InvestigateWest adds Seattle entrepreneurs to its board

Big news. Mark Briggs and Jill Avey are joining InvestigateWest's board of directors.

Mark and Jill bring diverse business experience and an entrepreneurial mindset to InvestigateWest, qualities essential to the future of free and independent media.

We're thrilled to have them. Click through to see the full announcement.


Clean Water Act’s Anti-Pollution Goals Prove Elusive

Beside Seattle’s notoriously polluted Duwamish River, an excavator scoops up small pieces of waste metal and slings them onto a rusty mountain at Seattle Iron & Metals Corp. A pile of flattened cars and trucks squats nearby amid vast sheets of scrap metal.

For at least the last four years, this auto-shredder and metal recycler has dumped more pollutants into the river than allowed under the federal Clean Water Act, government records show. The levels have ranged higher than 250 times above what’s known to harm salmon that migrate through the river.

The company, which declined to comment for this story, has reported its violations to the government, as required by law. But instead of punishing the metal recycler, the Washington Department of Ecology encouraged the company to reduce its pollution levels. The agency also searched for a legal way to make Seattle Iron & Metals’ pollution limits more lenient, and says it plans to relax them soon.

The Seattle Iron & Metals story is emblematic of widespread failures in the nation’s efforts to end the toxic pollution that modern life has unleashed on America’s rivers, lakes and bays. The Clean Water Act, passed by a large bipartisan majority of Congress 40 years ago, was intended to eliminate water pollution by 1985. Congress declared: “It is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited.”

Yet in the Pacific Northwest, as across the nation, the Clean Water Act has fallen far short of its goals. A majority of Northwest waterways fail to meet federally approved water-quality standards. An investigation by EarthFix and InvestigateWest reveals:

  • Whole categories of polluters are effectively exempt from penalties when they dump pollutants illegally. This affects thousands of facilities.
  • Violations of the Clean Water Act in the Northwest occur routinely, yet citations and financial penalties are relatively rare.
  • Government bodies are among the most prolific violators, especially those that manage aging sewage-treatment plants and stormwater pipes that dump polluted rainwater runoff directly into waterways.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is ultimately responsible for enforcing the Clean Water Act, has handed over that responsibility to 46 of the 50 states, including Washington and Oregon. In Idaho, the EPA handles that job.

Clean Water Act Penalties in Washington, Idaho and Oregon

Financial penalties for exceeding pollution limits under the Clean Water Act are relatively rare, we found in our investigation of enforcement in the Northwest.

Nevertheless, some polluters do get fined. The interactive map above, based on records provided to InvestigateWest and EarthFix by Oregon and Washington's environmental agencies and the EPA, which oversees enforcement in Idaho, shows the facilities fined since 2009.

The color of each placemarker indicates the total amount of the penalty or penalties, with blue the lowest and yellow the highest. Click on a placemarker to see actual dollar amounts.


Reforming the Clean Water Act – without Congress

If you cruise around the internet doing research on the Clean Water Act – something I’ve been doing as part of the InvestigateWest-EarthFix-EcoTrope collaboration on the 40th anniversary of that landmark environmental legislation – it would be easy to think President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Water Act into law. References to this are all over the place. Just one problem: It ain’t so. (And this bears on our current situation, too. More on that in a minute.)

No, in fact, Nixon vetoed the legislation, saying that while he approved of its goal of cleaning up the nation’s badly polluted rivers, lakes and bays, the $24 billion pricetag was “staggering, budget-wrecking.” He continued:

“I have nailed my colors to the mast on this issue. The political winds can blow where they may. I am prepared for the possibility that my action on this bill may be overridden.”


Pledges forgotten, local governments repurpose federally funded parks

An aging sign points the way to Lake Texoma State Park. Developers bought
the land for a luxury development with a marina and golf courses.
Paul Joseph Brown/InvestigateWest

The government promised that the public would get parks where citizens could exercise and stay strong – shared open spaces that would be theirs forever, places that would inspire and invigorate.

But one park became a Las Vegas hotel. Another was almost turned into a beachfront McDonalds. Another is being converted into an upscale private resort in Oklahoma.  And in New York City, the National Park Service allowed the New York Yankees, the nation’s richest baseball franchise, to build a parking garage atop public ball fields that needy kids at the local schools didn’t see replaced for six years.

Forty-eight years after Congress and President John F. Kennedy promised parks to the public, the budget-battered National Park Service program that awarded $3.9 billion-plus to state and local governments to buy or improve those parks has routinely allowed the land to be converted to other uses, records and interviews by InvestigateWest show. Frequently, critics contend, these transactions violate federal law and regulations requiring that federally funded recreational acreage be replaced by lands of “reasonably equivalent” financial and recreational value.

Now, with tough times crimping cities’ budgets, parks advocates say they are seeing increasing efforts to privatize parks funded under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

“Cities are just desperate for funding to keep schools open and what-have-you, and that becomes a big threat,” said Huey Johnson, the former California natural resources secretary who founded the parks-advocacy group Defense of Place. “The place the cities turn is, ‘Well let’s sell the parks.’ . . .  This is really affecting the quality of people’s lives.”


