-------------------
I find it interesting that the author cannot see past his political filters as he analyzes the problem of a polluted creek. Read on:
---------------------
Confronting pollution in our local creeks should be a top priority for the city of Bozeman. A recent Chronicle article discussed the poor health of our city’s namesake urban waterway, Bozeman Creek, attributing the creek’s unhealthy levels of E. coli and nitrogen largely to wastes, lawn clippings and fertilizers. While these causal agents of poor health are becoming clear, what wasn’t discussed was the failure of our city to take responsibility and proactively manage those pollutants and, in turn, our urban water resources.
The crux of the issue is this: The greater Bozeman area has placed more emphasis on economic growth than on implementing scientifically sound infrastructure or environmental stewardship. (Note the binary nature of the this statement. The author thinks that the City prefers economic growth [which is a preposterous assertion in itself] over "science." This is loaded language, designed to misdirect. It's "science" vs. business. This is un-nuanced, black and white thinking, which excludes other factors in an effort to mainpulate the available choices and to steer thinking about the issue. Because science.)
Confronting pollution in our local creeks should be a top priority for the city of Bozeman. A recent Chronicle article discussed the poor health of our city’s namesake urban waterway, Bozeman Creek, attributing the creek’s unhealthy levels of E. coli and nitrogen largely to wastes, lawn clippings and fertilizers. While these causal agents of poor health are becoming clear, what wasn’t discussed was the failure of our city to take responsibility and proactively manage those pollutants and, in turn, our urban water resources.
The crux of the issue is this: The greater Bozeman area has placed more emphasis on economic growth than on implementing scientifically sound infrastructure or environmental stewardship. (Note the binary nature of the this statement. The author thinks that the City prefers economic growth [which is a preposterous assertion in itself] over "science." This is loaded language, designed to misdirect. It's "science" vs. business. This is un-nuanced, black and white thinking, which excludes other factors in an effort to mainpulate the available choices and to steer thinking about the issue. Because science.)
By infrastructure we mean updated, well-maintained and well-funded programs and structures that capture and treat stormwater and wastewater in urban areas. (The author has a point here. As is typical for government, valuable capital assets like sewers are routinely neglected, because government knows that when a crisis finally manifests due to that negligence, there is an endless supply of money that can be extracted from taxpayers' pockets. Therefore, there is no need to allocate money for maintenance and repair. Neglect is acceptable.)
And by environmental stewardship we mean there’s a distinct disconnect between the lauded city moniker of “The Most Livable Place,” and the requisite funding and political will to put protection of the local environment equal to growth. (As is typical for the Left, more government, more programs, and more spending is the default position.)
Our decision-makers have made too many cuts or underfunded management of our environmental laws and planning processes. (I would challenge the author to identify the spending cuts to which he refers. He suggests that there have been many of them. Let's see a list, sir.)
Our decision-makers have made too many cuts or underfunded management of our environmental laws and planning processes. (I would challenge the author to identify the spending cuts to which he refers. He suggests that there have been many of them. Let's see a list, sir.)
We are building projects without sufficient environmental mitigation and allowing unsustainable activities to prosper without the proper science or enforcement resources to protect our water and our communities. ("Science" again. He tosses out this word as if waving a wand, coupled with an emotional appeal to save our city. Remember, we are talking about Bozeman Creek, which has been surrounded by urban development for more than a century. It passes though old neighborhoods, farmland, and low density subdivisions as it courses toward its eventual union with E. Gallatin river.
It isn't as though there has been no environmental protections and thus the presence of pollution. No, this is a heavily regulated watercourse. Government is failing, and the author wants more of the same. Because science.)
If Bozeman’s local waterways are to ever recover and improve, these trends will have to change.
Nutrients, sediment, and E. coli have always been around in Montana’s waterways but, as the saying goes, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Too many nutrients and sediment jacks local water temperature and incites unhealthy algal growth that can deoxygenate sections of our rivers, harm our fisheries’ viability, and overload rivers’ and wetlands’ natural pollution filtration capacities. Similarly, excess E. coli in waterways is a serious health risk.
