Can I Get A Little (Composting) Credit Here?

Posted on May 13, 2013 by admin

In my community (Quincy, Massachusetts) we have a traditional residential waste curbside pickup program. You put your non-recyclable wastes into one can, and all of your recyclables into another (single stream!), and they pick them up once a week.

No dump deliveries to worry about. No recyclables sorting involved. Seems fabulous, right?

But as a household that composts more than 90%* of our food waste (we eat predominately vegetarian so it is easy to achieve this rate), this model increasingly bothers me.

As gardeners, we appreciate the value of the compost we generate, especially because it’s so easy and far cheaper than what’s available in retail, and that’s ultimately the reason we bother to do it. But from a “fairness” standpoint the curbside waste removal system in my city is undeniably inequitable. Every week I sense this as I look around and see what others leave out on trash day. I am bothered that our taxes (as in my husband and me) are supporting the more laissez faire attitudes of others. Why should we have to financially underwrite someone else’s wasteful lifestyle? Which, by not having a “pay as you throw” waste removal system, is what we are essentially doing.

Here’s what I mean. According to the Quincy Public Works Department, the “trash [picked up from residents] is weighed and the city is billed for its disposal.” In fiscal 2011, the City’s taxpayers—and I’m one of them!—paid $2,675,272 for trash disposal. Obviously they are not weighing the trash outside of each individual home as they pick it up (but someone correct me if I’m wrong!). Instead, the City figures out how much tonnage they will have to pay to discard, and then assess it to us taxpayers with some algorithm and charges a flat fee. According to the MassDEP 2011 Municipal Solid Waste & Recycling Survey Responses (which appears to be based on the calendar year of 2011), Quincy residents (or at least the 32,500 households that participate in curbside pickup) threw away 29,720 tons of trash (including bulky items) in 2011. It is unspecified how much of that consisted of food waste, but according to RecyclingWorks (using MassDEP data) the typical amount of food waste found in all municipal solid waste (MSW) is around 15% in Massachusetts. So, using that as a benchmark, Quincy’s trash consisted of approximately 4,400 tons of food waste.

Except that my trash largely didn’t consist of food waste. Yet, as a taxpayer, I get charged for that overall tonnage whether or not I actually put food waste into my trash barrel. The PWD website indicates that the current rate charged for disposal is $93.57 per ton. I honestly have not been able to figure out our exact household contribution to the waste bill, though I’m sure we’re not exactly sparing the City tons of food waste by composting in our humble little household of three people. But it still drives me nuts that I am expected to help pay for food waste removal when I am not part of that specific problem.

It got me to wondering whether there are any residential composting credits being used across the U.S. I was unable to find anything meaningful after about an hour of searching. I did find a few communities who will give you a rebate or offer a discount if you purchase your compost bin through them, but that is a one-time benefit.

Not surprisingly, Seattle, which is notably admirable in its green policies and practices in many areas, has a bit to offer in the way of composting credits, like this limited program (which is only open to properties with five or more units), and the option of requesting an exemption if your household does not participate in the citywide composting program because of on-site composting. But Seattle’s program is clearly in the minority at the present time. Not to mention, the kind of yearly tax credit I envision seems like a logistical, report-filing nightmare if there were to be forms that had to be filed or inspections from municipal authorities. I think that initiating municipally-run curbside composting programs are likely big hurdles in the current economic climate, and that’s not really the focus of this post (though I have covered it briefly in the past here).

So what instead? I think it is high time that more communities, in lieu of offering home composters like me some kind of tax credit for our efforts at reducing the amount of solid waste, implement “Pay As You Throw” (PAYT) trash pick up programs. I think it would be far more equitable, and, ideally, show people just how much they are throwing away when there might be alternative options. MassDEP’s Massachusetts 2010-2020 Solid Waste Master Plan (dated April 2013) fully supports this approach—just take a look Section 3.2 (page 29) and at Figure 6 and you’ll see what I mean. Only about 24% of Massachusetts communities have a PAYT system at this time. Though I certainly don’t expect every property owner to compost on-site (given that many have no need for the black gold that results), the PAYT seems to be the “next best option” and the kind of market-based adjustment that might push people to more sustainable lifestyles. Until we can get some kind of financial credit for our meager efforts at minimizing land use impacts, it’s time that more “green” constituents like me push for these kinds of programs in our communities and redirect the financial burden where it makes more equitable sense.

