Green engineering is still in its infancy – but it’s not the only example of success in environmental policy. The progression of the debate between the environment and economy, from end of pipe treatment up to sustainable development, has other endpoints. One of these is the solution New York City enacted to provide clean drinking water without building enormous water treatment facilities – protect the water supply at its source.
This solution, where the city government bought up land in the watershed that supplies its municipal water system, represents a union between efficient market decisions and sound governmental policy. In buying up the land (presumably for a fair price), the land’s owners received a fair compensation for their land, and the government gained control of the land and the ability to ensure the water supply remained pure.
This gives the government monopoly power in the area. No industry or business can move in to the area while the government owns the land, and so the towns that surround the lakes and waterways will remain small and economically underdeveloped. Is this inequitable? Some would say each community has the right to determine its own course of development, and should not be lorded over by some far away and self-interested power. But the owners of the land chose to give up their autonomy (though who will say no when a buyer comes in loaded with cash?) The debate reminds me of issues like colonialism, or indentured servitude. Is it a good idea to sell away your future rights for immediate profit, if immediate profit is what you need right now? Or is it ethically untenable, something we should prevent by law?
I don’t have the answers to those questions, not yet. Regardless, the issue is similar to that of the bridge in New Bedford. Whether ethical or not, the decision to build that bridge forever altered the land- and seascape of the basin, and redirected all future patterns of development. Maybe the problem is simply one of mobility. If people were more free to move about the country, issues of opportunity and development would be less important. How about that as a solution? The city government can subsidize members of communities whose economic development has been hindered to relocate.
In the next session we moved on to the similar, but related topic of hydraulic fracturing. The issue here is closely related to that of community decision-making. If the negative effects of fracking, such as the science shows them to be, are localized, is it the right of the community to accept them? How much of the community must get on board – a simple majority or a super-majority, or must the decision be unanimous? These are all simply questions for how government should be run, but the stakes are much higher when they are intertwined with personal health. Once again, if a community decides to allow fracking, I think the presentation of a subsidy for relocation is a good choice for those who wish to leave.
Policies for a sustainable New York City must these issues into account, but they must also focus heavily on the infrastructure. A city such as this one relies on extraordinarily expansive and concentrated sets of infrastructure to survive and thrive, and responsible, environmentally-sound infrastructure goes a long way towards achieving the goals of health and prosperity. It is a wonderful thing that programs like LEED be put into place to ensure that the next generation of buildings in New York are of the highest caliber.
