Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability 2011Papers of Global Envir!JfJmencaJSustoinobiif.y (20'11).Volume1.!! the political will to improve environmemal problems atrophies in

Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability

Volume I, 2011

Editor: Lauren Payne

Published By GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ACTION COALITION

Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability TABLE OF CONTENTS Samson, Eric. Water in the Poorest State of Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Button, Charles E. The Presence of Pfiesteria Piscicida in the Chesapeake Bay

Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Albertson, Luke. Literature’s Impact on Environmental Policy: Case Study –

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Griswold, Wick, Jacqueline Talbot, and Craig Mergins. Sustainable

Recreational Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2

Water in the Poorest State of Mexico

Eric.L. Samson, Assistant Professor Department of Geography

Central Connecticut State University Texas State University-San Marcos Mayan Esteem Project

[email protected] Abstract

Chiapas generally holds the title of the poorest state in Mexico and the country itself is

often thought of as an underdeveloped region. Cholera outbreaks, a laundry list of chemical and

pathogenic constituents, and very little sewerage treatment make the least advantaged of the land

of “Montezuma’s Revenge” a land mine of illness for not only travelers but inhabitants as well.

This paper reports on the author’s fifteen years of observations on the state of water while doing

field research in Chiapas. Sulfur dioxide testing of water sources for selected communities

unexpectedly showed no E. coli contamination in the summer of 2007. But government testing in

1995 declared every river in Chiapas to be infected with Cholera and government testing still

found a wide range of pathogens in many waters in 2007. As a developing region Chiapas can be

seen to be improving many facets of public hygiene but still lacks basic water/wastewater

infrastructure. Concluded is that Chiapas does not need huge investment and innovation to

improve water quality – only application of well known processes and the political will to

implement water/wastewater infrastructure. Introduction

This is a geography of water in the state of Chiapas, Mexico (figure 1). Many of the

observations in this study are taken from my years as a political observer in Chiapas since the

second year of the Zapatista rebellion of 1994 and my ensuing work to preserve cultural heritage

sites in Chilón, Chiapas in the northeast. I conducted formal environmental studies there in 2007

for dissertation work at Texas State University-San Marcos and draw much information from

that field work here.

Water is a political problem and certainly an environmental issue throughout the world.

About forty percent of people in the world do not have safe drinking water with the rural poor

being the most deprived (WHO/UNICEF, 2010). In many developing countries such as Mexico

Papers of Global Envir!JfJmencaJ Sustoinobiif.y (20'11). Volume1. the political will to improve environmemal problems atrophies in the face of the political

economy that is working to increase the lot of the population by commodity production and

monetary enhancemem(Perard, 2009). But such a price for public welfare ignores the cost of

polluting water supplies by industrial offal, agricultural discharge of pesticides andfertilizers,

Study Area State of Chiapas, Mexico

N

A

Mexico

0 150 300 600

t<i!omelets

Figure I. Chiapasisthe southernmost state ofMexico(Source: CIESIN, 1990)

•

Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume

5

household wastewater, and the usurpation of investments to economic engines rather than to the

human (and other organisms) imperative of clean water (Bel and Warner, 2008). As with many

developing areas, basic human needs give way to the increase of capital.

Chiapas, Mexico is the poorest state in a developing country (Braine, 2006). It was

widely publicized that cholera had been detected in every river in Chiapas during my first visit

there in 1995. The poorest state in Mexico is also its southern-most state bordering Guatemala

(figure 2). Vast river expanses of the Usumacinta River to the east, ultimately reaching the Gulf

Figure 2. Chiapas bounded by the Pacific Ocean and bordered with Guatemala. Source: ESRI.


6

of Mexico, and the Suchiate River to the far south emptying into the Pacific Ocean, act as

geopolitical boundaries between Mexico and Guatemala. These and virtually all rivers in

Chiapas are polluted mostly by human waste either from open defecation that will ultimately be

swept into the waterway by rain or from centralized sewerage infrastructure in small colonial

settlements where the centralized collection of raw sewage often drains directly into waterways

without even the simplest mitigation of sedimentation. Repercussions

Fifty-seven people died from diarrhea in Chiapas in the first six month of 2007 with

39,000 cases reported in the same period (Grajales 2007). Given that most communities do not

treat their sewage, many water ways are profoundly polluted. Fecal lab testing of selected

families living along the Suchiate River in far southern Chiapas found every member to be

infected with Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica, Entamoeba coli (nonpathogenic but often

indicative of other pathogenic species), Trichuris trichiura, Trichomonas hominis (also thought

to be nonpathogenic but associated with diarrheic stools), and Uncinaria stenocephala. Also

detected in the samples were E. coli, Salmonella thipy, Salmonella enteric, Shigella sp.,

Enterobacter aerogenes, Enterobacter sp., Enterobacter aglomerans, Enterobacter cloacae,

Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, Proteus sp., Klebsiella sp., Klebsiella oxytoca, Serratia

rubiadae, Serratia sp, Citrobacter enteric, Citrobacter freundii, and Providencia rettgeri. Most

of the above mentioned microorganisms were also found in direct water samples of the Suchiate

River (Garcia 2007).

The majority of ladino families throughout Chiapas take some form of metronidazole

(brand named Flagyl) or other strong antibiotics against amoebic dysentery twice a year as a

matter of preventive action. Amoebic dysentery is quite pernicious since it can penetrate the

intestinal wall and infect other organs like the brain, lungs, and liver producing cystic abscess

conditions. It is spread mainly in tropical environments by poor sanitation and untreated water

used in food production (MedlinePlus 2011). Many homes have indoor or outdoor piped water

with cisterns to insure against water and electric shortages (I have personally experience outages

of both water and electric that lasted two weeks) (figure 2). State programs in some rural areas of

Chiapas have financed toilets and septic tanks. But there is always contamination looming for the


7

Figure 2. The wet area of a household (above) with detail of the cistern (below) where hand washing and water retrieval is facilitated by the floating bowl. The pump for the piped water is only run a few hours per day so cisterns are filled at this opportunity. The walled off area in the photo (above) contains a toilet fixture (one of the few in town – this is a prosperous household) and area for showering. Hoses trail to the kitchen house for cooking and dish water.


8

water supply. After using the toilet a family member may grab a bucket without washing their

hands and scoop water out of the open cistern to flush the toilet since many have no piped water

source to the tank or the tank mechanics may have broken and the bucket has become the status

quo for flushing. If the family member does wash their hands first, it will usually be by taking a

plastic bowl floating in the cistern to wash and rinse hands that soil the bowl that will go back

into the water source.

Water contamination does not only come from human borne microbes. Many vector

diseases like yellow fever, dengue and malaria, depending on mosquitoes to spread their

pathogens, increase when water catchment increases because it is habitat for mosquitoes to

reproduce. Cisterns and vessels for ladling water can serve as catchment habitats for mosquitoes

as can potted plants and any depression or container that will hold water after a rain (figure 3). Shortage

While doing field research in a Zapatista rebel community in 2007 I was called on to

come to a community meeting at the Casa de Salud (health house). I was asked to explain my

presence, which I did, and then found myself being examined on what could be done for the

water problems at a nearby community, Nuevo Usumacinta. Several representatives reported the

community of about 300 people had experienced problems of water shortages for some 30 years

but now that drought had set in, it was a great community stress to not receive the summer rains

that usually filled the community cistern. It was described to me that the cistern would be filled

by rain water that would serve the community through much of the normal dry season and that

when it was empty it was necessary to carry water some three kilometers from the Usumacinta

River for all household use. I suggested immediate relief to the problem by requesting water

trucks from the state or federal governments to fill their cistern but was rebuked since Zapatista

rebel policy is to eschew outside resources and come up with their own solutions. I then

mentioned that the community trucks I knew the Zapatista’s used for daily community

transportation to various points of the region could be fitted with large tanks to transport water

but that this might have limitations given that with only human passengers the truck had power

deficiencies that barley allowed it to make it over steep inclines (on one of my trips in such a

truck, several passengers had to disembark to allow it to make it up a particularly steep summit).


9

Figure 3. A cistern at a Zapatista home that catches rainwater from the gutter at left will hold water and mosquitoes.

So I then asked the obvious question: “How had this gone on for 30 years without finding a

solution?” It was explained that the problem was considered minimal unless there was a time of

drought that raised discontent when there was no relief to the water portage. Now that the rainy

season had failed to commence there was no relief of the drudgery of transporting water in small

containers on foot. I suggested three options: 1) increasing the size of the cistern to allow for

more supply during dry and drought seasons, 2) a pipe and pump system with relay cisterns to

accommodate the distance capacity of the pumps, and 3) follow the example of a neighboring

community and find the financial resources to dig a well and install a pump. My concern that a

lack of water not only meant an increased workload from transporting water from the river but


10

that a water shortage would inevitably have an effect on personal hygiene since hand and dish

washing might be sacrificed because of shortage. I know that the drought eventually lifted that

summer but do not know if Nuevo Usumacinta has implemented any plan to avoid water

shortages in the future.

Figure 4. One of several sites testing for E. coli around San José en Rebeldía. All sites tested negative as indicated by the white test pad, the small white disc in the lower left center of the photo.

The water in each community that I visited was tested with a hydrogen sulfide process to detect

E. coli (figure 4). In another community suffering from the drought yet maintaining water in the

cistern (figure 3 above) I tested the murky water and the owner commented that he expected the

test to be positive for E. coli, as did I from the appearance of the water clarity. But the test was

negative. The owner related that there were often periods when the cistern emptied and water


11

needed to be carried from the nearby river. He said that he had witnessed in his lifetime (he was

a man about in his mid-sixties) degradation of the river Santo Domingo and that he attributed the

decline to the growth of Comitan and Las Margaritas many miles upstream. Processing

The most water tests of any study site were taken at a rebel community named San José

en Rebeldía because of request by community leaders and the disperse nature of the area with

about 130 individuals. Only a handful of families used a single ojo de agua (eye/source of water

– see figure 4 above). All hydrogen sulfide tests were negative for E. coli at all study areas

contrary to expectations with knowledge of a lack of sewage treatment in the area, livestock

grazing, and a history of water contamination in Chiapas. The drought of the summer of 1997

might have contributed to the lack of E. coli findings or the simple fact that people chose isolated

springs with underground, isolated sources for their water supply – all colonial centers of

population reported chlorinating their water.

Boiling was reported as the method most used for water treatment outside the colonial

centers, though many were witnessed drinking water directly from cisterns, which was not

chlorinated yet tested negative for E. coli in all that were tested. Water was boiled in my host’s

kitchen in one community. This was a separate kitchen/dining house filled with smoke from the

firewood used for fuel. A large bucket was hung over the fire to boil when all of the cooking had

been completed. Some of the isolated rural areas reported using chlorine or iodine for water

treatment but most said they boiled water for drinking and cooking.

All communities were treating water to make it potable. However, colonial center

communities were using chlorination for centrally distributed water (that is ultimately rarely

trusted for consumption) while rural/rebel/indigenous groups may or may not centrally distribute

water and certainly leave treatment to the end user. Such end treatment may include boiling,

iodine, or rarely chlorine but individuals are left to care for their own water safety, which is

essentially the net result at colonial centers who purchase bottled water. All colonial center water

systems periodically test their water for pathogens by state mandate while the rural communities

do not. All colonial communities have alternative water reservoir sources while rural areas

generally do not, save for long portages with buckets.

12

Papers of Global Sustainabilit;y Volume

Figure 5. Boiling water after the cooking is done in a rural Chiapan kitchen house.

13


The Water Landscape

The water cycle in Chiapas is profoundly affected by slash and burn agriculture and very

steep, manually tended fields (figure 6). Thin fertile soils over laterite and volcanic ash soils give

way to erosion in very intense population density with subsequent agriculture. Crops, mostly

corn, are more and more supplemented with chemical fertilizer and pesticides to make up for the

lack of the ability to allow fields to lie fallow to regenerate nutrients and provide cover for the

pounding summer rains. So fields are under cultivation longer while erosion is more severe

pumping sediments into inevitable drainage basins providing the catalysts needed to convey

pathogens and other constituents in the river water. Intense cattle grazing exacerbates such

erosion problems throughout Chiapas.

