WolfeNotes.com

Cold In Philly Today – Thinking of Warming Times

Sonoran desert, just outside Ajo, Arizona (December, 2020)

Bouy

We went out to the Blue Bell Park area of Wissahickon Park for a walk today and I was surprised to see this awesome statue on the top of a rock outcropping along the trail.

I’ve walked this trail many times but never saw it before. Probably because it was hidden behind the leafed out trees. Or maybe I just kept my eyes on the trail or the lovely Wissahickon creek below.

I immediately wanted to check it out, but worried about the dogs. But we all managed to scramble up the rock outcrop, 50 – 60 feet almost straight up! 2 dogs and an old man.

Wow. It’s a statue tribute to William Penn, from 1883: (link)

TOLERATION STATUE

Like many sites within the Wissahickon, the Toleration Statue has a rich history attached to it. Erected in 1883, the marble statue of a man in Quaker clothing is situated on a ridge on the eastern side of the Park just north of the Walnut Lane ridge.

Standing atop Mom Rinker’s Rock, the nine-foot-eight-inch statue has the word “Toleration” carved into its four-foot-three-inch base. Believed to be a likeness of William Penn, the statue’s title reflects the Quaker beliefs of liberty and conscience, which Penn espoused.

Note the location of the statue – on the edge of a cliff – and his visionary glance.

So, why the title “Toleration”?

(an old lawyer’s proverb I honor says: “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”).

In case it has escaped the current political scene, let me note that this country was founded on Enlightenment principles, which include rationality, science, democracy, separation of Church and State, individual freedom, honest dialogue, free speech, civic virtue, a right to dissent and protest, and yes – pluralism and tolerance, even egalitarianism.

(Note: for the “original intent” Federalist Society types, there are no “markets”, or “capitalism” or “corporations” in the US Constitution).

Something to chew on for all those xenophobic, White Christian Nationalist, Fascists Trumpers.

Something also for people of good faith to latch on to in order to block the consolidation of fascist government in an appeal to unachieved American ideals.

Resistance To Trump’s Plans To Create Detention Camps And Deport People

US History Provides Examples

“Seven Rings Of Protection” – Including “Violent Crowd Action”

Many people are searching for ways to resist the Trump fascist program, particularly with respect to Trump’s threats to deploy the military to crush domestic protests, to round up people in detention camps, and to jail and deport millions of people.

There are many examples in US history that provide a road map of resistance and rebellion.

One of my favorites and relevant examples to our current struggle of resisting Trump’s fascist program is the history of local revolts to sheriffs in their attempts to seize the property of people in 1780’s Pennsylvania, see:

• “Taming Democracy: “The People”, the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution”

In the introduction to his book, author Bouton frames the key questions he will explore:

… the question remains: how Democratic was the Revolution? To what extent did the Revolution actually democratize government and society? How much power did “the people” really wield? How responsive were the new governments to the interests and ideals of ordinary americans?  What kind of democracy did common folk want from the Revolution? And how happy were they with the version of democracy the Revolution brought? In short, if it was a Revolution “by the people”, to what extent was it also a Revolution “for the people”?

Chapter 3: “The Gospel of the Moneyed Men: The Gentry’s New Ideals“ has strong parallels to our current Trump experience.

In this chapter, Bouton recounts how the greedy bankers and land owners ( “the Gentry”) sold out the common man and the democratic notions of the Revolution – and how “the people” fought back:

Amid the chaos of war, the Revolution in Pennsylvania reached its decisive turning point. The turning point was not a military loss or victory but rather a radical rethinking by the gentry of what they wanted the Revolution to be. In a stunning reversal, many genteel Pennsylvanians abandoned the vision of ’76. They did not just give up on the ideal of empowering white men: the gentry, in fact, made a complete about face. They began condemning the Revolution’s democratic achievements and started calling for important decisions to be removed from popular control. Much of the gentry also replaced its support for wealth equality with a new belief that the only way to make America great was to put most of the money and land in the hands of the wealthy. In short, during the war, much of the gentry came to embrace ideals that had far more in common with the beliefs of their former British masters than they did with the ideals of 1776.