* Our compost rate used to be virtually 100%, but last summer we found out—the hard way—that rats are attracted to things like cooked pasta and stale crackers in the compost bin, and they like to live near the compost bin. Near as in burrowed into the granite foundation of our house, which is inevitably and unavoidably close to the compost bin considering we live on a quarter of an acre. One of the hazards of urban living, I suppose. So now we only feed our compost bin vegetables and fruits (peels, pits, stems, etc.), eggshells, coffee grounds, dryer lint and a few other things. But still, it’s quite a bit of waste that we could otherwise just toss into the trash.

Green Zenith – 4/3/2013 (Land Conservation in MA)

Posted on April 3, 2013 by admin

Ever have a few weeks where you’ve been busy, but you look back and have virtually nothing to show for it. That’s where I’m at and why the posts have been sparse.

In any event, today my green zenith has a few newsy bits about recent land acquisitions in Massachusetts that I think are some bright spots worth highlighting.

Like the Local Acquisitions for Natural Diversity (LAND) Program run by the Division of Conservation Services within the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. The LAND Program recently awarded $400,000 to help purchase an 11.2 acre parcel of land, Grassy Pond in South Dennis, Massachusetts. You can read more about that important purchase here.
800 acres of rural field, farm and forest land were just protected in Leyden, Massachusetts, thanks to a $1M state grant and the collaborative efforts of private landowners, local, state and federal entities and nonprofit land trusts. Read this to find out more.
On Martha’s Vineyard, there was a last minute deal worth $3.45M that was reached between the Martha’s Vineyard Landbank and the sellers/owners of Flat Point Farm, who were going to sell roughly 13 acres of prime agricultural land (a portion of their 120 acre farm) to a private buyer. The deal includes the purchase of those 13 acres and an agricultural restriction that will protect an adjacent 25-acre farm field located in West Tisbury. Read more about it here. The Vineyard Gazette also has a good piece about this transaction.
Martha’s Vineyard Landbank Commission – visit their website if you want to know more about what they do.
The Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition is another great entity working towards land conservation in Massachusetts (I didn’t see Martha’s Vineyard Landbank Commission referenced on the site, and my guess is because of the type of legal entity it is vs. the kind typically seen with land trusts).
Mass Audubon has a lovely little blog about land protection efforts called Gaining Ground.
Massachusetts Attorney Jonathan M. Bockian also has a blog, Preservation Law Digest, covering preservation and conservation law developments across the U.S.

There are certainly a number of other public, nonprofit and private efforts happening to ensure that important land is protected, and permanently so, in Massachusetts. It was encouraging to read about these transactions that took place so recently. I love reading something in the media that requires me to dig a little deeper and ends up teaching me something I didn’t already know about, like the LAND Program, because it gives me faith that mainstream media is making strides to bring these things to the fore. These kinds of conservation efforts are an important piece of the sustainability movement, and I hope to see and read about more of them in the future.

Zoning & Local Food

Posted on March 12, 2013 by admin

This past weekend I had the wonderful opportunity to attend the 1st annual Massachusetts Urban Farming Conference, presented by the Urban Farming Institute and City Growers, in partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). The energy, enthusiasm and diversity of the almost 350 people gathering to support urban farming in Massachusetts was incredible (not to mention there was a wait list of 180 more!). Young and old. Men and women. Students and professionals. Seasoned, traditional open air growers and entrepreneurs with a creative vision to push our cities to their carrying capacity for farming (can you say rooftop farming!?). Black, brown, white and everyone in between. Every sector was represented and everybody was excited.

This truly amazing, dynamic crowd of people—all with an interesting story or idea to offer— was interested in one common goal: the ability to grow food in our urban communities. The underlying motivations were as varied as the people in attendance, but common themes included increasing food security within the communities (which, probably no surprise, includes many low-income households), an increasing desire for locally grown produce and diminishing tolerance for processed, cheap, corporate food, and an overall goal of self-sufficiency.

This all, of course, requires many things to come together. Financing and capital resources. Land access. Sufficient water infrastructure. Adequately clean soil. These are but a few of the typical hurdles facing any potential grower in an urban setting.

