Jim Blackburn Interview, Part 2 of 2

DT: If we could talk about this confluence and conflict of interest between government and the regulated community,

whether it's flight control locally or it's that sort of iron triangle revolving door where people go from industry to agencies to consultants and around and around we go. (misc.)

JB: The problem that you raise, I think, is a very difficult one and and you've asked about sort of the interrelationship between industry and the government that regulates it.

And then how that meshes and whether, in fact, there are conflicts of interest or the potential for conflicts in and I think the answer is yes there is.

I I think, on the one hand, we don't pay very well at the governmental level. We put tremendous political pressure on the government and we then expect them to protect us.

And I don't think there there there's just a disconnect there. It's just not going to work. John Holly(?) used to be chairman of TNRCC as a person I've gotten to know particularly well and he was explaining to me, I mean,

I I I won a few cases, you know, the where John was the presiding office. I lost a few. And I still sort of resent the ones that I lost and as do my clients of course.

And I asked him I said, you know, John, you know later, you know, after he'd left office, you know why'd you do that? Why'd you rule against us on that case.

And he said well, you know, if I had ruled for you in that case, the legislature had already pretty much given me an indication that they would have stripped my agency of certain powers.

If, in fact, I didn't every so often grant one of these things. And, you know, it's this legislature it's the role of the legislature that I think the the state level is sort of the silent enemy of environmental protection

and the fear of the legislature on the part of the regulators, I mean, those legislators call in and and really ream out administrative people that they don't think are are doing what "they want them to do".

Well that translates into oftentimes what the lobby wants the legislators to do. So I think ultimately lobbyists have a tremendous influence at the state level through the legislators

and frankly directly because they pretty much give the indication to the regulators that, in fact, if they don't do certain things they're going to go get the legislature to act.

So I I think that's the type of thing that I I find worrisome and and John wasn't talking necessarily about any particular case as he was talking more generally about the process.

That as he perceived the process as a regulator that the legislature was always waiting there in the wings to change things if the agency didn't perform like they wanted to.

And I think that's a real worrisome concept and I think it shows how lobbyists have a lot more impact and a lot more power than perhaps a lot of people understand.

It's much more pervasive. It's a much deeper type of influence than I think that is commonly perceived.

DT: Can you explain about more disconnects, my understanding is that Texas public opinion is generally in the environment's favor.

You know, its 60, 65% in favor of more regulation, more investment in environmental protection and so on.

And yet, it seems like the legislature or representatives is typically in the other camp. Why is that?

DW: How about this thing that no matter what they seem to do, everyone gets a variance granted like why bother to write the law in the first place

if every case that comes up practically is going to result in something that gets around it. Does there seem to be futility in that?

JB: The the regulatory process is probably the most frustrating process that I've ever been involved in. And I'm not sure how you cure it.

I think one way is that you set up good people and you leave them alone. You give them clear instructions and and let them go.

And I don't know that the political system is frankly capable of doing that.

I I think in Texas where you have a strong environmental sort of belief on the part of the public yet you have agencies that are not acting consistent with that environmental perception.

The disconnect there is the fact that the people do not spend their money in support of their interests.

And a minority, the 35%, do spend their money and it goes to the legislative process. So I think, again, it's sort of this unrepresentative group that they are very much the group that spends money.

So the 35% that are not in support of environmental protection may spend 95% of the lobbying money.

DT: Sort of a vocal minority.

JB: A vocal minority as in vocal with their money. I mean, basically they're buying the system. And I think it is pervasive.

I think it's I think it it's true at the local government level. I think it's true at the state government level and I think its true at the national government level.

And, you know, I hear a lot of people talk about that we have a corrupt system. It's not that I've ever seen direct money pay-offs to anyone.

I mean, they may have happened but I've never experienced that. What we have is legal pay-offs and it's that legal system that's causing the problems.

It's not it's not an illegal system. It's the legal system. It's where the contractors that are going to make money from the Port of Houston put up the money for television advertisements that will push the bond issue.

It's where the companies that will benefit from this Senate Natural Resources Committee put all their money behind five key senators

and get them elected time after time after time and they will always be on Senate Natural Resources Committee.

I've started a small along with a few other people, a political action committee here in Houston called Houston Conservation Voters

and were interviewing candidates for we're going to endorse some candidates and give out a little money for City Council.

The feedback we're getting is just fabulous. It's just a wonderful insight into the process just because were playing now.

We never really played before and, all of a sudden, there's a conservation pact that may have some money to give to candidates.

And what were finding out, for example, there's an air quality issue huge air quality issues in Houston but there's a specific issue.

Should the City of Houston use their contract money, they have a $1.2 billion public works project.

I mean, they that's how much they spend each year on public works projects and the equipment, the Caterpillars, the dozers, things like that that are used, they all emit diesel particulates.

Well what if the City of Houston said they will award contracts to folks that use natural gas?

