NEPA in bed with 'developers'?

The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) should be rebranded NERA - the National Environment and Rubber-stamping Agency. Instead of acting in accordance with its grand mission, NEPA appears to be delegating authority to sˆhort-sighted 'developers' who are hell-bent on converting protected government lands into house lots.

The Jamaica Information Service (JIS) website states that NEPA is "responsible for environment management, land-use planning, natural resources conservation and development control services". The website also reveals that "NEPA is committed to processing of planning and environmental approvals, permits and licences, within the shortest possible time, and have [sic] been upgrading their [sic] systems to meet and improve the 90-day turnaround target time".

It seems as if, in its haste to process approvals, NEPA is failing to exercise due diligence. Surely, the role of the agency is not just to process approvals; it must also not approve applications that fail to meet acceptable standards. NEPA cannot simply rubber-stamp approvals, even if applications are coming from other government agencies.

The Housing Agency of Jamaica (HAJ) appears to have seduced NEPA into approving the conversion of public, open-space lands on the Long Mountain Road into private property - a decidedly unequal exchange. Both NEPA and the HAJ have disregarded the findings of an environmental impact assessment (EIA), done in 2000, which clearly states that permission should not be granted for any more houses to be built on Long Mountain.

Backlash 'development'

In a column published on January 24, 2010, 'NWC killing us softly', I quoted from that environmental impact assessment. I highlighted the troubling issue of the impact on the Mona Reservoir of further housing construction on Long Mountain. Storm water, debris and, even worse, sewage could get into the reservoir. The wells at the foothills of Long Mountain could also be con-taminated by sewage.

NEPA has chosen to ignore this damn-ing assessment. Instead, the agency commissioned an 'environmental site assessment' (ESA). Unlike an EIA, a 'site' assessment is far less extensive. Not surprisingly, the much more superficial site assessment has come to the following conclusion: "No Significant Negative Impact arising during the phases of the proposed project."

But close reading of even the site assessment itself reveals glaring contradictions between the conclusion and the actual negative impacts detailed in the report. Just one example will suffice. On the business of municipal water and sewage, the report notes the following: "Although it is technically feasible to tap into the NWC's facility, it is unlikely that there will be adequate water resources to accommodate increased demands."

The NWC is already not able to supply water regularly to neighbouring communities, especially in periods of extensive drought. Yet NEPA is prepared to approve the addition of 60 lots, possibly with multi-family units, that will further drain limited resources. This is a classic case of backlash 'development'.

The environmental site assessment proposes an entirely unreliable solution to the problem of scarce water: "It is recommended that this development include rainwater-harvesting facilities to reduce the demands on freshwater at this location." How do you catch rainwater when there is no rain?

The sale of these Long Mountain lots was advertised in the summer of 2009 under the signature of Dr Horace Chang, minister of water and housing. Since then, the Beverly Hills Citizens' Association Benevolent Society has launched a vigorous campaign to save the Mona Reservoir and the wells at the foothills of Long Mountain from the risk of contamination and also ensure the sustainability of our own community.

Limited nepa sample

As early as October 2009, we met with NEPA and delivered 150 signatures of residents opposed to the development. Not surprisingly, the site assessment commissioned by NEPA claims that "a mere two per cent of the population surveyed was in opposition to the proposed development".

The grand total of persons in that quite limited sample was only 42. So two per cent is not even a whole human being; it's 0.82 per cent of a person.How can the opinion of less than one person be allowed to outweigh the conviction of 150 real people who intimately know the foul consequences of the earlier 'development' of the Long Mountain Country Club? Residents of Beverly Hills have had to put up with sewage flowing freely in our yards while drinking water is diverted from 'our' tank to the country club's.

In July 2010, NEPA sent a copy of the ESA on the proposed 'development' to the Beverly Hills Citizens' Association, giving us only two weeks to respond. The association negotiated a two-week extension. At considerable expense, we paid for the professional services of an expert in the field to write a response to the ESA. We sent the document to NEPA more than six months ago and have not received the courtesy of a reply! Note that this is twice as long as NEPA's '90-day turnaround target time' for processing approvals.

The citizens' association is now appealing to every single resident of Kingston who is absolutely dependent on the Mona Reservoir for life to join our campaign to protect the city's water supply. All appearances to the contrary, most residents of Beverly Hills are elderly pensioners who simply do not have the resources to fight costly environmental battles.

We have set up an account at First-Caribbean International Bank, 23 Knutsford Boulevard, in the name of the Beverly Hills Citizens Association Benevolent Society, to which contributions can be made. Every trickle counts. If you think last year's drought was the worst it can get, you'd better think again.

Carolyn Cooper is a professor at the UWI. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and karokupa@gmail.com.