 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
Mussels can't be sacrificed for poor water planning By C. RONALD CARROLL The slogans of the short-sighted are numbing our sense of complex realities: "We cannot give away our precious water to protect a few fish and mussels in the Apalachicola!" And in California, "We can't deny Los Angeles its precious water just to protect the tiny smelt fish in the Sacramento Delta!" I am reminded of similar mantras a decade ago. Then, the cry was, "We can't take jobs away from loggers just to protect the spotted owl!" Bumper stickers in the rural Pacific Northwest read, "Protect a logger. Shoot an owl," a pithy slogan, but dead wrong. The owl wasn't the problem but it was an easy target, much easier than wrestling with the much more complex realities of the changing timber and labor markets. We have endangered species because we have a legacy of being poor stewards of the environment. We have allowed ourselves to be dominated by a "tyranny of small decisions" that, when added up, create crises and panic responses. Year by year, metro Atlanta added more development and demanded more water, individually small decisions, but they have created a kind of tyranny that damages rational thought. Imagine your reaction if someone proposed locating a major metropolitan center in an area with little groundwater and rivers fed only by a relatively tiny watershed. Crazy, right? So why did we let it happen? We all know the answer. We were not willing to think about long-term consequences of our short-term decisions. It is not just Atlanta. We have allowed the once vast longleaf pine savannas of our coastal plain to become more endangered than tropical rainforests. In some coastal communities we are sucking so much aquifer water that it is being replaced by salt water. The majority of our rivers and streams are damaged by silt eroding from poorly controlled development. We are better stewards now than in past decades but rapid development, population growth, and short-term delusional decisions are serious threats that must be confronted. Ask yourself these questions: What rational business would undercut its essential resources as we are doing with the environment? How could a religious person justify being a poor steward of God's creation? Why should politicians be allowed to shirk their responsibilities for protecting natural resources and, why don't they listen to their own agency scientists? Why should the rest of us remain apathetic when we know what must be done? We know what we should do. Fundamentally, we need to accept an ethic of conservation, not develop beyond what our natural resources can support, and respect the rights of the "downstream" communities. Our policies, law and our elected officials need to reflect these realities. My grandfather used to tell me stories about his father who was a mine inspector in Leadville, Colo. They really did use caged canaries to warn of impending danger. When the canaries sickened and stopped singing, the miners knew that toxic gases were accumulating. The mine was shut down, but not to protect the canary. Our endangered species are sentinels, like the mine canaries, warning us of growing environmental degradation. Blaming the endangered fish and mussels for our water woes is as silly and misdirected as blaming the sick canary for shutting down the mine. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution October 18, 2007 |
||||||||
|
Visit Our Partners:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
