Today I went to a conference on the state of the Laguna de Santa Rosa. It was the third of four days of programs. Because of other commitments I gave Thursday's and Friday's scientific reports a miss, even though I would have liked to have gone. Tomorrow are the field trips - but tomorrow is also Palm Sunday and the beginning of Holy Week.
The Laguna is our watershed, part of the larger Russian River watershed. It is a system of creeks, vernal pools and flood plains which at the wettest times of the year contain water the River cannot. So it's both a natural flood control area, and six or eight distinct habitat types with an array of threatened and endangered species.
The main channel of the Laguna is just a few miles west of me, between the densely populated parts of west Santa Rosa and Sebastopol.
Every time I try to engage things Laguna, I find myself entering a world that shares some of my values, but not all, and I find the challenge of suspending my values burdensome.
Today I was pleased to see how folks involved with habitat restoration and developing educational and recreational uses in the Laguna are making an effort to work with other groups in the community, including agriculture. A dairy farmer in the area spoke of his concerns, and his commitment to work with others on the issues.
And that's probably all there is to say about food and the Laguna.
But I can't help thinking that the questions I had and the tensions I was feeling are foundational to talking about any issue where human need and the integrity of the rest of creation are in tension.
First, I was interested in the fact that no one really talked about core values. There were politicians, farmers, first peoples, scientists, at the table - but no one whose primary vocation is to reflect on values, or develop ethical frameworks.
The question I would have liked to asked if I thought anybody was listening was:
Is diversity a core value here?
Because if so, we must talk about diversity in the managed environment of agriculture, as well as the quasi-wild environment; and we need to talk about diversity in the human community, too, including economic diversity, and the erosion of the working class in our communities.
There is no place in the plan for the Laguna for the poor or working class that I could see - though I do need to read the plan in detail. For now I'm talking about attitudes, and what was not said.
I do know that a city council member from Sebastopol complained that his community was poor (with a large down payment and modest income I could not afford to live there 6 years ago), and then talked of closing a camp ground and trailer park which are adversely affecting water quality. I'm sure they are - but nothing was said about what was to become of the folks who live there because that's all they can afford.
The indigenous peoples of California were represented by the head of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. We heard how they will be part of the education programs at the coming Laguna center, and how they look forward to helping protect and bring back native plants that have been important to them. We know that while the local Indians here were first labeled by anthropologists "hunter-gatherers" they actually did a lot to manage wild lands, plants and animals.
Someone finally had the courage to ask, "How does your work with the Laguna restoration square with your plans to build a casino within the watershed (on what is now pasture on the edge of Rohnert Park)." Her response: I'm sure I wasn't invited here to discuss that, but we are going to build green.
A green casino! there's a laugh! Green for money, maybe. No matter what the materials used to build, the impact of the useless activity of gambling tourists will be a disaster.
The fact is, tribes build casinos to have some help of economic sufficiency - or surplus - a way out of the situation we of European descent created for them through land grabs, broken treaties, and government bureaucracy dependency.
If we really cared about the poor, about those who had been hurt by racism and other injustices, we might all be looking at some creative development strategies. Quite cynically, I think in this case it's a matter of the privileged taking the easy path: We can't stop the casino, and it wouldn't be p.c. to do so, so let's play ball with the Graton Rancheria and maybe they'll contribute some money from casino profits to our conservation projects.
All our efforts at environmental protection and sustainability have to be undertaken in a broader social and economic context, informed by an understanding of present and historical injustice.
I think this would be helped along if we would stop using a stewardship model (the one in operation at the meeting today). One speaker, a community leader and sometime pol, said she saw the Laguna work as a model for how humans and the natural world could get along. If we would see ourselves instead as part of the natural world (the reality), a part of creation, we might just realize we can't undertake conservation projects without an eye toward justice for humans, too. We might take a systemic view of economics and ecology, as two inseparable, interdependent spheres of justice seeking.
Issues of food security and sustainability would be a good place to start.
No comments:
Post a Comment