Don't Pee in the Pool

Don't Pee In The Pool
by Drew YoungeDyke

I sometimes hear that there is a distinction between conservation and environmentalism. Conservation tends to be the word used by hunters, anglers, and “conservatives”; environmentalism by backpackers and “liberals.” I have a foot in both worlds, and I’m increasingly convinced that they’re the same, or at least two prongs of the same idea. They both seek to protect, or “conserve,” the land, air, and water, or the “environment.” They both come down to wise management, use, and protection of our natural resources. I tend to see them in terms of two different analogies.

Conservation is the wise use of resources to ensure their continued existence and vitality for present and future generations. Conservation is akin to rationing an adequate supply of fresh water in a lifeboat in the middle of the salty ocean. Everybody is entitled to use what is necessary to exist, but no one may hoard another’s share. While it belongs to all of us, as long as there are some who would take another’s share, there must be an entity in charge of the rations.

This is government’s role in conservation: to ration, to distribute, to enact the people’s will to conserve the resource for future generations. Government is the trustee. It is the fiduciary of the resource to ensure its existence for its beneficiaries, the people. This is the theory behind the public trust doctrine, in which the state holds its natural resources in trust for all present and future citizens.

I see environmentalism as protecting the health of those resources which conservation preserves. The basic rule in environmentalism is this: Don’t pee in the pool. Seriously. Consider, for instance, the Great Lakes basin as a giant public pool. While we readily acknowledge lakes and rivers as part of the public trust, consider the land within the Great Lakes watershed and the air above it. Consider the groundwater and small streams connected to the lakes and rivers; the pipes and plumbing which bring water to the pool. Consider government as the lifeguard.

When an activity pollutes the groundwater, it flows into the lakes; it pees in the pool. When an activity pollutes the air, it falls into the water and gets absorbed by fish; it pees in the pool. When an activity brings a destructive substance into the lakes, like invasive species, phosphorus, or spilled oil, it pees in the pool. Government’s role as trustee, as lifeguard, is to prevent activities from peeing in the public pool, so that we all can swim in it.

Government is the mechanism by which the people act together. It does nothing without direction, whether by election of politicians to administer it, legal challenges to interpret and clarify it, or by direct constitutional or legislative mandate. If we the people want the government to carry out its duties as trustee and lifeguard of the public pool, we have to tell it to do so. 

We have to call it out when it forsakes its duty to administer the rations and lets a corporation withdraw more than its share of groundwater just to sell back to us in plastic bottles, or to load it with chemicals and force it down a two-mile drill shaft from which it cannot be returned to the water cycle. We have to call it out when it allows coal plants to pump mercury into the air to fall into lakes and intoxicate lake trout with methylmercury. We should have called it out when it allowed logging magnates to dam rivers and flood them with sediment, causing the extinction of the Michigan grayling. We’re right to call out yoga retreats when they operate dams which kill brook trout, when cities operate locks in a way which allows Asian carp to invade Lake Michigan, when oil companies try to force a dangerous pipeline through the heartland, when private interests develop sand dunes, and when politicians propose laws which would remove land from the public trust altogether. That is part of the role played by conservationists and environmentalists; to make sure the government is wisely managing the public trust, and to help it find workable solutions when it’s not.

When environmentalists push for clean air and water, it benefits the rivers and forests where conservationists fish and hunt. When conservationists preserve a wilderness tract, it benefits the environmentalists who hike there. Nature is full of symbiotic relationships, and I would assign that appellation to environmentalists and conservationists if I wasn’t convinced that they’re really the same species, and that’s good for everyone who swims in the pool. 

---