In fact, Bozeman Creek, along with many other local waterways including the downstream receiving tributary, the East Gallatin, are classified pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act as impaired as a matter of science and law. (Science again. The author uses science as a rhetorical bludgeon to imply that lack of action, as advocated, means "not science." He further invokes government as an additional appeal to authority, yet is its this selfsame government which has failed us and brought us to the present situation.) This is not the picture of “The Most Livable Place” you might see in a city visitors’ brochure.
What should we do now? ("We?" Does the author mean you and me rolling up our sleeves and doing something? No, of course not. To the Left, "we" always means government, and "doing something" always means create a program or extract more taxes.) Simple. We need to make excess nutrient, sediment and E. coli discharges less common in our local creeks. How do we do that? Also simple:
Politicians, community leaders, and business leaders need to be less cynical about environmental regulations and protections. (Cynicism causes pollution?)
These laws are not red tape. (Yes, actually they are by definition. Some are particularly onerous, while others are reasonable and effective. Simply deeming all environmental laws to be good is simplistic, and attempts to preemptively negate the entire debate regarding the proper role of government verses property rights. This is a real issue, and one that deserves careful consideration.)
If Bozeman’s local waterways are to ever recover and improve, these trends will have to change.
Nutrients, sediment, and E. coli have always been around in Montana’s waterways but, as the saying goes, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Too many nutrients and sediment jacks local water temperature and incites unhealthy algal growth that can deoxygenate sections of our rivers, harm our fisheries’ viability, and overload rivers’ and wetlands’ natural pollution filtration capacities. Similarly, excess E. coli in waterways is a serious health risk.
In fact, Bozeman Creek, along with many other local waterways including the downstream receiving tributary, the East Gallatin, are classified pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act as impaired as a matter of science and law. (Science again. The author uses science as a rhetorical bludgeon to imply that lack of action, as advocated, means "not science." He further invokes government as an additional appeal to authority, yet is its this selfsame government which has failed us and brought us to the present situation.) This is not the picture of “The Most Livable Place” you might see in a city visitors’ brochure.
What should we do now? ("We?" Does the author mean you and me rolling up our sleeves and doing something? No, of course not. To the Left, "we" always means government, and "doing something" always means create a program or extract more taxes.) Simple. We need to make excess nutrient, sediment and E. coli discharges less common in our local creeks. How do we do that? Also simple:
Politicians, community leaders, and business leaders need to be less cynical about environmental regulations and protections. (Cynicism causes pollution?)
These laws are not red tape. (Yes, actually they are by definition. Some are particularly onerous, while others are reasonable and effective. Simply deeming all environmental laws to be good is simplistic, and attempts to preemptively negate the entire debate regarding the proper role of government verses property rights. This is a real issue, and one that deserves careful consideration.)
Environmental laws work (Waaait. The author devoted many words to how "we" are failing to protect Bozeman Creek, but now these laws work?)
because they protect your rights to safely swim, drink and fish your water. Without their protections there are consequences. (Who has advocated removing protections? This again is typical Leftist thinking. It's an either-or scenario, that is, all the laws and regulations they can conceive of, or absolutely no protections at all. Opposing one bad regulation is synonymous with opposing all regulations.)
You lose the things you love most about living on, near, or using our water. The joy you get from swimming on a hot summer day can be lost in one hot week if you don’t keep pollutants out of the water. (Another emotional appeal. Because science.)
Your public officials need to enforce our environmental protections. (Yes, most everyone agrees that reasonable and proper laws ought to be enforced.)
Your public officials need to mandate proper, well-funded infrastructure for sewage and stormwater. (Again, no disagreement here. But it's a lot easier to pry money out of people when it's a crisis.)
