Photo credit: Allison Frost/OPB
The need for increased community engagement in the Portland Harbor Superfund project seems to me a central issue. In comparing the Duwamish and Portland Harbor, there seems a significant difference in the levels of engagement between the two cities’ governing bodies and the communities most affected by the Superfund and the clean up process. Admittedly, the vantage point I gained on the Lower Duwamish River project was more in retrospect and is perhaps not a fair comparison with Portland Harbor. However, I believe Portland can learn from the mistakes and successes in Seattle. The communities from the neighborhoods of South Park and Georgetown and the Duwamish Tribe were driving forces insisting on more and better engagement with the City and Port of Seattle as well as the EPA. And most importantly, those communities pushed for better clean up technologies and it seems they helped the City and Port of Seattle recognize how essential it is to use technologies that remove more of the contaminants. The City of Portland recently conducted a survey of Portland residents on their priorities and opinions about the Portland Harbor cleanup. This was the first outreach by the City on the clean up and was not widely distributed, nor was it comprehensive in eliciting the full views of the public with its limited questions and “pick a box” format. I spoke with Delia Mendoza and Lucia Llano of the Portland Harbor Community Coalition last week, who both echoed Paulina Lopez from South Park about the need for community meetings with food and childcare provided and be culturally appropriate to successfully engage the various affected communities. We have heard from communities surrounding both the Lower Duwamish River and the Portland Harbor that being able to safely eat fish from these rivers are of utmost priority to them. The priorities for the City and Port understandably revolve around cost. It’s time to learn from the Duwamish and other Superfund clean up projects that while more expensive technologies that remove more contamination seem prohibitive from a cost analysis, lingering contamination or contamination that is spread from improper dredging or damaged caps are not worth the recontamination of our river, fish, and people. -Lola Goldberg
0 Comments
While the Portland Harbor and the Lower Duwamish are both parts of rivers with superfund sites, the concerns and approaches for cleanup, and processes seem very independent of one another. The Lower Duwamish River cleanup seemed to be centered around a community with a history of advocating for change, justice and equity. From our visits to the Duwamish site,it seemed that community members were well informed and engaged in the process, the needs of the community being healthy place to live through removal of the contaminated soil by dredging and transporting it off site to be processed. Versus Portland's approach seems quite different in that the community seems less involved in the process, it seems like much community engagement has not occurred. Many people I have interacted with have no idea there is a superfund site in Portland, let alone the various methods being debated in the EPA’s cleanup proposal. While our classes visit to Port of Portland's Terminal 4 was eye opening to the industrial activity along the Willamette. Surveys suggest that still most of the general population “has little knowledge or information about the Port and its marine terminal operations,” (Abbott, 2008) furthermore assuming that there is little awareness about the superfund site and legacy contamination that has occurred on the river. I think the unawareness from Portland Citizens has hindered the process or push for stringent regulation and cleanup. I think if more of the community knew about the superfund site, the hazards they would be more concerned, but the lack of public engagement has left many unknowing. Some of my thoughts on some the possible reasons for differences in cleanup may include Seattle is very much built on and around industry, community's and industrial areas commonly intersect, whereas Portland also has a lot of industry but it is more segregated from residential areas. -Katie Carl Abbott. Portland's Working Rivers: The Heritage and Future of Portland's Industrial Heartland. Portland: Carl Abbott, 2008. Print. The past several weeks have been a mind expansion of epic proportions concerning the rivers in the Northwest and the ills that impact them. Portland Harbor (lower Willamette River) and Lower Duwamish (South Seattle’s South Park and Jefferson neighborhoods) have challenges that will need constant vigilant grass-roots community participation. Clean up of the Lower Duwamish and Portland Harbor superfund sites are not something you do for a term, it is truly a commitment having noticed first hand at the Portland Harbor Community Action Group (PHCAG) and the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC).