Figure 6. Remote agriculture in Chiapas. Close examination of the photo reveals that field plots extend all the way to the summits of these mountains ultimately draining into the river (barely visible at lower, right center).

14


Many communities, both colonial centers and nucleated rural communities, often burn

their trash. While this is not a study on air quality (the dangers of burning plastic could provide

ample material for another study) the ash left after burning many substances such as plastic leave

toxic constituents that can easily be we washed into natural drainage basins. During my field

work I came upon many, many burning piles of community trash. One town dump could not

have appeared to be more of a desecration of the Earth than if it was expressly designed to

appear as such (figure 7). Along a remote country road the trash was dumped off the side of the

mountain and burned while eventually falling down into the watershed at the bottom of the

elevation.

Figure 7. A burning dump along a mountain road slowly letting its toxic ash fall into the water cycle.

15


Chiapas is a land of robust jungle. Where something is cut, something will soon grow.

Anthropogenic development, if not maintained, will soon disappear. The resilience of the land

gives little pause for stewardship so there are atrocious scenes of black rivers running through

cities carrying away the waste of thousands. Someone may stop along the road and change their

oil by draining it out where the car or truck sits and then continuing on leaving their oil mess

behind to be washed into waterways. Dangerous pesticides (paraquat) are advertised on almost

every utility pole in rural Chiapas and sold at corner stores where tortillas and candy are sold

with no regulation or education of its use. I have witnessed a child of about ten years old

carrying home a large glass bottle of paraquat in each hand without companionship or

supervision. So many things are washed and discarded into the water in Chiapas. I am a

swimmer and sometimes it is hot in Chiapas but I never dare swim there. I wish I could. Conclusion

Sewage treatment and standards needs to be applied throughout Chiapas. The region is

walking a rail of public health disaster if sewage treatment is not implemented on all scales of

communities. Out of ten communities that I visited in 2007, only two used a sedimentation

process for collective sewage treatment. Only one treated that effluent with chlorine before

dumping it into the local waterway. Under such conditions cholera cases that are reported by the

state each month could easily hit epidemic proportions like they did in 1995 at any time.

Education programs with instruction for stewardship impart some hope for future water

conservation in Chiapas (figure 8). The WHO/UNICEF Progress on sanitation and drinking-

water update (2010) finds access to clean drinking water is improving worldwide and that open

defecation (the greatest threat to clean water) is down some seventeen percent in ten years.

The high growth rates that come with developing countries’ indoctrination into neoliberal

economies bring about high production and heavy exploitation of the land. As a developing

region Chiapas can be seen to be improving many facets of public hygiene but still lacks basic

water/wastewater infrastructure. Chiapas does not need huge investment and innovation to

improve water quality – only application of well known processes and the political will to

implement water/wastewater infrastructure. Chiapas must find the political ecology to take a path

of environmental care if any growth is to include clean water.

16


Figure 8. One of several posters reflexive of the environment seen in a town hall in Chiapas done by students from the local prep school. Translation: “Don’t pollute the water because it is life. Be careful of it.”

17


References Bel, G., & Warner, M. (2008). Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs?

A review of empirical studies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(12), 1337- 1348. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.07.014.

Braine, T. (2006). Reaching Mexico's poorest. Available online: http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.

php?pid=S0042-96862006000800004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pt, accessed March 17, 2011. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(8).

CIESIN (Center for International Earth Science Information Network) (1990). Earth Institute,

Columbia University. Available online: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/ (accessed February 26, 2011).

ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) (2005). EarthSat, AND.

http://www.esri.com/legal/copyright-trademarks.html (accessed February 25, 2005). Garcia, R. (2007). Foco de infección en rio. Cuarto Poder, June 7. Grajales, E. (2007). Van 57 muertos por diarrea in 07. Cuarto Poder, July 12. MedlinePlus (2011). Amebiasis. Avaialable online: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/

article/000298.htm, accessed 12 February 2011. U.S. National Library of Medicine: Bethesda, MD.

Pérard, E. (2009). Water supply: Public or private?: An approach based on cost of funds,

transaction costs, efficiency and political costs. Policy and Society, 27(3), 193-219. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2008.10.004.

WHO (World Health Organization), UNICEF (United Nations Childrens' Fund). (2010).

Progress on sanitation and drinking-water 2010 update. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO/UNICEF.

18


The Presence of Pfiesteria Piscicida in the Chesapeake Bay Region Charles E. Button, Associate Professor

Department of Geography Central Connecticut State University

[email protected] Abstract

In August 1997, Pfiesteria piscicida, a deadly waterborne microbe, was implicated for

two major fish kills in the Pocomoke River, a major tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Estimates

are that these two events resulted in a total of 20,000 to 30,000 dead fish. Although this was the

first time any fish kills in the Bay were “officially” attributed to Pfiesteria, it is highly likely that

many of the fish kills in the past –and in the future- could, or will be linked to Pfiesteria.

This paper will discuss the scientific discovery of Pfiesteria and its recent appearance in

the Chesapeake Bay region (Figure 1). It will explain what anthropogenic influences stimulate

the outbreak of Pfiesteria and what effects Pfiesteria has on human health. The response of

government officials and agencies will be discussed and measures will be suggested that would

help alleviate the outbreaks of Pfiesteria. ”… and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. And the fish that were in the

river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink the water of the river; and

there was blood all throughout all the land of Egypt.” (Book of Exodus 7:20-21) Chesapeake Bay Region

The Chesapeake Bay Region is located along the Middle Atlantic coast of the United

States (Figure 1). The Chesapeake Bay is a large inlet of the Atlantic Ocean, eastern Maryland

and eastern Virginia. It is about 320 km (about 200 miles) long and varies in width between 6 to

64 km (4 to 40 miles). Many estuaries and streams indent the Bay, including the James, York,

Rappahannock, Potomac, Patuxent, and Susquehanna rivers. The head of the bay is linked to the

Delaware River by the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, a 31-km (19-mile) long waterway

providing access to the Wilmington-Philadelphia port area. The Bay is navigable by deepwater

vessels throughout its length and is an important source of oysters, crabs, and other seafood.

19


Figure 1: Cheapeake Bay Region Source: http://pippahunnechurch.com/about/the-chesapeake-bay

The Scientific Discovery of Pfiesteria

Pfiesteria piscicida was discovered by scientists during 1988 in fish cultures at the North

Carolina School of Veterinary Medicine. The identification of, and current level of scientific

understanding of Pfiesteria can mainly be accredited to the diligent research and work performed

by Dr. JoAnne Burkholder, Howard Glasgow, Cecil Hobbs and other members of the North

20


Carolina State University Aquatic Botany Laboratory (Burkholder et al. 2001). Dr. Burkholder

refers to Pfiesteria as the “phantom” dinoflagellate. Pfiesteria, which represented a new family,

genus and species, was named in honor of the late Dr. Lois Pfiester, who contributed much of

what we know today about the complex life cycles of dinoflagellates. Since it’s discovery,

pfiesteria has been identified in waters throughout the world (Jakobsen et al., 2002; Magnien,

2001).

Dinoflagellates are a group of microscopic, mostly single-cell organisms that belong in a

“twilight zone” between the plant and animal kingdoms (Barker, 1997). Botanists claim them as

microscopic plants because some members obtain their sustenance through photosynthesis. They

are also claimed by zoologists because other members consume protozoans. Some forms of

dinoflagellates have existed since 500 million years ago. To date, several thousand

dinoflagellates have been identified, and at least 24 species of these are known to produce toxins.

Even though millions of dollars of research has been conducted on dinoflagellates, they are still

poorly understood.

Pfiesteria has a complex life cycle that includes at least 24 flagellated, amoeboid, and

cyst stages or forms (NCSU, 11/20/98). Figure 2 shows Pfiesteria in one of its amoeboid stages.

The flagellated and amoeboid forms are known to be toxic to fish (Law 2001). The cyst stages

commonly occur among the bottom muds of estuaries. Amoeboid stages can be found in the

water column as well as among the bottom sediments. They feed on other organisms (bacteria,

algae, and small animals) or on bits of fish tissues by engulfing their prey. Flagellated stages

(vegetative or asexual cells, sexual cells or gametes, and motile sexual products or planozygotes)

can also engulf similar prey, but they usually feed by attaching to prey cells using a cellular

extension called a peduncle and suctioning the prey contents. The dinoflagellate appears to be a

generalist in prey selection because numerous fish species have been killed in the field, and the

toxic flagellated vegetative cells have proven lethal to every fish species tested in the laboratory

(33 species thus far) including striped bass, southern flounder, menhaden, eel, blue crab, and bay

scallop (Berry et al., 2002; Lewitus et al., 1995).

Pfiesteria only becomes toxic when it detects enough of an ephemeral substance that live

fish excrete or secrete into water. When fish, such as a large school of Atlantic menhaden,

gather in an area, their excreta triggers Pfiesteria to become toxic. The toxic

21


Figure 2: Pfiesteria in its Anoeboid Stage. Source: North Carolina State University.

Pfiesteria cells swim to the school of fish and excrete toxins into the water, which make the fish

lethargic. The toxins also injure the fish skin and the fish lose their ability to maintain their

internal salt balance and open bleeding sores and hemorrhaging occurs. Then, Pfiesteria feeds on

the sloughed epidermal tissue, blood, and other substances that leak from the sores. When fish

are dead, Pfiesteria changes into its amoeboid stages and feeds on the fish remains. Should

conditions become unfavorable, Pfiesteria cells simply make protective outer coverings, change

into a dormant cyst stage, and sink down to the lower depths of the water where they will be safe.

Pfiesteria Outbreaks in the Chesapeake Bay Region

The first ‘documented’ fish kill in the Chesapeake Bay region that was attributed to

Pfiesteria occurred in August 1997. In that incidence 20,000 to 30,000 fish are estimated to have

been killed. Scientist say they believe Pfiesteria exists elsewhere in the Bay in more benign

forms (Shields, 9/10/97). Pfiesteria has been attributed to fish kills throughout the Chesapeake

Bay region (Figure 3).

On September 10, 1997, a three mile stretch of King’s Creek, a branch of the Manokin

River, was closed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources after more than 6,000 fish

were found dead that had Pfiesteria-like lesions on them. State biologists at the scene said the

fish’s lesions and confused, lethargic swimming pointed to a Pfiesteria attack (Shields and Meyer,

9/11/97).

22


Pfiesteria Ho Chesapeake B

Maryl

Figure 3: The Chesapeake Bay Region and Source: Foundation.

1-‐-‐-‐Chicamacomico River 2-‐-‐-‐King’s Creek 3-‐-‐-‐Pocomoke River 4-‐-‐-‐Patuxent River 5-‐-‐-‐Great Wicomico River 6-‐-‐-‐Rappanhanock River

t Spots ay

and

officials closed a six mile section of the Chicamacomico River, another tributary of the

Chesapeake Bay, on September 14, 1997, after hundreds of fish were found sick and with lesions

attributed to Pfiesteria. State officials and Bay scientists said they were dismayed but not

surprised by the latest discovery of fish bearing the lesions and swimming in a dioriented manner

associated with Pfiesteria attacks (Argetsinger and Goodman, 9/15/97).

In addition to these ‘documented’ cases of Pfiesteria fish attacks, evidence has indicated

that Pfiesteria may have also been responsible for major fish kills in the Chesapeake Bay region

fin the past –even before it was discovered by Dr. JoAnne Burkholder in 1988 (Lewitus et al.,

1995). [On September 17, 1997] Maryland and Delaware officials said they suspect that a toxic

microbe [Pfiesteria] recently found afflicting tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay caused a major

fish kill in 1987 in a river near Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and may have caused other cases of

sickened fish in the 1980s (Goodman and Shields, 9/17/97). The 1987 fish kill occurred in the

Indian River near Rehoboth and resulted in 125,000 dead fish. Peter Jensen, director of the

fisheries division of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, said a preliminary review of

23


old cases indicates that current Pfiesteria problems in Chesapeake Bay tributaries may not be

new or the result of accelerating water quality problems (Goodman and Shields, 9/17/98).