When violations occur, they need to punish polluters and ensure violations stop (well, yeah. What good are more environmental laws if the existing ones aren't enforced? This is another modus operandi of the Left: Pass more and more laws and deem the problem solved. Until tomorrow, when there are suddenly no environmental laws and we must now do something. Again.) —
there is no right to pollute Montana’s waterways. (Of course not. Who has asserted such a right?)
They also need to inform citizens about warnings and concerns. They need to take significant steps to educate citizens — you — about how to reduce nutrient, sediment and E. coli runoff. (Government "education" initiatives always set off my radar. When government talks about "educating" people about proper behavior and approved thoughts, I reflexively oppose them.) They need to work transparently with industry and business to reduce pollution discharges.
You can do your part to reduce the problem. Proper septic systems need to be built and inspected regularly, and under regulated building growth needs to be reigned in. (You see, things are always under regulated. We need more laws!)
You can buy products with less nitrates, use less fertilizer on lawns and leave natural buffer zones between property and creeks and rivers to reduce run-off.
You can support groups and community leaders. You need to support the informed and knowledgeable environmental groups and politicians who stand out and seek support to create and enforce our environmental protections. (Get on board with the agenda voluntarily, until it becomes mandatory.)
Without protections, there are consequences. (Again the specter of no regulations is tossed out there. And again we ask, who is advocating no regulation?) The greater Bozeman area needs to take the woes of Bozeman Creek as a wake-up call and get engaged to ensure our decision-makers give the needed attention — and funding — to protect our clean water.
because they protect your rights to safely swim, drink and fish your water. Without their protections there are consequences. (Who has advocated removing protections? This again is typical Leftist thinking. It's an either-or scenario, that is, all the laws and regulations they can conceive of, or absolutely no protections at all. Opposing one bad regulation is synonymous with opposing all regulations.)
You lose the things you love most about living on, near, or using our water. The joy you get from swimming on a hot summer day can be lost in one hot week if you don’t keep pollutants out of the water. (Another emotional appeal. Because science.)
Your public officials need to enforce our environmental protections. (Yes, most everyone agrees that reasonable and proper laws ought to be enforced.)
Your public officials need to mandate proper, well-funded infrastructure for sewage and stormwater. (Again, no disagreement here. But it's a lot easier to pry money out of people when it's a crisis.)
When violations occur, they need to punish polluters and ensure violations stop (well, yeah. What good are more environmental laws if the existing ones aren't enforced? This is another modus operandi of the Left: Pass more and more laws and deem the problem solved. Until tomorrow, when there are suddenly no environmental laws and we must now do something. Again.) —
there is no right to pollute Montana’s waterways. (Of course not. Who has asserted such a right?)
They also need to inform citizens about warnings and concerns. They need to take significant steps to educate citizens — you — about how to reduce nutrient, sediment and E. coli runoff. (Government "education" initiatives always set off my radar. When government talks about "educating" people about proper behavior and approved thoughts, I reflexively oppose them.) They need to work transparently with industry and business to reduce pollution discharges.
You can do your part to reduce the problem. Proper septic systems need to be built and inspected regularly, and under regulated building growth needs to be reigned in. (You see, things are always under regulated. We need more laws!)
You can buy products with less nitrates, use less fertilizer on lawns and leave natural buffer zones between property and creeks and rivers to reduce run-off.
You can support groups and community leaders. You need to support the informed and knowledgeable environmental groups and politicians who stand out and seek support to create and enforce our environmental protections. (Get on board with the agenda voluntarily, until it becomes mandatory.)
Without protections, there are consequences. (Again the specter of no regulations is tossed out there. And again we ask, who is advocating no regulation?) The greater Bozeman area needs to take the woes of Bozeman Creek as a wake-up call and get engaged to ensure our decision-makers give the needed attention — and funding — to protect our clean water.
Guy Alsentzer is the Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and executive director of Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, Inc., the only water advocacy nonprofit dedicated to protecting and improving watershed health throughout Southwest and West Central Montana.
No comments:
Post a Comment