These coalitions have been in the trenches for over 15 years since the EPA’s listing of the Willamette River as a Superfund. It is my opinion that the length of time of the recognized listing by the EPA has been a difficult challenge for the coalitions, this large time frame allows for a revolving door of concerned citizens who become “meeting fatigued” or “life” simply happens and folks move on to other things. I am not sure why the work of building a strong social fabric in the community has not happened with the PHCAG, I would think that this work would be essential. What I have learned during this course is that nuance is very important, even the nuance in mission statements between DRCC and PHCAG, the DRCC says in it that it will “…ensure… accepted by and benefits the community…” and PHCAG’s says it will, “…ensure…through community participation. One is about giving community control and the other is about letting the community be a part of the show. I find that the approach PHCAG may hamper impacted community involvement, there is not a sense of power, or charge of destiny and this can be felt in trying to galvanize the community to make comment about the up coming scheduled superfund proposal. Progress happens when communities are engaged, have shared concerns and sense of urgency these are avenues for progress. I would define progress as an educated citizenry who can make meaningful comment about the superfund site after the proposal is announced. Currently, however, many individuals who live near the impacted areas in North Portland are not aware of the proposal, cleanup or comment period. The city of Portland and some community action groups (to a certain degree) can be blamed for some of these equitable failures. Communities want to be informed and industry and local/ national government want to promote a fake democratic public participation. The LWG approach the Portland Harbor from a position of power and privilege, they have resources to monitor community engagement and they have the knowledge concerning the science. E.J. Woodhouse explains how industry and governments are not cognizant, “…in recognizing that rapid R&D and scale-up usually prove problematic, nor in thinking through the manifestly undemocratic implication of the privileged positions of science.” and how the, “scaled[ing] up by industry and governments [move] far to fast to allow the relative slow learning from experience that humans and their organizations know how to do.” Coalitions have to remain nimble, tough, and inventive to keep folks informed and bring new blood to the coalitions. Coalitions have to create new stories of the same story to keep the community interested in involved. The community has to feel invested in the cause, so they can’t be intellectualized over or talked down to. It is also my opinion that keeping it simple, staying vigilant, and diversification in outreach (religious organizations, ESL, and youth) are the strengths of coalitions to keep communities informed and engaged. By Michael Pouncil Woodhouse, E. J. (2006). Nanoscience, green chemistry, and the privileged position of science. The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, 148-181. Photo from: https://popdevprogram.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/in-this-for-my-people-nia-robinson-on-race-the-environment-and-climate-change/ Environmental racism has a long history in the United States with wealthy white people in well-cared-for areas of cities and countrysides, while wastes are dumped and toxic industrial facilities sited along the homes of people of color and poor people (whom are more often people of color). Firstly, planners are often white and perpetuate this divide, not wanting a landfill or chemical refinery next to their homes. Second, it is known that wealthy, more highly educated neighborhoods of white people feel empowered to fight against any development in their area that would negatively impact them. As a result, attempts toward such developments are not even considered. People of color in this country have been oppressed by systematic racism in every form from every authoritative agency and have been disempowered to fight for their own civil rights. Environmental racism is about civil rights--“It is unlikely that this nation will ever achieve lasting solutions to its environmental problems unless it also addresses the system of racial injustice that helps sustain the existence of powerless communities forced to bear disproportionate environmental costs” (Geiser and Waneck 1983).
The environmental movement started in the 1970s and environmental activists are often well-educated white people focused on environmental conservation. For years a strong part of my own identity has centered on environmental conservation. While I have slowly become more aware of environmental justice issues, the focus of my activism has remained on conservation of forested lands and watersheds. I realize the privilege I have to choose my activism focus--being middle-class and white, I am not directly affected by environmental risks and inequalities that so many people of color and poor people cannot escape. I appreciate the opportunity to increase my awareness of environmental justice issues and the inseparable nature of social justice, environmental justice, and environmental conservation. -Lola Goldberg References: Geiser K and Waneck G 1983. PCBs and Warren County. Science for the People pp 13-17. Environmental racism is the concept that has come to show the ways in which people of color are negatively affected by environmental toxicity as a result of pollution and institutional racism. Non-white people are disproportionately poisoned at higher rates than whites, regardless of economic status. Not only that, but non-white neighborhoods are actually targeted by industries and institutions for waste dumping or incinerators based on the fact that people of color tend to have less political/social power. Therefore they’re less likely to successfully fight against these institutions. Additionally, they are less likely to move away from the harmful areas due to racial tensions, economic status, and racial discrimination. Environmental Justice is the movement that has been fighting to reduce pollution and protect people and the environment and has wanted to bring a racial equity lens to the movement. The article “PCB’s and Warren County” describes the progression leading up to a toxic waste dump being built in Warren County despite the protests of the residents. The main issues were that when PCB resale was banned by the government, an irresponsible company illegally dumped thirty-thousand gallons of PCB fluids on about 270 miles in North Carolina. The state decided to build a dump to store the contaminated soil indefinitely and they picked Warren County as their location. The residents of that county learned that there was little protection for their drinking water for when the contaminated soil would begin to leach into the ground, so they staged a large protest where about 500 people were arrested. This event marked history and set the tone for how important civic participation is in cases against industry giants and the governments. The citizens of Warren County weren’t successful in stopping the dump site, however they gained respect from the state and their concerns were taken into account, which lead to water and health monitoring of the area. The issues at Warren County constitute institutional racism because the state and EPA probably thought that poor neighborhood, which was comprised of over 65% Black residents, wouldn’t have much to say. Not only that, but the dump was built anyway, despite the intense protests. I do believe that class was a much larger element in this particular case given that a large part of the population was white and they fought just as hard against the state on the issue because they would be equally impacted by the PCB's and pollution. You can watch a documentary about the Warren County case using the link below. In the Duwamish River clean-up effort, there are certainly issues of environmental justice because the people most negatively impacted by the pollution and the polluted river are Native Americans, Asian, and the Latino Population of Seattle. There are many cultural , educational, and language barriers to public participation, which is the reason why the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition has worked so hard to include voices from those residents who would otherwise go unheard and unseen. They’ve been successful at making an impact in regards to the effectiveness of the clean-up and keeping the county and the businesses accountable. One possible issue I see with the Portland Harbor in regards to environmental justice is that it is believed that some residents, particularly poorer or homeless residents, use fishing as a food source in the polluted river. This poses a major health risk because the fish are not safe to eat and yet they may have an economic need to use this as a main protein source. There are other social issues to consider –for example, there are hundreds of new residents in the Portland area and they may not be well informed about the pollution and costs of cleanup of the Portland Harbour. Portland is a home to many refugees of many parts of the world who may not speak English well enough to stay informed and participate as an interested resident. Their knowledge and community ties may be limited. It is important to actively seek these folks out, like they did in Seattle, so that their voices and ideas can be heard as well. - Gloria
|
AuthorsWe are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Archives
May 2018
Categories
All
|