In 2003, Champlin’s Marina filed its request with the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to expand its marina in Block Island’s Great Salt Pond. At 10 years (and still running), this is probably CLF’s longest-running active litigation. This post is written to apprise you of the latest developments in this continuing saga.

Background

You may recall that in January 2011, the full CRMC voted unanimously to deny Champlin’s a permit to expand its marina in the Great Salt Pond. Champlin’s appealed to the Superior Court, as it had a legal right to do. In the Superior Court, Champlin’s filed a brief raising a rather curious issue: Champlin’s claimed that it had suffered a violation of its Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights – because CRMC had granted a permit for Payne’s Dock to expand, but had denied Champlin’s application to expand. The Superior Court decided that Champlin’s civil rights claim should be heard first in the CRMC (and then be heard again in the Superior Court). As a result, the Champlin’s case is now simultaneously in two different venues: Superior Court and CRMC!

February 12 Hearing

The most recent hearing before the CRMC was earlier this week , Tuesday, February 12. As usual for these Champlin’s hearings, there were quite a few island residents present to watch the proceedings.

At the start of the meeting, CRMC Chairwoman Anne M. Livingston addressed a motion by Champlin’s that she recuse herself from the case because she had spoken about the case to a former CRMC member last December at a social gathering. Livingston acknowledged that her comments had been “indiscreet” (her word). She said that she was confident that she could act impartially in the matter; but she said she would recuse herself “in an abundance of caution.” Livingston then left the hearing for the rest of the evening.

The main witness on February 12 was Kenneth W. Anderson, chief engineer for the CRMC. Anderson testified that he has worked on every marina application that has come before the CRMC over the last two decades, including both the Champlin’s and Payne’s Dock applications.

Anderson testified that the procedure that CRMC used for handling these two applications were exactly identical. In both cases CRMC analyzed the application in light of the controlling CRMC regulation in order to determine whether the (respective) application comported with the regulation. Anderson testified that there was a very simple reason that the Champlin’s application was rejected while the Payne’s application was approved: Champlin’s application violated the applicable regulation; Payne’s application did not. That is, the reason the two applications had different legal outcomes was because the law required different outcomes – not because of disparate treatment or prejudice.

More specifically, Anderson testified about four major differences between the two different applications:

• CRMC regulations require all marinas in the state to make efficient use of existing facilities. Anderson testified that Payne’s makes efficient use of its existing space, but that Champlin’s is grossly inefficient. Thus, the regulation requires Champlin’s to make more efficient use of its present space before expansion can be allowed.

• Payne’s proposed expansion did not impinge on existing mooring fields, but Champlin’s proposed expansion did impinge on existing mooring fields.

• Payne’s proposed expansion would not have an adverse impact on safety of navigation though the Great Salt Pond, but Champlin’s proposed expansion would have an adverse impact on navigation safety.

• Finally, the size and scope of the proposed expansions were vastly different: Champlin’s proposal was, in fact, ten times the size of the proposed expansion. In a small area like the Great Salt Pond, Anderson testified, this factor is of major importance.

What’s Ahead

The CRMC had hoped to finish the hearing on February 12, but it came nowhere close to that goal. Champlin’s lawyer, Bob Goldberg, did not even finish his cross-examination of Kenneth Anderson; there are also more witnesses on both sides yet to be heard. The next hearing date was scheduled for Tuesday, February 26, at 5:15 PM. (If you plan to attend, check the CRMC website for confirmation of meeting time and for details on meeting location.) After the hearing is over, the parties will be given time (probably six to eight weeks) to brief the equal-protection issue.

I remain very confident that the CRMC will advise the Superior Court that there was no violation of equal protection in the cases of Champlin’s Marina and Payne’s Dock. Simply put, the different CRMC decisions in the two different cases was a result of different facts in the two cases, not a result of prejudice or civil rights violations. That is, the reason that Champlin’s will not be able to prove that the differing CRMC decisions were a result of a civil rights violation is that there are no facts to support that argument.

When the case returns to Superior Court, Judge Kristin Rodgers will also have to rule on Champlin’s equal-protection claim. Based on the facts in the record, I am confident that she too will rule against Champlin’s.

After Superior Court, Champlin’s may attempt to appeal (yet again!) to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Unfortunately, CLF’s longest-running active case shows no signs of ending any time soon.