Fish kills are a significant and recurrent problem in Maryland estuaries. From 1985 to

1993, an average of 125 fish kill events per year were reported to the Maryland Department of

Environment, with a maximum of 187 in 1988 (Lewitus et al., 1995). Pfiesteria’s presence in the

Chesapeake Bay region is well documented. In addition to the incidences mentioned here, there

are numerous other accounts of fish kills that have been attributed to Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake

Bay region. Human Health Effects

Although much of the earlier studies conducted on Pfiesteria focused on its effects on fish,

recent efforts are focusing on determining the potential effects Pfiesteria may pose to humans

(Stoeker et al, 2002). National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Director Kenneth

Olden, Ph.D., said that two laboratory extracts derived from the Pfiesteria organism have shown

the ability, in one case, to cause skin lesions characteristic of recent coastal fish kills and, in the

other, affect the nervous system (NIH, 9/25/97).

The assertion that Pfiesteria effects human health has been controversial. In Maryland,

researchers and the Governor feel certain that Pfiesteria poses a threat to public health. When

asked about whether Pfiesteria was a threat to human health, David Oldach, an assistant

professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, and member of the medical team that

Maryland assembled to investigate Pfiesteria responded, ”I personally don’t think there’s any

question.” “For the official, for-the-record medical publications, we state associations, but there

clearly was an effect, which logically appears to be due to exposure to toxins” (Shields, 1/18/98).

Likewise, Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening seems convinced that Pfiesteria is a

threat to public health. He has publicly cited that at least 13 people on the Eastern Shore of the

Chesapeake Bay were poisoned by Pfiesteria last year, causing memory loss and confusion. This

action was praised from some as a courageous step to protect public health, even as seafood sales

plummeted amid consumer concern about the safety of Maryland’s catch (Shields, 1/18/98).

Health officials in Virginia and North Carolina, where Pfiesteria also is active, remain

skeptical about whether the organism can harm people outside a laboratory setting. At the same

time, they acknowledge that Maryland residents exposed to pfiesteria ladden waters suffer health

24


problems. Virginia’s assistant state epidemiologist, Suzanne Jenkins, said,”But whether it’s

from the Pfiesteria toxin or whether it’s from something else, nobody’s been able to make that

distinction” (Shields, 1/18/98).

According to the North Carolina State University Aquatic Botany Laboratory

(NCSUABL) Pfiesteria piscicida Webpage, whose contents are scrutinized by JoAnne

Burkholder, the discoverer of Pfiesteria, there is no question that Pfiesteria causes adverse health

impacts to humans. It asserts that 13 researchers who worked with dilute toxic cultures of

Pfiesteria sustained mild to serious adverse health impacts through water contact or by inhaling

toxic aerosols from laboratory cultures. These people generally worked with toxic cultures for 1-

2 hours per day over a 5-6 week period.

The effects reported by the NCSUABL include a suite of syptoms such as narcosis (a

“drugged” effect), development of sores on areas of the body that directly contacted water

containing toxic cultures of Pfiesteria, sores on the chest and face, uniform reddening of the eyes,

severe headaches, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, sustained difficulty breathing, kidney and

liver dysfunction, acute short-term memory loss, and servere cognitive impairment. Infected

individuals found it difficult to read or do simple arithmetic beyond 1+2=3.

The NCSUABL reports that most of the acute symptoms proved to be reversible over

time as long as the individuals were not allowed near the toxic Pfiesteria cultures. Some of the

individuals had relapses of symptoms following strenuous exercise, even six years after their

original exposure to the toxic Pfiesteria cultures. Supporting research performed by Drs. Levin

and Schmechel of Duke University on laboratory rats injected with the toxic organism showed

serious learning impairment and memory loss.

Because of Pfiesteria’s ability to produce toxins which can be aerosolized, state and

federal officials require all further work with Pfiesteria cultures be conducted in biohazard level

III containment systems in a limited access facility. The NCSUABL concludes that the potential

for humans to be hurt by Pfiesteria exists because fish kills and fish disease events linked to

Pfiesteria can extend for 6-8 weeks in estuaries.

Despite the controversy, more incidences of Pfiesteria related health problems continue to

be reported in the Chesapeake Bay region and beyond (Gordon et al., 2002). The number of

people reporting symptoms of poisoning by the Pfiesteria piscicida microorganism in Maryland

has risen to at least 37, up from 30 in mid-October [1997], health authorities said yesterday

25


(Washington Post, 11/15/97). All 37 people were exposed to the waters of the Pocomoke River

where Pfiesteria killed 30,000 or more fish in two kills in August [1997]. Deadly Dinoflagellate Development

When conditions are right dinoflagellate populations can explode astronomically,

forming dense, colored blooms; and if the species undergoing this sudden multiplication

happened to produce toxins, [like Pfiesteria does], the results could be catastrophic (Barker,

1997; Parrow et al., 2002). The recent rise in numbers of reports of novel algal toxins has been

linked to increased eutrophication of coastal and estuarine waters (Smayda 1990; Hallegraeff,

1993).

Pfiesteria prefers warm, brackish, calm waters that are high in nutrient levels. Nutrients

cause algae blooms, which are a prominent food source for Pfiesteria. The NCSUABL has

established, through field and laboratory research, that Pfiesteria can be highly stimulated by

both inorganic and organic nitrogen and phosphorus enrichments. The stimulation can occur

either directly or indirectly. The degree of stimulation depends on the season and whether food

(e.g. fish) are abundant. The NCSUABL has also documented stimulation of Pfiesteria by

human sewage and swine effluent spills.

At the proper level, nutrients are an important component to the health of the Chesapeake

Bay and humans. In excess amounts however, they become harmful pollutants, which is the case

throughout the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrients come from a variety of sources, including the natural

decay of organic matter in forests, wetlands, and Bay waters. However, the majority of it comes

from anthropogenic sources such as factory-scale poultry and hog farms, other intensive

agricultural practices, sewage treatment plants, automobiles, runoff from roadways and

homeowners, and golf courses that apply fertilizers to grass.

In the Chesapeake Bay region agriculture plays a major role in the supply of nutrients to

the Bay and its tributaries. Leading the way are large scale poultry farms. On the East Shore of

the Bay the poultry industry raises 650 million birds annually (Shields, 9/8/97). The birds

produce many thousands of tons annually of manure that is rich in the nutrients nitrogen and

phosphorus. In the areas of the Eastern Shore that border the Chesapeake Bay there are at any

one time: 62 million chickens, that produce 3,263,810,000 pounds of raw waste each year,

containing 13,809,020 pounds of phosphorus, and 48,276,170 pounds of nitrogen (Warrick and

26


Shields, 10/3/97). That’s as much nitrogen waste as a city of 490,000 people produces in a year.

Five counties in the Bay region, Caroline, Somerset, Wicomico, Worcester and Sussex contain

the most chickens per square mile in the United States (Warrick and Shields, 10/3/97). In a

document drafted by the State of Virginia titled, Potomac Basin Tributary Nutrient Reduction

Strategy, it is stated that nearly 20% of the controllable nutrient load in the Shenandoah region is

from animal waste.

Fertilizers applied to farm fields in the Chesapeake Bay region also contain nitrogen and

phosphorus. Runoff from these fields after rain events are another leading cause for nutrient

loading in rural rivers and streams. More than 540 farms have been identified in Maryland’s part

of the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Shields 9/8/97).

Maryland scientists have established 20 monitoring stations near the Pocomoke River to

track the course of nutrients in that area. They found that Pfiesteria erupts where plenty of

nutrients meet shallow, sunny water that is full of algae (Shields, 9/8/97).

Response of Government

The states of Maryland and Virginia flank the Chesapeake Bay. Each state has taken

radically different approaches to addressing Pfiesteria, even though fish kills have occurred in

both states that have been attributed to the deadly organism.

Without a doubt, the state of Maryland has taken the most aggressive stance. [By

September 17, 1997] medical experts in Maryland had linked Pfiesteria to illnesses in nearly two

dozen people (Lipton, 9/18/97). But, in North Carolina and Virginia, state health experts have

said they aren’t convinced that the fish killing microbe can harm humans (Lipton, 9/18/97).

Likewise, Maryland’s governmental leaders have been more proactive than Virginia’s in

addressing Pfiesteria and in enacting policies aimed at lessening nutrient loads to the Bay’s

waterways.

On January 26, 1998, Maryland Governor Parris Glendening introduced an initiative to

the Maryland General Assembly aimed at ridding the Chesapeake Bay of Pfiesteria. 19 members

of the Senate, including six of the 11 members of the Economic and Environmental Affairs

Committee sponsored the plan. The proposal would limit the amount of fertilizer farmers may

apply to their fields, with fines as great as $250 per day to a maximum of $5,000 for those who

don’t comply, said the Democratic governor’s chief lobbyist, Joseph C. Bryce (Washington Post,

27


1/27/98). The bill contains no provisions that would require large poultry farms to improve the

management of manure produced at their facilities. Environmentalists feel that this proposal in

of itself would not be enough to stifle Pfiesteria outbreaks.

While Maryland continues to develop policies and take proactive measures against the

threat of Pfiesteria, Virginia continues to be in a state of denial. They have refused to close

waterways for the sake of public health when Pfiesteria outbreaks have occurred. They won’t

even acknowledge a link between Pfiesteria outbreaks and nutrient levels in waterways that have

had Pfiesteria outbreaks.

At the federal level, Pfiesteria has helped step up efforts by the Environmental Protection

Agency, which is working on guidelines urging state governments to regulate animal waste

management. The Clean Water Act regulates sewage plants and household septic tanks, but it

does not cover manure waste from large poultry or hog farms. How Can Pfiesteria Be Controlled?

Out of all the conditions that impact Pfiesteria growth (air and water temperature, wind,

salinity, and nutrients), only one can be controlled by human intervention: nutrients. In the

summer of 1997, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation urged Maryland’s Governor to impose a

moratorium on expansion of chicken farming near the Pocomoke River and to require manure

storage sheds for all operations (Shields, 9/8/97).

Measures that could be taken to reduce the nutrient loads entering the waterways of the

Bay, thus alleviating outbreaks of Pfiesteria, are:

� restoring wetlands

� assuring there are no more wetlands destroyed

� restoring forest buffers along the Bay’s tributaries, streams and creeks

� replenishing the Bay’s oyster population (they help to filter out nutrients from the

Bay’s waters)

� halting the loss of Bay grasses and replanting them wherever possible and reducing the amount of fertilizer used in urban areas (CBF, 11/22/98).

In addition, the current permitted sources of nutrient enhanced effluents (e.g., sewage

treatment plants, septic systems, and industrial sources) need to be upgraded with tertiary

treatment technologies, properly operated, and permits that restrict the amount of nutrients

28


coming from these sources need to be monitored closely. Automobile use needs to be curbed

because they are also a significant source of nutrients.

However, the most significant source of nutrients going into the Bay is agriculture. On

the Eastern Shore agriculture is estimated to contribute approximately 87% of the phosphorus

and 70% of the nitrogen going into the Bay. In Virginia animal waste accounts for about a third

of the nitrogen and nearly two-fifths of the phosphorus entering aquatic habitats (CBF, 11/22/98).

Aggressive steps to address the nutrient loads from agriculture are imperative. Farming

operations (e.g. animal feedlots) that contribute nutrients to waterways should be regulated and

monitored more. The disposal of excess chicken manure from large-scale poultry farms needs to

be managed more responsibly. As with all other sources of pollution, the company generating

the pollution, which in this case, are the large poultry corporations, should be responsible for

disposing of the pollution in a responsible manner.

29


Conclusion

There have been efforts to reduce the nutrient loads to the Bay through various state and

federal programs. Unfortunately, these efforts have not been enough to sufficiently improve

water quality or prevent algae blooms and the proliferation of Pfiesteria in the waterways feeding

the Bay. As stated earlier, the Clean Water Act does not regulate sewage from large poultry

farms, a major source of nitrogen and phosphorus in the waterways of the Chesapeake Bay.