You know diesel natural gas rather than diesel, off-road vessels vehicles. That's a great concept.

It's using public money to cause a good result. See Houston Partnership is screening candidates for City Council and they're asking the counsel,

you wouldn't agree would you that the City of Houston should use their purchasing power to regulate off-road mobile sources of air pollution?

I mean, you know, I wouldn't know this was going on if I weren't involved in screening these candidates because I'm asking these candidates,

would you agree that the City of Houston ought to spend their money to pre you know, and and and require clean vehicles to be used in construction contracts

and they all say, ooh, I'm really kind of sorry you asked me that question. I mean, the Partnerships already asked us and, you know,

I already said no, I wouldn't want to do that. But what we're finding out is sort of how the process works. And it is very, very sophisticated.

I mean, somebody's been staying up late at night figuring out how they can sort of block out positions and keep things from happening.

You know, in in at least, in theory if these candidates that the Partnership had gotten to, if they get elected, they got elected by promising, among other things, that they would not pursue a particular option.

When we as environmentalists come in and say hey, we've got a great new idea and everybody's door shuts, at least now I understand why.

I understand how this is happening and I these are things I didn't previously know.

I think, on the other hand, we're interviewing candidates and we're saying were concerned about two issues.

We're interested in getting more park space in Houston, more trees for for the zoo but, you know, sort of a parks program and we're interested in air quality.

And what we're finding is they the candidates are very happy that there's a voice that's coming and talking to them about these issues.

They've never had anybody talk to them about these issues. The they know as far as they know, the constituency is not interested in these issues.

And to have us just simply there saying these are important issues, yeah, I think perhaps we've raised some questions about how they ought to answer the Houston Partnership question.

We've given them the incentive to maybe go out and take a stand and get a bond issue for parks in this town, those types of things.

And so it's this political process I think as environmentalists if we don't understand and learn how to work with this political process, we've got real problems.

DT: You talked about air quality as one of the big political issues. Can you tell us more about why you think it's such a big problem for the city?

JB: It's a huge problem for Houston. Air air quality is a huge problem for Houston and it has been for decades and,

at least in part, the problem is that the Houston Partnership and previously the Houston Chamber of Commerce was in control of our local governmental system.

And the Houston Partnership includes representation, most of the industries that are the major sources of air pollution in this area.

Houston is violating the National Ozone Standard probably is second worst and, on some days, probably the worst ozone levels in the United States.

We have a fine particle problem and we have air toxic issues in this town. One of the things I've been able to accomplish in some of the consulting work I've done with the City of Houston is we got the City of Houston

to fund a study called the Sonoma Technology Study that identified the problems of air pollution in this community. And it was projected out to the year 2007 which is a compliance date under the Federal Clean Air Act.

And the Sonoma Study identified that there would be 435 premature deaths per year.

Now these are people that would lose ten to fifteen years of their life premat that they shouldn't have lost because of fine particle air pollution in this town.

That from an ozone standpoint there is over a million days of asthma related illness that occurs, million person days of asthma related losses,

that we have all sorts of sort of shades and phases in between. And that air pollution in this town costs about $3 billion a year.

And that's a very conservative number. I mean, there are a lot of things they couldn't quantify.

Well no one has ever talked in in Houston about the cost of air pollution. What we've always heard is,

the federal government's unreasonable, the federal government's harsh, the federal government's unfair, they're taking advantage of the poor ole refineries and the poor ole chemical companies.

You know, and and what were seeing today is that, for the first time, the City of Houston's beginning to focus on health and and their health issues.

The Chamber of Commerce, the industrial community had done an excellent job of making making the air pollution issue a we versus the federal government issue as opposed to a health issue.

That's what it is. I mean, it's an issue about public health and it's not going to be until we start saying we demand a certain quality of health that we're going to solve the air pollution problem in Houston.

It's going to be the the children with asthma, it's going to be the older folks there that get put in with respiratory disease

and the realization that this wouldn't be happening but for the pollution problems that will ultimately cause our problems to be addressed.

Hopefully, the medical community will take more of a leadership role. I'm working with some people in Dallas

and it looks like the medical community in Dallas is about to take to really step out and take a greater leadership role.

In Houston, if you're a researcher, there was never any money to research Houston air pollution. It's amazing. (burps) Excuse me.

We have looked for documentation of air pollution related studies and there's just not any. I mean, there's a few.

There's one here and one there, but if you look at huge studies all over the United States. Harvard's six city study.

You look at those types of database, you look at the work they've done in Southern California.

There's never been any money, no concerted effort to study health effects in Houston which is probably the second most polluted city in the United States.

That's the pervasive influence of money in this business. In this case, the absence of research money.

I mean, you have the Mickey Leland Air Toxic Center that's headquartered in Houston and when I went and talked with them a couple of years ago,

they said they were not interested in doing any air pollution research in Houston because they didn't want to get involved in controversial local issues.