And, the one issue that naturally jumped out to me throughout the day (particularly in the final panel I attended): zoning and related regulations that are permissive enough to allow urban agriculture to take place. Even if an eager individual is able to find a suitable site to grow food and has the initial financial fortitude to do so, she must be allowed to farm or grow in the first instance. While growing certainly takes place in a city (like Boston) on some smaller scales (and has for more than 100 years), it is not necessarily lawful or easy, much less realizing its full potential.

Consider this. According to a report entitled “Zoning for Healthy Food Access Varies by Community Income”, issued in April 2012 by Bridging the Gap (a nationally recognized research program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation),* data collected in 2010 from 175 communities across the U.S. indicated that while 93% of communities allowed fast-food restaurants, 78% allowed supermarkets or grocery stores, and 71% allowed convenience stores, only 40% allowed farmers’ markets, and merely 12% allowed urban agriculture (“allowed” in this report included permitted and/or conditional uses). And when comparing the higher income communities to lower income communities within this study, it becomes more sobering: 17% of the higher income communities allowed urban agriculture, while only 6% of the lower income communities allowed it.

So what can cities do to remedy the dichotomies between a desire and need to access fresh, local produce for all individuals (particularly low-income and other food insecure individuals), a willingness by many to grow their own food, and the availability of funding/land/infrastructure within city limits to grow such food? They can start with taking a look at the city’s zoning ordinances to see where improvements can be made.

It’s already happening in Boston. As I write this, a proposed amendment to the Boston Zoning Code, Article 89, is undergoing the public comment/hearing process. This is a citywide proposed zoning amendment (not neighborhood or zoning district driven, unlike other existing land use provisions) that would allow, among other things, urban farming to take place by right on all lots under an acre, in all zones. You can (and should!) follow it here via the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s website.

How this plays out in Boston over the next several months as it moves through the public vetting process and works its way towards approval (either as is or, more likely, with some re-drafting along the way) will become a barometer, it not model, of how and whether other area cities take on the task of incorporating urban agriculture from a zoning standpoint as the energy toward this kind of local food increases over time. There will likely be some friction from opponents who, for example, do not envision their city living to include large plots for growing produce (although it already exists on some level due to the city’s celebrated community gardens) or who have concerns about rooftop gardens. My personal feeling is that everyone’s vision of a city does not have to be mutually exclusive of the many uses that are well suited for urban life, including the growing of food.

Boston is not alone in addressing local food production with zoning. I leave you with a few links as “food for thought” to leave you inspired and informed as this wave of self-sufficiency starts to crest within the Commonwealth:

Healthy Eating Active Living Cities Campaign in California
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Urban Food Policy blog
EfficientGov
Recover Green Roofs, LLC (one of the co-founders was a panelist—amazing local rooftop projects!)
Sky Vegetables (also one of the panelists—more cool rooftop projects)

* The full cite for this study is as follows: Chriqui JF, Thrun E, Rimkus L, Barker DC, and Chaloupka FJ. Zoning for Healthy Food Access Varies by Community Income – A BTG Research Brief. Chicago, IL: Bridging the Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2012 www.bridgingthegapresearch.org

Green Zenith – 3/1/2013 (Zoning + Greenhouses)

Posted on March 1, 2013 by admin

Living in New England, being a backyard gardener, and now just into the month of March, I have returned to the annual angst of not being able to plant outdoors yet. Despite growing more than 200 square feet of vegetables each year for the past 7 seven years, I have not yet incorporated season extending tools like cloches, cold frames, hoops and row covers. I should though, and by recently acquiring an indoor grow light for starting seeds (my south facing windows only ever resulted in leggy seedlings that needed too much babying when set outside) I am thinking more in that direction.

But I’d love a greenhouse in my backyard. Yet I know, as I look out my office window toward my tiny 1/4 acre lot, already non-conforming in dimensional setbacks, rife with granite bedrock (I live in a former quarry of Quincy granite) and sited with one accessory structure as it is, I am pretty much out of luck. Zoning is not my friend here.

