominating Committee. Mr. Mugdan graduated with a B.A. and a J.D. from the University of
Michigan.
Mr. William J. Muszynski, P.E. is the Deputy Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency. He also serves on the Program Committee of the New Jersey
Water Pollution Control Association. Mr. Muszynski is currently serving on the EPA's Senior
Management Council and is a member of the Strategic Planning Task Force and the Senior
Leadership Council. In addition, Mr. Muszynski has participated in cooperative initiatives in the
Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and with federally recognized Indian nations. Mr. Muszynski has
served as acting Regional Administrator for the EPA and was Deputy Director of the Water
Management Division. During his tenure Mr. Muszynski has won several awards for his services.
He also was a member of the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Muszynski is a graduate of the
Newark College of Engineering where he received an A.B.S. and a M.C.E.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is senior scientist and chairman of the Global Atmosphere
Program at the Environmental Defense Fund. His recent work has focused on climate change and
ozone depletion. He has published more than 50 articles in the professional literature and
co-authored a book on the greenhouse effect, Dead Heat, in 1990. He has served on a number of
boards and committees, including the Environmental Advisory Board to New York's Governor
Cuomo and NASA's Advisory Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation. Before joining
the Environmental Defense Fund in 1981, he was an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center specializing in the physics and chemistry of the ionosphere and interstellar space. He has a
B.S. in Chemistry from M.I.T. and a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics from the University of Chicago.
Dr. Mary C. Pearl is the Executive Director of Wildlife Preservation Trust International
and Associate Director of the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation. Dr. Pearl has
written about and worked widely in the area of wildlife conservation. She has worked at The
World Wildlife Fund and The Wildlife Conservation Society, where she was in charge of their
international grants program and developed their Asia/Pacific program. Dr. Pearl is currently a
Trustee at the Liz Claiborne/Art Ortenberg Foundation. She also serves as a consultant for the
United Nations Development Program and as Associate Editor for International News at
Conservation Biology. She has extensive field experience in the Asia/Pacific area and has
published numerous works on her interests. Dr. Pearl received a Bachelor's degree from Yale
University where she studied Anthropology. She also received her M.Phil. in Paleontology and
her Ph.D. in Primatology from Yale.
Dr. Frederica Perera is the Associate Director of Columbia-Presbyterian Cancer
Center's Division of Epidemiology, Prevention, and Control and an Associate Professor at
Columbia University's School of Public Health. Her current research interests focus on cancer
and environmental detriments to public health, particularly in the workplace and on children. She
has published extensively on these fields. Dr. Perera is the Associate Editor of Molecular
Carcinogenesis and works on the editorial boards of Cancer Research and Environmental Health
Perspectives. She also works on the advisory committee at the Harvard School of Public Health's
Department of Environmental Health in the Occupational Health Program and is a member of the
Environmental Health Committee for the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory
Board. Dr. Perera was educated at Radcliffe College, University de Paris, and Columbia
University and received her Ph.D. from Columbia in 1981.
61
-------
Dr. Charles M. Peters is the Kate E. Tode Curator of Botany at The New York
Botanical Garden's Institute of Economic Botany. He is currently researching the ecology and
management of non-timber tropical forest resources and the sustainable management of community
forests in Indonesia. He has also undertaken field research in Peru and Mexico. Dr. Peters has
written widely on his interests and has been published in many professional journals. In addition,
he has written several books including Ecology and Management of Non-timber Tropical Forest
Resources (1995) and Sustainable Harvest of Non-timber Plant Resources in Tropical Moist
Forests. Dr. Peters was educated at the University of Arkansas at Monticello in Forestry and at
Yale University, where he received his M.F.S. and Ph.D. in Plant Ecology.
Mr. Paul Raeburn is the Science Editor of the Associated Press. As the AP's chief
science correspondent, Mr. Raeburn covers the environment, science policy, genetics and
medicine. He is responsible for the work of the AP's five science writers and the new agency's
overall coverage of science and medicine. In addition to his work here, Mr. Raeburn has written
nearly 100 freelance articles for Popular Science. The New York Times. Vogue. Allure. American
Health, and Technology Review. He also wrote a book, The Last Harvest: the Genetic Gamble
that Threatens to Destroy American Agriculture (1995). Mr. Raeburn is a recipient of the
Science-in-Society Award of the National Association of Science Writers and the John P.
