The Importance of Garden Clubs

Garden Clubs have been a very important aspect of our communities since their emergence in the late 1800’s. Garden clubs provide many positive contributions to their communities in which they reside. They effectively address current environmental issues such as climate change and other environmental concerns. Some of the projects that garden club members take part in include: aiding in the protection and conservation of natural resources, promoting civic beautification and encouraging the improvement of roadsides and parks, encouraging the establishment and maintenance of botanical gardening, advancing the study of gardening and cooperating with other organizations furthering the interest of horticulture, conservation and environmental protection and beautification. Today’s Garden Clubs are globally focused but emphasize the importance of supporting local gardening. Additionally, some of the local projects that Garden club members frequently take on include: park and vacant lot rehabilitations, community gardening, recycling and pollution control efforts as well as local, historic-site preservation.

Garden clubs all over the country join together at both the state and national levels to form strong networks for sharing ideas and advancing common interests in order to achieve mutual goals. Garden club members have a powerful voice that can be heard from coast-to-coast and used to help further each of their community goals. Further, many garden clubs provide educational program for children, teens and young adults in their communities. For example, these clubs often provide youth gardening and school garden projects. These clubs often offer scholarships to the youth in their community for high school students who create outstanding civic projects in such areas as the environment, conservation, landscape, horticulture, recycling or gardening therapy. These Garden Clubs have bestowed many important contributions to their local communities for many years and remain an important aspect in furthering national as well as state and local environmental issues.

-Courtney Staci, Legal Intern

E-Cycling

The growing rate of technology in our society today has produced mass amounts of pollution from the old, discarded products that people no longer want. This kind of waste can cause massive amounts of pollution and can be very unhealthy for the environment as well as a health hazard to all of us. There are millions of electronics that we throw away everyday because a new and better piece of technology comes out - so what are we suppose to do with these old devices? Some of these devices include computers, television sets, printers and mobile phones.  Often times these discarded products are dumped into so-called “third world” societies.  When these products are discarded into developing countries they emit hazardous chemicals such as lead, mercury, heavy metals and other toxic substances. Not only are these chemicals released into the environment but they also harm the workers that have to handle the discarded products.

            Many of us do not realize the harm that this type of waste produces when we’re on our way to get the newest edition of our phone.  Despite our conscious efforts to recycle other household items, most of us don’t know where else to put our old electronic devices - is it in the trash? Recycling? Or selling it to a local electronics store?  If you want to purge your old electronic devices you should engage in the practice of responsible recycling.  This type of recycling is often referred to as “ECycling.”  Ecycling can be done in a variety of ways.  Consumers now have many options to recycle or donate for reuse of their electronic devices.  In fact, many electronic retailers offer some kind of take back program or sponsor recycling events. Further, many states currently have laws on disposal and recycling of electronics and several other states are trying to pass similar laws.  To ensure that electronic recyclers follow environmentally friendly recycling practices there are programs that offer a certification by demonstrating to an accredited, independent third party that they meet available standards on responsible recycling practices.  The EPA encourages this certification and for all customers to choose these certified recyclers.  Next time you’re on your way to go wait in line for the newest, trendiest device, be sure to discard your old one at a certified, environmentally sound recycler!

-Courtney Stasi, Legal Intern

How Do You Go Green?

In our culture today it seems to be the new modern trend and cool lifestyle to “go green,” but how exactly are these self-proclaimed hipsters actually going green? Is this something that an average, everyday person can accomplish or is it something that only new age, environmental hippie can achieve?  As a busy student with limited funds, I often have to be extra creative when it comes to living a green lifestyle.  Lets be honest, as much as we all would love to ride our bikes to and from work everyday many of us live in an area that does not allow us to do this, whether it’s because of the way the city is built or because of the weather conditions.  For example, many cities in Florida are spread out and make it impossible for the average commuter to be able to ride their bike to school, work or any daily activity.   An easy and possibly cheaper way to go green to get to work or school is to carpool with friends or coworkers.  It will not only help reduce your weekly gas bill, and produce less cars on the road, but it may make the morning rush hour traffic a little more bearable with a buddy to jam out with! Another small, easy and practical way to go green is try to forego buying that morning cup of coffee, usually about $4 a cup.  Instead, bring your own coffee in a reusable, travel coffee tumbler.  If making coffee is not your thing and you insist on buying that over priced cup o’ joe, bring your own cup.  Many coffee shops reduce the price if you bring you own cup. This will not only save you money in the long run but it will also reduce an extreme amount of waste. A reusable coffee mug will provide about eight years of use for the average daily coffee drinker.  It’s been documented that 68 million Styrofoam coffee cups are thrown away everyday in this country! Disposing of these coffee cups contribute directly to the creation of major greenhouse gases on top of creating a lot of unnecessary waste. One cup per day results in 23 lbs. of waste by the end of the year, just from these cups that are thrown away! One last, final and practical way to go green is a custom that has become quite popular throughout the country-bring your own reusable bag to the grocery store.  I know this is a very simple concept but it can be very easy not to do.  Sometimes I am in such a rush that I run out the door and completely forget to bring my bags with me.  However, I came up with a plan, that as soon as I’m done unpacking my groceries I put the bags right back in my car and leave them there.  I’m usually on the go anyway and usually make an impromptu trip to the grocery store on my way home from school or work and this way I’ll always have the bags with me.  You can also be creative with these types of bags and no longer have to have the plain, boring, and single color bag with the store logo on it.  You can have your own custom bag that displays your personality.  I have a reusable basket that I bring with me that has a cute design and a monogram of my initials on it. Whether it’s one of the ways listed above or another personalized way that you are “going green”, the important aspect is that you’re trying and doing it for the right reasons.  Don’t just do it because it’s a fad or the “cool-thing” to do, do it with the intention that these are going to be permanent changes that you believe will help preserve and save our planet for future generations to enjoy!

