WaterWired

Radioactive Racism? Nuclear Waste as an Agent of Oppression

I'm a big fan of serendipity. These days I'm inclined to find it more often on the Internet than other places. Today's post is an example.

A Tweet from Audrey Sawyer of Ohio State University started it off: 

Teaching a new module on environmental justice in a grad-level seminar this semester. Have lecture content you're proud of or an EJ topic/pub you'd like me to bring up in my class? Please let me know! I'm especially interested in EJ topics beyond water.

Audrey's post was followed by a response from Lara Fowler of Penn State, which identified a "radioactive racism" NPR article about (from 2005) a Utah tribe, the Skull Valley Goshutes, whose reservation has been divided over the possibility of the storage of around 4,000 nuclear waste canisters. As someone who used to dabble (one really doesn't 'dabble' here) in the nuclear industry when I worked in Nevada I was curious if this storage was realized.    

That led me to a Google search, which turned up the paper, Environmental Racism: Nuclear Waste as an Agent of Oppression? by Andrea Boeckers of Merrimack College.  

Download Environmental Racism

Abstract
This research seeks to analyze the decision-making processes of managing nuclear waste for countries dealing with this problem, as well as the interplay between national and local governments, private companies, the populace, and native nations. The long-term storage of nuclear waste is a serious global problem, and despite the millions of people enjoying the benefits of nuclear power, most refuse to accept the burdens associated with its waste. The driving question for this research largely ties to how governments attempt to designate who will bear the burden of these wastes. When a problem needs to be solved, yet there are no clear, easy solutions, the weight is often placed on those who are either politically, economically, socially, or geographically disadvantaged. Through a deeper investigation into the global community, Australia, the United States, and the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe, we can see how these issues unfold and how affected communities attempt to fight back.

This is a useful paper. It covers not just the Skull Valley Goshutes but an Australian site as well.

And here is a 2012 article from the Salt Lake Tribune stating that the Skull Valley site plan will not be implemented. 

I'm unsure the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe really had sovereignty over its land. I doubt such a facility would have been allowed so close to Salt Lake City.

Enjoy!

"Certain privileges make liars of all men." - Unknown

CRS InFocus Report: 'Overview of the Global Humanitarian and Displacement Crisis'

Talk about displacement behavior! I was grading an exam question on hydrophilanthropy when the need for some (benign) displacement behavior hit me like a ton of frozen popsicles! So I decided to post this CRS 2-pager (11 December 2020) by Rhoda Margesson: 'Overview of the Global Humanitarian and Displacement Crisis'.

Seriously - this is important stuff!

Click on the graphics if you wish to display or enlarge them. 

Download CRS_InFocus_Global_Humanitarian_Displace_Crisis_11Dec2020

Introduction
Even before the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the global humanitarian and displacement crisis was unprecedented. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) anticipated that in 2020 more than 168 million people worldwide would require humanitarian assistance and protection due to conflict and disaster. For 2021, UNOCHA’s estimate has reached 235 million people. The United States is the single largest donor, consistently providing nearly one-third (more than $9.5 billion in FY2020) of total humanitarian and emergency food assistance through global accounts.

Types of Crises and Affected Populations
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that at the end of 2019 (latest global data available, before the pandemic), more than 79.5 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide due to armed conflict, widespread or indiscriminate violence, or human rights violations. Those displaced included 26 million refugees, 4.2 million asylum seekers, 45.7 million Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), and 3.6 million Venezuelans displaced abroad. UNHCR estimated that a further 10 million people remained stateless. Natural and weather- related disasters affect millions of people a year who often require urgent and prolonged assistance due to sudden events (such as earthquakes or storms) or protracted ones (like drought conditions). On average, disasters displace 26 million people annually. In 2019, more than two-thirds (68%) of all refugees and Venezuelans displaced abroad came from five countries: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Burma.

