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. 10:30 AM: We met with Linda Dombrowski, an anthropologist and member of the Duwamish tribe. She told us about the early settling of Seattle, and how the Duwamish were displaced from their lands. As the area changed to residential land, then to industrial, the river that the Duwamish people depended on became polluted. The most resonating statement that Linda made was that the Duwamish are not looking for complete restoration of the river, but are looking for community support and to use the best available practices to keep people safe. Photo below of Linda Dombrowski. 12:00 PM: We walked across the highway from the Duwamish Longhouse to Herring House Park, which offers views of the Duwamish. We met with BJ Cummings, who helped found the Duwamish River Community Coalition. The coalition consists of many organizations that had been working on trying to get cleanup to happen for many years, the longest standing being the Duwamish people. The coalition first worked as a watchdog organization of preliminary cleanup along the river. With their help, the Port of Seattle learned about the re-contamination introduced by sewer overflow and an inefficient dredging process. Throughout the process of planning, cleanup, and restoration, the influence of the DRCC has lead to an increase in community involvement planning. One thing I appreciated from DRCC was the commitment to not only provide daycare for children of parents involved in meetings, but also involving the children in the decision-making process. In Arnstein’s A Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969), providing child care and reimbursement for missed work to attend meetings is on a higher rung of citizen participation. Using Arnstein’s guide, DRCC may classify as a partnership style of citizen participation, since DRCC shares their findings and influences the Port of Seattle and EPA (1969). Photo below of BJ Cummings at Herring House Park. 1:45 PM: We headed to one of the hottest restaurants in South Park, Napoli Pizza, to meet with Julie Congdon, and other representatives from the City of Seattle and Port of Seattle. Julie is currently in the process of revising the Duwamish River Superfund Community Involvement Plan. Her colleagues shared with us how important it has been to have DRCC’s influence on the cleanup process. They also shared their community engagement process for South Park residents for Terminal T117, which we were able to tour. I was happy to hear the process was very community driven, with Roy commenting that “if you communicate, the community responds positively.” DRCC gave guidelines to the City of Seattle on what levels of community engagement they should aim for. Photo below of our class on the tour of T117. 4:00 PM: We head to the South Park Community Center to talk with Paulina Lopez and two of her Youth Corps Members. Paulina is the Community Engagement and Outreach Manager for DRCC. We went on a walking tour of South Park, and learned some of the downsides to when entities try to do work without communicating with the community. An example of this would be the skatepark we saw, that was built by a private donor without the community’s feedback (seen in some of my classmates posts). The park soon became covered in graffiti and unusable to skate. We headed to Muy Macho after the tour for some great food.
7:00 PM: Our last destination before heading to our AirBnb for the night was the South Park Senior Center for karaoke night! Overall, it was a long day of learning. We heard from multiple stakeholders about the importance of community engagement. I’m glad to be involved with Portland Harbor Community Coalition, and plan to learn more about how community engagement is happening around the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. -Kristen References: Sherry R. Arnstein (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224, DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225 Even dredging, the most effective tool we have for cleaning the Willamette is far from flawless. BJ Cummings brought up the role that policies initially required to have the contractor with the lowest bid do the dredging, with abysmal results. Boeing on the other hand, she said did an exemplary job of cleaning up their portion of the river. This was in part as a result of the company not being beholden to the same regulations. The technologies available are not perfect, but they can be quite effective.Though of course the technologies come at a price and the regulations in place must allow them to be used. Thinking on a larger scale, it is difficult to see the point in debating the effectiveness of cleanup techniques. As Melanie described in her presentation, the EPA and other entities are doing very little in the way of preventing both old and new chemicals from entering waterways. Without policy and regulations focused on stemming the flow of hazardous material into the river, the overall effectiveness of the cleanup will be limited, regardless of the combination of technology used. There are many contaminants present in the Willamette River and the effects of these contaminants on fish and vary. According to Forest et al. the reproductive system is primarily affected adding more stress on species that are already struggling to survive, such as salmon. Preserving the diversity of species in the Willamette and its tributaries is a worthy goal by itself, but reducing the contaminants present in fish matters because humans eat the fish. To ensure the cleanliness of the river for both fish and people it will be necessary to utilize the best technologies at the appropriate time and place while also having the public policy and regulations in place to make this possible. Kirk Forest, E., Curtis, L.R., & Gundersen, D.(2014). Toxic contaminants in the urban aquatic environment. In J.A. Yeakly et al. (Eds.), Wild salmonids in the urbanizing Pacific Northwest (123-139).New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media. Photo by Lola Goldberg