Expensive Litigation

Champlin’s has shown just how lucrative it expects its proposed marina expansion into the Great Salt Pond to be. Champlin’s has no fewer than three lawyers on its side, and the case has already gone to the Rhode Island Supreme Court more than once. Litigating this case is, of course, expensive for CLF as well. We have been deeply grateful for your past financial support, because that support has enabled us to stay in this long fight. Please continue to support CLF’s Champlin’s litigation. You can do so here, on our website.

Why does CLF heart estuaries? For so many reasons. Estuaries are one of nature’s great ideas. Not just an elegant transition from freshwater to saltwater, estuaries also provide rich feeding grounds for coastal birds and are important places for fish and other marine life to reproduce. Their sheltered waters and unique vegetation provide juvenile animals with places to hide and find food. This is why estuaries are often called the “nurseries of the sea.”

Some of New England’s best known estuaries include Casco Bay, the many small bays and inlets of Massachusetts’ shore, the Great Bay in New Hampshire and, of course, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Estuaries are great places for recreation and tourism. Boating, bird-watching, and fishing are some of our favorite estuary pastimes. Not only are estuaries beneficial to us for relaxing and enjoying nature, they are extremely valuable and provide other services as well. They are natural filters – storing and trapping pollutants and sediments that come off the land, preventing them from reaching the blue water. They also provide protection from coastal flooding. With all these wonderful reasons, what’s not to love about estuaries!

CLF works to protect and restore these amazing and valuable places with a network of like-minded conservation groups across the nation. Restore America’s Estuaries is a national alliance of coastal conservation organizations committed to protecting and restoring the lands and waters essential to the richness and diversity of coastal life. The challenge we all face is to make sure our estuaries and other waterways receive the care and proper management they deserve. Restoring degraded streams and rivers is a great way to provide healthy estuaries and the benefits we love and depend upon. If you love estuaries too (and we know you do), then take a minute to share the love online through the I Heart Estuaries Facebook page. Let the Congress and the Administration know of your heartfelt desire to see New England’s estuaries receive better protection and stewardship.

photo courtesy of someones.life @ flickr.com

I joined with residents of Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom today and fellow environmental colleagues to protect Vermont from the devastation of tar sands oil.

We filed a legal action to ensure Vermonters have a say over any proposal to move tar sands through Vermont. See press release here.

The request asks that the increasingly imminent proposal to move tar sands through an existing Northeast Kingdom pipeline be subject to state land use (Act 250) review. See request here.

Tar sands oil poses unique risks to the many natural treasures of the Northeast Kingdom and also imposes extreme climate change risks.

Tar sands oil is a gritty tar-like substance that produces far more emissions than conventional oil. The vastness of the tar sands reserves in Western Canada means that using tar sands oil delays efforts to move towards cleaner energy supplies, and sends us backwards on climate change.

As James Hansen, a leading climate scientist has said, the exploitation of tar sands on mass will be, “game over” for the climate.

Already there are requests to move tar sands east from Alberta to Montreal. The only realistic way to move it beyond Montreal to the deep ports it needs for transportation is through the Portland Montreal Pipeline which passes through Vermont.

There has already been one spill in this old pipeline in Vermont. A spill of tar sands oil – which is much harder to clean up – would be devastating.

Our filing requests that any plans to use the pipeline for tar sands oil be reviewed though Vermont’s land use development law – Act 250 – to protect our land, water and air resources threatened by this dirty fuel .

CLF is proud to be among a growing coalition of 32 key Vermont businesses, anglers’s associations, and environmental organizations who have signed a resolution “Urging Public Officials And Elected Leaders To Acknowledge The Value Of Clean Water To Vermont’s Public And Economic Health And To Sustainably Invest In The Same.” Though the name of the resolution is long, the idea behind it is quite simple: our health, happiness, economic prosperity, and reputation as a state depend on our ability to keep our waters clean, full of aquatic wildlife, and accessible to all. Doing so will require renewed public sector investment. 

Renewed public investment to Keep our water safe and clean is worth it! Photo Credit: Shutterstock

The resolution, excerpted below, speaks for itself. You can download a copy and find a full list of coalition members by clicking here. With the Vermont Legislature coming back into session today and after another summer with beach closures and fish kills in Lake Champlain, as well as rivers across the state still recovering from the natural and manmade ravages that followed Tropical Storm Irene, our growing coalition felt that today was an important day to ensure that renewed investment in Clean Water is on the mind of lawmakers.