Anyway, it all got me to thinking about greenhouses and zoning in general. What’s going on around the country in this regard, particularly in urban areas? Given the increasing interest in growing one’s own food, or at least buying food grown more locally by someone else, certainly someone out there is trying to maximize land use and overcome seasonal challenges. Here are a few interesting articles I found:

Once again, gotta hand it to the Canadians. Here’s what’s doing with our Northern friends, via Meeting of the Minds
Outstanding Q&A style article from New York Times in May 2012 about how the NYC zoning changes passed at around that time make it easier to do things like have rooftop gardens with, you guessed it, greenhouses. If NYC can do it, surely other urban areas can too.
And here’s an example of just how the advantages of NYC’s green zoning are already being incorporated, allowing even the youngest citizens among us to enjoy the “fruits” of forward thinking land use provisions.
What’s happening in Ypsilanti, Michigan shows how contentious greenhouses can be for some residents. (And given some of the kinds of concerns expressed by some of the opponents to greenhouses and hoop houses in this article, I am already drafting my next blog post in mind . . . so many of these kinds of speculative NIMBY type arguments grate me to the core. We are talking about food—fresh fruits and vegetables grown a stone’s throw away—to feed people in the community. If this is not something within the residential character of a neighborhood, then I don’t konw what is—yes, arguably one that is different in scope than what we’ve traditionally seen to date, but then tell me why we shouldn’t have cell phone towers when we already have land lines…yeah, I thought so. But I digress . . . though not for long.)
Here’s an excellent example (from Philadelphia, PA) of just how far zoning still has to go in many cases to not only allow for urban agriculture and its related infrastructure, but make it easy to do so. Byzantine zoning processes are not conducive to making way for one of life’s basic necessities, food.

Green Zenith – 2/22/13 (Vertical Farming)

Posted on February 22, 2013 by admin

Today, I’m thinking about vertical farming. Maybe it’s because I don’t want to look down and see all the snow (with more to come this weekend!) still on the ground, keeping the spring planting season at bay.

Lots of issues to consider with a vertical approach to growing, including structural requirements, zoning, aesthetics, access to adequate water/light, costs and related energy use (i.e. supplemental artificial lighting). Still, with land at a premium in many regions across the globe, particularly more so in urban areas, going and growing up may be the only way to go.

A few links for those of you not already in the know . . .

Of course, Wikipedia has an entry to give you the basics
Dr. Dickson Despommier (Columbia University) has a great website (and book) at www.verticalfarm.com (check out the Designs page!)
Plantagon. Trust me. This is insanely awesome. And it’s in Sweden, which automatically ups the awesome factor tenfold.
Want to see how they’re doing it in Singapore with their first commercial operation? Check out this report from NPR and another feature (with video) from CNN.money
Closer to home in North America, the Canadians are doing this in Vancouver. Another report provided by Tech Grafitti has more images in a similar piece.
Alterrus Systems, Inc. is the company behind the Vancouver project.
The Wall Street Journal ran a piece a few months back, including the benefits and challenges of vertical farming (though I’m an optimist and remain hopeful that any obstacles can be overcome with creative thinking)

So, do you agree that things are looking up?

Let’s Keep Neighbors Out of the Hen House

Posted on February 18, 2013 by admin

Urban agriculture is all the rage. It’s an exciting time, particularly for attorneys who practice and consult in this area, like I do. I’m signed up for two upcoming conferences in the next three weeks alone (one hosted by the Boston Bar Association and another, rescheduled due to a prior snow cancellation, by the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture/City Growers/Urban Farming Institute). Both of them will have policy/zoning/land use components. Just a few years ago these conferences would not have been so commonplace, much less well-attended, and certainly not by attorneys.

My professional interest in urban agriculture is always the zoning and land use legal issues because there are many (though personally, it’s about the excitement and growing support for growing food for oneself and the greater community, just like I do in my own backyard). So when I was reading a fantastic (though now slightly outdated) report just this weekend, “Urban Agriculture: A Sixteen City Survey of Urban Agriculture Practices Across the Country”, written and compiled by Emory Law School’s Turner Environmental Law Clinic in 2011, a disturbing issue naturally jumped out at me: the requirement, in some communities, of acquiring neighbor consent in order to raise backyard poultry (not as the sole criterion, but as one of many).