Some populations moved voluntarily, while others had to flee. Economic migrants, who often leave poverty and unemployment to seek better livelihood opportunities or family reunification numbered approximately 272 million in 2019 (roughly 3.5% of the world’s population). Refugees and others forcibly displaced, including vulnerable migrants, often faced a different set of circumstances. Instead of choosing to leave their place of origin, they were forced to do so for reasons such as ethnic strife, violence, human rights violations, or natural disasters.

U.S. Policy
The United States is a major contributor to international humanitarian relief efforts. In the past five fiscal years (FY2015–FY2019), the United States provided $44.0 billion in global humanitarian assistance with funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture. Congress has given the President broad authority on humanitarian issues and flexibility to respond to disasters with a wide range of assistance. On a bipartisan basis, it has consistently supported humanitarian efforts as a means of responding to natural disasters and conflict-induced crises in the short term, mitigating humanitarian impacts, and promoting a U.S. presence.

In practice, the provision of U.S. humanitarian assistance is typically case- and time-specific and may include assistance through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms and humanitarian partners; protection activities for vulnerable populations; support for countries and communities hosting the displaced; encouraging donor contributions; and building response capacity. The plethora of humanitarian emergencies, including food security challenges, and human displacement worldwide will likely continue to receive the attention of the Administration and Congress. The Administration’s FY2021 budget request for global humanitarian assistance was nearly $6.27 billion, a decrease of 35% from the FY2020 appropriated amount of $9.5 billion. Congress has continued to support humanitarian assistance through appropriations legislation. FY2021 appropriations bills, as passed in the House (H.R. 7608), total $9.6 billion for global humanitarian accounts and specify additional funding for the COVID-19 humanitarian- related response.

Read on...more to absorb.

“The next time you see an ad for a water charity featuring a cute, dark-skinned child and a deep-voiced announcer who says, ‘Last year, we drilled 50 wells in Terra Buena and one was in Rosa’s village,’ you need to ask, ‘How many of those wells are still working?’” - @WaterWired

CRS Report: 'Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer'

Marcy E. Gallo is the author of this CRS report (20 November 2020): 'Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer'.

Download CRS_Report_Fed_Sci_Integrity-Policies_20Nov2020

Click on th graphic to enlarge it.

Summary
The results of research and development (R&D) help inform the decisions that policymakers and the public reach on a wide range of issues, including human health and safety, the environment, agriculture, energy, and transportation. For example, scientific information is essential to the review and approval of drugs and medical devices and the setting of air quality standards. There is broad agreement among policymakers and the scientific and engineering community about ensuring the integrity of the conduct, communication, and management of R&D, and its use in policy development and decisionmaking. However, recently, some policymakers and others have alleged that presidential administrations of both parties have violated the principles of scientific integrity. Assertions of such violations include weighting the membership of federal advisory committees toward a particular viewpoint or constituency, targeting individual scientists for harassment or adverse actions, appointing agency officials with significant conflicts of interest or antagonistic views toward an agency’s mission or neutrality to science, improperly editing scientific documents, and using the budget process to impede the implementation or formulation of science-based policies.

Following the guidance of a 2010 memorandum issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, more than 20 federal departments and agencies have developed and implemented scientific integrity policies. The memorandum detailed principles in four broad areas: foundations of scientific integrity, public communications, use of federal advisory committees, and professional development of government scientists and engineers. The memorandum provided federal agencies with flexibility developing their scientific integrity policies stating, “the scope of an agency’s scientific work and its relationship to the mission of each department or agency may necessitate distinct mechanisms be used by each to implement thisguidance.”

There is, however, no uniform definition of scientific integrity across the federal government. Some experts have expressed concern over the variation in scope and specificity of federal agency scientific integrity policies and recommended that Congress enact scientific integrity legislation that would create a clear set of standards and mechanisms for enforcement. Some have alleged violations of scientific integrity against the current and previous administrations. For example, several media articles reported that Trump Administration officials delayed timely information to the public from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to the COVID-19 pandemic that was inconsistent with political objectives, or altered scientific findings or recommendations in ways that were misleading or incomplete.