McGovern Award for Excellence in Medical Communications from the American Medical Writers
Association. He is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a
Bachelor's degree in Physics.
Mr. Andrew Revkin is an award winning author and journalist currently on the staff of
The New York Times where he covers regional environmental issues. He has spent more than a
decade writing about the environment and the impact of science on society. Mr. Revkin has
published several books. They include The Burning Season (1994), a basis for the movie of the
same name, and Global Wanning: Understanding the Forecast (1992). He has also worked as
senior editor of Discover, a senior writer at Science Digest, and a staff writer for The Los Angeles
Times. Mr. Revkin's articles and books have won many awards including the Robert F. Kennedy
Book Award and an Investigative Reporters and Editors Award. Mr. Revlan received a Bachelor's
degree in Biology from Brown University, and a Master's degree in Journalism from Columbia.
Dr. John Robinson currently works for the Wildlife Conservation Society as their
Vice-President for International Conservation. Prior to this post Dr. Robinson served as Director
for WCS's Wildlife Conservation International. Dr. Robinson is presently involved with many
organizations. He is on the Board for The Rainforest Foundation, the World Parks Endowment,
Inc., and the Branger Foundation. He also participates on committees at The World Conservation
Union, The Species Survival Commission, and the American Society for Primatologists. Dr.
Robinson has published numerous articles and serves on the editorial boards of several
publications including Primates and Conservation Biology. He received a B.A. in Zoology from
Swarthmore College and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of North Carolina.
Mr. Steven Ross is an Associate Professor of professional practice at Columbia
University's School of Journalism where he co-founded the environmental reporting program.
He has written extensively about environmental issues with his recent work concerning
transportation issues in and around New York City and the unwillingness of the authorities to face
their responsibilities in these matters. His books include McGraw-Hill's 1972 Report on Business
and the Environment and Land Use Planning Abstracts (1973). Mr. Ross has received numerous
awards for his work including the Citizen of the Year certificate from both the EPA and the New
York State Society of Professional Engineers. He also worked as Project Director for the 1987
Council on Economic Priorities study and was a consultant to the Environment Information Center
for the production of two early databases. Mr. Ross graduated from the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute with a degree in Physics, and received a Master's from Columbia's School of Journalism.
Mr. Conrad Simon is Director for the Air and Waste Management Program and a
member of the Senior Executive Service at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Simon
62
-------
is in charge of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Programs as well as the Air Pollution
Control Programs of the EPA in this region. Prior to working at the EPA, he was Assistant
Commissioner for New York City's Department of Air Resources. Mr. Simon has also taught
graduate engineering courses at Hunter College and the Polytechnic Institute of New York and
worked as a research scientist at New York University's School of Engineering. He obtained a
B.S. degree from Hampton University and his M.S. at the School of Engineering at New York
University. Mr. Simon also has worked toward a Doctorate and has extensive management
training from Harvard.
Dr. Melanie L.J. Stiassny is the Associate Curator of Fishes at New York's American
Museum of Natural History. Her research focuses on the systematics of the freshwater fish fauna
of Madagascar and Africa and on the conservation biology of these animals. Since the beginning
of her work in freshwater ichthyology, she has discovered and scientifically described over 20 new
fish species. She has written extensively on these topics. Dr. Stiassny is a member of the
IUCN/SSC Freshwater Fishes Specialists Group, Technical Advisor to the AAZPA Freshwater
Fish Taxon Advisory Group, and a member of the International Scientific Committee of PARADI
(Poissons Africains: Role et Applications de la Diversite Biologique). Prior to her work at the
Museum, she was Assistant Professor of Biology at Harvard University. She received her Ph.D.
from London University.
Dr. Dennis Suszkowski is the Science Director at the Hudson River Foundation for
Science and Environmental Research. He also serves as an Adjunct Associate Professor at the
Marine Sciences Research Center at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. In addition
to these duties, Dr. Suszkowski is on the Board of Trustees at the New Jersey Marine Science
Consortium, is Chairman for the Hudson River Management Advisory Committee, the Co-Chair
for the Science and Technical Advisory Committee, and is Co-Chair of the Science Panel for the
Marine Resources Council. Dr. Suszkowski has published widely and has received awards for his
excellent work. Dr. Suszkowski received his B.S. in Marine Science and Geology at Rutgers
University, his Master's at State University of New York at Stony Brook in Marine Environmental
Studies, and his Doctorate in Estuarine Sedimentology at the University of Delaware.