If you find yourself nodding your head in agreement as you read the resolution, be sure to contact your legislator and voice your support for clean water. Or, if you’re not yet signed up for our e-newsletter, do so now – we’ll keep you informed of updates across the region as they happen.

Here is an excerpt from the resolution:

WHEREAS, clean water is essential to Vermonters’ personal health and the health of our economy and Vermont’s environment; and

 WHEREAS, clean water is critical to ensure healthy habitats vital to the protection and restoration of indigenous species and the protection of all flora and fauna throughout the food web; and

WHEREAS, significant progress to restore and protect our water resources has been made since the passage of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act; and

WHEREAS, compromised and impaired waters still exist, and unimpaired waters remain largely unprotected, threatening our quality of life and our economy while public sector investment in protecting water quality continues to shrink, leaving forty years of environmental gains since the passage of the Clean Water Act hanging in the balance; and

WHEREAS, protecting the Vermont brand built on a reputation for protecting its unsurpassed environmental health from degradation is essential for the continued success of all business sectors relying on this crucial market distinction; and

WHEREAS, outdoor recreation, in particular water-based recreation, is a vital aspect of our state identity and a major pursuit among Vermonters and visitors, alike; and

WHEREAS, polluted waters are not accessible waters, do not support aquatic life, and, worse, imperil public health; and

WHEREAS, outdated treatment technologies, aging pipes and pumps, and inadequate capacity undermine our ability to treat sewage, stormwater, and drinking water; and

WHEREAS, in the opinion of leading professionals within numerous disciplines, infrastructure is inadequately funded in Vermont to meet current and future requirements; and

WHEREAS, new and sustained public investment for clean water at the federal, state, and municipal levels is critical to protect this basic element of public health and a vibrant, sustainable economy; and

WHEREAS, it is our legal and moral obligation, as well as an ethical imperative, to ensure that the same quality of life enjoyed by the current generation is possible for the next.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the undersigned concerned citizens and organizations urge that our state and local elected officials and policymakers:

1. Expeditiously adopt new, equitable, targeted fees and dedicated, broad-based revenue mechanisms; and

2. Sustainably invest these revenues statewide into water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, and all other manner of water resources protection and water pollution remediation.

In 2010, CLF and three other Massachusetts conservation groups walked away from water policy discussions, terminally frustrated that the talks would produce any meaningful change that would stem the increasing trend of streams being drawn dry by public and private water suppliers.  To his credit, Governor Patrick encouraged us to come back to the table with a promise that the fundamental protection for fish provided under the water supply law, the so-called “safe yield” limit, would be interpreted by the state to protect fish populations.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has now released the long-awaited fruits of those renewed discussions: the “Sustainable Water Management Initiative” Framework. The Commonwealth promotes this initiative, called SWMI, as a “substantial improvement” on the regulatory framework for providing for essential public water supply services while protecting the Commonwealth’s freshwater fish and other aquatic populations. But is it? What benefits does SWMI produce over current conditions? Does this effort still fall short of the Governor’s promise?

On the positive side, SWMI vaults Massachusetts into the forefront in the country in my opinion with respect to its knowledge base of its rivers and streams. The state’s partnership here with the U.S. Geological Survey has produced a set of stream and stream flow analytical tools and a streams data base that allow the state to understand the ecological impacts of various flow regimes  in a stream, very close to the gold standard.

Similarly, Massachusetts regulators and biologists are now much better informed on the risk to wildlife and river ecosystems associated with water withdrawals for water supplies. It turns out that these aquatic biological communities are much more sensitive to stream flow fluctuations than previously assumed. While this linkage might have been qualitatively suspected before, the last two years of analytical work have now unequivocally quantified that fragile connection.

Massachusetts also has demonstrated through this process that it has some remarkable and dedicated public employees who performed the work with the highest level of professional skill. The Commonwealth is in very good hands at a technical level.

Finally, this initiative will help ensure that some of the highest quality streams in the Commonwealth will be protected to a greater degree than they are today against degradation. While the additional levels of protection will depend on the regulations that are ultimately passed and the implementation of those regulations by the agency, SWMI will provide another level of protection to those near-pristine stream segments.

Where the technical side of SWMI is robust and innovative, however, the policy side of SWMI is compromised and unlikely to produce significant ecological protection in more heavily impacted stream segments or restore stream flows to rivers that are currently being drawn dry by water supply withdrawals.