First, I am a full proponent of allowing backyard poultry in residential areas, including urban neighborhoods, provided there is a balanced set of regulations that adequately takes into consideration abutting properties (i.e. reasonable setback requirements for coops, proper waste disposal, prohibiting noisy roosters, etc.), the health of the birds (sanitation, proper food storage to prevent unwanted wildlife, etc.) and the birds’ owner’s desire for fresh eggs. If the regulations, application process and enforcement procedures are clear (and not overly burdensome) from the outset, then there should be no reason why anyone cannot have birds in their yard and live among neighbors peacefully.

This is why I do not support zoning codes and related application procedures that require obtaining neighbor/abutter consent as part of the approval process.* Until reading this report, I didn’t realize that there are some communities that actually have this as a requirement. I have read plenty of poultry-related zoning codes in the past as part of the research that I undertook for an article that I wrote for The Natural Farmer in 2011, and I don’t remember coming across any that had this requirement. But they apparently exist. For example, Annapolis, Maryland, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (featured in the Emory Law School report) and Maplewood, Minnesota each allow backyard poultry provided that the applicant obtain the written consent of their neighbors (in varying iterations).

When I became aware of this requirement, the first thing that jumped out at me is that such a requirement likely violates the due process clause, primarily because these requirements seemingly give neighbors unfettered (read: standard-less and arbitrary) grounds to refuse consent, with no appeal process for the applicant. Other questions come to mind. What if but one neighbor is a holdout but all others are OK with hens? What if there is a large rental building next door—is it the property owner or the occupants whom should be providing consent? Can a neighbor change his or her mind after the fact (i.e. once birds are living on the property)? If there are two owners on the deed, are both signatures required? What about foreclosed or vacant properties with no approachable owner available? It’s not a far stretch to say that sometimes neighbors just don’t get along or know each other well enough, for any number of reasons, and withholding consent might be tied to something completely arbitrary, and unfairly so to the applicant. It creates a slippery slope, as they say.

More to the point, I don’t think that these kinds of consent requirements are lawful. And there is some precedent that supports this notion found in other kinds of neighbor consent cases, such as State of Washington ex rel. Seattle Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928), and Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912). I have not found any reported cases that test backyard poultry-related provisions specifically.

I get what the cities and towns are trying to do by requiring neighbor consent—and I applaud them for even allowing a use that has some controversy—but they are not taking the right approach, much less one that will withstand legal scrutiny, in my opinion. Instead of the consent requirement, cities and towns should do their job of vetting applicants (with whatever reasonable application standards they see fit), but also require approved applicants to provide some kind of notice to neighbors that there will be poultry living next door. This notice could (and should!) contain specific information about the regulations in place (how many birds are allowed, location of coops, food storage, etc.) and whom to call when violations may exist. Municipalities, of course, must actually enforce the rules and deal with violations accordingly in order for it all to work.

And let’s not forget the folks who want backyard poultry. They need to do their part too, by reaching out to neighbors and educating them about the ways that poultry and people can mix harmoniously, and then lead by example. Of course, sharing eggs from time to time is not a bad idea either.

Neighbors will feel empowered if they know that there are rules that must be followed, and that there is someone to call if they are not. Giving prior consent just seems like an unnecessary hoop to jump through, and doesn’t hold much water to begin with.

*Because if cities and towns are going to do this for chickens, then why not dogs and cats too? What if someone doesn’t want a loud dog barking next to them, pooping all over the place, with runoff flowing directly into gardens and lawns that people have? What if someone doesn’t want cats coming into her yard, killing backyard birds? Shouldn’t they have a way to prevent someone from getting these kinds of animals too? People who oppose backyard chickens generally seem to oppose (or be worried about) noise, smell, and waste disposal. In other words, nuisances. But that’s why there are regulations and standards in place, and consequences for violations. Yes, prohibit people who cannot comply, but otherwise there should be no reason why a neighbor should be able to stop someone proactively from having hens (or dogs and cats!).

Green Zenith – 2/14/13 (Bird Conservation)

Posted on February 15, 2013 by admin

Things got a little hairy this past week due to the mega snowstorm Nemo (which dumped 30 beautiful inches in my city!) so I’m a bit behind on blogging and such. But yesterday I saw a robin in a nearby vacant lot. Until recently, I always thought that all robins migrate during winter, but that’s actually not true.

