|
Winter 98-99 Issue Highlights
Highlights from the
Fall '99 Issue
Scott Dye's address to the
annual dinner - Hog factories and Rural America
Bill Ward Award honorees
Living Downstream - How and When
to write a letter to your favorite bureaucrat
From the Pres...
by Joan Vibert
Our Annual Dinner on September 25, 1999 was packed with good energy and inquiring
attendees. Since the program was somewhat intended to educate, it seems that we
achieved our goal. We thought it would be a good idea to devote an issue of the
Journal on the dinner since many of our readers didn't attend and those who did will
probably appreciate reliving it.
Prior to the dinner a classroom was set up for the purpose of viewing the video "And
On This Farm". I know I've mentioned this video before but it seems that I
can't advise people strongly enough to see and share this video. And there were
definitely people at the dinner who were surprised by the content of the video.
By chronicling the devastation wrought by corporate hog farms upon a way of life, namely
the family farm, the video serves as a warning for those localities considering the
intrusion of big hog. The impact on rural communities, socially and economically,
and on the quality of life is far greater than you might surmise. Add to this
equation the inhumane treatment of animals that are intended ultimately as nourishing food
for our bodies and a potpourri of food for thought is created.
As you no doubt know, our speaker for the dinner was Scott Dye who is featured in the
video. Scott's talk is printed in its entirety here.
It was a powerful talk that inspired a torrent of questions and answers, which could
have continued well into the night, it appeared. I don't think we've seen the end to
this discussion.
As a small (very small) grower myself, it is satisfying to see the environmental community
waking up to the problems being forced upon all of us by big ag. We are sharing the
common concerns that family farms have been aware of for some time now. As
environmentalists we are looking way beyond the "pesticides in the water" issues
that was our focus for so long. Subjects like social responsibility, ethics, and a
food system we are beginning to mistrust have become everyday discussions.
When I became an environmentalist I lived in suburbia and was battling public access for
canoeists on Missouri rivers. Our opponents were farmers. I thought they were
unreasonable. When we moved to our farm we chose to transition to organic. The
farmer who had been working our land pulled out. I thought he was unreasonable.
Five years ago I decided to try to make a go of growing food (notice I didn't say a
living). I now walk in those "unreasonable" shoes. We are certified
organic but I have to admit that standing and watching squash bugs take down a perfectly
healthy squash plant causes me to consider the delicious joy of eradicating them with the
"really heavy-duty stuff". I have the luxury of not answering to a bank
when squash isn't prolific or the green beans just didn't make it. But I can imagine
the frustration of really counting on the land and the seeds and the chemicals and the
equipment and the bank loans to survive. And how easy it must be when the Farm
Bureau points out environmentalists as the enemy, to turn toward that enemy and blame them
for failures. We all need someone to blame, don't we?
Well...it's time to consider that we are all in this together. If the person growing
our food is going to be able to continue producing a nutritious, safe product that in turn
will provide us with a healthy body, we need to join forces. We can't expect to
criticize the source of our sustenance and then be nourished by that source. We have
to support the source, to reach out and communicate with them and to be ready to listen.
We began this effort with one tiny step at the Annual Dinner but there are giant steps
awaiting us and its time to start!
Top of page
Beyond Letters to Legislators
- Taking Your Activism to the Next Level
by Rachel
I don't want to knock letters to legislators
(or phone calls, faxes, or e-mails, either). A letter to a sensitive legislator or
many letters to a not-so-sensitive legislator can have a big impact on legislation.
We do need good laws (and fewer bad laws).
However, in spite of many good laws on the
books, our environmental problems are getting worse, not better. The fault generally
lies in the implementation of the laws. The implementation is in the hands of the
executive branch--the Governor or President, as carried out by their agencies-the
bureaucracy.
The Governor or President and the agencies under their direction actually behave like two
separate branches of government. That's because they are different kinds of people
with different motivations. The chief executive is elected for a limited term.
In order to be re-elected the Governor must look better than the opponent to the
people who get him elected--not necessarily the public since not everyone votes, and
how/whether a person votes depends on perception as much as fact. The heads of
agencies also have limited terms in office that also depend on their perceived
"friendliness" to people who generate votes.
The bulk of an agency, on the other hand, is comprised of career bureaucrats, who have
pretty secure jobs unless they make big mistakes. A big mistake is one that gets the
executive in trouble with the people who get him elected. The result of such trouble
is usually reassignment and subtle harassment rather than firing. The bureaucrat's
fortunes may change with changes in administration, but the paycheck is still there.
Although a decision may bear the signature of the chief executive or a cabinet officer, it
is unlikely that either of
them actually made the decision. Most decisions or rules, regulations, permits,
licenses, etc., are made by bureaucrats unless public opinion (or the views of certain
influential people) bring it to the attention of the secretary or chief executive.
On what are bureaucrats likely to base a
decision on an environmental issue? Many of these people went into their field
because they cared about environmental problems. That caused them to get degrees in
biology, geology, hydrology, or engineering. They hoped to make a difference by
entering government agency. Others recognized the job security and relatively good
salary, and don't particularly care about the environment as long as it's not their kids
who get brain cancer.
Regardless of where they came from,
once they became part of the state agency, they started to hear a lot from one group of
people--the people they regulate. It is rare for the people who suffer the
consequences of pollution to know how to contact the bureaucrats who make those decisions.
Inquiries from the public are generally routed through a "public
[dis]information officer", whose job it is to prevent you from talking to anyone who
knows anything. On the other hand, the "environmental officers" of
regulated agencies and companies know exactly who to talk to. For one thing, many of
them used to work for the agency. Besides, they wouldn't last long in their jobs if
they couldn't demand a face-to-face discussion of an issue that concerns them.
Nevertheless, there are opportunities for
public input--official and otherwise--that mostly go unused. In general, here are some types of
opportunities:
Comment periods and hearings
on rules and regulations.
Proposed rules and regulations are published in the Federal Register (federal
regulations) or Kansas Register (state regulations). While most of us don't read
either of these publications with our morning coffee, there are other ways of getting the
notices. You can request some agencies to put you on a list to receive notices of
proposed regulations and/or permits. EPA send Federal Register notices to separate
e-mail lists for each major program. Information is often shared via the Kansas
Conservation e-mail list. During the legislative
session, KNRC members may receive our
KLUE weekly email
updates. We will try to publish notices of pertinent regulations in
the Journal. There is a comment period and often one or more public hearings on the
proposal. The effectiveness of your comments will be increased if you send them to
your local newspaper and/or an environmental reporter like Jean Hays of the Wichita Eagle.
Comment periods and hearings on permits
The same comments as above also apply to permits.
Issues or events of personal concern.
Did the dairy upstream of you dump the contents of its lagoon into the creek?
Did drift from a neighbor's pesticide application make you sick or kill your
tomatoes? Are you concerned about the "sewer trout" floating by your canoe
in the Kansas River? In each of these cases, someone has violated the law, and there
is a state agency that should be taking action to enforce the law and penalize the
offender. It will only happen if someone like you files a complaint with the
appropriate agency, then follows through to see what happens.
In each of these cases, it is important to recognize that the person receiving your
comments may or may not want to hear from you. Even if that person wants to hear
from you, the person next up the ladder may not. It always helps to make your
comments or complaints in a public forum as well as the official forum. That
increases the likelihood that someone else will be motivated to join you and decreases the
likelihood that your comments will be dismissed.
JOIN THE KNRC!
Top of page
|
