NEPA's loose dentures

In response to my column, 'What's that foul smell, NEPA?', Mr Peter Knight, CEO of the National Environment and Planning Agency, sent a rather defensive letter to the editor which was published last Sunday. I had asked the provocative question, 'Does NEPA have teeth?'

Mr Knight attempted to assure us that the 'watchdog' agency does, indeed, have "sound, working teeth". What else could he say? That the watchdog's bark is worse than its bite? That the watchdog's teeth are actually quite false - like many of the promises made by government agencies? That loose dentures have a way of slipping and exposing the truth?

I should make it absolutely clear that I have nothing against dentures on principle. They are a beautiful alternative to a 'mash mouth'. Proverbial wisdom reminds us that circumstances alter cases. In many cases, as a result of poor dental hygiene, teeth fall out and dentures have to fill in. Or, having religiously cared for your teeth, you could have an accident and they are knocked out.

But there are dentures and dentures. Some fit far better than others. Gums shrink over time and dentures start to get wobbly. So if you wear dentures, you constantly need to visit your dentist to make sure you are able to maintain the illusion of having perfectly natural teeth. Otherwise, you are fooling yourself, as I think Mr Knight is.

Incidentally, on a related point, I notice that a lot of older men don't throw out badly fitting trousers that have got way too big. I know that heavy-duty pants material, such as worsted wool, is quite expensive and, unfortunately, very durable. So some men remain attached to their extra-large garments long after the clothes have passed their giveaway date.

Water in the mouth

Mr Knight's way of answering the questions I ask is a classic case of talking with water in the mouth. That vivid Jamaican expression suggests mumbling evasiveness. It is usually used by an assertive speaker who wishes to make it absolutely clear that he or she stands by what is said: 'Mi naa talk wid no water inna mi mouth.' By contrast, the 'water-mouth' speaker hopes that his/her voice will be so muffled that the listener cannot possibly get a clear sense of what is being said.

Literally speaking, one of the medical explanations for excessive salivation is new dentures or old ones that fit badly. So, I suppose, Mr Knight's watery-mouth excuses can quite reasonably be blamed on NEPA's lack of "sound, working teeth", despite the CEO's protestations to the contrary.

Take, for instance, Mr Knight's assertion in the second paragraph of his letter that "NEPA has, as part of its regulatory role, responsibility for approving environmental permits and licences for developments and for enforcement actions against environment and planning breaches by public or private developers. NEPA does not discriminate in any of its roles as various entities across Jamaica will testify".

What exactly does this statement mean? In particular, how should we interpret Mr Knight's use of the word 'discriminate'? Does Mr Knight really intend to admit that NEPA does not distinguish between developments that should be approved and those that should be rejected? Surely, this cannot be so. And is NEPA's responsibility only to approve - and not reject - applications?

Or is Mr Knight arguing that there is never a conflict between NEPA's roles as i) 'nice' approver of environmental permits and licences and ii) 'wicked' bad dog enforcing compliance with regulations? I suppose Mr Knight wants us to believe that NEPA takes all of its roles seriously - even when the roles appear to conflict.

In response to most of the questions I raise, Mr Knight gives a rather feeble bark. NEPA seems to have very little control over the conditions in which it attempts to carry out its non-discriminatory work. The agency does not appear to have much agency. In most matters, it is Cabinet that decides; and NEPA complies without protest.

Slip of the dentures?

On the foul matter of sewage, Mr Knight makes a revealing statement: "Sewage flows from the proposed HAJ development will be piped by NWC to the Soapberry Sewage Treatment Facility." Mr Knight's use of the future tense 'will', as distinct from the conditional 'would', suggests that the new development is a foregone conclusion. Is this a slip of the dentures?

Furthermore, Mr Knight seems to be misinformed about the state of the existing sewer system in Pines of Karachi which is attached to the line from the Long Mountain Country Club: "The agency was made aware of a long-standing engineering design fault with the National Water Commission's (NWC) sewer line in Pines of Karachi for which enforcement measures were taken. We are also aware that the engineering fault was corrected in 2008 and the system now functions effectively."

Ask the residents of Pines of Karachi and they will tell you a quite different story. The sewer system is still malfunctioning and the stench is rather high, particularly in the early morning when the toilets in the Long Mountain Country Club are being flushed in concert. Incidentally, there is a document that clearly states, "in accordance with preliminary proposal by the planners, it is expected that some 282 residential lots ... will be demarcated on the site".

Mr Knight's 'correction' may not be entirely accurate.

I would not like to live anywhere near the dissipating manhole for that development. I fear that this might very well be my fate if the proposed Long Mountain expansion is approved. The lift station would (not will, I trust) be located 'couple chains' from my home. There is nothing in Mr Knight's letter to reassure me that NEPA does, in fact, have the teeth to protect my neighbourhood from that stench.

Carolyn Cooper is a professor of literary and cultural studies at the UWI, Mona. Visit her bilingual blog at http://carolynjoycooper.wordpress.com/. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and karokupa@gmail.com.