Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 15:15:32 EDT
From: "E. Ann Poole"
Subject: "The Ethics of Remediation"
With the publisher's permission, I am posting the following article for
ECOLOG-L subscribers' information; copywrite protection laws apply.
E. Ann Poole
Consulting Ecologist / Environmental Planner
Lockport, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
CIVIL ENGINEERING / April 1997
FORUM: The Ethics of Remediation
Is there a conflict between the ethics of the practice of
professional engineering and the ethics of the practice of ecology? I
think there is, because of the difference in culture. Age of the
practice is one issue. Engineers have been designing such structures as
aqueducts, dams and fortifications for 3,000 years. In stark contrast,
the practice of ecology is about 30 years old.
Engineering is established. We have written codes to which we
are committed. The ultimate client is known and understood: it is the
public, and its safety and health are paramount. Sure, we are paid
perhaps by a property owner, an agency, a utility or a manufacturer of
aircraft. But in whatever we do, the safety of the public is paramount.
We deal from safety. Many of us would support adding to our codes those
great words "Do no harm."
The building structure, the tower, the bridge, the dam, the
engine, the connection of the engine to the wing, the superelevation, the
sight distance, the water treatment process, etc., have to done properly
because the public's safety is at risk. Even with all the changes that
our profession is dealing with, we are still taught, and are constantly
reminded, that the lives, safety, health and welfare of the general
public, as will as of our clients, are dependent upon engineering
judgement, decisions and practices. This is a very heavy charge, one to
which we are committed through a code of ethics. If we fail to comply
with the principles, guidelines or canons, we can and should lose our
right, privilege and license to offer services to the public.
So for aeons we have been involved with the commitment to safety,
to applying physical, understandable, provable forces to solve our
problems. In college, we saw how these forces worked. We broke beams,
watched cavitation, slammed waves against walls and sloping shorelines
and participated in many other demonstrations. We believe these forces
exist and that we live with them every day.
The environmental movement began in the 1960s, but it has been a
"soft" science - not based on safety or on physical laws. Rather,
ecology is based on complying with fast and frequently changing rules or
regulations. When practicing their "art," both public and private
ecologists seem to be very goal oriented, even though their goals seem
very uncertain and no one really seems to know precisely what they are or
to understand them.
Most engineers support the elements of the environmental movement
they understand. But as engineers, we need to understand what we do and
why. Why are things changing so rapidly? Why are pines and palmettos,
now wetland indicators when only a short time ago they weren't? Probably
because many environmental regulations are passed in a sea of emotion,
not facts. That makes engineers uncomfortable.
Yes, there is a built-in cultural difference between the practice
of engineering and that of ecology. How is it resolved in the real
world? Engineers either employ ecologists in staff positions or they
work with a firm of ecologists, usually hired by the client. In essence,
engineering firms either "partner" with ecologists or they have them on
staff.
Our firm has elected not to staff but to work with various firms
because a particular ecologist may be popular (effective) with a
particular agency, and even sometimes with a particular reviewer. A
second, and perhaps more important, reason is that since the practice of
ecology is so "soft," to a great extent it is based on compromises
between the regulatory agencies and the ecologists. It is not unknown
for an agency to say, "You can't have 'this' unless you give me 'that'."
This approach really doesn't fit with the engineering mentality.
Yet, some engineers who get into this business are financially
successful - at least in the short term. However, I have seen major
projects stopped, with firms forced to deal with the ensuing major
litigation just because an agency says, in essence, "This condition is
different from what you said. You didn't tell us it was this way. It
wasn't shown on your application." I have never seen it happen to an
engineer when it involved engineering issues. Only when the engineer
plays ecologist have I seen this happen.
Engineers seem to apply their codes of ethics to engineering
issues but somehow not to ecological issues. The overriding engineering
issue is safety, and for ecological concerns safety is not usually an
issue. Their issue is compliance with fast-moving regulations.
According to the code of ethics of the National Society of
Professional Engineers (Publication 1102, revised July 1993), "Engineers
shall be objective and truthful in reports, statements and testimonies.
They shall include all relevant information is such reports, statements
or testimony [Canon II-3-a]. Engineers shall advise their clients or
employers when they believe a project will not succeed [III-1-b].
Engineers shall avoid use of statements containing a material
misrepresentation of facts or omitting a material fact necessary to keep
statements from being misleading [III-3-a]."
Engineers seldom violate this but I have seen ecologists dealing
with agency ecologists violate this all over the place. How they
reconcile this, I don't know. In any event, at this point we have opted
to stay away from this by simply contracting the work out.
Stanley W. Hole, P.E., F.ASCE
Chairman emeritus, Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc.
Naples, Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:54:02 -0500
From: Isaac Brewer
Subject: THE GREAT GREEN WALL
I am working on a research paper on China's agriculture, mining, and
forestry practices. The Great Green Wall is the name given to the
reforestation occurring in China, but I don't have much info on it or
China's forestry practices in general. Can anyone help?
Isaac Brewer
ibrewer@mail.pittstate.edu
Pittsburg State University