When I moved to Bloomington, it seemed like it was raining ALL THE TIME.And then I remembered that for the last decade of my life, I've lived in Georgia, which since 1999 has had more years in drought than out of it. A lot of places are rainy compared to that. Check out this map of the drought conditions in the United States as of last week. Like the middle of the country, Georgia has been pretty hard-hit.
As of September 11, 62.7% of the state (by land area) was at least 'abnormally dry.' 52.4% is officially in a drought, and 16.88% is experiencing an exceptional drought, according to the US Drought Monitor. The man-made reservoir that provides drinking water for the majority of metropolitan Atlanta, Lake Lanier, is currently over 9 and a half feet below capacity. Although water levels are not as low as they were during the historic drought in 2008, this year's levels are lower than three of the previous 5 years.
So of course Georgia's government is leaping into action about this, right? Implementing all sorts of sustainable, win-win, water-related policies like those highlighted in Roseland's chapter? Working proactively with community members and scientists to figure out how to live within the limits of watersheds?
Wrong.
Governor Nathan Deal's silence about the drought has been so deafening it was heard all the way in Los Angeles. Deal has not formally declared a drought in Georgia and has failed to reinstate many of the water conservation measures put in place during the 2007-2008 drought. Earlier this week, the LA Times ran a piece about how the business interests of "urban agriculture" (turf-grass and landscaping, which would obviously suffer under a water ban) and the political centrism of Atlanta (located between and a little north of the darkest red areas in the state map above) cause the drought-stricken farmers in the southwestern part of the state to be overlooked. The article goes on to quote a Georgia Environmental Protection Division official, who says, "A gallon of water saved in the metro-Atlanta area would fail to ensure that there would be adequate water for human consumption in the southern parts of the state."
Let's keep this statement in mind and take a look at the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin (the green one) of which metropolitan Atlanta is a part. Compare it to the drought map of Georgia. (The darkest red areas stand for 'exceptional drought.' It seems to me that water conservation efforts in Atlanta would absolutely improve the water situation in southwest Georgia (and Alabama and Florida). (And hydrologists cited in the LA Times article agree.)
Ok, obviously I'm from Georgia and so I care about this stuff. But why should you?
Disparities in the geographical distribution of political power and environmental degradation, elected leaders and community members who don't understand watershed dynamics, and underdeveloped legislative frameworks for addressing environmental/sustainability issues are not unique to Georgia. Arriving at sustainable management of water systems, or any other natural resource, is normally not easy. Usually tradeoffs are involved, status quos are changed, and people get angry. That's why Roseland's laundry list of neatly packaged, two sentence success stories about water conservation leaves me feeling unsatisfied and, well, a little angry. I have two main problems with this watered down, rose-tinted version of the journey toward sustainable communities. The first is that difficulties and mistakes are instructive and to leave them out is limiting, and the second is my belief that promulgating glossy, win-win sustainability stories does the field a disservice.
First, about difficulties and mistakes: Granted, there is some low-hanging fruit where municipalities can make changes that make everyone more sustainable and better off. But what about everything else? I know complexities such as political opposition, funding constraints, and geographical limitations exist, but I don't always know how communities address and overcome them. Adding these elements into descriptions of successful community initiatives would exponentially increase their usefulness, allowing us to critically analyze barriers to and solutions for sustainable transformations.
Second, I don't buy the assertion that "sustainable communities are not merely about "sustaining the quality of our lives--they are about improving it" (Roseland, 1). An improved quality of life does not look the same for everyone, and I believe there are people who will feel they have a decreased quality of life when they can't water their lawns or have to pay higher rates for higher water consumption levels (not to mention more major lifestyle changes). But by framing sustainable initiatives as always win-win, we weaken our position. We create the impression that sustainability isn't worth tradeoffs or hard fights, that sustainable initiatives are only for pie-in-the-sky sustainable ecotopias like Portland.
So, what can we learn about sustainable communities from Georgia's profoundly unsustainable reaction to drought conditions? First, looking at what other communities have done could be instructive, provided we have enough context and details to draw parallels and discern appropriate best practices. Second, we shouldn't wait for water conservation to provide benefits for the "urban agriculture" (ha!) industry or the legislators at the state Capitol. This is a fight worth fighting, an issue worth raising, a mess worth getting into. It won't result in a win for everyone, or even a sexy blurb for Roseland's next edition. But really, that's the reality of working toward sustainable communities.