Laboratory tests have clearly shown that Pfiesteria thrives in waters with high nutrient levels. In

order to alleviate the outbreak of Pfiesteria, measures have to be taken by federal and state

governments, the large-scale poultry and hog farm industry, and individuals to lessen nutrient

loads into the waterways of the Chesapeake Bay. We all need to strive for sustainability before

the Bay and its fragile ecosystems are destroyed.

30


References

Argetsinger, Amy and Goodman, Peter S., September 15, 1997, Maryland Closes 3rd Waterway, Washington Post.

Author Unknown, January 27, 1998, Governor’s Microbe Plan Introduced in Assembly,

Washington Post. Author Unknown, November 15, 1997, Md.’s Cases Of Pfiesteria Poisoning Up. Washington

Post. Barker, Rodney, 1997, And the Waters Turned to Blood, Simon & Schuster, New York. Berry, J.P., K.S. Reece, K.S. Rein, D.G. Baden, L.W. Haas, W.L. Ribeiro, J.D. Shields, Burkholder, J.M., H.B. Glasgow and N. Deamer-Melia. 2001. Overview and present status of the

toxic Pfiesteria complex (Dinophyceae). Phycologia 40(3):186-214.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CFB), November 22, 1998, URL: <http://www.cbf.org>.

Goodman, Peter S. and Shields, Todd, September 17, 1997, Pfiesteria Now Suspected in 1987 Fish Kill: Delaware Officials Say Microbe May Have Caused Other Outbreaks, Washington Post.

Gordon, A.S., B.J. Dyer, D. Seaborn and H.G. Marshall. 2002. Comparative toxicity of Pfiesteria spp., prolonging toxicity of P. piscicida in culture and evaluation of toxin(s) stability.

Harmful Algae 1:85-94. Hallegraeff, G.M., 1993, A review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global increase,

Phycologia, Volume 32.

Jakobsen, K.S., T. Tengs, A. Vatne, H.A. Bowers, D.W. Oldach, J.M. Burkholder, H.B.

Glasgow, P. A. Rublee and D. Klaveness. 2002. Discovery of the toxic dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria, from northern European waters. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B) 269:211-214.

Law, M. 2001. Differential diagnosis of ulcerative lesions in fish. Env. Health. Persp. 109(suppl

5):681-686. Lewitus, Alan J., Jesien, Roman V., Kana, Todd M., Burkholder, JoAnne M., Glasgow, Howard

B., Jr., and May, Eric, June 1995, Discovery of the “Phantom” Dinoflagellate in Chesapeake Bay, Estuaries, Volume 18, Number 2.

Lipton, Eric, September 18, 1997, 4 States Agree To Cooperate On Toxin Test, Washington Post.

31


Magnien, R.E. 2001. State monitoring activities related to Pfiesteria-like organisms. Env. Health.

Persp. 109 (suppl 5):711-714. National Institute of Health (NIH), September 25, 1997, NIH News Release, NIH Project Set to

Characterize Pfiesteria Toxins and Explore Their Potential Danger to Humans. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

North Carolina State University (NCSU), November 20, 1998, Aquatic Botany Laboratory

Pfiesteria piscicida Page, URL: <http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/project/aquatic_botany/pfiest.html>.

Parrow, M.W., J.M. Burkholder, N.J. Deamer and C.Zhang. 2002. Vegetative and sexual

reproduction in Pfiesteria spp. (Dinophyceae) cultured with algal prey, and inferences for their classification. Harmful Algae 1:5-33.

Shields, Todd, January 18, 1998, Health Effects of Pfiesteria to Get a Closer Look, Washington

Post. Shields, Todd, September 10, 1997, Md. Increases Efforts to Determine Microbe’s Toll,

Washington Post. Shields, Todd, September 8, 1997, Investigators to Focus On Runoff From Farms, Washington

Post. Smayda, T.J., 1990, Novel and nuisance phytoplankton blooms in the sea: Evidence for a global

epidemic, in Graneli, E., Sundstrom, B., Edler, L., and Anderson, D.M. (eds.), Toxic Marine Phytoplankton, Elsevier, New York.

Snyder, R.V., W.K. Vogelbein and R.E. Gawley. 2002. Are Pfiesteria species toxicogenic?

Evidence against production of ichthyotoxins by Pfiesteria shumwayae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

Stoecker, D.K., M.W. Parrow, J.M. Burkholder and H.B. Glasgow. 2002. Grazing by

microzooplankton of Pfiesteria piscicida cultures with different histories of toxicity. Aq. Microbial Ecol. 28:79-85.

Warrick, Joby and Shields, Todd, October 3, 1997, Md. Counties Awash in Pollution-Causing

Nutrients, Washington Post.

32


Literature's Impact on Environmental Policy: Case Study – Rachel Carson's Silent Spring

Luke Albertson, Undergraduate Student

English Department Central Connecticut State University

[email protected]

Traditionally, when scholars discuss the efforts to change environmental policy,

their chief consideration is the work of natural scientists and social scientists—researchers

who measure the impact of pollution and other destructive forces on the environment.

However, in this paper I propose that a more literary work, such as Rachel Carson's Silent

Spring (1962) has an equally important impact on changing policy. Carson wrote her cross-‐-‐-‐

disciplinary (literary and scientific) book in response to the virtually unregulated yet

widespread use of pesticides in the 1960s. Silent Spring, in its combination of research, case

study and literary writing, went on to affect and initiate change in the regulation of

chemical insect control and the banning of the synthetic pesticide DDT. Carson was writing

against an orthodoxy which placed man (and in Carson's society, this largely meant male)

as master and controller of nature, and through her book's policy-‐-‐-‐changing and research-‐-‐-‐

inspiring results, Carson showed the excessive use of pesticides not only to be hazardous,

but also immoral. Her book serves as a pioneering text of the modern environmental

movement. Using Silent Spring as an exemplary case of a literary text with the power to

influence environmental policy, I ultimately ask in this paper what it means to consider the

environment from a cross-‐-‐-‐disciplinary approach—both in the academy, and more

importantly still, in the world at large.

When Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962, there was little public

discourse on the hazards facing the environment. However, when excerpts from the book

appeared in The New Yorker and when CBS Reports broadcast a 60-‐-‐-‐minute program on the

author and her book (following the rapid sale of over half a million copies), intense debate

sparked from both the public and those companies profiting from the virtually unregulated

manufacture and application of pesticides (Gore xv, xvii). President John F. Kennedy

discussed Silent Spring at a press conference, noting that “since [the publication of] Miss

Carson's book” the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Public Health Service launched an

33


investigation into the effects of DDT and other pesticides, paying close attention to Silent

Spring's findings (xvii; qtd in Quaratiello 105-‐-‐-‐6). Rachel Carson was invited to testify before

Congress in 1963, one year after the book's publication (Gore xix). Silent Spring is now

widely credited within the scientific community and beyond for the ultimate banning of

DDT and the stricter regulations placed on pesticides.

In Silent Spring, Carson purports to have wished not to “burden the text with

footnotes” of her citations, and yet I argue that she pushed this extensive, 54-‐-‐-‐page “List of

Principal Sources” to the end of the book in order to more fully realize the literary aspect of

her text (xi). The public awareness of pesticides' hazards arose largely from the easily

digestible format of the book. In taking a discussion that was before held nearly exclusively

in scientific circles and crafting it into an argument founded in literature, Carson created an

easily understood text that, through the author's prowess in storytelling—which

contributes largely to the sympathy and compassion the text elicits—could better invite the

reader to share in and sympathize with its environmental message.

Rachel Carson's career would have gained neither the notoriety nor success it did

without her self-‐-‐-‐conscious attempt to breach the disciplines to deliver her message (Lear

xiv). She bridged nature writing, which before had been largely kept to the social sphere,

with the realm of scientific fact, and in doing so fused an emotionally charged argument

with an objective, fact-‐-‐-‐based one. In her hybrid disciplined approach, an approach that

reveals how all aspects of the environment are intrinsically linked and equally affected by

an overrun system of pesticide use, Carson further shows through her writing that science

and literature, when linked, can provide a compelling public argument. In providing

explanations of the complexities of science in a language that the public could easily

understand, Carson set the stage for a grass-‐-‐-‐roots movement demanding the regulation of

pesticides (x).

In his 1994 introduction to Silent Spring, former Vice President Al Gore notes that

Carson “gave a human face to an already dominant national concern” (xix). The 1962 public

was ready to launch into an environmental movement, and Silent Spring's personification, a

literary strategy of giving human attributes to inanimate objects (such as nature and its

inhabitants) and holding the power to sentimentalize the problem, served as the bridge

that was needed to deliver science's message and the subsequent catalyst to the American

34


public. Silent Spring's title itself evokes sadness and demands action, as a silent and lifeless

season in which no birds or other creatures sing is what Carson shows may occur if

pesticide use is allowed to continue unregulated.

While speaking of the literary style of Realism, in which authors shy away from

sentimentalizing in favor of a more descriptive and observation-‐-‐-‐based “accurate

representation of reality,” Lawrence Buell asserts that in keeping too close to an objective

viewing of nature (and its destruction) we lose the emotional impact of the scene:

“Realism's denseness can indeed be tedious and distracting as well as superficial. Realism

can heighten the divide between narrative consciousness and the text's represented world

even as it purports to serve as bridge” (Childers 255; Buell 40). In taking a more

sentimental or Romantic view of nature, Carson invites the reader not to view nature as a

series of facts, but as a vital aspect of our growth. In her earlier book, The Sea Around Us

(1951), Carson uses her literary-‐-‐-‐granted license to describe this: “each of us begins his

individual life in a miniature ocean within his mother's womb, and in the stages of his

embryonic development repeats the stages by which his race evolved, from gill-‐-‐-‐breathing

inhabitants of a water world to creatures able to live on land” (14). Here, Carson links the

ocean with humanity and the individual's birth, impelling readers to feel for the ocean and

its vital connections.

In a further compelling fusion of scientific and literary licenses, Carson quotes from

a scientist's observations of ground squirrels who had ingested insecticides: “'[They]

exhibited a characteristic attitude in death. The back was bowed, and the forelegs with the

toes of the feet tightly clenched were drawn close to the thorax…The head and neck were

outstretched and the mouth often contained dirt, suggesting that the dying animals had

been biting at the ground'” (99-‐-‐-‐100). Carson calls this description a “mute testimony” for

“the dead ground squirrels” due to the passage's objective and Realist style of scientific

recording. The passage is as dead and void of emotional charge as are the squirrels it

describes. In another case study on the effects of direct contact with the pesticide parathion,

Carson describes how “two small boys in Wisconsin, cousins, died on the same night” (28).

Carson uses her literary exposition to emotionally charge and personalize the otherwise

flat report of events. The victims of pesticide usage are enlivened through the hybrid-‐-‐-‐style

narration—children become “playmates” and pesticide-‐-‐-‐laden trees have a “deformed,

35


weeping effect” (28, 71). Even such small interjections as the apparently gratuitous note

that the boys are “small” and “cousins” helps build on the account's tragic telling. The

qualitative case studies as presented in Silent Spring allow Carson to reject the emotionless

(Realist) facts of science and statistics in favor of impassioned retellings of the everyday

stories of victims of environmental maltreatment.

Carson uses her literary style not simply to recount these scenes, but to extrapolate

on them as well. In one chapter's closing note, Carson asks, “By acquiescing in an act that

can cause such suffering to a living creature, who among us is not diminished as a human

being?” (100). Carson pushes the reader to take personal responsibility for humanity's

destruction of the environment, bringing her argument from a scientific basis in factual

observation to a magnitude of moral importance. Throughout the novel, Carson continually

uses her more literary voice to address social and environmental issues, moralizing on such

questions as “whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying

itself” and discussing the extremes that mankind takes, such as concentrating varying

aspects of nature (for example, Uranium to make the atomic bomb) or the rapid pace in

which man deforests and destroys (99).

Carson begins Silent Spring not with scientific data, but with a worst-‐-‐-‐case scenario

chapter titled “A Fable for Tomorrow.” This fully literary chapter places the reader in the

fabled environment of “a town in the heart of America” that has been so polluted by

pesticides that the animal and plant life has withered and died (1). “No witchcraft, no

enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world,” writes Carson.

