Clean Production and Toxics

Waterkeeper takes lead role in implementing Buffalo’s clean up plan

Like so many old industrial cities in the Great Lakes, the lower Buffalo River is lined with active and abandoned industrial sites, many of which have left a toxic burden, while combined sewers are widespread across the city. These pollution issues led to the district being designated an Area of Concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In 1989, governments developed a Remedial Action Plan for the area. Progress, however, was slow. Efforts to obtain the money needed to carry out expensive cleanup tasks regularly fell apart. During the 1990s, considerable frustration arose among those pushing for the cleanup as well as among those responsible for implementing the cleanup.

By 2000, efforts by the government agencies to pull together the RAP were failing and those responsible for the RAP had begun to step back. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided that the only way to get the stalling Buffalo River cleanup moving was to hire a coordinator to focus on implementing the RAP. After putting out a request for bids, the EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office chose the citizens’ group Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers to play this role. In July 2005, the Friends became the Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, and they continued to be the RAP coordinator.

The first task of the new RAP coordinator was to deepen community engagement in the RAP and revitalize the Remedial Advisory Committee. With the assistance of the Remedial Advisory Committee, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and over 30 other governmental and non-governmental agencies and organizations, Riverkeeper re-assessed all beneficial use impairments, revised the delisting criteria, identified data gaps and reviewed needed projects. They then spent considerable time working with stakeholders in the community encouraging them to carry out activities that will help achieve the RAP goals.

Waterkeeper, has successfully spent considerable time pulling together partners to obtain the funding from government and private sources to carry out the assessments needed to address the problems in the area. They are now developing the funding matches to obtain Great Lakes Legacy Act grants for the estimated $60 to $100 million needed to clean up contaminated sediments in the Buffalo River.

Waterkeepers usually work outside of the normal government structures, using testing and technical studies, public exposure of their findings, and legal action, if necessary, to push others to do the cleanup. In this case, however, Waterkeeper has become the one hired by government to coordinate action. Interestingly, the same scientific, outreach and legal skills needed to advocate for action are the same that are most effective in coordinating the cleanup. By leveraging this with their credibility in the community they have been able to pull together a wide range of partners to do the task.

One concern around the Waterkeeper playing this role was whether industry and governments would fully cooperate with them. The fact that the RAP was stagnating and that no on else interested in doing the job meant that the field was open. In addition, the open bidding process lent credibility to the winning organization, who would have rose to the top as the best fit as determined by a fair and competitive process. This meant that those who would not normally be easy partners of a Waterkeeper were willing to give it a try.

The other concern is whether having the Riverkeeper become the official coordinator would interfere with the Riverkeeper’s essential role as advocate for issues throughout the Niagara and Buffalo Rivers. Would the group need to restrain itself on some advocacy in order to maintain the partnerships needed for the AOC cleanup? This has not proven to be the case. They continue their monitoring of the rivers and exposing of problems and continue to be engaged in controversial issues such as proposals for power turbines below the waters of the river, and expanded highways.

Barry Boyer, a law professor and emeritus board member of the Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, says that “no situation has come up at which the Riverkeeper has been tempted to step back to protect their RAP coordinator role.” He says that they are able to combine the two roles because they always ensure that their advocacy positions are on “sound ground” and because they frequently touch base with others who may oppose their positions.

Taking Action

Jill Spisiak Jedlicka is the Buffalo River Remedial Action Coordinator and Director of Ecological Programs for Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper. The lessons she has learned from this community-driven RAP implementation process have been the importance of:

• Identifying a local group, individual, or agency that is unequivocally dedicated to the restoration of your AOC to coordinate the implementation;
• Having the courage to lead and take risks. Others will follow, but not down the path of destruction – small decisions and smart decisions build credibility;
• Being creative with in-kind resources. Leverage the hidden existing local investments (sweat equity can build you a lot of in-kind);
• Using the “team of rivals” model: leverage individual passion and commitment to challenge, inspire, mobilize, and collaborate with others who can support or derail your efforts; and
  Reaching out to and educating your local elected officials and agency representatives. Get them out of their offices and onto the water.

© 2010 Great Lakes News.