Bankers, greed, privatization, concentration of wealth, private corporate power, exploitation of labor, appropriation of land, voter suppression, Feudal Oligarchy – sound familiar?

Bouton sees how the resistance was based on “7 concentric rings of protection”:

During the 1780’s, ordinary Pennsylvanians constructed elaborate resistance networks designed to shield themselves from the harmful effects of state policies. … the first [rings] were formed by county revenue officials who tried to thwart tax collection. The second ring was composed of county justices of the peace who refused to prosecute delinquent taxpayers and collectors. The third ring was formed by juries who acquitted those accused of not paying their taxes. The fourth ring was composed of Sheriffs and constables who would not arrest non-paying citizens. The fifth ring involved ordinary folk attempting to stop tax collection and property foreclosures through non-violent protest. Ring 6 was people trying to achieve those same goals through violent crowd action. Ring seven was composed of self-directed county militias that refused to follow orders to stop any of this protest. During the 1780’s, these seven rings of protection – each a clear example of popular democracy in action – formed a barrier for defending both property and popular notions of a just society.

Chapter 4: “The Sheriff’s Wagon: The Crisis of the 1780’s” tells the story of the economic crisis that triggered the people’s resistance and rebellion.

Bouten writes that the Sheriff’s wagon was to many Pennsylvanians:

the most potent icon of the Revolution’s outcome. The image was this: the heavily loaded wagon of a county Sheriff bearing the foreclosed property of debt ridden citizens. The power of this icon came from its ubiquity. During the post war decade, the Sheriff’s wagon could be seen nearly everywhere. With its load of foreclosed property, it struggled up the gullied roads of the backcountry …. and rattled down the bumpy cobble-stone streets of Philadelphia, the richest city in the new nation. As was to be expected in a largely agricultural society, the wagon made most of its stops at the homes of small farmers. Yet its flat wooden bed was just as likely to hold the confiscated tools of a blacksmith, the grindstone of a miller, or the inventory of a small merchant.

But, unlike today’s apathy in many quarters, the common folks didn’t just sit back and take it.

In Chapter 5: “Equal Power: “The People” Attempt to Reclaim the Revolution” , we get to the heart of the book.

During the 1780’s, ordinary Pennsylvanians launched an attack on the gospel of moneyed men and the hard times it created. These people demanded that State leaders save democracy by ending the policies that concentrated wealth amongst moneyed men. They called for new policies to make weal

When will people circle the wagons and resist the Trump fascist regime?

Resistance is as American as apple pie.

Lovely scenes we enjoy on our daily walk and are thankful for, from our Queen Village neighborhood:

Drinking Water Quality Institute’s Expertise Must Inform DEP Managers

NJ DEP Commissioner LaTourette’s recent Administrative Order No. 2024 – 15 that issued a drought warning explicitly requires that DEP decisions consider risks and impacts on water quality. Specifically, see paragraphs #5 and #6 (emphasis mine):

5. These reductions to reservoir releases and passing flows and any further modification thereto are subject to evaluation of downstream conditions, and maintenance of associated passing flows and water quality.

6. These modified reservoir releases and passing flows shall remain in place until otherwise revised by any future order or directive. The Director of the DEP Division of Water Supply and Geoscience (Director) and/or her designee(s) shall coordinate with water providers to assess the potential for water quality degradation associated with any reductions or transfers of water hereby ordered.

Despite these concerns about impacts on water quality and the safety of drinking water, those concerns have been ignored completely by the media.

DEP water managers are geologists, engineers, and technicians that lack training and expertise in public health issues (toxicology, risk assessment, water quality, etc). They are professionally biased (that is not a criticism).

Furthermore, DEP’s primary focus and over-riding objective during a drought is water quantity – making sure there is sufficient water supply to meet demand.

There is a direct conflict between the objective of maximizing water quantity (supply) and protecting water quality. (see the letter below and my prior posts that explain those conflicts).

Given this conflict, and DEP’s policy emphasis on water quantity (supply), and the professional bias and lack of expertise in the water quality and public health related aspects of drought, it is critically important to expand the scope of expertise and management objectives to assure protection of public health and water quality during drought management decision-making at DEP.