“The people had done it themselves (3).” Carson does not provide a dystopic view of the

future here, but rather presents a compilation within one town of many of the then present

environmental atrocities brought about by man. She ends her introductory chapter with a

call for the reader to take responsibility for humanity's destruction of the environment—

what Carson implies is tearing at the very “heart” of American society. Carson exaggerates

this fabled town of course, and yet as she notes, “every one of these disasters has actually

happened somewhere” (3). Beginning her book with this literary approach to scientific fact,

she then similarly proceeds to discuss the scientific findings through literary means.

At a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Carson

acknowledged the emotional aspect to her literary works of science for which she was

36


often criticized: “I am not afraid of being thought a sentimentalist when I stand here tonight

and tell you that I believe natural beauty has a necessary place in the spiritual development

of any individual or any society” (qtd. in Levine 130). Carson instilled emotion in objective

science, for she viewed nature as something more vital than the scientific reams of data

alone could project. She wanted to develop and ameliorate the society that she believed

deteriorated as it destroyed the environment, and the public rose to this newborn fusion

bringing the affective dimension of literary language to the more objective approach of

science.

Lynn White, Jr. writes in her article “Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” that

“More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis

until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one” (12). Carson knew that solely

presenting the public with objective data on the use of pesticides was not likely to stir up a

revolution or even a moderate protest. Rather, she had to write against and subvert what

White refers to as the Christian orthodoxy of society that accepts man's dominance of

nature as religiously bestowed and rightful (14). As Robert White Stevens, biochemist and

a contemporary critic and adversary of Carson, stated, “Miss Carson maintains that the

balance of nature is a major force in the survival of man, whereas the modern chemist, the

modern biologist and scientist, believes that man is steadily controlling nature” (Clinton

xvii). The scientific community, and indeed the community at large, viewed man as

superior to his surrounding environment. Carson's compiled data on the effects of

pesticides thus needed to be delivered in a manner that refuted this socially embedded

value system and showed man as an equal player in the expansive ecosystem.

One of Carson's methods for attempting to change the social mindset in regards to

the environment (and particularly vegetation) is to first make explicit the existing social

value system and then expose its faults. “Our attitude toward plants is a singularly narrow

one,” she writes. “If we see any immediate utility in a plant we foster it” (63). Carson strives

to show how all of the environment is interconnected, and she proceeds to demonstrate

that, in affecting one aspect of it, we affect the whole system. She places man within the

environment, disavowing his position as an all-‐-‐-‐powerful, outside controller. She writes that

“The earth's vegetation is part of a web of life in which there are intimate and essential

relations between plants and the earth, between plants and other plants, between plants

37


and animals” and proceeds to highlight some “of the most tragic examples of our

unthinking bludgeoning of the landscape” (64). In beating down the environment, Carson

shows that we are in fact harming ourselves. Although Carson's language is similarly

heavy-‐-‐-‐handed throughout her book, it serviceably casts a grave shadow that, through the

embedded emotions in the diction, pushes readers to rise up in action and defense of their

environment.

“When will the public become sufficiently aware of the facts to demand such action?”

asks Carson, ending a chapter of her hybrid text with a rhetorical question to further chide

the reader to think for himself on the state of society's relationship with its environment

(152). And yet Silent Spring is itself an answer to this question. The public response to the

book shows that society will become aware of issues when presented with an easily

digestible and emotionally prodding format. In taking data gleaned from scientific studies

and presenting it in an emotionally gripping tale of the environment, Carson did just that.

When Carson died of breast cancer a mere eighteen months after the publication of Silent

Spring, she had already brought about significant change in society's view of the

environment (Lear x; Gore xvi). The repercussions of her work can still be felt today, both

in the social view as well as in environmental policy. Through her book's widespread

impact, Rachel Carson shows that inspiring the public to take action often requires more

than a one-‐-‐-‐disciplined approach.

38


References Buell, Lawrence. The Future of Environmental Criticism. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. Print.

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Print.

---. The Sea Around Us. New York: Oxford UP, 1951. Print. Gore, Al. Introduction. Silent Spring. By Rachel Carson. 1994. New York: Houghton Mifflin,

1962. xv-xxvi. Print. Lear, Linda. Introduction. Silent Spring. By Rachel Carson. 2002. New York: Houghton Mifflin,

1962. x-xix. Print. Levine, Ellen. Up Close. New York: Puffin Books, 2007. Print.

Quaratiello, Arlene R. Rachel Carson: A Biography. Westport: Greenwood P, 2004. Print.

“Realism.” The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism. Ed. Joseph Childers and Gary Hentzi. 1995. Print.

White, Lynn Jr. “Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” The Ecocriticism Reader:

Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Ed. Cheryll Glotfelty and Harold Fromm. Athens: University of Georgia, 1996. 3-14. Print.

39


Sustainable Recreational Boating

Wick Griswold, Associate Professor Department of Sociology, University of Hartford Jacqueline

Talbot, River Steward Connecticut River Watershed Council

Craig Mergins, Assistant Director of Public Relations and Parks Riverfront Recapture

Abstract

Sustainability of water resources is clearly one of the most vital environmental challenges

facing our planet today. We will discuss several ideas associated with sustainable recreational

boating, and its future. Our focus will be on the Connecticut River, from the Massachusetts

border to Long Island Sound. Hopefully, some of our practices and suggestions will be

applicable to any piece of water sufficient to float a canoe, rowing boat or kayak. Our goal is to

encourage recreational usages of waterways that promote social and environmentally positive

relationships between people, boats and water. We would also like to develop a forum to

incubate proactive, creative ideas for the future of paddling, rowing and sailing on the

Connecticut River and all the world’s waters. Introduction

Central to most notions of sustainability is the interface between places and people.

Therefore, it is most fitting that this symposium takes place in New Britain, Connecticut.

Sustainability is at the semiotic core of Connecticut’s raison d’etre. Its motto: Qui Transtulit

Sustinet (They Who Are Transplanted Shall Sustain,) serves as a mission statement that charges

her citizenry to adapt to the environment by adopting sustainability. The Connecticut River has

been instrumental in providing humans with the food and water necessary for life for thousands

of years. It is certainly one of the most defining geographic features of the area. During the

Pleistocene Era, as the Wisconsin Glacier melted and retreated, a huge body of water, Lake

Hitchcock extended from present day Rocky Hill, Connecticut up to what is now Vermont. The

sole outlet for this gigantic lake is called the New Britain Spillway. It was seminal in creating the

geological formations that eventually became the Connecticut River. New Britain, Connecticut,

then, is a most apt venue for the discussion of Connecticut River sustainability issues.

40


As the glacier receded, humans spilled into the Connecticut River Watershed to fish, trap,

hunt and garden in the fecund abundance of its biodiversity. Straddling logs, sitting in dugout

canoes, lashing pieces of wood together to make rafts, people began to use the river for

transportation, fishing and foraging. One might imagine that on a bright spring morning, eons

ago, someone, exuberant that a warm day was at hand, let out a whoop and launched herself on a

log onto the river just for the hell of it. Just for the sheer fun of messing around on a boat. At that

moment, recreational boating had its genesis on the Connecticut River, and we have been

enjoying it ever since. People continue to paddle, row and sail on her waters, in the millennia old

tradition of that initial seeker of fun and adventure.

Connecticut, like the rest of America, is currently at a confluence in the history of

recreational water usage that has the potential to vastly improve our boating activities in terms of

sustainability and environmental best practices. Socio-cultural trends that promote “green”

lifestyles, and economic vicissitudes that discourage fossil fuel consumption, are combining to

create the impetus for cleaner fun on the water. Canoeing, rowing and kayaking are ever more

popular on the Connecticut. Area dealers of paddle/oar sports boats and gear report steadily

increasing sales year to year. Boat houses full of sculls and sweeps are filled beyond their

capacity. Rising costs of diesel fuel and gasoline discourage the purchase of new power boats.

High fuel costs will keep more and more power boats tied to the dock or sitting on trailers in the

back yard during most of the boating season.

There are also burgeoning numbers of programs available, and under development, to

encourage citizens from every socio-economic stratum to have access to paddle, sail and oar

powered boating opportunities. Community organizations, such as Riverfront Recapture, serve to

provide places for people to put in and take out their boats. They play key educational roles in

terms of teaching safe boating skills and letting diverse groups know that there are recreational

boating opportunities available to everyone. As will be shown, they offer river-based hands on,

learning opportunities for everyone from inner-city youth to suburban nonagenarians. Riverfront

Recapture also implements adaptive rowing programs that allow people with disabilities to get

out on the water and enjoy the river. They also assemble the resources and expertise necessary to

teach wooden boat building to high school students. Riverfront Recapture administers

community rowing programs that benefit thousands of residents of the Greater Hartford region.

41


Environmental organizations also play important roles in the promotion and implementation of

sustainable boating. The all important issues of stream flow and water quality determine the

viability of boating experiences available in our state. If there isn’t enough water to float your

boat… so much for that paddle you wanted to take. If the river resembles a cesspool, well… no

paddle today.

As more extraction constituencies vie for access to decreasing amounts of water, issues

surrounding dams, diversions and droughts will become increasingly more poignant and critical.

Environmental groups work to improve the quality of our state’s waters, and get the word out

about how clean they are. There still are large numbers of Connecticut residents who believe that

the Connecticut River is filthy and polluted. Its apocryphal reputation as the “best landscaped

sewer in America” is a tough image to live down, even though the Connecticut River is now

Class B throughout all of the state, suitable for swimming and fishing. The perception of many is

that one would permanently turn green if they were unfortunate enough to fall into the river.

Organizations like the Connecticut River Watershed Council not only face challenges in terms of

continuing to improve the water quality of the river, they must undertake public relations efforts

on behalf of the river that highlight the cleanliness and safety of its waters, while working

tirelessly to foster public policies to keep those waters sparkling and healthy.

Public awareness and community outreach are vital to encourage sustainable boating. The

locations and logistics of boating access ramps, security for parking areas, campsites that are

available for canoeists and kayakers only, boat rental organizations and outfitters, special events,

such as regattas, races, parades, fishing derbies, river cleanups, guided educational paddles,

excursion boat schedules, all require good systems of information dissemination to inform those

interested about the opportunities that exist for fun and adventure on the river. A detailed look at

what two of the leading community boating and environmental organizations on the Connecticut

River are doing to promote safe, sustainable boating in an increasingly clean and healthy

riverine environments, provides insight into the issues and challenges facing boaters in the 21st

century. Riverfront Recapture

For most of its history, Hartford was a “river city”. Native Americans, Dutch traders and

English settlers all created life styles on the river banks of what was to become Hartford. Fur

42


trading, agriculture, manufacturing, commerce and shipbuilding flourished with the river as its

transportation and power link. Even the city’s insurance industry grew out of agreements to share

the risks and profits on ship’s cargoes leaving the twenty five wharves that once comprised

Hartford’s waterfront. The history of the river, and its people, is as moving and exciting as its

tides, waves and currents.

Beginning in the 1940s, Hartford began isolating itself from the River. In response to the

devastating floods of the 1930’s, control dikes were built that blocked accessibility; then

highway construction cut off access and separated the city from the waters that had sustained it

for centuries. By 1980, the Connecticut River and its banks around Hartford were overgrown,

polluted, dangerous eyesores. Riverfront Recapture, Inc. was formed in 1981 to reconnect

Hartford with this all important source of its original life and purpose. For the past 30 years it has

worked to establish that reconnection and nurture the relationship between the people of

Connecticut and their “Long Tidal River.”

Today, the Connecticut River is once again sparkling, beautiful, and increasingly

accessible. Riverfront Recapture staff members and volunteers, in conjunction with community

partners like the Connecticut River Watershed Council, work tirelessly to create and improve

Riverfront parks such as Charter Oak Landing and Riverside Park in Hartford and Great River

Park in East Hartford. Each of these parks offers unique facilities and experiences. Riverside

Park, a partially restored Frederick Law Olmsted park, is home to a popular Community Rowing

Program with a new expanded $3.5 million floodable boathouse to protect it from the spring

freshets. Charter Oak Landing’s dock serves an excursion boat service that offers river cruises

several times each day during the summer season. Great River Park boasts a 350-seat outdoor

amphitheater, an attractive venue for family entertainment, as well as an access point for people

to launch and dock their boats. All three parks are linked by a network of paved, well- lighted

riverwalks and walkways including those over the Founders and Charter Oak Bridges.