Anyway, it got me thinking about spring, birds and habitat, and the affect that the built environment (buildings, artificial light, wind turbines, etc.) has on birds. Incidentally, I also have this topic on my mind due to the recent (January 2013) piece that I wrote for the American Planning Association’s Zoning Practice, “Zoning For Urban Wildlife and Biodiversity”, which had a small portion that looked at zoning regulations aimed at protecting birds in San Francisco.

Since Valentine’s Day is this week, let’s give a little love to the birds! Here are some interesting links to land use and zoning efforts and other similar initiatives that aim to protect our fine feathered friends.

Hands down, one of the most progressive zoning-related initiatives geared specifically toward bird protection is in San Francisco where they have standards for building/renovating buildings to make them bird-safe. To get ideas about how your urban community can implement such measures, please visit the San Francisco Planning Department website. Lots of links so spend some time clicking around!
Of course I cannot leave the New York City Audubon out of the discussion of bird-safe buildings. They offer bird-safe building guidelines for relevant officials at the federal, state and local level.
Want to know more about the American Robin? Then you must visit this website: Journey North American Robin. Great stuff there, including up-to-date migration maps for 2013.
Fatal Light Awareness Program — this nonprofit works to educate people about and provides measures to reduce the number of fatal bird collisions (with buildings and due to light pollution), which is estimated to be anywhere between 100 million to 1 billion birds annually across North America.
Speaking of light pollution—a topic near and dear to my heart—please also learn more about the International Dark Sky Association and the good work they are doing.
Ever heard of a “bird city”? This is a fantastic way to promote birds (and their protection) at a statewide and local level! Check out Bird City Wisconsin of how it all works. Just recently Stevens Point, WI received renewed recognition as a High Flyer within the program. Wouldn’t it be great to see more of these programs nationwide?
The Audubon Society of Portland also has some amazing information as the awareness of protecting birds in urban areas becomes more mainstream. They provide links to other urban communities across the U.S. and Canada that have already implemented such measures, either as guidelines or (even better) as law.

I will explore the idea of zoning regulations geared toward bird protection more in depth in a future post because it is such an easy way to incorporate wildlife protection into development, if only more planning and zoning officials would take the time to implement such measures.

Green Zenith – 2/1/2013 (Zoning + Sustainable Living/Urban Ag)

Posted on February 1, 2013 by admin

I’m a bit distracted this week, but this is what’s overhead in my zenith right now . . .

I’m sympathetic to both sides on this one — where zoning meets business interests pursued at home, a story about boatbuilding (and whether it is a permitted use in a residential zone) from Boothbay, Maine

I’m currently reading Founding Gardeners: The Revolutionary Generation, Nature and the Shaping of the American Nation, by Anrdrea Wulf. Halfway through…great read (especially since I live just half a mile from John Adam’s Peace Field). Also makes me anxious for spring planting!

Zoning & bees…a couple of interesting articles this past month out of Norwalk, CT, and Spring Hill, TN (not zoning per se, but a homeowners association regulation at play). I’m all for safety and avoiding bee stings. On the other hand, there needs to be more education to prevent the ignorance that sometimes occurs with these kinds of land uses and leads to arbitrary prohibition of backyard apiaries, particularly for those folks who are using them as a food source. There needs to be more education for the public (or a pesky, busybody neighbor) that honeybees are not predatory bees (so the likelihood of stings is small), that honeybees are responsible for over 80% of the pollination of cultivated crops, and that their populations have been in serious decline for some time now, with no signs of that changing. Also…honey! It also strikes me as completely arbitrary that if a bee colony autonomously decided to nest on my property—which has actually happened two summers in a row now, albeit they are bumble bees taking over some old vole holes in the ground—that neighbors would probably not be able to say very much about it, but if I proactively establish a hive and maintain it in accordance with GMP, that I could be stopped by the local zoning enforcement officer.

Here’s a good synopsis from the Sustainable City Network that explains just how important honeybees are, and promotes the idea of bee-friendly communities.