To provide this balance and expanded scope, I petitioned DEP Commissioner LaTourette to involve the Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) – here’s my request:

Dear Commissioner LaTourette and the DWQI – Please accept these more specific additional public comments for the December 10 meeting:

1. According to Commissioner LaTourette’s ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2024-15 (emphases mine): https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/drought/ao2024-15.pdf

“5. These reductions to reservoir releases and passing flows and any further modification thereto are subject to evaluation of downstream conditions, and maintenance of associated passing flows and water quality.”

According to law:

“The DWQI is responsible for developing Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) or standards for hazardous contaminants in drinking water and for recommending those standards as well as recommendations for the implementation of the drinking water quality program to the Commissioner of the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)”

The drought driven current flow conditions and ambient water quality in source waters raises concerns about unacceptable risks from regulated and unregulated contaminants. DWQI responsibilities are accordingly implicated and triggered.

These drought driven low flows also may conflict with the technical assumptions and conditions of DEP issued NJPDES permits, the derivation of surface water quality standards, and the methodologies for DWQI and DEP conduct of risk assessments.

The DWQI clearly has a role and responsibility to assess these risks, given current low flow conditions, significant potential public health risks, and conflicts with regulatory frameworks.

The DWQI must be involved in the analyses required by paragraph #5 of Administrative Order NO. 2024-15 regarding “evaluation of downstream conditions, and maintenance of associated passing flows and water quality.”

Accordingly, please provide a public briefing on the DWQI role in the aforementioned “evaluations”, and describe how the public can access the data and assessments of the risks implicit in these “evaluations”.

2. According to Commissioner LaTourette’s ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2024-15 (emphases mine):

“6. These modified reservoir releases and passing flows shall remain in place until otherwise revised by any future order or directive. The Director of the DEP Division of Water Supply and Geoscience (Director) and/or her designee(s) shall coordinate with water providers to assess the potential for water quality degradation associated with any reductions or transfers of water hereby ordered.”

The recently adopted Statewide Water Supply Plan has adopted findings and policies that are directly relevant to the “potential for water quality degradation associated with any reductions or transfers of water” set forth in paragraph #6.

Specifically, the Water Supply Plan revealed disturbing conditions during the 2016-2017 drought. Specifically, at page 204 – 205 of Chapter 7

as part of the 2016 Drought Warning, water transfers were ordered between several systems in order to preserve storage for those systems at highest risk. As a result, an estimated 1.8 billion gallons of water was preserved in critical reservoirs as a result of water transfers ordered between 2016 and 2017.

However, one finding from the 2016-2017 drought was reluctance from many water suppliers to make the complete transfers as ordered due to concerns around water chemistry. Following the 2015 re-emphasis within DWSG on the implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule, many water suppliers became more aware of the potential for chemical interactions between different treated waters and how that could impact corrosion of lead in domestic plumbing or lead service lines. Since then, water suppliers, particularly in the Northeast region have improved their understanding of the chemical interactions of their waters. However, the concern of water quality impacts as a consequence of transferring water in ways beyond typical flows remains. Reversing flows at interconnections or distribution and transmission mains can disturb biofilms and mineral deposits within distribution infrastructure and can create poor water quality conditions for customers.While in acute emergency conditions transient water quality issues like this may be overlooked by some customers, it may still have overall damaging effects on public trust in the quality of their tap water. Regular maintenance and proactive efforts to enhance distribution water quality remain essential to minimize these disturbances when they do occur.

Given these disturbing findings, what assurance does the public have that risks associated with “concerns around water chemistry” and the “potential for chemical interactions between different treated waters and how that could impact corrosion of lead in domestic plumbing or lead service lines” are fully understood, managed, and controlled?

The Department also found that “Reversing flows at interconnections or distribution and transmission mains can disturb biofilms and mineral deposits within distribution infrastructure and can create poor water quality conditions for customers.”

Where are the studies that analyze these risks and conclude that they are acceptable?

The Department found that “the concern of water quality impacts as a consequence of transferring water in ways beyond typical flows remains.”

The Department found that there are “damaging effects on public trust in the quality of their tap water.”

How are these risks and concerns being managed under the subject Order?

How can the Department and DWQI establish public trust in the absence of information and full transparency?

I appreciate your timely response.

Bill Wolfe