The center piece of Riverfront Recapture’s eco-development efforts is in the downtown

area, The Mortenson Plaza, is an acre and a half cityscape that now spans eleven lanes of I-91

traffic to an amphitheater stage that holds 3,000 people. These Riverfront improvements draw

people back to the Connecticut River. In 2010, the new Riverfront attracted over 900,000

visitors. More visitors can be expected as the Science Center and Convention Center, often

featuring river-based programming, bring people to the greenway that greatly enhances the

43


aesthetics and livability of their capital city, Hartford. Many of the people reconnecting to the

river through these venues will want to take the next step and get out on the river themselves.

But it wasn’t easy to get to where we are today. The Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection liked the status quo undeveloped land in the flood plain that gave the

river plenty of room to expand during periods of seasonal flooding. Some environmental

activists liked the fact that they knew how to get to the river and could canoe or kayak without

seeing any other people. They expressed concern that opening up the Riverfront would bring in

people who would damage the environment, ignoring the reality that the overgrown Riverfront

was a dumping ground for abandoned cars, refrigerators, and other trash. In those early days, we

measured the success of our annual Riverfront Cleanup in tonnage of garbage collected. Today,

Community Cleanups involve companies and partner groups that mulch flower beds, work on

trails and stain park benches. The general public has become actively involved in the creation

and maintenance of the parks, and the water. Recreational boaters express satisfaction with how

accessible putting in and taking out has become, and the fact that the river has become so much

cleaner and less turbid.

In 1998, Riverfront Recapture signed historic agreements with the City of Hartford, the

Town of East Hartford and the Metropolitan District Commission, that gave the private, non-

profit organization overall responsibility for managing the riverfront park system in both

municipalities. That responsibility includes working with the Metropolitan District Commission

to maintain the Riverfront parks system, administering a Park Ranger program, programming the

parks with activities, developing concessions and attractions and marketing the Riverfront as one

of Connecticut’s major destinations. This overall coordination has led to cleaner, safer, family

friendly environment that encourages recreational boaters to utilize ever-improving facilities on

both sides of the river. It also introduces non-boaters to the possibilities available to them should

they opt to venture onto the river.

Riverfront Recapture remains dedicated to ensuring that the Connecticut River benefits

everyone in the region and the city. Until the Riverfront’s rebirth, finding Hartford’s “great

outdoors” was very difficult. Today, Greater Hartford youngsters and their families are becoming

skilled anglers and avid rowers. Youths and families from local neighborhoods and surrounding

areas enjoy the wonders of nature in the Riverfront park system in its landscaped picnic spots,

walking and bike paths, fishing areas and boat launches. Each year more than 10,000 young

44


people between the ages of 6 and 20 participate in one of Riverfront Recapture’s programs such

as Riverfront Adventure, Community Rowing, or Get Hooked on Fishing—Not on Drugs.

Visitors also enjoy national sporting events such as top flight sports fishing competitions like the

Forrest L. Wood Open, which recently paid $1 million in prizes to a sold-out field of

professional and amateur anglers.

In addition, growing numbers of companies are signing up to come to the Riverfront for

the popular Dragon Boat Festival and Races. In 2010 the event attracted a record breaking 65

teams, and went from a 1 day to a 2-day format. Teams from N.Y., N.J., Boston, R.I.

Washington DC, and Vermont traveled to Hartford to participate. Dragon Boating, primarily a

Canadian and European sport, has teams of 20 paddlers, a drummer and a coxswain paddling in

synch in 40’ boats. These races are becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Teams

from all over the Northeast converge on Hartford every fall to participate in these exciting

competitions. They serve to promote teamwork, healthy exercise and safe, environmentally

friendly boating practices in a colorful, fun format.

Adults and teenagers learn how to use shells, sculls, kayaks and dragon boats through the

Riverfront Recaptures Community Rowing Program. Adult classes are held before and after

business hours, and youth rowing includes crew teams from Hartford and East Hartford High

Schools as well as several surrounding community schools. Of the young people on the

Riverfront High school rowing team, more than half are from low-to moderate-income

neighborhoods in Hartford and East Hartford. They compete alongside rowers from some of the

area’s most prestigious private and suburban schools, creating Riverfront’s own magnet school

on the water. These teammates from widely diverse backgrounds provide one another with new

perspectives and a greater understanding of the world around them. Student from outside

Riverfront Recapture’s youth rowing programs show youth that they have positive options for

their future. Our coaches discuss issues such as academic rigor and the unique challenges faced

by students who must balance academics and athletics. This is particularly valuable to

financially-disadvantaged Riverfront Rowers who aspire to higher education. They are often

become the first members of their families to attend college.

Through collaborations with a variety of specialty outdoor stores such as Collinsville

Canoe and Kayak and REI, instructional kayak programs now take place in conjunction with our

Community Rowing Program. A variety of marketing strategies through the individual stores and

45


through Riverfront Recapture’s web site inform the general public that they can take advantage

of access to the Connecticut River and paddle alongside rowers and dragon boaters. Boston’s

REI is now looking to expand upon their “Outdoor School” with their West Hartford store and

partner with Riverfront Recapture in 2011 to expand their kayaking program in the Hartford

area.

Riverfront Recapture also offers an award-winning Adaptive Rowing Program within the

Community Rowing Program. This program is designed to allow individuals with physical

disabilities and/or visual impairments to row on the river in specially equipped boats, with

custom dockside installations to facilitate the logistics of putting in and taking out. Operated by

Mount Sinai Rehabilitation Hospital and offered in collaboration with Riverfront Recapture the

Connecticut Adaptive Rowing Program is the first program of its kind in the state. It certainly is

a groundbreaking; make that a water breaking opportunity, to make sustainable boating available

to everyone.

Waterfront projects in cities as diverse as Cincinnati, Chattanooga, San Antonio and

Baltimore have improved the quality of life for residents, and made those cities attractive

destinations for visitors that generate significant economic growth. It is important for each

waterfront development project to find its own distinctive niche that separates it from what

people have seen and experienced in other cities. For Riverfront Recapture, it is a big public

greenway that is emerging on both banks, with paved, lighted riverwalks, picnic areas,

performance spaces, boat launches, five miles of mountain bike trails through a floodplain forest,

and places to sit in what is becoming a popular urban oasis in downtown Hartford. And it is also

the ability to show residents how to once again use the river in sports and recreation through

sustainable recreational boating. The corps of Park Rangers ensures that the boat launches will

be safe to put in and take out from, and that boaters can be assured that their vehicles will be

secure while they are on the water. Riverfront Recapture is dedicated to making the Connecticut

River as accessible and boater friendly as possible, and encourages environmentally friendly use

of the river and its banks. Connecticut River Watershed Council

Are people paddling the Connecticut River? They definitely are. People of diverse ages

and abilities are paddling more now than in recent past. Sometimes alone or in pairs, often in

46


groups, they paddle for the beauty, the quietude, the

companionship, the adventure, the challenge, the relaxation and a

closer view of nature. Sometimes they paddle in search of that all

too rare sense of “getting away from it all” and sometimes for the

affordability of it. Jean Trapani who has been paddling since 1997

and started paddling the Connecticut six years ago sees more and

more people out on the river now. She explains that many people cannot afford to get in their

power boats or to take extended trips to places like Maine, so they are looking for shorter

excursions that still give them a break: “There is a huge pent up demand to do water based trips

with overnight camping on land. People are aching to get away from their regular lives in the

summer.” (Telephone Interview, February 25, 2011). In a culture at risk of, and sometimes

blatantly suffering from, nature disconnection and deficit, it is of paramount importance that we

take advantage of these demands and work toward conditions that would welcome many more

new canoeists and kayakers and ensure that veteran boaters will want to return.

Once you’ve experienced paddling, rowing or sailing under the sun that sparkles on the

water, there’s nothing else like it. We support programmatic efforts that yield tangible results

toward just, enjoyable and safe participation in sustainable recreational boating, through

partnerships where possible. We hope this brief analysis will illuminate some of our strengths

and challenges when considering what these programmatic efforts should be. We sincerely want

to hear from students, professors, community members and other nonprofits about resources,

opportunities and work being done to address these issues that we might include in the future.

From a user perspective, please tell us what would make paddling or rowing on the river seem

possible, fun and pleasant for you. Perception

One of America’s earliest watershed associations, the Connecticut River Watershed

Council (CRWC) first met in 1952 to confront staggering water pollution problems throughout

the watershed. During its first decade CRWC focused on raising consciousness about what was

then described as “America’s best landscaped sewer,” through publication of an atlas of natural

resources and by holding conferences, planning boating trips on the river, and helping create

watershed associations in the tributaries, such as the Farmington and the Westfield. In September

47


1959, CRWC President Davidson and his wife made a high profile trip the length of the river to

draw attention to its sad condition, more than once donning gasmasks to point out the toxicity of

the water.

We have come a long way since this sad description was given to the river, and in turn, us

as users of the river. In the late 1960’s and early 70’s federal legislation resulted in the Clean

Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and brought new means to restore migratory fish

runs. Through the advocacy work of the Watershed Council and a host of allies—plus new and

enforceable laws, the Connecticut River and its tributaries grew steadily cleaner. Ancient and

withering runs of shad and herring made remarkable comebacks where working fish passage was

created at main stem dams. The bald eagle, a symbol synonymous with clean rivers, returned to

nest on the Connecticut in 1989, for the first time in nearly a century. In 1990 the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service opened its Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center at Turners Falls,

Massachusetts. Sixty thousand American shad swam through the Turners Falls Fishways toward

Vermont and New Hampshire waters the following year. In 1995 the entire Connecticut River

watershed became the nation’s newest wildlife refuge. In 1998 the Connecticut was named an

American Heritage River, one of just fourteen rivers receiving the designation nationwide. Other

accolades include the Connecticut River Estuary as being named one of the Nature Conservancy

"Last Great Places," as well as an "internationally significant wetlands” under the terms of the

international Ramsar Convention.

Today, population and development pressures continue against a backdrop of climate

change. Rare species struggle in the face of ill-placed construction. Nineteenth century sewage

treatment remains the norm in some of our cities—chemicals and untreated human waste

continue to pour into rivers. Even in the twenty-first century, companies dump unduly-warmed

effluent and pollutants into the Connecticut to maximize profits. Others concoct schemes to sell

off the basin’s precious, clean water for short-term gain. Non-point source pollution from farms

and other operations degrades water quality. Poorly-stabilized river and stream banks foul

downstream habitats with silt. Miles and miles of new pavement and parking lots rob

groundwater “reservoirs” of their filtering and recharge capacities.

Dams, big and small—many of them obsolete, remain impassable barriers to the

Connecticut River’s migratory fish and a host of aquatic species that require both upstream and

downstream habitat access to successfully complete complex life cycles. Fish passage and

48


migratory populations on the main stem river are again in decline. Poor oversight and failing

fish passage facilities are two controllable factors that need to be addressed (Connecticut River

Watershed Council, 2010).

We clearly still have work to do, but should to maintain the perspective that some of

these problems are ones we must expect since the river is so intertwined with human use, some

of which has been inappropriate and abusive. However, when protective efforts to alleviate

some of the heaviness of the human hand have been employed, it is remarkable to see the river’s

restorative properties actualized. Anecdotally, people with decades of familiarity with the river

will tell you that it is “so much better than it used to be.”

Despite these achievements, the idea that the river is “so much better than it used to be”

exists right alongside with the fear, often jokingly expressed upon an invitation to use the river,

that you will essentially “turn green” if a drop touches you. These comments become more

frequent when discussing the river through Hartford, its urban center in Connecticut. If this was

only the perception of someone living within the watershed, but unfamiliar with the river’s

improved quality and relationship to the community, they would never get near the river. We

want people to know how much cleaner the river is as a whole since our group started in the

1950’s, and to come and enjoy the river. The Connecticut River Watershed Council and many

other environmental and access groups work from the idea that if people visit to the river, they

will come to love it and will want to work to protect it—in other words, recreational access to the

river, besides having inherent pleasure value, promotes stewardship.