You know, probably the Harris County's probably one of the counties in the United States with the highest air toxics emissions in the country.

The work that they have funded locally has been on indoor air pollution as opposed to outdoor air pollution. And and I'm not saying indoor air pollution is unimportant.

It's, in fact, very important but, so is outdoor air pollution. So I don't know. I can get a wound up for a long time on air quality.

What I think we have lacked as a community is a resolve to address the issue. Los Angeles has made the commitment to get their air pollution under control.

They formed an Air Pollution Control District. They are the South Coast Air Air District or Air Basin District or whatever it's called. And they have funding, they have resources, they have made a commitment.

We have no such funding, we have no such resources, we have no such commitment. And I'm afraid that that unless unless and until we get that, we're really not going to solve our air quality problems.

And ultimately it may take litigation. It may take harsh draconian measures to force this region to deal with the problems.

DT: What is it that the hammer of highway funds and other federal expenditures hasn't forced the city to address air quality?

I understand that if they're in violation of ambient air quality standards, they're supposed to fix them so that they can get these federal dollars but the dollars appear to continue to come despite the violations. What is going on?

JB: Well your question really goes to the structure of the Clean Air Act and then you what you're asking me about is, you know, transportation controls, transportation related sanctions,

the denial of federal funds has always been sort of written in the Clean Air Act and if you didn't meet the standard, you weren't supposed to get this federal money.

Now why hasn't that every stopped anything in Houston? And the answer is, Congress does not have the political will to make it happen.

The history of the Clean Air Act, when it was first passed in 1970, we had to come into compliance in 1977. In 1977, we had the Clean Air Act of 1977 that gave us until 1987 to come into compliance.

There was room for an administrative extension of three years. We have the Clean Air Act of 1990, not coincidentally, that gave us, in Houston, until 2007 to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

So we've gone from 1977 to 2007. Today we are arguing about our plan to meet the requirements in 2007 and it we're not going to get there.

I mean, the plan that's come up with, that's been developed here is inadequate. Industry's coming in and saying they should not have to meet the types of controls that are being required or that are being discussed.

You have the construction industry saying they shouldn't have to meet the control. We are not we are still want to build a whole bunch of roads.

We want to build the Grand Parkway around Houston. So basically our local community is saying, we'd just as soon keep on doing things the way were doing it.

The federal government so far has been unwilling to enforce their prohibitions and until, I think, until EPA finally comes in and says,

look public health is important enough that I'm sorry Houston until you get serious, we are going to cut your funds off. We're not going to get there.

And it may take local environmentalists suing to make that happen. I've worked for five years trying to develop a program and I think we've got a better City of Houston approach to air pollution than we've ever had but,

at this stage, we're two months away from needing a final submission to the EPA and we do not have a plan that's acceptable for Houston in in in early October, 1999.

And we are at the deadline for a submission to show how we're going to meet the 2007 requirements. And we still can't get it together.

DT: It seems like a lot of the attention on air quality has been for the conventional pollutants, the particulates, the NOX, ozone, so on but it seems one of the real features of Houston's air suit is the non-conventional,

at least very unusual petrochemical emissions, the toxics. Why don't they give more attention what's the problem...

JB: The you're asking about air toxics and air toxics is a it's really a hard subject. The first I mean, there are several problems in dealing with air toxics and the first one is there is no public monitoring data that's available.

All of the monitoring data in Houston is collected by private industry under what's called the HRM or Houston Regional Monitoring system.

That data is provided to TNRCC but is not made public. So, first of all, there's just no public access.

Now TNRCC is now developing a toxics monitoring system that will be available for the public.

And and if you're nice to HRM and if you beg them and if you go through the right procedures, you might be able to get access to some of the data.

But so first of all, you know, here we are, you know, right at the verge of the year 2000 and we really don't have public access to monitoring data on air toxics in, you know, certainly in in the sense that you would think you would.

Secondly, air toxic problems are probably not community-wide. Air toxic problems are going to be in hot spots around certain localized sources of emissions.

Third, air toxic emissions are probably not short-term, harmful emissions. They're emissions that will have effects over many years and you there will be a latency period in seeing the impact of a number of these toxics.

So if you're exposed to benzene and and, you know, it may be ten to fifteen years before you catch leukemia or before you your you know, your your body exhibits signs of leukemia.

But that seed was planted perhaps ten or fifteen years earlier. And that so that latency period also is something that makes it extremely difficult with regard to toxics.

So and then you've got mutagenic aspects to it where you may have some sort of DNA impacts that are associated with chemicals and they may express themselves in all sorts of strange ways.

So it's not as straightforward as perhaps just your eyes watering, the breathing difficulties that someone would have on a bad ozone day, your reduced athletic performance.

With regard to small particles, you're going to cough more or you're going to have upper chest congestion and if you're real sick, you may go ahead and have a heart attack.