Great post. Because, honestly, I was feeling the same way about Roseland's sexy blurbs. Yes, this book was written to inform readers on how to develop towards sustainable communities and focused on low-hanging fruit (which I also have a slight issue with because his target audience probably knows all the low-hanging fruits we can pick), but the two to three-sentence success stories don't touch on other multi-faceted sides of the word community. A community involves multiple players and if Georgia's mayor can't even acknowledge a drought happening in his city, well then integrating a water protection master plan is just completely absurd. Yes, politics are everywhere, so why don't we we see at least some politics regarding forming sustainable regulations? How difficult some of these regulations were passed with some cities/towns, as opposed to others? Why are all the examples Roseland gives isolated? Like you mentioned, cities can learn from each other, but if we only see the rosy side of things, we won't get anywhere.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The Roseland book does very little to answer the tough questions, such as political attitudes or lack of funding. The examples stated in the book revolve around the Portlands-Swedens-Austins which have a certain eco-friendliness climate already. What would you do if you were on Georgia’s sustainability panel? The map showing the watershed locations overlaid with drought conditions would serve as a powerful infographic to anyone in disbelief. Aside from colorful charts and maps, stories are also powerful tools to evoke a new way of tackling tough issues. But would policy makers in Georgia roll their eyes at Portland-Sweden-Austin examples? It seems relating to the sense of place, finding a case study in a nearby area or just being transparent about existing barriers could be a starting point. I ask myself these same types of questions you state in the blog. There is a huge need to alter the “norm” if we want to tackle water issues, or really any sustainability issue for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that holding up examples of Portland/Sweden/Austin probably wouldn't get too far with the Georgia legislature. I think that working with downstream farmers and even people in Alabama and Florida (who rely on water coming down past Atlanta) to intensify political pressure is one approach. It also seems like some basic scientific education is needed--but it can be hard to talk with people who refuse to accept scientific consensus about the current and future (climate change) threats.
DeleteThen there is the issue of private-sector economic concerns, which seem to be what is really influencing the governor--I wonder if somehow businesses could be persuaded to push for a comprehensive drought plan/legislation. After all, it doesn't seem like the problem will go away, so having a plan in place will help these businesses to keep functioning into the future.
I am very much in agreement that the Roseland book manages to gloss over conflicts involving the environment and environmental policy. And I doubt that Roseland would have dealt with your Georgia case study with the same realism that you have. A question: would a stakeholder approach be an appropriate way to include the drought-stricken farmers into state politics? In other words, is such an approach likely to incorporate their interest into policy? Is that all it would take to turn the situation around? Of course, weather, ecology, and water resources are the constraints which, to some degree, limit the situation, and politics has to work within those constraints.
ReplyDeleteI think it would certainly be helpful for the marginalized farmers to have a greater voice in the state capital. However, I think business interests are the real stumbling block here--watering restrictions and other conservation methods would cut into the profitability of landscaping/turf businesses in the upper portion of the watershed. It's a question of how social vs. private good is valued. (Although the farmers represent "private businesses" in a way too--it would be interesting to research more to learn about the dynamics of these opposing interests.)
DeleteMary: Please try to incorporate the phrase "sexy blurbs" into everyday conversation.
ReplyDeleteI clearly remember the day I lost all faith in southeastern government (besides all those other times): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16281915
As always, an amazing read. It sounds like plenty of us agree with you about the Roseland text. In-depth case studies would be more useful, especially because we're all going to find ourselves in those trying positions in just a few months. I'd appreciate, though, if you clarified for me your statement: "But by framing sustainable initiatives as always win-win, we weaken our position." Despite what followed, I'm still not sure what you mean by that. Since it's a bold-sounding statement, I want to be sure I understand you.
Sorry for not being clearer in the original post. Maybe win-win isn't the best way to phrase it--but what I mean is that if we only talk about sustainability (and transitioning to sustainable communities) in terms of these feel-good stories, we set ourselves up for everyone else to overlook us as unable to deal with real-world problems under real-world constraints. When we tell only win-win stories, we imply that sustainability is good to think about when the solution is easy and everyone benefits. The flip side of this implication,though, is that when the solution is hard and involves tradeoffs, the sustainability approach doesn't have much to offer. Since pretty much everything with a significant impact is hard and involves trade-offs, it is important to shape the narrative to underscore that an approach that considers sustainability is legitimate no matter what the issue is.
DeleteAll these sexy blurbs...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Calley, thank you as I had NO IDEA this kind of crap is going on in GA.
I thought the Indiana State Govt and our Governor was bad - as he has de-funded many state agencies (like the Indiana Department of Environmental Management - IDEM) and reduced them to ineffective shells.
However, I was rather impressed with Indiana and IDEMs response to the terrible drought that we had this year. I act as a drinking water operator for a camp that IU owns and IDEM essentially forced us to come up with water conservation and contingency plans. It was a great way for us to shore up some SOPs and policies that we had been lacking.
And how in the HELL can you not declare a drought when your reservoir for potable water is 8.5 feet below normal? Just incredible and thanks again for sharing.
First off, Calley, this was an excellent and informative read. Seriously, you could develop a reader-base pretty quickly I'm willing to bet.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thank you for not shying away from your criticism towards our text. There are some key tools we can learn from them, but you're absolutely right: this shit ain't easy. Despite how common-sense many stories may seem, wading through "business as usual" is dirty and discouraging and countless sexy sustainability initiatives die because of it. Georgia will need a serious and inspired community based social marketing strategy before changes are implemented. Check this one out that the consulting group I work for in Indy started!
www.clearchoicescleanwater.org
This website focuses on the individual and the household, but it's proven to be an effective and free way to disseminate information. Maybe you could take your blogging skills and other examples of tough battles like the one in Indy and tackle your state's government!