Sustainability in the District of Columbia

The government of the District of Columbia, the place where I live, wants to move the city toward "sustainability."  Last week, it released the "Sustainable DC Plan," which it says "lays out a path forward to make the District the healthiest, greenest, most livable city in the nation over the next 20 years."  That's an excellent objective, but ambitious to say the least.

This ambition drew praised from David Alpert in his Greater, Greater DC blog, a site I've only recently discovered and enjoy reading.  But I'm not so sure the City's Plan merits quite so much praise.  As they say, the longest journey begins with the first steps, and it's not clear  that the Plan includes any specific commitment to taking them.

For example, in the transportation area, by 2032, the City Plan wants three-quarters of all trips to be by public transit, bicycle or walking.  Currently, based on commuting data, those account for about 54 percent of trips.  In other words, in the next two decades the City needs to find ways to reduce trips by car from about 46 percent at present to 25 percent.  That seems a real challenge.  Yet, as Alpert notes, most of the measures the Plan describes are thing the City is already planning -- streetcars, more bike lanes, and more performance parking (charging more in more desirable locales).

Similarly, the Plan hopes to see 250,000 more people living in the District in 20 years.  But it doesn't appear to say anything about where they'll live or whether new housing will have any relationship to transit systems.

I suppose it's useful to put the idea of sustainability out there.  (Of course, as the Plan notes, this is about "greenness" and "livability," not autarky.)  Among other things, it gives smart growth advocates something to push towards.  But if it's going to be more than a campaign document for the mayor's possible reelection effort, it's going to need a lot of pushing to translate targets into projects.

Remove or rebuild?

Hurricane Sandy's destruction was spread across a number of governmental jurisdictions in the New York area.  And each one seems to be coming up with different ideas on how to respond.  New York governor Andrew Cuomo is promoting a bold plan to spend up to $400 million to buy up homes damaged and destroyed by the hurricane.  The houses would be cleared out and the areas, mostly along the shore, would be allowed to revert to dunes and wetlands.  The governor's program would also offer incentives to people in at-risk zones to sell, even if their homes were not damaged.

Meanwhile, New York City seems to be acting in direct opposition to the governor's plan.  Michael Powell, in a recent New York Times article, quotes Brad Gair, director of the mayor's housing recovery operations, as saying that "[o]ur first priority to to build back."  Powell seems to agree. 

He mentions Arverne by the Sea, a middle income development in the Rockaway's that, when it was built around 2000, took account of higher sea levels.  The Arverne approach, Powell implies, could be the way to protect rebuilt communities along the coast.  But where does the money come from?  Who pays to raise the land and protect utilities?  It won't be individual homeowners.  Powell doesn't say it, but leaves the impression that state and federal funds should be available.  They have been in the past, he says.

Thus, the contest over land use policies for coastal areas takes shape -- remove settlement from coastland vs. rebuild with protections.  It looks like a lot of money is going to be spent no matter what.  It would be nice if it were spent wisely.

Brioude's Maison du saumon

Until the 1960s roughly, Atlantic salmon used to be plentiful in the Loire and Allier rivers.  It's estimated that during the 19th century something like 100,000 of the fish returned to spawn in the upper reaches of these rivers.  A couple of years ago, I vacationed in that area.  While I was there I came across an interesting little aquatic study center that tells some of the story of this fish.  The Maison du saumon in Brioude displays old photographs from the 1950s of individual and commercial fishermen taking advantage of all those fish.  I remember a picture of a restaurant kitchen with a pile of the fish waiting for cutting and cooking.  But since the mid-1980s salmon fishing in these rivers has been banned.  There are just too few of the fish.  Dams at critical points along the rivers blocked access to spawning grounds, over-fishing and pollution did the rest.

About 20 years ago, an effort called the Plan Loire Grandeur Nature set about trying to bring the salmon back.  And the numbers from several counting stations along the rivers indicate the plan is slowly having an effect.  From a low count of about 100 the numbers have risen to the mid-500s, and in 2012 the counting station at Vichy recorded 717.

The little Maison du saumon has been doing its part, too.  Along with the historical materials, visitors see aquariums with live salmon, and other varieties of fish, mostly from the Allier.  And there are displays on the restoration efforts.