You know, if you've got a real bad day with with real fine particles. Those are more of the acute effects whereas so much of the toxics impacts are chronic effects,

they're long-term and it's just difficult to get a handle on them particularly if you have no data. Now the toxic release inventory was probably the best regulatory tool that was ever developed.

And it was not really a regulatory tool. I kind of I I I am always amazed in my lack of insights as to the importance of certain things that Congress does but in 1986,

Congress passed the Community Right to Know Act and this was really after Bhopal, Chernobyl, you know, but particularly Bhopal and it basically said that if the community had a right to know what was being emitted from a toxic standpoint.

And in 1987, the first reports came in and Jerry Pogie(?) who was working with the National Wildlife Federation at that time issued a report off of a freedom of information act request.

He he asked for all of these data that had to be submitted in 1987 and every country every company in the United States that submitted the data on their toxic releases.

Well Jerry put together a publication called the Toxic 500 and it was the first indication any of us really ever had as to how much toxic pollution was being emitted in the United States,

which companies were emitting it and, I mean, there's a lot of criticism that can be offered of this information as to whether it's really useful or important in terms of judging toxicity.

But it sure got the attention of the companies that were identified as part of a member of the Toxic 500.

And that really started the interest in toxicity and the late 80s and early 90s there were huge fights over toxic pollution.

Most companies have voluntarily reduced substantially the amount of toxic emissions just because they don't want to be at the top of the Toxic 500.

But so it was a great regulatory device to require the disclosure of these chemicals and there's probably been more voluntary abatement because of that list than anything else I can identify.

From a PR standpoint, the companies really took a hit if they were high on the list. But that really doesn't get to the issue of toxicity, it really doesn't get to the issue of harm.

That was just a sheer volume issue and to make the sophisticated analyses of harm and toxicity is very difficult.

DT: When you actually get a judgment against a company and they have to settle up, do you see shame, embarrassment, disappointment that they've lost some money and what's their reaction to losing or to being exposed?

JB: When a company agrees to pay a judgment or agrees that there's some sort of settlement to be reached, they generally like to do it in a way that turns out to be a win-win.

That's really the big difference between a settlement and say an outright victory. And and I and that doesn't particularly bother me.

I mean, if a company's willing to make changes, if a company's willing to try to do things differently, I'm willing to give them the benefit of that effort.

I I I don't oftentimes I usually don't see litigation from a vindictive standpoint. There are a few that I might have to say I would truly enjoy just whipping but, generally speaking, that's not the way I feel about it.

I I think really what we're looking for is the long-term abatement of a particular problem and if if payment is necessary getting a fair compensation for the harm that's being done.

If a company will ultimately admit to that and work it out then well try to come up with a way of solving the problem that they don't have egg all over them at the same time that they take care of these problems.

Now that's my personal philosophy. If you actually go to jury to go to verdict, you actually come through or you fight a permit to the point where you win,

there there some of the companies get, you know, extremely angry about it. Some of the companies, you know, great wringing of hands, great agony about the unfairness of the process.

But that really is more when you've got punitive damages. That's really much more, I mean, John O'Quinn, you know the the famous trial lawyer is much more likely to to rend to render that result than than we are.

I think much of what we do is really more of a sort of human scale. You know, we really try to address the problem, we try to get compensation, we try to make sure that problem doesn't exist.

I mean, in my in my career I've never recovered significant punitive damages. And I but I don't go to trial that much. I mean, we we end up working most of the litigation out in a way that offers compensation and offers abatement.

DT: It just occurred to me when you've got something like air toxics which has such a insidious health affect on all of us that you don't hear much about the perpetrators getting pillory.

They don't seem to have the kind of embarrassment or shame that you might expect if you had charged somebody of shooting a gun at somebody or stabbing somebody

and I just wonder how do they balance it in their own minds when they know that there are toxic effects.

JB: I think there are you know, there are two ways I think the companies sort of justify their actions. I think the first is that and this gets back to this whole question the honesty of the scientists that are working in the process.

I think a lot of times these scientists really emphasize the doubts in the process, the gaps in the data, the absence of scientific proof. And they use that absence of sort of compelling proof as a justification.

So I think a company a lot of times takes takes their vindication, you know, we were justified in doing what we did because the data wasn't there to show so they really hide behind data gaps and the absence of information extensively.

And I think that takes away a lot of the shame. It's not as straightforward as pulling the trigger and shooting someone in the head. There is this intermediary that's there, the scientists, the economists.

The second thing is, bottom line. I mean, many of these managers feel like that if they had done certain things it would've been too expensive and they would perhaps have lost their job.

And it's been argued and it's really an aspect about the structure of corporations,

that the fiduciary duty of an officer of a corporation or of a manager is to make money for the corporation and that there is no duty to society in a broader sense.

And I think it's really one of those ethical issues that we're going to have to come to grips with is to to what extent does the the amorality of a corporation transcend into day-to-day behavior.

And, you know, to what extent is money money and making money the only thing that counts. And unfortunately I'm many of the best managers in the country are people that are focused on that money.