And, to end on a positive note, here is some great news out of Philadelphia, PA where urban agriculture was recently voted and restored as an “as of right” use within that city. Farm to Philly has a brief blurb about it, as does the Philly Inquirer. Although this kind of legislation makes complete sense to me—should community gardens ever really be anything other than an as of right use if we want to foster local food systems??—I’m happy to see that lawmakers are coming to understand the importance of growing one’s own food in a manner that should never be an undertaking that require permission, as was originally proposed. Well done, Philly!

Green Zenith – 1/25/2013 (Drinking Water)

Posted on January 25, 2013 by admin

The inspiration for this week’s list? I was driving behind a Poland Springs home delivery truck yesterday, stuck breathing in its pretty awful fumes. The irony struck me—there are people who live in my community (which has fairly decent tap water, especially when filtered and chilled) who insist on importing water from Maine, more than one hundred miles away, likely because they either think it tastes better or is healthier than what comes out of the tap (a dubious claim, in my opinion), yet they have no problem with the air pollution that these delivery trucks create. Just strikes me as odd. “Clean” water at the expense of clean air.

Anyway, when I came to after the fumes departed, it reminded me of a remarkable, eye opening book, Bottlemania, that I read a few years ago. Then it led to some thoughts about drinking water and how the bottled water industry really has gone in a direction that I am not particularly happy about. Do I think there should be no options for bottled water? No, of course not. I’d rather see water on store shelves instead of soda or sports drinks, but when we can all just as easily carry a refillable bottle around with us and take advantage of the tap water that is available, I have a hard time being a champion of bottled water. Moreover, as at least two documentaries highlight, there will likely be (and already are, to some degree) long-term consequences of privatizing water and making it the kind of commodity it has already become.

This week’s links:

Information about Bottlemania, by Elizabeth Royte (author of Garbage Land)

Elizabeth Royte’s blog

EPA Drinking Water Regulatory information (including Safe Water Drinking Act)

FDA Bottled Water Regulatory information

Thirst (a documentary, and now a book)

Blue Gold (another documentary and book)

International Bottled Water Association (obviously a pro-bottled water industry group, but always worth poking around the websites of “the other side” to see what they’re saying…your choice about whether you want to listen)

Drinking Water Research Foundation (again, keep in mind who started this nonprofit agency: “several members of the bottled water and point of use drinking water filtration industries” and it is “Co-located with and partially supported by the International Bottled Water Association in Alexandria, VA”) Take a look at their 2011 report entitled “Bottled Water and Tap Water: Just the Facts”, keep in mind who wrote it, who’s on the DWRF board, etc. and come to your own conclusions.

If you think you’re getting a bargain when you buy bottled water, consider how much you are paying in relative terms of “price” (not the same as “cost”, which I equate to things like consumption of natural resources, pollution via bottles, etc.). For example, using the Boston Water and Sewer Commission rates for 2013, it costs $5.95 for 1,000 gallons (there’s a sliding scale for increased usage). And how much did you just pay for that measly liter of Dasani water? Yeah, I thought so. Though you probably did not buy it in Concord, Massachusetts, which just put its single-serving bottled water ban into effect.

If you, like me, appreciate the fact that clean water comes out of your tap every day (not everyone in the world is as fortunate), then you need to understand that extensive water infrastructure upgrades will be needed over the next several years as pipes and conduits reach the end of their life. And, as taxpayers AND as people who want clean water to continue to flow from our faucets, we should support the financing of these upgrades. Click over to American Water Works Association and read their sobering report entitled, “Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge”. There’s also some quick information on this available at the National League of Cities website.

Electric Cars: Charging Stations & Zoning Codes

Posted on January 18, 2013 by admin

We are not quite at the point of buying a new car in our house, but it is now actively on the radar. From an environmental standpoint we have questions like, fuel-efficient conventional vs. hybrid vs. electric? New vs. pre-owned? What is the maximum fuel economy out there? Of course price is a factor too, but since we share one car and plan on doing the same with the replacement down the line, it gives us some more financial flexibility than a two-car household.

At the moment, I really like the idea of an electric vehicle (EV), though I need to do a bit more research on them first. However, because Honda is slated to come out (in 2014) with a plug-in hybrid version (PHEV) of the Accord (with an electric-only driving mode), it has admittedly become a game changer in the household discussion about our next car. We share/drive a 2004 Accord now, and for the most part, this and the prior Honda we owned have been really great cars. I’m not one that is huge on brand loyalty, but when something works well, why change it up?