Knowledge of and even awareness of the river’s existence varies with watershed

communities as much as do opinions about the river’s cleanliness. Alongside the crucial work to

protect the river and keep it cleaner, communication about this work and the river’s health and

safety is critical to fostering public trust. We encourage a two way dialogue whereby people with

knowledge of or concern about a particular stretch of the river let us know and where we might

continue to work to improve the way we communicate our work and thoughts about the river

with the public. Safety

One of the most frequent questions we hear from people is “is the river safe?” Usually

this question stems from water quality concerns, but safety on the Connecticut River also means

49


boating safety. The water quality concern can be difficult to answer, and we feel very fortunate

to have been able to expand our water quality monitoring program with the recent addition of our

water quality lab in Greenfield, Massachusetts, where we can receive samples and provide the

public with information about bacteria counts and E-coli within 24 hours. Because being able to

answer the public’s concerns about water quality with scientific data is so fundamental to our

role as stewards, this lab has been a top priority for our group since 2005. Having full access to

only one water quality lab for the entire 410 miles of the river, however, presents the practical

problem that some points on the river cannot be sampled due to the inability to get samples to the

lab in time, so for the Connecticut stretch we need to think creatively about whether we can

utilize or expand our current resources or whether we should try to partner with other groups and

labs.

From a user standpoint we are cognizant of and concerned about the quality of the water

in which we fish, play and recreate. While there is risk involved in almost every aspect of life—

from the products we use, to the everyday activities we engage in, to the challenging physical

feats we sometime take on—it is important to realize that just as some activities are riskier than

others. From a water quality standpoint, the various ways we use water represent different levels

of exposure, and thus different degrees of concern. If public health is to be protected,

concentrations of pathogens need to be lower with increasing levels of exposure. The Federal

Clean Water Act classifies canoeing and kayaking as “secondary” or “incidental” contact, which

is short term and generally only exposes the small craft boater to a minimal amount of river

water versus “primary” contact, like swimming where there is increased exposure or immersion.

The Connecticut River is now classified as a Class B water, meant to support aquatic life and the

designated uses of fish consumption and recreation. When a segment or a portion of a river

segment has been shown to not support one or more designated uses, the segment is included on

a list of impaired streams, a list that the state must update and submit every two years.

In the 2008 Integrated Water Quality report to Congress (August 2008, p. 147) 45.75 of

the 68.13 stream miles assessed in the Connecticut portion of the river were listed as impaired

for recreation due to Enterococcus and E-coli, with potential sources being listed as unknown,

sources outside state boundaries, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The impaired miles

were in the two stream segments that combined run from Reservoir Brook confluence (adjacent

to Gildersleeve Island) in Portland to the river’s border with Massachusetts. This does not mean

50


that no one should recreate from Portland to Massachusetts; it means that one or more data

sources indicated that the designated use of recreation was not fully supported in these two

segments. It is reassuring to know that the waters we use and enjoy are evaluated, how they are

evaluated and what water quality considerations exist, and what they might mean.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authorizes the Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection (CT DEP) to issue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permits that control water pollution by regulating point source discharges (pollution

whose source we can pinpoint). An example of a facility requiring a NPDES permit would be a

treatment facility that receives sewage from a town and from facilities and companies, treats that

water, and then discharges that water into the river. In order to keep up with an increasing need

for capacity and the technology needed to meet required effluent standards, it is important that

we voice support for full funding of the Clean Water Fund, which provides financial assistance

for publically owned treatment plants in Connecticut. In addition to the extensive work of the CT

DEP, there are many organizations looking after water quality within the Connecticut River

watershed. If water quality interests you, you can have a hand in this as well. In 2006 70% of

voters supported an $800 million bond referendum to support the Metropolitan District

Commission’s plan to upgrade Hartford’s sewer systems, and thus stop one billion gallons of raw

sewage from polluting the river annually for 30 miles downstream from Hartford—this sent a

loud and clear message that the public cares about clean water. In addition to running a public

education program in support of this bond referendum, CRWC has for over 50 years been

carefully reviewing the NPDES permits that the CT DEP puts out so that we can feel assured that

the proposed permit, if it is a renewal, is at least stringent as the old one and is protective of

water quality according to the state’s Water Quality Standards (WQS). We are particularly

interested in improving water quality in the Connecticut River so that it can support existing

primary and secondary contact uses, even during wet weather.

There are common sense water quality concerns that one should exercise when paddling

on the Connecticut River, its tributaries or any river for that matter. Open wounds should be

covered, paddling right below an outfall pipe or right after a heavy rainstorm are probably not

good ideas, as bacteria counts are likely to be significantly elevated. Steer clear of and consider

reporting foul odors or evident visual oddities such as floating masses or gross discoloration.

Some paddlers do choose to go out all year even when parts of the river are frozen over, but

51


paddlers should know that the state WQS treat the recreational season as May 1-September 30,

meaning facilities are only required to treat bacteria with UV disinfection or chlorine during this

timeframe so bacteria counts will be higher at other times of the year. This has been a bone of

contention in the past, as some river groups would like to see the WQS require testing within a

longer recreational season to reflect the fact that many rowing teams, recreational paddling

groups and marinas that offer canoe/ kayak rentals attest to a season that is longer (at least from

April until the end of October with some groups going all year).

Beyond being mindful of water quality concerns, we want to feel safe as paddlers and

rowers amidst powerboats and personal watercraft. Paddling a large waterbody can be an

awesome feeling, but it can at times be a scary, even dangerous prospect in light of competition

with powerboats, whose owners have been known to nickname paddlers “speed bumps” or

“water fleas.” As you will likely hear if you set out to earn your boating license, the river can

feel a bit anarchistic. Canoes and kayaks can be hard to see, visibility and reaction time is further

compromised by personal watercraft racing through the main stem at high speeds. Beyond these

normal concerns, alcohol added to the mix can bring about fatal consequences. This was the case

in 2007 when a runaway power boat crashed into a sailboat on the Connecticut River, killing one

woman and injuring three others.

No wake zones need to be clearly identified and the more on-water publicity that can be

given to the need to slow down to 5mph, the better. Boaters of all kinds should be familiar with

the “law of the land,” so to speak, including the hierarchy of yielding and required lights and

horns. Most boaters aren’t aware that there is a 6mph speed limit within 100’ of the shoreline,

and that it is illegal to generate a wake that can endanger another boat, especially one that is

paddled, rowed or under sail, with limited ability to maneuver quickly. The enmity that power

boaters often exhibit towards paddlers and sailors very often stems from lack of awareness that

the non-powered vessel simply does not have the means to get out of the way quickly.

The Connecticut River is amazingly diverse, at times placid and other times close to

raging. When making ourselves part of such a true force, it is important that we respect its

power and changeability. You should try to get to know the particular stretch of river in which

you are interested in paddling to get some kind of sense as to what conditions can be like at

different times of the year, in low water and high water and assess whether that stretch seems to

match your skill level with a little bit of a challenge built in for adventure’s sake if you desire

52


that and are willing to take on the risk. Jean Trapani (Telephone Interview, February 25, 2011)

emphasizes that knowing the river is especially important north of Hartford where the river can

change drastically and high water can mean significant whitewater. For safety’s sake, it is of

course, vital to understand that the river has stronger tides closer to its mouth. River flow can

matter very much to your paddling trip. Unfortunately, the Connecticut United States Geological

Survey (USGS) has lost significant funding for their stream gauging program and has lost three

stream gauges on the river in Connecticut: in Hartford, East Haddam and Old Lyme.

At points along the river still fortunate enough to have online gauges, nonprofits and other

educational groups should provide public information to aid boaters as what a particular flow

reading means for their paddling prospects. Outside of the Connecticut River watershed the Last

Green Valley Group: http://www.tlgv.org/index.php, a member-supported non-profit

organization that, among other things, has a water trails subcommittee and organized paddling

trips, has tried to secure funding for river gauges that would simply allow one to read the current

river depth. These gauges only measure depth, but they are the cheapest alternative to more

expensive gauges, and it is certainly better for boaters to be equipped with at least this

information. Bill Reid of the Last Green Valley group explains that in various spots along the

Quinebaug, Shetucket and other rivers the group, if funded, would like to couple the placement

of these gauges with recreational put-ins and informational kiosks that explain what these depths

mean as far as what paddlers can expect from a particular reading. Reid said that these gauges

may work for certain parts of the Connecticut River, but that he does not have great familiarity

with the river (Telephone Interview, March 7, 2011).

Andrea Donlon, CRWC’s Massachusetts River Steward mentions that unless you are out

on the river July or August, it's also a good idea to carry a pocket water thermometer and check

the river’s temperature before you go out. “If you capsize and the water temp is 55 degrees, you

aren't going to last long unless you are wearing a wetsuit. It doesn't matter if it's nice and warm

outside” (Email, March 1, 2011). Boaters should also pay attention to logs, branches and debris

in the water. Having so many things to consider can seem overwhelming to the new paddler but

it can be thought of as similar to cycling—you want to know your own capacity, know your

vehicle and keep it in good working order, obey rules of the road to keep yourself safe, watch out

for other people and vehicles, and beyond that, enjoy the ride, the scenery and the freedom.

Ultimately, we have to make our own decisions as to what we are comfortable with, but many

53


people each year choose to paddle, fish and even swim in the Connecticut River (the author of

this section has done the first and last herself). Access

Once you have safety down, you want to be able to get out and onto the river. When

people speak to why they don’t paddle on the river, the idea of access emerges as a frequent

challenge. In this case a lack of access can be thought of in terms of a lack of access to the river,

to the activity itself or even to information.

If a municipality is without recreational access to the river, this can represent a barrier if

peoples’ willingness or ability to travel dries up beyond town boundaries. When asking people

their thoughts on access or lack of access to the river in Connecticut, one person felt that

Hartford and the Lower Connecticut River Valley are fairly well-covered, but that less is known

about the river above Hartford and creating awareness of access points in this stretch is important.

When people paddle the Connecticut River they often wish to camp overnight as well, and for

this purpose, there are four public camps along the Connecticut River that offer primitive sites

with fireplaces and pit toilets. These camping areas are often booked and some have complained

about illegal campers taking reserved spots. In this event, people reserve and pay for camp sites

only to find out that someone else has decided the spot belongs to them for the evening. In the

absence of enforcement, the put out campers have no recourse. Riverside campsites offer a

wonderful resource to round out or even enable a paddling trip on the river but addressing the

challenge of fairness and adding new campsites if possible would expand this opportunity and

make the experience of a mini-excursion along the river more enjoyable. Connecticut River

paddler Jean Trapani says that perhaps having Conservation Officers to monitor this problem

could help ensure that planned for campsites are not hijacked by unplanned for guests (Personal

Interview, February 25, 2011).

A lack of access to the activity itself is a somewhat subjective but still evident challenge.

Disability and limited financial means can both represent challenges to full participation in non-

polluting recreational boating opportunities. Though much more affordable than using a

powerboat, paddling can be costly—considering the expense of a rented or purchased craft,

possible storage and the need for transport in the form of a rack or truck bed. Renting can

54


significantly help minimize this expense if one wishes to try it out and see how much she or he

enjoys it, but at about $50 or more per kayak, this is still cost prohibitive for many families.

To find out about canoe and kayak rental opportunities for the entire length of the mainstem and

on the Farmington River one can consult the CRWC’s list of Marinas, Outfitters and Guides:

http://www.ctriver.org/documents/CT%20River%20Marinas%20Outfitters%20and%20Guides%

20-%20June%202010.pdf. In Connecticut the ratio of places offering canoe/ kayak rentals

versus marinas offering powerboat services is noticeably disproportionate, over 20 marinas

offering power boat services and only a few canoe/ kayak rental opportunities listed. Note that

the Saybrook Point Inn & Spa in Old Saybrook, Connecticut is known as a ‘green’ marina

complete with a ‘green team’ that meets regularly to promote a commitment to more sustainable

practices, such as a towel and linen reuse program, pouring water only upon request, organic

lawn care program, chemical free cooling tower and nature-based outing activities. It would be

great to see other marinas throughout the watershed adopt similar practices and challenge each

other through innovation and tangible efforts to mitigate their negative environmental impact.