The “safe yield” tool in SWMI, which the Governor Patrick assured us would include an environmental protection factor, doesn’t really protect the environment. “Safe yield” is a stream flow calculation that is meant to set a maximum amount of water that can be diverted from a water source without adversely affected native biota.

SWMI throws out this tool as a regulatory limit for all practical purposes in many rivers including, for example the Ipswich River, an important water body that water suppliers drain every year in the summer. This results from the fact that SWMI averages the safe yield calculation over the whole watershed and on an annual basis. Because this averaging includes the late winter and spring floods, it shows high levels of safe yield even when a river is going dry in August.  It just isn’t a protective approach in any sense.

SWMI and the Commonwealth rely on other tools and regulatory tactics to avoid this result by requiring water suppliers to minimize their adverse stream impacts “to the maximum extent practicable.” The policy also goes to great length to protect water allocations from the 1980’s when the water supply law was first passed. There is nothing in the law that requires this continued grandfathering of water withdrawals in situations where there is harm to streams and such an outcome is just not good enough.

Massachusetts is fortunate to have abundant natural water supplies, receiving some 44 inches on average a year–Los Angeles gets about 10-11 inches. There is no real conflict between essential water services and healthy stream flows in Massachusetts that cannot be technically solved at reasonable costs. Unfortunately, however, while the framework may drive water use down, SWMI seems to reduce rather than increase the incentives water suppliers and municipalities have to use water smarter. All CLF can do at this point is wait to see whether the Commonwealth demonstrates through its implementation of SWMI that CLF’s concerns are misplaced.

MassDEP and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs worked hard to find a path forward that municipalities and conservationists could both embrace. And the answers, needless to say, are not easy. The politics of water supply in Massachusetts are complex and often confrontational as they are in most states. Nevertheless, we had hoped for more for the Commonwealth’s rivers and streams.

I love rivers.  In fact, I love all things water. And so today I’m celebrating the 40^th birthday of the Clean Water Act, perhaps America’s most effective and far-reaching environmental law.

I grew up on a farm in upstate New York and spent a lot of time stomping around in our ponds, streams, and wetlands catching frogs, listening to spring peepers, watching birds and muskrats and ermine. We fished whenever we could and had a family challenge about who would be the first in the water after ice-out in the spring and last out before (or after) the frost in the fall. We marked the seasons by the coming and going of the ice, by the water temperature in the ponds, and, in some years, watched anxiously as drought lowered water levels and put our water supplies at risk. All of this has led to a connection to waters that has infused my life, including my professional career.

One of my earliest memories from over 40 years ago and leading to my lifetime of advocacy for clean water is of my father taking me to the Cayadutta Creek in Fonda, New York to see the stream running bright red and foul from pollution from the tanneries in Gloversville and Johnstown. I was overwhelmed by the image of the creek flowing by as a river of blood. My dad fumed that creeks and rivers all over were being poisoned by such pollution.

Cuyahoga River Burns in 1969

So it’s not a surprise that my family watched the news with outrage as America was shown the image of the Cayahoga River in Ohio literally burning in 1969. Perhaps we were told at the time that the river had burned on nine occasions in the prior 100 years. But in any case, that fire became the symbol of unacceptable water pollution for us and for millions of Americans who called on Congress for action. It helped spur the first Earth Day in 1970, and thankfully, it contributed to the political urgency for passage of the Clean Water Act on October 18^th 1972, 40 years ago today.

Passage of the Clean Water Act by the United States Congress marked the end of an amazing political process. On this day 40 years ago with strong, bi-partisan votes in the House (247 yes and 23 no (with 160 not voting)) and Senate (52 to 12 (with 36 not voting)), Congress overrode the wrongheaded veto of the law by President Nixon. Many members of Congress from both parties voted yes, but just as significant were those that didn’t vote. By consciously withdrawing from the debate, many Republicans heeded the voices of their constituents, defied a President of their own party, and allowed the override votes to succeed.

What has been the result of this historic event? The Clean Water Act became law and much of the severe industrial and sewage pollution of our precious waters has been brought in check. The Cayadutta Creek no longer runs blood red, and the Cuyahoga has recovered to the point that it won’t catch fire. That is a 40^th birthday present that we all can enjoy.

But, it also raises the question: if the Cuyahoga were burning today, could we pass the Clean Water Act?