Congress may remain interested in the objectivity, timeliness, and availability of scientific information to the public and policymakers in the 116th Congress and beyond. This report provides an overview of scientific integrity and selected issues for congressional consideration. For example, the Government Accountability Office found that the majority of agencies reviewed had not taken steps to evaluate and monitor implementation of their scientific integrity policies. Additionally, Congress may consider how agencies report and address alleged violations, interagency coordination of scientific integrity policies, and the designation of scientific integrity officers. The report also summarizes scientific integrity-related legislation introduced in the 116th Congress.

Interesting! 

Enjoy!

"It's always a buyer's market when it comes to souls." - Jo Nesbo

CRS Report: 'U.S. Support for International Conservation'

Pervaze A. Sheikh, Nick M. Brown, Emily M. Morgenstern, Katarina C. O'Regan and , Richard K. Lattanzio produced this excellent CRS report (26 August 2020): 'U.S. Support for International Conservation'.

Great report - listing of the U.S. agencies and departments that support foreign conservation efforts. Very informative.

Download CRS_Report_US_Intl_Conservation_26Aug2020

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Summary
The United States supports international conservation efforts through foreign assistance programs, diplomatic engagement, and other tools. Members of Congress have supported such efforts on a bipartisan basis and have debated the level, scope, prioritization, and potential unintended consequences of U.S. international conservation activities. International conservation efforts focus on protecting species, restoring habitats, and recovering forests, among other things. Multiple federal departments and agencies administer and implement these initiatives, and Congress appropriates funding for them via several annual appropriations laws. Congress has shaped U.S. policy on international conservation through its authorization and appropriation of foreign assistance in part, as well as through its oversight activities.

Congressional interest in international conservation issues stems from a range of factors, including concerns about human-caused threats to global biodiversity; constituent engagement; interest in global biodiversity and protected areas; potential connections between conservation and U.S. national security; and concerns about conservationists’ respect for human rights. Reports of global biodiversity loss due to human interactions and recent focus on zoonotic diseases in the context of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have amplified these concerns for some Members.

Congress might consider several issues as it authorizes, appropriates funding for, and continues oversight of U.S. international conservation activities. Members may debate how much foreign assistance, if any, to provide for international conservation programs; the goals and objectives of international conservation programs; interagency coordination of international conservation programs; whether assistance is aligned with host countries’ priorities; and the implications of international conservation spending for human rights and indigenous peoples.

Enjoy!

"If you wish to be understood, seek first to understand." - Stephen Covey

CRS InFocus Report: 'Proposed Extension of the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund'

Charles V. Stern authored this CRS 2-page InFocus report (9 July 2020): Proposed Extension of the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund.

Download CRS_InFocus_Proposed_Extension_RWSF_9July2020

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Summary
Since 1978, the federal government has entered into 36 water rights
settlements with individual Indian tribes. These Indian water rights settlements are a means of resolving ongoing disputes related to Indian water rights among tribes, federal and state governments,and other parties (e.g., water rights holders). Some settlements have been approved by Congress in authorizing legislation that also provides funding for projects that allow tribes to access and develop their water resources. (For more information on these settlements in general, see CRS Report R44148, Indian Water Rights Settlements.)

Historically, federal funding for Indian water rights settlements has been provided through discretionary appropriations. In recent years, however, Congress also has approved mandatory funding for some settlements. Congress created the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund (RWSF) in 2009 as a dedicated source of additional funding for existing and future Indian water rights settlements. The fund is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, a water resources management agency within the Department of the Interior) and is authorized to receive $120 million per year in mandatory funding from FY2020 through FY2029.

Some Members of Congress have been interested both in the annual allocation and prioritization of projects within the RWSF and in proposals for its extension. However, none of the extensions proposed in the 115th and 116th Congresses have been enacted.

Enjoy!

“When the fox preaches, turn to the geese.”- German proverb