Now actually I say best managers, I don't think that's true. Many of the best rewarded managers may be that I think actually the that we're finding is that

if you combine with intelligence environmental protection and economic production, you have a much better run facility than you would otherwise but that's not uniformly recognized yet.

I think that's where the trend is and I think ultimately the best managers in the country will be those that balance those things. But we're not there yet.

DT: You briefly mentioned indoor air quality. Could you talk a little bit about green building and some of your efforts there just with your own house to improve the air quality in your house and the kind of materials and the energy that are used there.

JB: Sure I'll be happy to talk about my house. Building my house was really one of the really I guess one of the great experiences of my life. It it was both horrible and wonderful at the same time.

My wife, Garland Kerr and I built this house together and we had lived on the same lot in a small bungalow for a long time and we'd come up with a plan that we liked and we were trying to do energy conservation.

We were trying to do what I call environmental type of thinking, both passive solar design and a number of aspects about the design of the roof and of the attic and lot of what I call traditional.

You know, good insulation, a nice yard that was native vegetation, was all in our plans. But I really hadn't thought much about building materials.

And one day I arrived at our construction site and a load of pressboard had been delivered and the way way a lot of the wallboard that's used in construction is manufactured is that

the chips are taken up off of the the floor of a lumber yard and they're glued together and perhaps they grind up and make chips intentionally for this purpose but I was told it was you know, taking up really the scraps from the cutting process.

And they bind them together with glue. And I had been involved in some litigation involving some trailers and, you know, mobile homes.

And those mobile homes, those those residents of the mobile homes were extremely sick from formaldehyde urea glue in the emissions of formaldehyde from formaldehyde urea glue.

And I saw this pressboard that had been delivered and I said, you know, as I said to Garland, I said, you know, this can't be the same stuff that all this litigations about.

And I went over and asked the guy that was building the house, I said you know, what is this material? And he go well that's what we use all the time. And I said, well is this, you know, what's the glue that's used?

What are you talking about the glue? I don't know anything about the glue. And so we asked him to get a material safety data sheet, MSDS sheet for the for the wood, for the board.

And yeah, he grumped about it and I said look, we're stopping construction until I get an MSDS. So a couple of days he brings it over here. Well they were no longer using formaldehyde urea glue.

They were using formaldehyde phenol glue. And, you know, the MSDS, if you read it, you got about ¾ of the way down, it says warning: carcinogenic emissions. Well carcinogenic, cancer causing.

You know, it's not what I had in mind with my house and I had delivered about six foot high stack of OSB or this pressboard to be put into the house.

So we stopped construction for two months and basically we aired out, you know, we let the wood air and I tried to figure out what I was going to do, not only about the toxicity of that material but about other materials in the house.

And what I found out is that butadiene is the off gas that comes from a lot of our synthetic carpets. Depending on the type of paint you use, there may be toluene emissions from your paint.

And they frankly the list can go on and on. What we tried to do was to come up with plans. Now we went ahead and used the OSB after we let it age for about two months but we designed a wall section that does not breathe.

We put a air essentially a a vapor barrier on one side and we designed a wall segment that captured the gas and really prevents off-gassing. We don't know if it it seems to be working fine.

We also put an outside air scoop into our air conditioning system so that we can turn over the entire air volume within our house so that we can bring in a new set of air and get rid of the old set of air in case there is off-gassing.

We ended up buying as as as much natural carpet as we could afford which ended up to be 75% wool, 25% synthetic. And and it got more expensive. As your percentage of wool went up, the the cost went up.

But what I became aware of in the process is that perhaps off-gassing within the modern home may be in the long-term one of the biggest environmental contaminant problems that were looking at,

particularly formaldehyde emissions, butadiene emissions I think would probably be the two biggest. Our house, I, you know, I'm not going to hold it up as any model but we enjoy it. I think it's fairly safe.

It is it is very energy and water efficient. The neatest thing about it is our native garden and we have all native plants and its a butterfly and hummingbird garden.

And it's it's a room of our house. It's outside but it's a room of our house and it's really neat to feel like that were sharing our home with butterflies and hummingbirds

and and that's probably the nicest room in our house is this is this garden. And its designed literally as a room of the house.

DT: I think for many years you've gone on the Christmas bird counts and you've been an avid birdwatcher. I was curious if you could tell us a little bit about your hobby?

JB: Well birdwatching is a is a hobby that I thoroughly enjoy these days and it's it's an interesting hobby. As I mentioned earlier in our conversation, I grew up hunting.

As a as a child I not only shot shot a shotgun as a older child. As a younger child I had a BB gun. And unfortunately for the for the birds in this area, I shot a lot of birds with a BB gun.

But I got interested in identifying the birds and, you know, the the variety. And, of course, as I got into hunting, I learned the different ducks, I learned the different geese and you learn what not to shoot,

the curlews, the water birds of various types. And so you begin to at least distinguish the birds.