I like to think that Americans would pull together again and demand action. However, the reality is that we are now living with “dead zones” that are threatening our communities and industries in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, on Cape Cod, and in Lake Champlain. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ranges from 6-7000 square miles – bigger than the State of Connecticut! This is the result of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that is pouring into our waters from agriculture, lawn fertilizing, excessive development, and sewage discharges.

Blue-Green Algae Fouls Lake Champlain 2011

And, just two years ago, we all watched with horror, as the Gulf burned from the BP oil spill.

So, this 40^th birthday of the Clean Water Act should also serve as a reminder to us all that clean water is as important now as it ever has been and there is still much more to do.

Here at CLF, we have a long legacy of fighting for clean water across New England. CLF filed the Federal Court lawsuit that led to a clean Boston Harbor. We have held numerous polluters accountable for discharges into New England’s waterways. We stopped oil and gas drilling off of New England’s coasts.

Today, we are fighting to protect waters from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from Cape Cod to the Charles River, New Hampshire’s Great Bay to Long Island Sound, and from Narragansett Bay to Lake Champlain.  We are working with cities and towns to create green infrastructure that cleans up stormwater pollution and beautifies our communities.  All of our efforts are possible because of Congress’s action 40 years ago today.

Happy 40^th Birthday Clean Water Act!

Image Copyright USFWS

An engineer, a politician, and a fish walk into a dam. The engineer says, “We could have built it bigger.” The politician says, “We should have built it cheaper.” Fish don’t talk, but if they did, they probably would have asked for a ladder.

Dams were built in the 18^th century to power mills, and in the 1940s to provide cheap electricity and irrigation opportunities – when they were considered great achievements of engineering that would benefit generations to come. Across the nation, dams have been utilized for energy production, flood control, irrigation, and water storage. But, if they are not appropriately planned, sited, and maintained  dams can have devastating impacts on fish populations.

In the early 1900s rainbow smelt supported a robust recreational and commercial fishery in the Northeast, but today NOAA Fisheries Service has listed them as a species of concern in this region. One of the problems in the Northeast has been the loss of suitable spawning habitat due to development like dams, which can prevent fish from moving upstream. But now there may be light at the end of the tunnel for rainbow smelt in southern Maine.

At the end of July, the Great Works Regional Land Trust (GWRLT) announced the removal of Shorey’s Brook dam and the restoration of the Shorey’s Brook on Raymond and Simone Savage Wildlife Preserve in Eliot and South Berwick, Maine.  Fish surveys are already showing rainbow smelt as far upriver as the former location of the dam and further upstream will be suitable for spawning habitat. If other dam restoration projects across the U.S. can be taken as indicators, rainbow smelt may soon be taking advantage of upstream habitats.

Larger scaled restoration efforts are also progressing in Maine. Earlier this summer, Talking Fish reported the demolition of the Great Works Dam on the Penobscot River in Maine – a restoration effort that will open thousands of miles of upstream habitat to Atlantic salmon and other fish for the first time in almost two hundred years. And, here at CLF we have been working to restore native alewives – an important prey species in both marine and fresh waters for many fish, mammals, and birds – to the St. Croix River in Maine. Read more about that work here.

The pressures on our fisheries are enormous, with overfishing, bycatch, pollution, ocean acidification, and habitat destruction all playing a part. We need a better way to plan in the face of all these different stressors. Partnering among local, regional, state, and federal stakeholders in the Northeast alone has culminated in 299 projects to improve and restore fish habitat in rivers, marshes, and estuaries.

New England’s need for habitat conservation and restoration is great, and other regions have similar challenges. Restoring damaged ecosystems to ecological and economic productivity is a fundamental component of the National Ocean Policy, and one more reason why the National Ocean Policy is right for New England.

Wikipedia describes the Standells’ 1965 classic “Dirty Water” as “a mock paean to the city of Boston and its then-famously polluted Boston Harbor and Charles River.” Though fans of local sports teams have embraced the song that plays so often over stadium loud speakers, most people would agree that they’d rather not have their capitol city mockingly identified with “famously-polluted” waters. That’s especially true in these hot summer months when you want to be able to swim at a City beach, fish from an urban jetty, or paddle a local river without fear of contacting raw sewage and toxic algae scums.