(Note: This year’s list was produced by working off of the previous version; if readers are aware

of other Connecticut canoe/ kayak rental opportunities for the Connecticut River or its tributaries,

we will be happy to add this information to the list).

The CRWC encourages fellow nonprofits, residents and municipalities to work toward

increased recreational access to the river and its tributaries. It is important that projects aim to

lead by example by conducting necessary environmental impact assessments early on in the

process, involving and listening to diverse stakeholders, site selecting to avoid infringing upon

sensitive environmental areas, limiting the use of impervious surfaces, providing for adequate

storm water management and considering the visual impact of the project from the river.

In terms of access to the activity itself, as you can read in this paper, Riverfront

Recapture has done an amazing job of creatively engaging people to come to the riverfront, has

worked with communities where socioeconomic concerns represent challenges to participation

and has provided opportunity for people of all abilities to participate in non-polluting

recreational boating. This work is so important to Hartford and inspires other groups as they

consider ways to get people out on the river for an experience that will make them want to return

again and again.

55


The Way Forward

In Connecticut there are many, many watershed organizations, universities, recreational

groups, conservation commissions, land trusts, faith leaders, residents and municipalities

working toward improved water quality and recreational access to the Connecticut River and its

tributaries. With so many groups, some of this good work can become obscured by what Dr.

Martin Luther King described as the “drum major instinct,” the intuitive need to be the one out in

front, claiming the lion’s share of credit for work well done. Unfortunately, even groups

comprised of generally humble individuals are forced to beat their drums for the very practical

purpose of generating funding. If we want to gain a better understanding of what barriers people

face we need to get the message out that the lines of communication are open, and if we want to

address these multifaceted challenges that often necessitate solid scientific information,

knowledge of water quality law and permitting, creativity and a connection with the public, we

will need to nurture partnerships. How Can You Become Involved

If water-based recreation or water quality is important to you, or if you just love the

Connecticut River and wouldn’t mind giving something back to her, there are so many ways for

you to become involved. Just taking a walk by the river or getting out onto the water to gain a

better understanding of our riverine system helps create a community of people who know the

value of the river. One of the least time consuming but still crucially important ways to do help

protect the river is to boat responsibly by picking up your trash and employing the “check, clean

and dry” method: http://www.ctriver.org/programs/outreach_education/invasives/index.html in

order to help prevent invasive species from fouling our waterways and making the river less

enjoyable.

If you are interested in periodically receiving updates about some of the most important

issues that the Connecticut River and our state waters face, you can sign up with just an email

address in order to receive CRWC’s Action Alerts:

http://www.ctriver.org/action/index.html#Updates_SignUp One of the priority issues in

Connecticut we are now navigating is trying to pass stream flow standards that would require

certain dams to release enough water in order to guarantee a minimum flow to support aquatic

life, other wildlife, and recreation, such as paddling and angling. While the issue seems less

56


urgent when thinking about the abundant flow of the Connecticut River, the standards would

protect all the rivers and streams in Connecticut, some of which are at risk for dry riverbeds.

The standards seek to balance human needs for water (drinking, drought, etc.) with

environmental needs. At the core of these proposed regulations is the recognition that our water

resources are unbelievably valuable and precious and that we need to make a long-term holistic

management plan for water quantity as well as quality (they are not separate ideas, as too little

water is a form of pollution). Your investment in this issue—knowing about it and maybe

making a phone call or sending an email about a river or stream you love—would be an

extremely important action for you, for river advocates and the future of our water resources.

We do have other volunteer opportunities:

http://www.ctriver.org/support/volunteer/index.html, including our annual Source to Sea

Cleanup—a watershed-wide one day volunteer cleanup of the river—and we can discuss

Connecticut specific opportunities if you are interested. Furthermore, anyone who is interested,

whether they are a part of a nonprofit organization or not, can be put on a list to be notified when

the CT DEP is set to issue or reissue a NPDES permit in a community they care about. You do

not need to be an expert to express concerns or ask questions, your concerns only need to be put

forth thoughtfully as the CT DEP invests a great deal of staff time into reviewing NPDES

permits and then responding to comments that come in about particular facilities. Other ways

you can help protect water quality in the Connecticut River include 1) creating: poetry, music

and sculpture have a great place in communicating the value of the river 2) eliminating the use of

lawn-care pesticides 3) creating a streamside buffer garden to help prevent polluted runoff from

entering our waterways 4) volunteering with water quality monitoring projects with groups such

as the Farmington River Watershed Association: http://www.frwa.org/measures.html (the

Farmington River is a tributary to the Connecticut River) and 5) adding your voice in defense of

river-friendly measures (such as limited impervious surfaces) when development near the

riverfront is proposed in your town.

No matter where you live within the watershed or what your interest and commitment is,

there is a role that you can play in protecting water quality. Major rivers are only as clean as their

tributaries, so even if you live near a small stream, leaving it a little nicer than it might be by

picking up after your dog or a piece of trash creates cleaner water downstream, where we all live.

We hope you’ll take advantage of some of sustainable boating opportunities and make the time

57


to experience the magic of swallows in the autumn and bald eagles in the winter before the

warmer months come and leave us with no excuse for not getting out and trying it. University of Hartford

The University of Hartford is extremely fortunate to have the North Branch of the Park

River (aka the Hog River) flowing through its campus. A mile or so after it leaves the University,

the river was buried underground as a means of protecting downtown Hartford from the ravages

of its flooding. It sees the light of day when it debouches into the Connecticut River near the

place where the Dutch established their trading post, the House of Hope in the early 17th century.

Having such a wonderful part of the Connecticut River Watershed at our school inspires UH

students and faculty to develop activities and academic programming that focus on the river and

sustainability issues.

On campus activities include water quality monitoring, river-based art projects and semi-

annual river cleanups. Educational efforts involve coursework in ecology, biology, art, sociology

and political science. The use of the river as an educational resource led to the development of an

Honors course entitled The Sociology of the Connecticut River Watershed that examined the

river and its people from archeological, anthropological, socio-economic, historical and

ecological perspectives. There was such a rich trove of information and resources, and the class

generated so much interest that it has become part of the yearly curriculum. A Mayterm section

of the class deals specifically with sustainable recreational boating because it occurs in boats on

the river. We leave campus on Monday morning, put in at the Rocky Hill Ferry and canoe and

camp our way down the river to Selden Island and return to campus Friday. The Rocky Hill

Ferry is a great starting point because it is a symbol of sustainability that may come to an end in

these parlous economic times. It is the oldest continually operating ferry service in the United

States, having crossed the river at that spot since 1755. Unfortunately, like many

environmentally sound practices, it is in danger of being shut down permanently due to

economics. It costs the State money to keep it in operation, but it saves drivers time, fuel and

wear and tear on their vehicles. The diesel engine that powers it uses far less fuel and creates far

fewer greenhouse emissions than it would take for gas powered cars to drive over the bridges

that are the only other means of crossing the river. The good news is that the Governor recently

58


gave the Ferry Service a 2 year stay of execution, and it is guaranteed to be in operation until

2013.

The Connecticut River Watershed class allows students to develop first- hand knowledge

of sustainable boating practices as well as minimal impact camping. It provides the ideal

environment to generate an on-going discussion about river-related issues and ideas as they

occur in real time. Students experience the delight of drifting with the current in the warm spring

sunshine, their boats bungee corded together and the conversation flowing freely. Or they might

be fighting their way into the teeth of a sleeting cold wind, waves occasionally splashing frigidly

over the bow, learning about their individual potentials and strengths along with the fact that

nature is not always accommodating to human wants and needs. They learn to appreciate the way

that humans lived beside and navigated on the river for thousands of years before Europeans

transformed it into systems of commerce and agriculture. A major aspect of sustainability is

continuity, keeping and nurturing practices that have been viable through time because they work

without depleting or harming the environments in which they occur.

Students get the opportunity to see the increasingly rare sight of some of the last half

dozen or so commercial shad fishermen stringing their smudge pot demarcated nets across the

spring swollen current. That becomes a lesson in entropy as they realize that some human

activities that have lasted for millennia might well come to an end in their lifetime. But they can

also appreciate that they, like the shadfisher folk, are travelling and living, for the most part, as

humans have for thousands of years, in a non-polluting, sustainable way. The students work

whenever possible in harmony with the wind and the current, eating local food (including shad,)

listening to Selden Island ghost stories as the campfire flickers and dances.

Paddling allows students to see the scars that the mushrooming McMansions leave on the

river’s bankscape. They learn to point their bows into the wakes of power boats that could

swamp them into the still chilly drink. The whole issue of paddle versus power boating becomes

more real than it would in just a classroom discussion. In many ways, that issue is definitive in

terms of what sustainability is and should be. From a sociological perspective, there is no doubt

that there really is class warfare being waged on the river between paddlers and motor boaters.

Not surprisingly, paddlers tend to be greener. They rant and rail against the noise, exhaust, oil

and gasoline leaked into the water by power boats. They bemoan the fact that the “stinkpotter’s”

wakes not only threaten to swamp them, but erode the riverbanks, as well. Power boaters, on the

59


other hand, often bring their muscle car mentality onto the water with them. The more powerful

the engine, the noisier it is, the bigger the wake, the better. More enforcement of safe boating

laws would ameliorate some of the problems, but that would require more government

expenditure in a time of diminishing resources.

As the planet runs out of fossil fuel, the nature of power boating will, of necessity,

change. More fuel efficient engines with emissions and noise control standards are, hopefully, on

the horizon. The question then becomes what to do with the huge amount of plastic already in

boats that will no longer be viable? How do you recycle a 28’ cabin cruiser? One idea might be

to retrofit them as greenly as possible and develop programs to distribute them to developing

countries that can use them in sustainable inshore fisheries as deep ocean fish stocks continue to

collapse. We definitely need new, creative ways of thinking as to the future of power boating in

the post-petroleum age. A charming example can be found in the efforts of a young Girl Scout

who conceptualized power boats that took in water as they chugged along, filtered the oil and

gasoline out of it and stored it aboard for recycling and disposal. Not feasible, perhaps, but her

ideas bring hope that the imaginations of young people will increasingly be utilized to solve the

problems they will face in the future. Changing out gas engines for electric motors, or even using

kites to pull boats downwind are among the changes we might anticipate in power boating.

The Watershed course transforms the river into a kinetic classroom, allowing the flow of

ideas to meander where it might. It also teaches powerful lessons in sustainability. Student

evaluations routinely report that the class provided meaningful insights and perceptions into their

relationship with nature and water. Being on the river, facing the challenges of tide, wind, time

and the idiosyncrasies of a curmudgeonly professor offers an educational experience that

hopefully transcends the world of social networking and overconsumption to a small degree and

provides a lasting message that students can bring to a more sustainable future. The hope is that

students will be inspired to work towards sustainable societies that flow in harmony with the

natural world. Conclusion

It is the hope that humans can enjoy the wonders of the river for centuries to come that is

at the core of our efforts. From our organizational and personal perspectives, the overarching

vision of the future is one in which accessibility to boating opportunities will be available to

60


anyone who wishes to enjoy them. There is so much pleasure and knowledge to be gained from

being on the water that the experience should be part of the lives of all who would seek it. The

issues surrounding the sustainability of recreational boating serve as a microcosm for many of

the environmental and societal circumstances that define the apocalyptic times we live in today.

Fossil fuel use, greenhouse gasses, socio-economic inequality, access to potable water,

humanity’s place in the ecosystem are among the variables that will determine the quality of life

for future generations. In as much as all of these have some tangential relationship to aspects of

recreational boating, we feel that it serves to enhance our understanding of a sense of place,

especially in terms of people and water. Boating for pleasure may not be the most pressing

social or environmental concern facing us, but it is an important part of many people’s lives and

can help us navigate into a greener (and bluer) future with an abundance of clean water to carry

us along.

Documents

Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability 2011Papers of Global Envir!JfJmencaJSustoinobiif.y (20'11).Volume1.!! the political will to improve environmemal problems atrophies in