This year the Maison is celebrating 25 years and Brioude wants to mark the event by updating and expanding its activities.  At the end of January, the city council voted to provide 30,000€ to buy new equipment.  They added another 10,000 to 15,000€ to support a partnership with the salmon counting station downstream at Vichy.  And they included 10,000€ for a study on new approaches to museum programs.

The salmon need all the help they can get and it's good to see Brioude supporting the Maison and its work. 

Dredging off the Brittany coast

Brittany and its coastal areas are among the most popular tourist destinations in France.  Besides the history and charming small towns, people are drawn to the coasts to see all manner of sea birds and marine life.  Tour companies organize multi-day explorations along coastal areas like the Rose Granite Coast in the Côtes d'Armor department.  In fact, we're planning on hiking in that area later this year with friends.

At the moment, people living around the Lannion Bay feel all of this is under threat.  The Bay, as the map shows, is just off the coast of Côtes d'Armor and neighboring Finistère.  Le Monde reports that a company based in nearby St. Malo wants to begin dredging shell sand out of the bay.

© Le Monde

The Companie Armoricaine de Navigation (CAN), a subsidiary of the Group Roullier, has a request pending to extract 8 million cubic meters (282.4 million cubic feet) of sand from an underwater dune.  If granted, the concession would extend for 20 years.  CAN's request has been filed at the Ministry of Industrial Renewal, headed by Arnaud Montebourg.

So far, it's not clear when and how Montebourg will decide.  But he will need to take into account that all 13 local councils in communities around the Bay have voted against the project.  Also, 31 associations, under the banner "People of the Dunes," have united to press their opposition.

They point out that the proposed dredging area is right between two marine zones protected under the Natura 2000 program.  This is an E.U. program meant to preserve biodiversity in critical areas.  Opponents fear that the dredging will kick up fine particulate matter that will drift into the protected areas, covering the bottom of the bay and threatening various forms of sea life.  They also point out that the dune that would be subject to the dredging is a breeding ground for sand eels, an important link in the local food chain.

© Valéry Joncheray Photographie

The company responds that alternatives to obtaining the sand from the dune would still have environmental impacts.  Getting the sand from places on land, they say, would mean putting large numbers of trucks on the roads to its plants in Brittany.  A spokesman said CAN was prepared to do more studies of environmental impact on the dune if requested by departmental authorities.

Whatever the status of the issue when we're there in August -- still pending or decided -- it'll certainly add interest to the visit.

Italian parties on energy and the environment

With elections now barely two weeks away, two Italian economists have searched through statements of party programs to see what they say about energy and the environment.  In general Caterina Miriello and Antonio Sileo, writing for Lavoce.info, found lots of pious wishes and little discussion of financing.  Here's my summary of their very useful summary:

Partito Democratico (PD).  Befitting a party of the left, energy and environmental matters appear in the context of jutice and equality.  The PD says Italians should have equal access to "common goods," which includes energy.  Statements about "sustainable development" include a collection of proposals for supporting innovative small domestic businesses.

Sinistra, Ecologia e Libertà.  Nicchi Vendola's party program has a lot to say about developing renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency, but is silent on financing.

Popolo della Libertà.  Berlusconi may offer the greatest number of pious wishes, some of which appear inconsistent, as in encouraging utility companies to invest in new technologies, but promising to reduce household energy bills.

Movimento 5 Stelle.  M5S's program may be the most detailed.  Generally it proposes to meet new energy needs through improvements in energy efficiency.  And the program spells out how this could be done, including financial proposals.  But Miriello and Sileo are concerned about the numbers; they don't seem to have any authoritative sources.

Agenda Monti.  Monti's group has relatively little to say about energy and environmental matters.  The program mentions energy from waste materials, without including many details.  It also stresses an idea that apparently has been discussed for a while -- that of making Italy the entry and distribution point for imported natural gas.  Miriello and Sileo aren't sure what the financial markets think about the idea these days.

Rouen and Taranto

Is Rouen the "French Taranto?"  The reference is to the town in Southern Italy where pollution from the Ilva steelworks has been damaging local residents' health for years while public officials seem incapable of doing anything.

Rouen, known for the cathedral that Monet painted over and over, is in fact a heavily industrialized city with a considerable petrochemical industry.  In 2001, when a chemical plant exploded in Toulouse, the shock waves, figuratively, carried all the way to this city on the Seine.  A larger version of the same plant operates in Rouen and residents must have thought that the 31 deaths and 2,500 injured could as easily have happened there.
 
