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.
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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.
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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).
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
(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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
Literature's Impact on Environmental Policy: Case Study – Rachel Carson's Silent Spring
Luke Albertson, Undergraduate Student
English Department Central Connecticut State University
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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
Papers of Global Environmental Sustainability (2011), Volume
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.