Heart of Michigan park sacrificed for private golf course

On the shores of Lake Michigan, a private golf course and housing development, seen here in 2009, sit on public land once protected under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. (Robert McClure/InvestigateWest)

BENTON HARBOR, Mich. — In this predominantly black town with the lowest per-capita income anywhere in this hard-hit Rust Belt state, municipal leaders allowed a development group to take over the heart of a city park that fronts onto Lake Michigan -- land originally bequeathed to the people of Benton Harbor forever.

Opponents claim the land deal violates the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. In 1977, Benton Harbor accepted money from the fund for park development under the condition that it remain forever open to public or, if closed, be replaced with land of equal fair market value and reasonably equivalent recreational use.

Harbor Shores Community Redevelopment, Inc., a consortium of Whirlpool Foundation and two other non-profit groups, used the city land in the center of Jean Klock Park to build three holes of a “Jack Nicklaus Signature” golf course. The course anchors a $500 million development billed on the developer’s website as combining “the charm of a small town with the year-round amenities of a world-class destination, ideally located just 90 minutes from downtown Chicago.”

Annual memberships at the golf course start at $3,750. This in a town where the median income is $17,301, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and where the 2010 U.S. Census found 48 percent of residents live below the poverty line.

The Benton Harbor case illustrates how local governments, looking for economic development, are turning over federally protected parks in exchange for the promise of cash, jobs, or both.  The outcome can be park replacements of unequal value, one of multiple failures InvestigateWest has identified in the administration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Proponents of these exchanges say the infusions of cash that come with them can result in better facilities in newer parks as well as jobs.


Oklahoma park bought and paid for

A birds-eye view of the campgrounds at Lake Texoma State Park in July 2009
Paul Joseph Brown/InvestigateWest

KINGSTON, Okla. – For decades, Lake Texoma State Park was one of Oklahoma’s most popular and profitable state parks. It was a place of simple pleasures, with a lodge, cabins and campsites priced modestly enough that almost anyone could afford to relax for a few days beside a cool lake along the border of two of America’s hottest states.

But facing mounting maintenance costs for the neglected park, the state government authorized its sale in 2005 and, after an appeal to Congress, closed a $14.6 million deal with a private development firm in 2008. The transfer was legal as long as Oklahoma agreed to create a new public park of equal value in return. Lake Texoma, which has received $1.6 million in federal grants, is one of thousands of public parks across the country improved with money from the federal Land and Water Conversation Fund. Parks that receive such funding by law must be open to the public in perpetuity unless replaced with land of equal fair market value and “reasonably equivalent” recreational use.

For the developer, Pointe Vista Development, L.L.C, it was a rich score. The company plans to build a $500-million-plus gated retreat of condos, hotels, fancy homes and golf courses. Restaurants, swimming pools, a gym and a spa are going in. The developers are getting tax incentives to do it, too.

Four years later the replacement park is still not built, even as the last state park cabins are slated for demolition.

The Lake Texoma case illustrates how states can disregard their legal obligations to federally protected parkland. As InvestigateWest has reported, the National Park Service, which is responsible for overseeing the conversion program, does not have adequate controls in place to ensure that parks that receive federal grants comply with the law.


Kids wait six years for ballfields taken over by Yankee Stadium

Macombs Dam Park under construction in December 2007
during the building of the new Yankee Stadium.
Flickr/Benjamin Kabak

In the poorest Congressional district in the country, the nation’s wealthiest baseball franchise took away kids’ baseball fields.

For six years.

With National Park Service approval.

And it was all legal.

Those South Bronx baseball fields sat in Macombs Dam Park, across the street from the old Yankee Stadium. For years, they hosted home games of nearby high schools as well as neighborhood pickup baseball. Kids too poor to attend a New York Yankees game at least could try to pitch a no-hitter in the shadow of the Bronx Bombers’ aging palace.

Like more than three million acres of public parkland added or improved across the country since 1965, Macombs Dam Park and its baseball fields are entitled to special protection because they received federal grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In 1979, money from the fund helped to pay for the fields, a running track, walkways and new park lighting. By law, parks that receive this funding are supposed to remain open to the public forever or be replaced by land of comparable use and value.

But there’s a catch. The law and the rules that flow from it have no limits on how long it can take to replace a destroyed park once the new acreage is purchased. There’s no hard deadline. And so the kids of the South Bronx waited six years.

During that time, construction crews also obliterated nearly 400  trees that helped clean the air  in a neighborhood where hospitalization rates for asthma are five times what they are nationally. The new parking lots, including the one that went on top of the old ballfields, made it much easier to bring more than 3,300 extra cars into the neighborhood dozens of times each year when the Yankees play.

“It’s absolutely shameful,” said Geoffrey Croft, executive director of the non-profit NYC Parks Advocates and the most outspoken critic of the transaction.

The National Park Service official who oversaw the deal, Jack Howard, acknowledged that the baseball fields were way overdue when they finally opened in April of this year – three years after the new stadium’s hoopla-filled opening day in April 2009.

“Sometimes things take a little more time than you’d hope,” Howard said. “We were hopeful things would be done in a timely manner but sometimes there are extenuating circumstances.”