Cohen's Framework and the City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act of 2009

Values

The City of Oxnard’s Water Recycling and Desalination Act of 2009 deals with the problem of public health and environmental safety due to tremendous water contamination. There is a clear consensus that new water treatment facilities are necessary, but the municipal economic values seem to slightly heed the implementation of this project.

Oxnard is an economically depressed city that has struggled to battle issues of environmental health and safety due to a lack of tax dollars and a greater value of economic development. This bill allows for federal involvement in the design and implementation of the new water treatment facility with a federal commitment to pay for 25% of the project. The proposed solution doesn’t require a tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being, nor does conflict with ethical or religious precepts.

Politics

The bill was referred to House Subcommittee on Power and Water from the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 4th. The stakeholders in this issue are the Secretary of the Interior, the House Representatives from California, the Oxnard Local Public Officials, the Oxnard Water Department Employees and the Oxnard City Residents. The Secretary of the Interior is involved based on the interest of design, funding and implementation. The house reps and local public officials are involved based on implementation and to what percent of the project will be funded by local vs. federal government. Employees in the water department are involved based on to what level they will have control over the design of the facility. The residents of Oxnard are involved based on their interests to have the water treatment facility successfully implemented

The politics of this issue are primarily a concern over what level of fiscal responsibility and authority will be shared by the federal and local government. All stakeholders involved are committed to the establishment of the facilities. This bill only addresses the specifics of ownership, so there are really no potential winners and losers. It appears that the Oxnard Local Government is considered primarily responsible for addressing the issue. There is a high level of consensus and little controversy surrounding this bill.

Science and Technology

There is absolute scientific certainty that the City of Oxnard water quality is very poor and, if no action is taken, would result in harmful health effects. The current practices to treat the water are substandard and contribute significantly to the problem. There are several examples of highly successful water treatment facility programs that provide a technological blueprint for the city to model its new program after. Although Oxnard’s water quality is in very poor shape, the execution of technology used by cities with successful water treatment facilities would drastically improve the problem.

Policy Design

This bill doesn’t offer any incentives of disincentives to influence behavior pertaining to water quality. It does, however, demonstrate strategic thinking based on stakeholder compromises. The bill divides up responsibility based on funding, allocating no more than 25% of the project cost to be paid by the federal government. It seems that, in return for funding, the Secretary of the Interior is allowed a certain level of influence in the design of the facility and is given authority over the project for a certain level of time. This clearly demonstrates stakeholder tradeoffs. It isn’t clear if the other unregulated stakeholders support the policy design in its entirety but it would seem that, as long as the facility is constructed and improvements are made, they are satisfied. The policy design is likely to generate a significant progression in water quality for the City of Oxnard.

Management

It would appear that the organizational capacity may not exist yet. The bill, however, will release funding to develop whatever organizational capacity is lacking in order to build and operate the facility. It would appear that the quality of leadership is relatively good due to the fact that the planning of the project seems to be collaborative. It is clear, however, that local leadership may be relatively uninformed on the best practices for water quality. This makes the involvement of the Secretary of the Interior an optimal solution. It would appear that the federal government is committed to a certain level of funding until the local capacity to manage the facility has been established. Standard operating procedures will need to be established immediately and tests will need to be done to evaluate their effectiveness.

Conserving Resources in Developing Countries

Early 20th Century Industrialization allowed for mass exploitation of the present economic giants to build their economic empire and develop their infrastructure.  These are now the same countries that are demanding other economically depressed countries to discontinue the harvesting of scarce resources to improve environmental qualities.  It is ridiculous for such wealthy nations to call for third world countries to voluntarily withhold from the use of these resources without great economic incentives.  As much as I would like for these countries to preserve these forests, they do not have the luxury to comprehend the long term benefits of sustainability when they are struggling to provide for their communities from day-to-day.  The United States cannot promote market capitalism and not expect economically depressed countries to maximize their trade industry. It is the responsibility of wealthy, industrialized nations to provide assistance in whatever means necessary to make the preservation of forests an economically attractive option.

I believe the only expectations that industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate is their commitment to cooperation in the creation of alternatives.  They should not be required to make any sacrifices when it comes to their economic vitality.

 Countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom should strive for equity as a goal, but what equity means should be carefully discussed and clarified.  Sacrifices made on the part of industrialized nations are miniscule in comparison to that of economically developing nations. What is equitable will likely affect wealthy nations much more than economically developing ones.  

Most third world countries will value economic development more than slowing down global warming.  This is to be expected since the people of these countries are often not having their basic needs met.  It is important to require these countries to participate  in order for the industrialized nations to understand their needs.  To exclude these nations would do little to solve the problem, as most nations who value global warming over economic development are already involved in finding a solution and conserving resources.  

Final Paper Topic

I will be writing my paper on H.R. 88 bill in the 111th Congressional Meeting, also known as "The City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act of 2009." This bill was introduced in order to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design of the GREAT project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters in the City of Oxnard.  

This bill would allow the Secretary of the Interior to provide insight and to use influence in the planning of new water treatment facilities in the Southern California city that has suffered from tremendous amounts of water contamination. This bill designates that the federal government will pay for no more than 25% of the Great Project.  It also places sunset restrictions on the Secretary of the Interior's authority.  The Secretary of the Interior will be able to infuse federal guidelines into the implementation of the plan. 

Oxnard, California has long battled environmental issues, especially water contamination and air pollution.  It is also a suburb plagued with poverty, and has steadily declined in the past two decades.  It should be interesting to evaluate the City of Oxnard's plan for treatment of water, and what influence and perspective the Secretary of the Interior will bring from a federal standpoint.  

"Decades later, asbestos-ravaged town has its day in court."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/corp.pollution.trial/

The town of Libby, Montana had suffered in silence for years as a result of extreme levels of air pollution due to the W.R Grace mining plant, located close by. The town was subject to extremely high levels of asbestos that visibly plagued the air quality for decades. After numerous accounts of illness and death as a direct result of the asbestos exposure, this extreme injustice is finally being taken to court.

A federal trial has now begun in which the W.R Grace Plant is charged with being the primary cause of more than 1000 illnesses and more than 200 deaths. There's never been a case where so many people were sickened or killed by environmental crime: says David Uhlmann, a former top prosecutor for the U.S Justice Department.

The plant was in operation until 1990, and produced vermiculite, a substance used in all sorts of products, from insulation to fertilizers. This substance is linked to linked to numerous illnesses including mesothelioma, a cancer that can attack the lining of the lungs, abdomen, or heart. The U.S Government claims that the plant knowingly released the toxic chemical into the environment while hiding the dangers of exposure from employees and the town people.

Although this doesn’t represent racial environmental injustice, it is a clear example of environmental injustice in the sense that the W.R Grace plant was a polluting facility located in an impoverished community. W.R Grace was a large entity that established itself in a community with little social power. (Vig 249) For years, the town of Libby suffered from the affects of the plant, yet they learned to cope with these conditions due to the lack of political resources and the need for the industry. Many victims of the exposure are still waiting for a settlement that seems to be miles away. The case has become riddled with stagnation as the high-powered representatives of the plant refute the claims of the EPA.

The town of Libby is a perfect example of the great disparity of environmental health risks between the poor and the affluent. Although recent policy changes aimed at amending such gross environmental injustices are evident in the case of W.R. Grace, we can see that wealth, power and economics are still playing an all to large role in the battle for environmental equity.