In any event, it got me thinking about charging stations and how viable the EV option is for the average person? What if you live in an apartment with no charging station? What if you are a homeowner and your garage is not up to code and you need to do some upgrades first before installing a charger? And probably most importantly, how will we get from points A to B and beyond? In other words, what about charging stations other than at home? Do they exist? How much do they cost to use? Are they convenient to access and near areas where we are likely to travel (read: family and friends’ houses)? How does zoning play into answering all of these questions?

How long does it even take to charge an EV? Living in a small state like Massachusetts means that we are usually not more than an hour’s drive from anyplace we are likely to go, but certainly the possibility of needing to re-charge exists (and quickly at that—particularly when traveling with a young child!). Take, for example, the proposed 2014 Honda Accord PHEV. According to Honda’s website:

The plug-in Accord can be fully charged from a low-charge indication point in less than three hours using a standard 120-volt household electrical outlet, and in less than one hour using a 240-volt “Level-2″ charger.

We have a 120-volt outlet in our garage, but I admit that I’d be more inclined to want the faster charging 240-volt capability, which we do not have. Another EV option, the Nissan LEAF, requires the installation and use of a 240-volt home charging dock (which can be installed indoors or outdoors since it is weatherproof). There are obviously other EV’s out there now (like the Chevy Volt) and some in the works (like GM’s Cadillac ELR), each with their own charging equipment requirements.

For many (if not most) of us, any kind of charging station would require some electrical (and possibly other) upgrades and permitting, often costing several hundred (or even thousands) of dollars. Moreover, to the extent that EV’s have been slow to gain traction with consumers (as pointed out by this recent New York Times article), so has the related, but very necessary, public charging infrastructure in some communities. This means that paying attention to the availability of charging stations remains a real consideration when deciding to purchase an EV.

But it’s not hopeless. Here’s what I found out (so far). First, there is a really great resource to be found in the Northeast Electric Vehicle Network website (well, at least if you live in the Northeast, like I do). It has information about existing public charging stations in the region (more than I expected!), and helpful information for owners/developers of multi-unit housing (apartments) and employers seeking to install charging stations. Another website, the Alternative Fuels Data Center (a resource of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Cities program) also provides information about publicly-available charging stations.

Of particular note, the Northeast Electric Vehicle Network also has information for municipalities about how to become EV-ready communities, including by adopting EV-friendly building and zoning codes, parking ordinances and other policies, and encouraging the installation of public charging stations. There is a very good analysis and overview provided in the report entitled “Plug-In Electric Vehicle Deployment in the Northeast”, and it is well worth the read for local government officials like planners, zoning boards and the like. It raises some legitimate concerns about permitting—electrical, zoning—that will likely come up for consumers purchasing EVs. It’s not that existing codes are inherently prohibitive (though in some cities and towns that might certainly be true), it’s that they are often not as EV-friendly as they could be, and thus enough of a detraction for potential EV consumers. To that end, another report available on the website, “EV-Ready Codes for the Built Environment”, supplements the first report with practical information about how codes can become more EV-friendly.

Fortunately, over the past couple of years, states and local communities have started to respond to the presence of EVs and the need for equally progressive permitting and policy considerations. From Dallas, TX to the State of Washington to the Midwest to Methuen, MA, many states and municipalities are working to keep current with the kinds of green vehicles being introduced each year into the marketplace. If you Google “model zoning code electric vehicle”, you will get many hits that lead to zoning codes that have been amended across the U.S. to accommodate EVs. These will be useful examples as communities across the country develop their own zoning codes to include EV provisions. Consumers, electricians and municipalities (inspectors, boards amending zoning code, etc.) must also not forget that there is a national compliance component to EVs and charging stations: Article 625 of the National Electric Code.

While this is all just the tip of the iceberg, I’m encouraged to see that many municipalities are responding positively (and proactively) to the addition of EVs in residents’ homes and throughout the public arena. Let’s hope that the trend to advance zoning and other related permitting in a positive way continues, thereby encouraging more consumers to take the leap to purchase EVs.

Green Lodestar Communications & Consulting, LLC

Land Use Law – Local Agriculture – Living Green

Category Archives: Blog