We had the opportunity to visit with representatives from many of the groups involved in the Lower Duwamish River Superfund site. The Duwamish river has a similar history to that of the Willamette--for thousands of years it was central to the lives of the native peoples of these lands--in this case the Duwamish tribe who spent their winters along its banks. The Duwamish people subsistence fished the river and travelled by canoe along its meandering course. After Chief Seattle of the Duwamish signed the treaty of 1855 allowing the City of Seattle to be built on their homeland, the river was straightened, deepened, and industrialized. The Duwamish river became a transportation hub for large ships and over the past century, a waste tank for wartime industry and rapid development that grew up around it. We visited the Duwamish Longhouse--a beautiful community center for the tribe to share their culture and history. The Duwamish tribe has been asserting their place in this landscape, having lived here for at least 12,000 years, according to Linda Dombrowski, the event coordinator who shared many tales of Duwamish history and of the river just across the street. Although the Duwamish community has their own visions for the river, they are willing to share the water and the land that contains it with their industrial neighbors. This surprised me. They only expect that the river be cleaned up so that all people’s needs for the river are possible, including fishing for subsistence. It’s not an easy task, but some assert it’s possible. We met B.J. Cummings, the founding coordinator of the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC) in 2001, to empower residents of South Park and Georgetown--the neighborhoods within the industrial sea along the Duwamish river. B.J. is a wealth of knowledge. She explained that Lake Washington was formerly the site of the City’s sewage dump, but after the affluent and largely white neighborhoods surrounding the lake complained, the City rerouted the sewage system to dump into the lower Duwamish river. Many communities have come together as very active agents influencing the process and plan for cleanup of the the superfund site. When we met with employees of the City of Seattle, the Port of Seattle, and the Environmental Protection Agency, they credited the DRCC and expressed gratitude for their persistent involvement pushing for stronger cleanup outcomes. Boeing, apparently did very well cleaning up their early action areas, using sophisticated technology to dredge contaminated river sediment without causing a spread of the contaminants. Using Boeing’s good example as well as documenting when dredging was poorly done for far less money, the DRCC continues to push for better cleanup methods. While communities of South Park have been highly vocal and active influencing stronger river cleanup, these low income communities--often communities of color--have not gotten the level of response that communities around Lake Washington received. Politics that govern cities have systematically left low income communities out of planning processes and adequate consideration. In “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Arnstein articulates the reason for citizen participation in processes affecting our public commons as a redistribution of power- giving voice to people so often excluded from the process (Arnstein 1969). This article was published in 1969 and yet still today citizen participation is often a box for government officials to check rather than fully listening and changing plans or designs based on feedback from the public- people who will be greatly affected by the decisions made. Furthermore, government rarely does outreach to underrepresented communities. Because of the strong and determined involvement by the DRCC and people of South Park, this dynamic may be slowly shifting for Seattle, however there is still a long way to go. -Lola Goldberg Sherry R. Arnstein (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224, DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225 The excursion to the Port of Portland was insightful but not surprising. The hosts of the tour were friendly and informative. There were a few things of interest that was new, but much of it turned out to be a power-point review. The facilitator of the tour answered most of my questions through answering questions from my classmates. One question that was raised by a classmate had to do with the capping strategy for the Willamette River Superfund Site clean up, and if the capping would be compromised by dredging of the river for large vessels to navigate. The facilitator told us that there was “little too none” persistent organic pesticides in the deep channeled part of the river. I however asked three questions: 1. Where there treaty obligation that the Port of Portland had to honor? 2. Was there a role that the Port of Portland was participating in to encourage public comment by Portland citizen during the sixty-day comment period? 3. What where the circumstances that led to the Willamette River to be listed as a Superfund? The answer to the first question was yes. The agreements are negotiated and settled by the Federal Government and Tribal Nations concerning tribal waters and fishing rights. The tribes are an integral part of the process of deciding procedure for the Willamette River clean up. The second question was answered by what the EPA was doing by having community meeting and placing advertisements into the local papers. There was not an answer given about what the Port of Portland was doing to inform citizens. The last and third question about who instigated the listing of the Willamette River as a Superfund Site was explained as a bureaucratic endeavor by the state to clean up Oregon Rivers. However, it was my understanding that it was a group of Tribal leaders that went to Washington D.C. to lobby the government about the deleterious state of the Willamette River.
The Retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland, by Norman Krumholz conveyed a brave approach to delivering the advocacy and equity planning to the citizens of Cleveland. The outreach strategy that the Port of Portland has exhibited, in regards to the Willamette River Superfund Site, shows a willingness to keep citizens in the “sandbox” and placing them on “Indian reservations” (Krumholz, 1982). A bold and brave move for an agency who’s soul purpose is to bring business to the state of Oregon, would be to put democracy and the resources for the public good front and center, An activist approach to having a clean an viable river open to everyone will produce development, business, and revenue that the state desires. How much revenue has been lost to the risk of persistent organic pesticide contamination? How much development has been lost that could have promoted that cities ethics of a green corridor? When it comes to the Willamette Superfund, and participation outcomes, and the EPA, I have heard many Portlanders confess that they have succumbed to “meetingitis” (Arnstein, 1969) because of the length of time that this tragedy has been going on. To have citizens to stay continually abreast, neighborhoods need there own technician (possibly hired) to keep them informed and engaged. The city of Portland provides this to a degree with it’s community engagement systems but when large cleanups like Superfund impact our communities, the federal government should be providing educators and organizers to make sure that the community stay informed, engaged, and active in the decision making processes. By Michael Pouncil Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35:4, 216-224. Krumholz, N. (1982). A Retrospective View of Equity Planning Cleveland 1969-1979, Journal of the American Planning Association, 48:2, 163-174. Last Monday, our class had the chance to visit Port of Portland Terminal 4. We learned from Port of Portland staff about the Portland Harbor Superfund site from their perspective. It was very interesting to learn about how the Port has been proactive in the cleanup process. To them, they view the superfund site as an embarrassment that has been put off for far too long. They became involved with other polluters to create the Lower Willamette Group in order to begin the process of determining a Superfund ruling. The Port has also been active in early restoration, and they showed us some of the work they had completed on Wheeler Bay by dredging contaminated sludge and stabilizing the bank. Pictures from the bay can be seen below: We had a short discussion about public engagement with Port of Portland staff. Not much has been done to engage the public so far, but they hope to hit the ground running once the proposal is released. After that, the public has 60 days to comment before the final decision is made. I believe Port of Portland will want community participation since they are a public entity, and part of the cost of cleanup will have to come from the public. As the Port of Portland develops public participation strategies, I hope they keep in mind the following: higher levels of participation empower the public, planners should stay engaged with the community for a long period of time in order to see effective change, and that information on the superfund process should be easily accessible and paired with community information so that those affected have the information they need to participate in the decision-making process.
Level of Public Participation Public participation in a decision-making process can range from non-participation methods such as manipulation and therapy, to higher degrees of citizen power such as partnership, delegated power, and citizen control (Arnstein, 1969). I hope that public participation on the Portland Harbor Superfund site is in the higher degrees of citizen power range. In order for this to be accomplished, citizens should be able to negotiate with the main decision-makers, and they should include a large part of the vote on the decision (Arnstein, 1969). It Takes Time… When Norman Krumholz reflected on his work as a planner in Cleveland, Ohio in the 70s, he concluded that certain skills and ideas were necessary for planners to use to create effective, equitable change (Krumholz, 1982). One of Krumholz’s conclusionary remarks was that in order to be an effective part of the decision making process, planners must participate in an issue for a relatively long period of time (Krumholz, 1982). Many of his cases evolved over a period of five to ten years (Krumholz, 1982). I became involved with Portland Harbor Community Coalition and my spokesperson there shared the same remarks on decision-making processes: it takes time. It takes time for planners and community groups to build the relationships needed to create consensus-based change in which all parties are in favor of the decision. It takes time to ensure that those involved have the resources they need--policy documents on how to clean up a superfund site are not easy reads. It also takes time within the EPA’s framework to go from listing a site as a Superfund site to the actual cleanup process. During that time, it is common to see community groups become exhausted of their time and members--they are often being involved on their own time while staffed positions are getting paid to be involved. I hope the Port of Portland recognizes that this time is a huge commitment for the public, and helps out by providing resources for technical information as well as reimbursement for those missing work or needing childcare to be involved. Street Knowledge Referring back to technical documents, it is important for the Port to be aware that the process of getting involved through the EPA’s framework isn’t a friendly process. This is often one of the tensions between communities and professionals. On the highest rungs of the public involvement ladder, the public is equipped with the resources they need to hire their own technical support in translating these documents to a more public-friendly format (Arnstein, 1969). One method of sharing information used by community groups is popular education--in which community members tap their own experiences and expertise to inform each other (Corburn, 2005). Another method to bridge the power gap between professionals and community members is street science, in which the technical science is paired with the community’s own knowledge and investigations (Corburn, 2005). I hope to see some of these considerations in practice once the superfund report is released. -Kristen Sources: Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224. Krumholz, N. (1982). A retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163-174. Corburn, J. (2005). Street Science, Local Knowledge in Environmental Health Policy
|
AuthorsWe are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Archives
May 2018
Categories
All
|