But it wasn't until oh I guess I was probably in my mid thirties that I really realized that there was a a an outdoor activity that I thoroughly enjoyed called birdwatching.

And a I guess there's there was an image perhaps at an earlier time. It's the it wasn't a particularly male thing to do to go out and be a big birdwatcher.

And and that's totally false, of course, but that image, you know, is something whereas hunting was sort of a male type of thing.

Well one of the really interesting stories I heard, friend of mine, John Kirksey, was talking about he and another guy going duck hunting together and this person was a big well-known national outdoorsman

and they went out and they were in a marsh and the first flight of pintails came in and they both jumped up, shot, not a single bird fell. Birds fly off. Well they look at each other and kind of go, you know, those birds were very lucky.

Yeah, yeah. You know, second group of, you know, pintails come in. Same thing happened.

They sort of look at each other and they both sort of figured out at the same moment neither one of them were very interested in shooting birds and, in fact, were intentionally missing.

And kind of letting the other guy shoot the bird but it it was a very interesting, I think, story in a couple respects.

And I'm not sure if if he meant it this way, but one part of it is sometimes guys don't feel real comfortable being out in the natural system without a gun in their hand and just with binoculars saying I'm here just to look at the birds.

And and that's what I've become comfortable with. And my one of my favorite on topics environmentalism is ecofeminism.

And I I really think that that women have some very intuitive advantages over men when it comes to understanding environment and environmental aspects.

And ecofeminism is the the the best literature that I've read, the most I think fascinating philosophy that I've run across is eco feminism and I, you know,

birdwatching sort of strikes me as sort of one of those classic aspects where women have no problem going out with binoculars and watching the birds

but men sometimes do have problems doing that because that's not doesn't fit with sort of their self image. And I think that goes back to to some extent why women are my clients oftentimes much more so than men.

Think women feel much more comfortable perhaps in revealing themselves in ways that men just will never reveal themselves.

I I think it's an interesting area and I think the philosophy of environmentalism is very interesting and birdwatching is very important to me in that regard.

DT: You talk about ecofeminism and I think of two women who are pretty strong environmentalists and who share an interest in streams and stream protection,

Terry Hershey and Mona Shoup and I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about those two women and their involvement with I think respectively Buffalo Bayou and Clear Creek.

JB: Sure Terry Hershey is one of my, I guess, guides in this business. I mean, there's there's two sides.

I mean, we've talked about me as the attorney and then there there's me as the environmental activist and those two do get intermixed but they're but they're somewhat separate as well.

Terry Hershey found out about me when I first came to Houston. She heard about this lawyer that was had gotten a Masters in Environmental Science and she soon had me on the board of the Audubon Society,

I was on the board of the Citizens Environmental Coalition, ultimately on the board of the Bayou Preservation Association, all all of which were Terry Hershey sponsored organizations.

And I I I truly have loved getting to know Terry as well as Jake Hershey. But but Terry is sort of our, I guess, sort of mother leader of sort of a lot of the environmentalists in Houston.

What Terry probably revealed to me more than anything is the the role of personal will. She, more than anybody I know, almost by the the the shear force of her presence can cause things to happen.

And the idea that they wouldn't happen sometimes doesn't occur to her. She, I think, probably was responsible for getting George Bush who became president but George Bush, Sr.,

not George W. Bush, for getting him to help save Buffalo Bayou. Terry Hershey who who, by the way, my wife's mother knew in Fort Worth before she moved to Houston.

I mean, Terry came into Houston and just adopted, fell in love with Buffalo Bayou and Buffalo Bayou is a beautiful ribbon of life that we have going right through the middle of Houston.

One of our best kept secrets and Terry adopted it and basically said, this will not be turned into concrete and she exerted personal will to keep that for happening.

Mona Shoup is another one of those persons who exerted personal will to keep something from happening. Clear Creek was slated for channelization last year by back in 1998.

The Corp of Engineers had done a project, had done a study. Funding was available and there needed to be some changes made to the project.

The Harris County Flood Control District was attempting to get the environmental community to agree to certain changes.

They seemed to be on the brink of those changes and Mona Shoup basically came forward and said, wait! This isn't a good plan. This isn't a good solution. And I I mean, she got me involved.

I helped her from a legal standpoint but it was Mona's willpower, it was Mona's personal will that kept that from happening.

And if I were to go back through, kind of success story after success story after success story, in the environmental arena, it would be where personal will has sort of come to the forefront.

And certain people just said this just isn't going to happen. And that's what Terry said with Buffalo Bayou. It's what Mona said with Clear Creek.

It's what Sharon Stewart said with regard to the Columbia Bottomlands and the Lake Jackson Golf Course. It's what Audubon and Sierra said with regard to Wallisville.

It's what the community said, all the environmental community said, about the Westside airport and the Katy Prairie.

And and those examples exist, I think, probably all over both Texas and the United States but I, you know, Mona and Terry are are great examples of that.