Share YOUR fun, easy, cool, or smart ways of "Going Green" on our Facebook page - search "Public Trust Law" and post!

- Courtney Stasi, Legal Intern

Indian River Lagoon: Environmental Crime Scene

The signs of Florida’s ailing waters continue to mount. You need look no further than Florida’s Indian River Lagoon to see the mounting stress on our lakes and rivers. The lagoon watershed spans 2,200 square miles and seven counties.  The lagoons waters comprise a 156-mile-long estuary where salt water from the Atlantic Ocean mixes with freshwater from the land. As a spawning and nursery ground of many fish, the lagoon acts as a cradle of the ocean. Lagoon fisheries generate some $30 million in revenues each year and provide 50% of the annual fish harvest on the eastern coast of Florida. In total, the annual economic value of the lagoon was estimated at $3.7 billion in 2007, supporting 15,000 full and part-time jobs and affording recreational opportunities to 11 million people per year. Moreover, the lagoon is one of America’s most biologically diverse estuaries, home to 700 fish species and 400 bird species.

Despite Indian River Lagoon’s unique characteristics and economic value, the lagoon has fallen ill. In spring of 2011, an algal “super-bloom” covered 130,000 acres choking off 47,000 acres of sea grasses, a reduction of about 60% of the lagoon’s total grass coverage. Sea grass is critical to the health of the lagoon as it serves as a food source for manatees and a nursery and place of refuge for fish and other marine life. In August of 2012, a brown tide bloom swelled in portions of the lagoon. The loss of sea grass from the 2011 super-bloom alone represents a loss between $235 to 470 million in commercial and recreational fisheries value. Since then, sea grass coverage in the lagoon has slowly regrown, but locals say it could be close to a decade before the lagoon will recover, if it even can.

Now, for unexplained reasons, 46 bottlenose dolphins, 111 manatees, and 300 pelicans have died in the Indian River Lagoon over the last year. Simultaneously, large numbers of fish, crabs, and oysters have also perished. (NOTE: Since January of this year, 10% of Florida’s population of 5,000 manatees have died from red tide, boat accidents, and the mystery illness in the Indian River Lagoon!) This massive loss of marine life has confused scientists. Explanations for the deaths include fertilizer-laden storm water runoff, polluted water dumped from Lake Okeechobee by the Army Corps of Engineers, climate change and effects on acidity, changes in water temperature and salt levels, and overflow from contaminated mosquito-control ditches.

Scientists, citizens, and environmental groups across the state have reason to be alarmed by the tumultuous health of the Indian River Lagoon. As an “indicator species,” the plight of the manatees is a red flag for the health of the region’s broader aquatic ecosystem. The algal super blooms and massive loss of marine life should serve as a powerful impetus for state action in implementing stronger water quality laws and restoration efforts. But the ailing health of our state’s waters continues to take a backseat in Tallahassee. Since Governor Scott entered office in 2009, the state has gutted the budgets of the water management districts by $700 million, axed $150 million from the DEP budget, and terminated a 2001 initiative commenced by former Governor Jeb Bush to protect the state’s springs.

Is there hope for the future of Florida’s waters? This past March, the EPA approved the DEP’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria limiting the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus for the majority of Florida’s waters. Some conservation groups criticize the adopted “speed limit” standards as not stringent enough to protect Florida’s waterways. Florida Agricultural Commissioner Adam Putnam has defended the DEP standards as among the best in the nation but not so stringent as to make every wastewater-treatment utility in the state out of compliance and needing to spend billions of dollars in compliance costs. Only time will tell whether the DEP-proposed water standards will improve the health of our natural resources. But for waterways like the Indian River Lagoon, the need for relief is immediate.