Ms. Julie Sze is the transportation organizer for the New York City Environmental
Justice Alliance. At the Alliance, Ms. Sze works toward social, economic and environmental
justice in low-income and communities of color throughout the city. Her current efforts include
trying to convince the MTA to switch to less polluting alternative ftiels and working with block
associations to make streets safer. Before coming to the Alliance, Ms. Sze interned with the Union
of Concerned Scientists' transportation program and with the Massachusetts Campaign to Clean
Up Hazardous Waste. She received her Bachelor's degree from U.C. Berkeley in English.
Dr. John T. Tanacredi currently works for the Department of the Interior. His major
research interests are in ecosystems management, including wastewater treatment, ecotoxicology,
natural resource damage assessment, ecological restoration, and biological diversity monitoring
and inventorying. His research has involved the detection of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons (PCBs, DDT) in estuarine and marine invertebrate
species. Dr. Tanacredi has also researched the behavior of endangered avian species as they relate
to human disturbances associated with urban environments. He works as an adjunct professor in
Ecology and Environmental Sciences at Polytechnic and Columbia College and the University of
Rhode Island. He has also been President of Environmental Associates, Inc., Environmental
Consultants since 1977.
Mr. Edward Wagner currently serves as Vice President for Wastewater Marketing with
CH2M Hill, an engineering consulting firm. He just recently retired from the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection where he served as Deputy Commissioner for the Bureau
of Clean Water. At the NYC DEP Mr. Wagner served as policy, technical and operational director
to the city's program for the protection of New York Harbor. He now serves as Council Chair for
the Research Council of the Water Environment Research Foundation and is New York City's lead
63
-------
representative to AMSA (Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies), where he is now
Vice-President of the Board of Directors. Mr. Wagner is also a member of the management
committees for the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program and the Long Island Sound
Study. He received a Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from New York University.
Dr. I. Bernard Weinstein directs the Columbia-Presbyterian Cancer Center and is the
Frode Jensen Professor of Medicine, Genetics, and Development and Public Health at Columbia
University College of Physicians and Surgeons. He is an attending physician at New York's
Presbyterian Hospital. His research centers on the study of gene arrangement and expression to
determine how DNA and RNA affect the development and growth of organisms, particularly in the
development of cancer. Dr. Weinstein has published extensively on this topic. He serves on the
editorial boards of Cancer Research and Cancer Epidemiology among many other scientific
journals. He is the chairman of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Cancer Award Committee and the
U.S.-Japan Cooperative Medical Science Program in Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens.
He belongs to and advises many other professional organizations involved in cancer research. Dr.
Weinstein received his B.S. and his M.D. from the University of Wisconsin.
Mr. Darwin Wika is Director of Environmental Stewardship for the DuPont Company.
Previously, he served as the Director of Safety, Health, and Environmental Affairs for DuPont's
Asia/Pacific Region. Mr. Wika is a member of the Nature Conservancy's International Leadership
Council, the Global Environmental Management Initiative, and the Organization Resources
Environmental Committee among others. He also serves on the Board of the Institute for
Cooperation in Environmental Management. Mr. Wika has had more than 30 years of engineering
and manufacturing experience in the U.S. and internationally. He has worked as a plant manager
of a large manufacturing facility and started his career as a Chemical Engineer. He received a
degree in Chemical Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.
Mr. Stephen Viederman is President of the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation. In
addition to this post, Mr. Biederman is a Vice President of the International Society for Ecological
Economics and a Director of the Rainforest Foundation and is on The President's Council of the
Institute for Alternative Agriculture. He also has worked at the United Nations Fund for
Population Activities and has run the International Program of the Carnegie Corporation. Mr.
Viederman's main interests include sustainablity, alternative economics, environmental justice, the
uses of science for public policy, and processes of changing individual and institutional
environmental behaviors. He has published widely on these topics and currently writes a column
for Earth Times. Mr. Viederman received his degrees in history from Columbia University.
64
------- |