DT: You mentioned the Lake Jackson Golf Course. Can you talk about that and the Columbia Bottomlands?

JB: Sure the Columbia Bottomlands are the closest thing that we have to a rainforest system here on the Texas Coast

and it's extremely important to migrating neo-tropical song birds that winter down in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, Central America, probably even down in South America.

And in the spring they come back across the Gulf of Mexico from the Yucatan Peninsula and if they get caught by thunderstorms, they need to bail out and then land as soon as they hit land.

And the forest of the Brazos River, the San Bernard River and the Colorado River are what we call the Columbia Bottomlands.

And they're big they're they're elm, probably Elm Hackberry forests with some big oaks mixed in there. And these birds come in in huge concentrations and land there.

There's so many of them you can watch them on radar. And I think actually they carry it live on the Internet now. You know, watch the spring migration by radar. But you but it's phenomenal numbers of birds.

They're here for a relatively short amount of time but it's a it's a monumental event from a from a system standpoint.

It's a connection that we have with Central and South America and with the breeding areas in further up in the the northern forest of the of the continent.

The Columbia Bottomlands are an important part of that life cycle of that migration cycle. And Lake Jackson wanted to build a golf course in the middle of it, wanted to fill a bunch of wetlands to do it.

And we went into federal court and frankly got an injunction to stop it. And I believe ultimately well end up preserving most of the Columbia Bottomlands, at least in part because of that litigation and Sharon Stewart's willpower to make that happen.

DT: You've been involved in so many different issues, different problems, different parts of the country, different agencies and clients. What do you think some of the future trends and challenges are going to be?

JB: Well I I think, first of all, there's one of the things about environmentalism in the future, I I think there's some connections that may---may be stronger. You ready

JB: Okay. In terms of the future of, I guess, environmentalism and particularly in Texas, I think that that there's going to be a lot of change.

And at least two or three of the areas where I think some of the changes will come is that in those in the 1990s there was a lot of conflict between property rights and environmental protection

particularly in Central Texas, with the Black Capped Vireo, with the Golden Cheeked Warbler and Endangered Species Act, some of the rare species, endangered species in the caves, things like that, that property rights issue and environmental issue were in conflict.

What were seeing here is that there is is a tremendous potential for property rights activism and environmental activism to go hand-in-hand, probably more related to impacts from facilities as opposed to habitat

but I believe that there's going to be a strong connection in that direction and I think along the coast you're going to see property rights protection and environmental protection be much more hand-in-hand.

I think a second thing is the role of religion in environmental protection. I think that is an area where there could be tremendous change.

I mean, when I try to when I think about the problems that we have facing us and I look into the future and I think about a future that has addressed those problems and just whatever that image is,

I do not see us getting to that point without a major transformation in our philosophies, in our ethics, in our way of thinking. And so then I think a logical question you would ask, okay, well how did that happen?

How did we get there? And I think about the only way that we can get there is with some sort of a spiritual connection, some sort of a change in a spiritual sense in the way that humans and the natural system interact.

And if you kind of say okay, well where is spiritual change going to come? It's logical to look to the religious community and say okay, there's at least the existing infrastructure there for that for a type of spiritual change.

The theology that changed in the 1970s and the 1980s is not widely known by the general public or nor by the religious community. I wrote, in the early 1990s, I wrote to every church in the United States.

And I have a stack in my office about that thick of the policy positions of every church on the environment. And it's some of the most radical environmental literature that I have read. Yet it hasn't quite permeated down.

But I think the greatest potential for change is going to be in the spiritual community. Now if the churches themselves, if organized religion does not make that change then I think the public will make that change outside of the organized religious community.

And, in fact, I think both will occur, but I think the greatest potential for change and impact is within the organized religious community.

And I think that has I think that's a trend that I've been both watching for and interested in it and I think it's going to happen. I think a third thing is that I think that allegiances between disparate groups will be more common.

We were very successful or we have been so far, the the there the the final step hasn't been taken yet, but the Westside was a big controversy that was raging in Houston.

And it involved the City of Houston's desire to build another West another airport on the far western periphery of the city in what we call the Katy Prairie. The Katy Prairie is important.

The west side of the Katy Prairie has the potential to be saved in the long term. A coalition was put together and it involved, among others, the National Rifle Association coming together with the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, Continental Airlines came in, to a lesser extent, Southwest Airlines.

We also had the animal rights organizations there. And, I mean, in the in this room where we're where we're filming today, we had sitting around a table,

on the one hand, the National Rifle Association and, on the other hand, PETA and other groups that were involved in absolute protection of animals.

And while they certainly didn't agree with regard to, you know, of perhaps how one should conduct themselves, they had come together for purposes of trying to save the Katy Prairie.

And to be able to put together coalitions like that I think is the defining element of where the environmental community needs to go.

