'Sustainability' wasn't mentioned because the court addressed the law (CWA) and not the higher goals you describe. The whole point of this decision was to realign the interpretation of the law with the Constitution of the United States and the CWA law, as written. If you have higher goals for sustainability, petition Congress and get the change made. If you petition regulatory agencies, you are following the exact path the court just struck down. I think your higher goals of sustainability are better achieved without the heavy hand of regulation, but I respect your right to promote it nonetheless. Just do it consistent with the law. The Constitution is the law of the land and it protects everything else including our ability as engineers to protect the environment legally. In the pursuit of a vague higher goal like 'sustainability', we cannot forget our obligation for adherence to our most basic legal document.
Original Message:
Sent: 09-20-2023 11:40 AM
From: Dilip Barua
Subject: Wetlands and Ethics
Yes. Interesting indeed, Bill.
It's interesting that 'sustainability' was never mentioned in the reported court verdict – at least I didn't see it in my read of the report. The reason for this – is perhaps that sustainability or sustainable development (primarily understood in contexts of future development. Although, I like to think it in broad terms – as a sustainable way of life in harmony with Nature) refers to industrialization drive. This Wetlands dispute has nothing to do with such drive, but between the livelihood of a family and the gov regulation.
Because of the immense popularity of the Sustainability term, it's the job of ISO and other such orgs to come up with 'model standards' to sell them to regulatory agencies to turn 'model standards' into standards and codes (more in The Grammar of Industrialization – Standards, Codes and Manuals).
I came across a paper 'The Sustainability Debate' by A Wilkinson, M Hill and P Gollan, London School of Economics – that focused on success of sustainability goals. Saying that any such success depends on the corporate capabilities – on how they handle the operational and human resources managements within their organization.
On redressing the past lapses (in negligence of the health and importance of the interdependent Fluid, Solid and Life Systems) in industrialization – there are many restoration projects around the world. They range from stream restoration (in terms of floodplain management, dike relocation, etc) to coastal restoration, etc. Concerned citizens from all walks of life – from all over the world – and their voices deserve credit for such initiatives (do engineers deserve credit for such efforts? Well, at least they get credit for doing and implementing things right).
Dilip
-------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D
Website Links and Profile
Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2023 06:12 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Wetlands and Ethics
Interestiing.
What if just for awhile, we set aside the questions related to "Do we have to do it?"
Then, consider the following:
· ISO standards to promote sustainable growth
With so many people talking about sustainability, ISO standards bring much-needed clarity to the conversation.
More than ever, both consumers and manufacturers recognize the impacts of their choices and actions.
In the past, many of the costs of doing business were hidden, but now ISO standards allow them to be quantified and factored in to decision-making processes. This means more responsive and responsible businesses.
ISO standards enable businesses to plan their future growth around meeting consumer expectations. They enable transparency about products and best practices for limiting their impacts.
Below you can find out more about the most commonly used sustainability and social responsibility standards, who develops them, and new projects in the pipeline.
Cheers,
------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.
"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2023 04:32 PM
From: Dilip Barua
Subject: Wetlands and Ethics
Bill, this is an interesting post. As also happens elsewhere – the reported court verdict shows the gap between the enacted laws that are often laden with ambiguities – and the actual implementation of such laws. Such gaps lead to virtually limitless wastage of time, energy and effort of both parties – giving birth to myriad legal proceedings – sometime from one form to another, from one jurisdiction to another.
My read of the report caught attention of these: definition of 'waters of the United States' . . . protected wetlands must be directly adjacent to a 'relatively permanent' waterway 'connected to traditional interstate navigable waters' such as a river or ocean . . . continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the 'water' ends and the 'wetland' begins . . .
In fact, the confusion of about where water ends and wetland begins – is the crux of the problem. Because, it is not difficult to write sloppy laws and regulations – but making it heedful to consequences of implementation, needs careful research and effort. On top of that interpretation and understanding of them by the implementing agencies play a crucial role.
Delineation of the boundary in details by connecting series of polylines – caring for each stake holder's interest – is something very important, requiring careful attention. I wonder why, in this age of technological advance (GIS and all that) – such cares might have escaped meticulous attention.
I am always in favor of the 3Rs – Rewind, Reflect and Restore (more in The Sanctity of Nature's Wonders) – of everything one calls Nature – including the human habitat that cares for harmony with Nature. Yet, I share and see rationality in the court verdict – and empathize with the plaintiff family – assuming that they are in compliance with the point-source pollution regulations (like getting connected to municipal network, or septic tank requirements).
One can always refer back to some background materials such as: NAP 4766; NAP 10134; US Clean Water Act; US EPA and National Geographic – for clarity of some of the questions and queries about Wetlands definitions and issues.
Dilip
-------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D
Website Links and Profile
Original Message:
Sent: 09-07-2023 05:12 PM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Wetlands and Ethics
What do ethics require of us with respect to wetlands? The US Supreme Court recently changed the scope of wetlands protection under the Clean Water Act. (See https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-wetlands-development-biden-fe976e69bb24c937aabdf0e2868cb5f3 for an explanation plus pro-and-con statements.)
The 2020 ASCE Code of Ethics requires engineers to:
"a. adhere to the principles of sustainable development;
b. consider and balance societal, environmental, and economic impacts, along with opportunities for improvement, in their work;
c. mitigate adverse societal, environmental, and economic effects;"
Do back-and-forth Supreme Court and Presidential Executive Orders change our ethical responsibilities for development questions regarding wetlands?
------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
------------------------------