-Stephen Holmgren, Legal Extern

Making our Green Lawns "Greener"

The stereotypical green lawn of the cookie-cutter suburban home has a history that reaches back into the Middle Ages as an early symbol of wealth. By the early 1600’s, the English aristocracy had begun cultivating expansive lawns and gardens. The lawn became a status symbol, a symbol that reminded the penniless masses that the aristocracy had so much wealth that it was unnecessary for all their land be used for food production. The lawn as we know it today attained its popularity in the early 19th century when wealthy American families imported the idea from England and popularized it. By the late 19th century, affluent families left the cities for the suburbs bringing their green lawns with them. The subsequent improvements in the lawn mower and creation of the lawn-sprinkler enabled the rapid spread of lawn culture through American society. With the creation of the 40-hour work week and post-WWII housing boom, lawn culture reached its peak with ubiquitous country clubs and golf courses. Today, one study by the University of Montana estimates there are three times more acres of lawns in the U.S. than acres of irrigated corn. Studies suggest that greater amounts of chemical fertilizer and pesticides are used per acre of lawn than on an equivalent acre of cultivated farmland.

The National Wildlife Federation reports that as much as half of residential water is used for landscaping, chiefly watering lawns. Extensive irrigation practices combined with the use of as much as 70 million pounds of active pesticide ingredients produce a polluted run-off that is one of the largest sources of water pollution nationwide. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the two major fertilizer nutrients used in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings. As these chemicals run off lawns onto hard-surfaced roads and ditches, the polluted run-off flows back into streams and ultimately pollutes groundwater without the benefit of soil acting as a filter. As phosphorus accumulates in rivers and streams, it creates algal blooms, turning the water green and suffocating fish and other species by depleting oxygen. An example of this pollution is the “Green Monster” in North Florida. Every so often, a massive algal bloom chokes the St. Johns River due to the wastewater effluent dumped into the river, failed septic tanks, and excessive fertilizing.

Recognizing the environmental consequences of excessive lawn irrigation, the Florida Legislature enacted the “Florida Friendly Landscaping” law (s. 373.185) in 2009 which allows homeowners to create lawns that conserve water, protect the environment, and are adaptable to local conditions. Under this statute, each water management district is tasked with creating, publicizing, and monitoring incentive programs encouraging local governments to adopt “Florida-friendly” landscape ordinances and practices. The statute even exempts homeowners from deed restrictions or covenants that would prohibit Florida-friendly landscaping on their properties. Many resources exist for homeowners to plan and cultivate “green” lawns. UF’s IFAS office publishes several helpful guides and resources toward this end. You can find them and others linked at the end of this blog post. Using these sources as a guide, you can help reduce the ecological impact of your own lawn thereby reducing the strain on and pollution of our aquifers and creating a more beautiful and natural Florida for all to enjoy.

Resources for cultivating your “Florida-friendly” lawn:
http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/FFL/index.html
http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/homeowner.htm http://www.floridayards.org/ http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/Publications/catalog/greenscaping.pdf

-Stephen Holmgren, Legal Extern

Superfund Site Spotlight: Jacksonville

Congress enacted CERCLA, also known as Superfund, in 1980 to address releases or threatened releases of hazardous chemicals into the environment. The act required those parties responsible for the polluted sites to fund the cleanup efforts. The federal government also manages a trust fund, funded by a tax on chemical and petroleum industries, to finance the cleanup of those hazardous and abandoned sites where the responsible parties cannot be identified. Yet the Superfund trust fund is far too limited to fund the cleanup of no more than a handful of the 1,150 sites. CERCLA thus established a National Priorities List (NPL) that identifies and prioritizes the sites needing long-term remedial action to permanently or significantly reduce the threat of hazardous chemical releases.

Here in Florida, we are home to 55 Superfund sites on the NPL. In this Superfund Spotlight, I will examine three NPL sites in Jacksonville: the Kerr-McGee chemical plant, the Fairfax Street Wood Treatment factory, and Cecil Field. The Kerr-McGee site in Jacksonville was once home to a fertilizer factory. The factory created pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals from the 1890s until 1978. Site tests have indicated the presence of benzene, DDT, toxaphene, arsenic, lead, and other toxins. The estimated cost of the site clean-up hovers around $18.6 million. The site’s last owner, Tronox (a spin-off company from Kerr-McGee), filed for bankruptcy in 2009 but has promised to pay at least $4.2 million of those costs as part of a broader settlement with the EPA involving a number of old, polluted Kerr-McGee sites. Although there are no reported injuries from this site, a 2003 study by the FL Department of Health indicated that just living on the property for a few weeks could result in significant injuries. The planned cleanup efforts are of little reprieve for the former factory workers, though. Although the state has never sanctioned a study into the health of these workers, many of them reported health problems by the time they either quit or retired.