I think so in in many cases, we've seemed to exclude others, to be exclusive rather than inclusive in terms of sort of the gambit of of interest we have brought together to work on problems.

And I think that our future as environmentalists is to be inclusive. Now that doesn't mean that any one group gets control. We we've still got a work in progress with some of the groups that that that I helped establish.

DT: Can you talk to me about the GBF and

JB: Yeah sure, the Galveston Bay Foundation [GBF] is probably the most dear organization to me. (misc.)

JB: Okay. You asked me, you know, about the Galveston Bay Foundation and the Galveston Bay Foundation is probably the most dear to me of any of the organizations and the most frustrating of any of them at this point in time.

Our goal with the Galveston Bay Foundation was always to try to combine all of the users of Galveston Bay to act to protect the bay for its multiple uses.

We took the position that no one use dominated any other use and that the goal of all of us coming together was to essentially protect the bay.

Industry was always involved with Galveston Bay Foundation from the beginning by design. So were fisherman, so were environmental groups, so were neighborhood groups.

And what's happened in the last year or two is that the Galveston Bay Foundation has been less and less available to become involved in some of the the fights that that we need to have help on around the bay system,

particularly the Bay Port Port of Houston Authority Proposal and what we have found and what I think has happened is that groups have to be maintained. And, in order to be maintained, they have to raise money.

And, in order to raise money, they may have to make certain commitments and set certain priorities. And I don't think I understood as well as I do today, when we founded GBF,

the dependence that an organization may have on certain funding sources and what that may do in terms of the ability of that organization to reach its final goals.

At this point, I'm very critical of the actions of the Galveston Bay Foundation. I've told the Board of Directors I'm critical of them because we're fighting Bay Port, at this point in time, without the assistance of the Galveston Bay Foundation.

They feel like that they need to move much slower. They need to see a lot more data, a lot more information. That's a function of having industry involved.

It's a function of having that cautious, conservative industry viewpoint and it it's a function of trying to keep that industrial component happy.

When we invited industry to to participate, it was not to be their participation at the loss of the overall goal of protecting Galveston Bay. And I feel, at this point, that that that goal of protecting Galveston Bay is is threatened by the failure of GBF to act.

And, in fact, those of us who are fighting Bay Port essentially have reformed the initial coalition that set up the Galveston Bay Foundation and they've and it's been reformed outside of of the Galveston Bay Foundation.

And so I'm both I'm frustrated, I'm concerned because Galveston Bay Foundation is not there with us at the current time in fighting this Port of Houston Authority Project. But I think the issue is bigger.

When we formed the Matagorda Bay Foundation, we did not, we do not, have industry, per se, on the Board of on the Executive Committee. They're welcome to participate in terms of being donors. We have no staff.

We are not getting ourselves in a debt position. We're not getting ourselves in an infrastructure position. We're trying to be what did Mohammed Ali say, "Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee",

we are able to, you know, we are going to raise money as we need it to fight to protect or to act to to enhance Matagorda Bay. We are not interested in having a institution. We are not interested in having an Executive Director.

We are interested in simply doing what's necessary to protect the bay and we are interested in doing that with essentially as little industrial representation. Now we're we have diverse representation. We have fishing interests.

We have local government interest and we have interest of those that use the bay, but that industrial group is intentionally not invited on the Executive Committee of Matagorda Bay Foundation at this time.

That could change but at least, in part, it's from lessons learned with the Galveston Bay Foundation.

DT: It's clear from all the work you've done for prairies and bays and other natural systems that there's a lot of places that you've enjoyed and loved outdoors and I was wondering if you might describe some of the places that you're most fond of?

JB: Oh my my guess, one of my favorite places on the Texas coast is Christmas Bay.

I like to take my kayak out and drive down from surfside or drive up from surfside and put my kayak in before daylight and probably the neatest thing about Christmas Bay is there's a number of bird rookeries there.

And you have the opportunity to go fishing for Red Fish underneath the nesting sites of Roseate Spoonbills and Louisiana Herons and Cormorants and it it's a and Night Herons, there's a bunch of Night Herons that are there.

And and it's wonderful. There are oyster catchers are on the oyster reefs. The terns are out. It's a beautiful birdwatching experience with the chance to catch some fish at the same time.

And I think of all the bays in the Galveston Bay system, Christmas Bay is a real jewel. There's still sea grasses in Christmas Bay and that's probably one of my favorite places.

I love the Lower Laguna. I love fishing there in the fall with the red headed ducks and I was having literally hundreds of thousands of ducks around you when you fish. To see the Great Blue Heron standing on top of a big cactus.

That was pretty neat. And those those are probably my two favorite areas on the Texas coast.

DT: Well thank you. This has been plenty neat for us.

JB: Good

DT: We're almost out of time, but thank you very much for spending time with us.

JB: Well sure. I appreciate your doing it and I hope you got what you were looking for.

DT: We certainly did. Thank you. (misc.) End of reel 2029. End of interview with Jim Blackburn.