Le Monde reports that twelve of the city's petrochemical facilities are classified as "upper tier" under the E.U. Seveso Directive, a directive adopted after the tragic chemical company accident in Seveso, Italy, in 1976.  Upper tier sites are subject to stringent safety and public reporting requirements.

In the middle of January a Rouen plant started leaking methanethiol.  It's said to be harmless, but it really stinks, something like rotting cabbage or smelly socks, people say.  On January 21, many people in Rouen were overwhelmed by the stench and started getting nauseous.  And because of the wind direction, so did people across western France and as far away as southeastern England.  Yet no alarm went off and no statements came from the company involved.  Company officials only started providing information after being beseiged with demands to know what was happening.

© Charly Triballeau/AFP

A ten-year-old French law requires high-tier Seveso sites to have in place a "plan for prevention of technological risks," or PPRT (plan de prévention des risques technologiques).  Companies are required to adopt safety measures at the facility itself and protect nearby neighborhoods, if necessary, by buying up homes and businesses and clearing land.  So far none of the twelve sites has an approved plan.  Critics suggest that public officials want to avoid any action threatening the financial health of the industry that locally employes 30,000 people.

In the meantime Rouen remains a city with some of the worst air in France and with the potential for a deadly serious industrial accident.  The comparison with Taranto seems not so far fetched.

New York proposes buyouts in hurricane zones

Andrew Cuomo is keeping busy.  Right after getting important gun control legislation passed, the New York governor is back with a proposal to protect the state's coastal areas from the next Hurricane Sandy.

Today's New York Times reports on his idea to buy up homes severely damaged or destroyed by the hurricane.  He would also offer financial incentives to homeowners in vulnerable areas to sell, even if they'd suffered little or no damage.  The state would then clear the purchased land, creating dunes, wetlands, or parks as natural barriers against future storms.

Based on estimates of the number who would sell, the state places the cost of the program at about $400 million.  A substantial part of this would come from the $51 billion in the recently-enacted Sandy relief legislation.  Before anything can happen, the program will require approval from federal housing officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  When a Times reporter asked about the governor's ideas, they said it was too soon to respond.

Certainly, there will be other hurdles besides those in Washington DC.  But the governor's idea seem to make enormous sense.  According to the Times, people in affected areas have responded in mixed ways.  Some are enthusiastic and hope the buyout program is implemented.  Others say their ties to the coast are too strong and they'll never leave.

We'll see.  I haven't looked at the results of similar programs in other places, but I'd guess that presented with concrete offers, substantial numbers of homeowners will sell.  And what are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other Atlantic Coast states coming up with?

Murky water at Onema

One of the principal French water quality agencies has been charged with mismanagement and possible fraudulent contracting.  This comes as as the European Union may assess France with monetary penalties for not meet water quality standards.

The Cours des comptes, the French version of the General Accountability Office, is about to release a report charging that the Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatique (Onema) has failed to maintain records required under public contracting laws.  More or less at the same time, the union representing Onema employees has filed a legal complaint with charges of fraudulent contracting and pressure on employees to ignore contracting rules.

Onema is a good-sized agency; it employs about 900 people and operates with an annual budget of 110 million euros.  Formally, it's a semi-independent "établissement publique" under the administrative supervision of the Ministry of Ecology.  So far Delphine Batho, the Ecology Minister, has quietly transferred the Onema director and the head of the agency's board of directors.  She also shifted responsibility for the critical water information system (système d'information sur l'eau) from Onema to an agency within the Ministry, the Direction de l'eau et de la biodiversité.

Apart from the alleged individual bad acts, Le Monde suggests the potential for mismanagement and fraud was fostered by Onema's administrative position.  The paper suggests the the ministry's oversight agency, also involved in water quality, was disinclined to strictly oversee a sister agency with whom it shared overlapping objectives.  This may be part of the story, but it sounds incomplete.  It doesn't explain, for example, how Onema also seemed to be able to avoid oversight by management and budget officials at the Ministry of Economy.

The country's slow progress towards meeting E.U. standards most likely has political as well as administrative causes.  And a political one that comes to mind immediately is agriculture.  The French farm industry has been doing all it can to resist stricter rules on pesticides, fertilizers, and farm waste products.