Nearly thirty years ago, CLF embarked on a clean water campaign to end Boston’s “Dirty Water” era. CLF lawsuits spurred significant public investments in cleanup of the Boston Harbor and have paid huge dividends as evidenced by all the restaurants and bars that have popped up along the Seaport District waterfront as the Harbor became cleaner. This past weekend, Boston even hosted the Red Bull Cliff Diving championships with divers plunging straight into the Harbor wearing nothing but speedos–something that would have been unthinkable in the years when the Harbor was essentially an open sewer.

CLF works for water that is safe for fishing, even in urban environments. Photo by Chris Devers @ Flickr Creative Commons

We’ve made great progress, but there is still work to be done. The Clean Water Act, which turns 40 this year, promises water that is safe for swimming and fishing regardless of whether local waterways lie in a major tourist district or are situated in a neighborhood where industrial activity and working waterfronts are still part of the urban landscape. Securing Clean Water Act compliance is as much about protecting the health and quality of life of Bostonians in every city neighborhood as it is about making the Hub a desirable place for tourists and the businesses that cater to them. The good news, as reported on the front page of the Boston Globe, is that CLF, EPA, the Boston Water and Sewer Commission, the City of Boston, and numerous other partners are redoubling efforts to deliver on the law’s promise for the benefit of all Bostonians.

As today’s Globe headline proclaims, Boston is embarking on a new “effort to curtail sewage” and deal more effectively with polluted runoff and sewage discharges from storm drainage pipes. The effort comes as a result of another lawsuit filed by CLF against the Boston Water and Sewer Commission for violations of its Clean Water Act permits. EPA joined the suit in 2010. Shortly thereafter the parties turned their attention to negotiating a solution to Boston’s remaining water woes with emphasis on:

•  removing illegal sewage connections that can send household sewage to Constitution Beach, Tenean Beach, and other popular swimming spots
• monitoring to quickly detect and eliminate illegal sewage connections, and
• implementing innovative techniques to filter pollution from urban runoff using more natural elements such as trees and gardens specially designed to absorb stormflows.
• Inspecting active construction and industrial sites to ensure proper pollution controls are in place

The settlement recognizes that, even if we solve all of the sewage problems, the foul brew of metals, bacteria, oils, and other harmful pollutants that can run off the urban landscape after rainstorms and snowmelts must also be addressed before we can put Boston’s “Dirty Water” era into the history books once and for all. To get to a sense of what that cleaner, greener future will look like as City officials begin redesigning pavement-heavy public spaces like City Hall Plaza, visit the Charles River Watershed Association page, which features a report on green infrastructure in and around Boston.

CLF is proud of its role in the cleanup of Boston’s iconic waterways. The investments in clean water spurred by CLF’s advocacy are paying off and will continue to do so if all of those who are responsible for pollution control follow through on Clean Water Act commitments. When that happens, it will be time for a new song about how much Bostonians love their clean water.

Next week, Vermonters will mark an anniversary many of us would rather forget.  It is hard to believe that a year has passed since the deluge of Tropical Storm Irene caused destructive flooding in much of the state.  Federal, state, and charitable organizations are still working to help the storms victims recover (the Vermont Irene Fund is one of the many ways you can help).  Yet as the process of recovery continues, it is important to take stock of the lessons we should learn from this disaster, and our response to it, because the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that climate change may bring more such extreme weather to our state and region.

At CLF, Lake Champlain Lakekeeper Louis Porter, has led the effort to learn the hard lessons taught by Irene’s hard rain.

The gist of his message this week has been that science and experience teaches us that we reduce damage to the built and natural environment when we work with nature rather than against it.

Here are a few of the things he’s had to say this week with links to the major media outlets who have turned to him for analysis on this fateful anniversary:

• From his Vermont Public Radio commentary: “Especially after Irene, we know that the key to flood protection lies in giving rivers room to move, keeping flood plains intact and building roads and bridges that are ready for our new climate.”
• From Paul Heintz’s story “Water Ways” in Seven Days: “We are in for a lot more wet and violent weather,” he says. “We need to realize we’re going to need all of that flood capacity, all of that natural resilience in the years to come.”
• From Suzie Steimel’s report “Did Recovery Efforts Hurt Vt’s Rivers” on WCAX TV: “It was a systemic breakdown from the people doing the work to the folks overseeing it to the state oversight which should have been in place”

As the recovery continues, Louis and others at CLF will work with Vermont officials to ensure that we have the policies and the resources in place to prevent natural disasters from being magnified by man-made disasters caused when recovery work goes wrong.