Squished behind two elementary schools, the Fairfax Street Wood Treatment factory was added to the NPL this past year. In 2011, the EPA enacted an emergency clean-up plan to remove the most hazardous chemicals given the site’s proximity to those schools. Moreover, as part of this emergency clean-up, the EPA removed soil and water contamination from one of the neighboring elementary school playgrounds. From 1980 to 2010, the factory pressure-treated utility poles, pilings, and other lumber products, leading to water and sediment contamination of tow known carcinogens: copper and arsenic. But, because the previous site’s owner has also gone bankrupt, the EPA will have to finance the long-term cleanup costs with already strained Superfund trust funding.

Cecil Field once stood tall in western Jacksonville as a navy-designated Master Jet Base from the 1950s until the end of the 20th century. During that period, Cecil Field housed numerous fighter jet and aircraft squadrons that would see involvement in the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War, and Gulf War. Incident to this now mostly defunct military presence, Cecil Field experienced pollution from a multitude of hazardous materials including solvents, corrosives, pesticides, paints, and petroleum products. Clean-up efforts of the fifteen identified contaminated areas at Cecil Field have also uncovered high concentrations of lead and even live, unexploded weapons buried in the earth. Cleanup efforts are still ongoing and have succeeded in removing immediate threats to human exposure. Future cleanup efforts will address the remaining groundwater pollution. Although the naval presence at Cecil Field has diminished significantly from its heyday in the latter half of the 20th century, some residents voice concerns about potential new pollution of the 17,000 acre site with the prospect of additional aircraft and hangars on the horizon.

These site cleanups are critical for improving the quality of life and the environment in northeast Florida. But with many of the original polluting parties now defunct or bankrupt, the burden of restoration efforts must fall on the EPA and its limited funding. And as always, the challenge of balancing environmental protection with industry growth looms large in the future economic development of the city.

-Stephen Holmgren, Legal Extern

The Price of Meat

As a self-proclaimed foodie, I like to envision myself as a gastropub gladiator, cautiously navigating my way through the Jacksonville jungle, fork and knife in hand, looking for the next great bite suggested by any magazine, newspaper, TV show, scroll, parchment, telegram or church bulletin I can get my hands on. I eat out as often as a law school pittance will allow and love to try new recipes. I’ve attempted everything from exotic North African lentil stew to ultra-southern hamburger steak in gravy. But ever since I was about seven years old and caught a graphic PBS special on cattle farming and the beef industry, I have faced an existential crisis wrapped in a moral dilemma. To eat or not to eat meat? For the most part, I limit my animal product intake as often as I can, substituting black beans for taco meat or coconut milk for cow’s milk. But every once in a while, a girl has got to have a steak. And this brings me to the environmental portion of the blog. I have always been vaguely aware that meat came from a place the details of which were better left unsaid, but after a semester in Animals and the Law and a forced screening of Joaquin Phoenix narrating animal torture in the movie “Earthling”, I decided while I probably couldn’t change the world, I could change how I was doing things. Most Americans consume meat that comes from Concentrated Feeding Operations (otherwise known as CAFOs). To put it mildly, CAFOS deposit too many animals together in one space and force them to live out their short lives in horrific and unsanitary conditions. Not only is this bad news for the animals, it is bad news for public health, safety, and the environment. One of the biggest environmental spills in our nation’s history, almost double the size of the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, occurred when a hog farm manure lagoon in North Carolina leaked into the New River, killing millions of fish. In recent years, there have been outbreaks of salmonella and e-coli poisoning, which some attribute to the CAFO conditions. Instead of a natural diet, CAFOs feed their animals predominantly corn. In cows, a corn diet allows e.coli to flourish in the animal’s digestive tract and causes the meat to be fattier and nutritionally inferior to the meat from a grass fed cow. The animals are often traumatized in transport and before slaughter and have adrenaline coursing through their bodies and this also creates a poorer taste and shelf-life for the meat. With all these health, safety and environmental concerns, what meat should you eat? Admittedly, it is very difficult on a student budget to shop exclusively at natural markets for beef, poultry and fish. This past weekend, in the interest of expediency and finances, I resolved myself to the standard butcher counter at my local supermarket. Much to my surprise and delight, in a tiny niche labeled “organic” there were two grass fed beef options, one of which was humane certified. So what did I do? After an aisle victory dance, a renewed sense of faith in humanity, and an inner monologue about a sign of things to come for consumer demand and concern; I made lasagna with grass fed, humane certified meat sauce. -Rachel Goldstein, Legal Intern