- Soil degradation is an issue facing Dallas, Texas due to urbanization and pollution. The roles of government and non-governmental organizations are being pressured to address this problem. - Policy tools used to address soil degradation include prescriptive regulations from agencies like the EPA to limit pollution, economic incentives for conservation, and cost-benefit analyses of policies. - Community groups and citizens have also worked to raise awareness and take voluntary actions to improve soils through initiatives like cleanups and best practices.

1. TO: Dr. Fleischman
FROM: Anthony Correale
RE: Comprehensive Policy Proposal for Dallas’ Soil Degradation Issue
DATE: December 9, 2014
In this ever-changing society where science discovers innovative, new solutions to
upcoming environmental and societal issues, policy analysis is an important diagnostic tool used
to assist in understanding the issues that society is facing. As urbanization expands to new limits
each year, the broad effects and repercussions are being assessed in the aspects of the
environmental field, particularly in soil. The roles of government and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) are being pressured by the rising issue of soil and land degradation in the
city of Dallas, Texas. To sustain and build a robust environment that will yield healthy soil,
Dallas must be aware of the impacts to its soil, its processes, and its products. I will identify what
Dallas should do to combat further soil degradation in the city of Dallas in the following
comprehensive policy proposal. Dallas must identify the source(s) of this increasing soil
deterioration, address the political/community tools and instruments used to engage this problem,
and implement strategies that various actors have implemented for past policy change success.
The concern for soil degradation is broadening for NGOs and government agencies alike
because of the widespread effects that it can have on the region. Soil degradation is not a subject
that the public is very knowledgeable of, so a good starting point for background knowledge is
that the degradation of soil can have sustained effects on the health, economy, and infrastructure
of the region. Soil degradation functions as an externality because of the vast amount of
anthropogenic sources and processes that act to increase the amount of deterioration annually,
especially concerning human health. According to a study by David Pimentel, “40% of deaths
worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution” (Lang, 2007). Although these deaths are
escalated in underdeveloped countries, soil quality risk factors impacting citizens do exist in the
United States. Toxification of soil can gradually accumulate and “may [considerably] affect food
quality and safety,” which has potential human health risks from heavy metals (Dong et. al.,
2010). A study by Van Bohemon and Van De Laak’s showed that pollutants can affect society in
a variety of different ways like disturbing human health through absorbed environmental toxins
or tainting infrastructure stability over long periods of time (Van Bohemon & Van De Laak,
2003). Even younger generations are being affected by soil degradation, as in the case of the
1984 corporate shutdown of RSR Corp.’s smelter in West Dallas when children began to develop
lead-related health complications (Wigglesworth, 2012). Soil can also be viewed as a public
resource or a common-pool resource based on the perceived situation (Weimer & Vining, 2011).
From an aesthetic viewpoint, soil degradation of the White Rock Lake near Dallas harms a
public park and a source of natural recreation (Callender & Van Metre, 1997). The chemistry of
soil may also be altered from urban-related carbon and sulfur emissions. Urbanization “wear and

2. tear” ranging from vehicle combustion, roadway deterioration, corrosion of signage, and litter
accumulation all “disseminate pollutants into the environment” (Van Bohemon & Van De Laak,
2003). Releasing these pollutants into the environment relates the roadway as a common-pool
resource of soil that is degraded for all of society’s use (Van Bohemon & Van De Laak, 2003).
With all of these different causes that are accumulating, it is apparent that soil degradation has a
large diversity of sources that need to be monitored and controlled.
Now that some of the sources of this environmental pollution have been outlined, policy
tools and instruments must be utilized to correct the negative outcomes created and to prevent
future soil degradation. A large portion of policy change is handled by governmental agencies
performing prescriptive regulation. Prescriptive regulation, otherwise referred to as command
and control policies, deal with the compliance of uniform laws in which the government
mandates behavior for environmental processes to prevent further discrepancies. Command and
control politics are frequently used in soil degradation legislature, albeit not always directly.
Lead accumulation in soils is authoritatively controlled by the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act by reducing the
admissible amounts of this paint and gasoline byproduct through regulation to prevent related
behavioral, cognitive, and physical defects (EPA, 2014). Specifically in Texas, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality mandates reduction of soil erosion in urban areas through
the use of “temporary or permanent stabilization techniques” for areas disturbed by construction
and civil decay (TCEQ, 2003). These representations of prescriptive regulation are implemented
on a wide scale in the U.S. and service large metropolitan areas most because of their larger
amounts of accumulation and byproducts. Command and control policies mandated by the
government are just one of the tools used to monitor and control soil degradation by
policymakers.
Fiscal and monetary stimulation through markets, incentives, and property rights can also
be utilized as a policy tool by governments in order to package economic applications and
positive externalities to encourage sustainable economic behavior relative to the environment.
Political actions like reimbursement and financial incentives for local actors for performing
supplemental environmental reinforcement to convert external, non-market values are becoming
more popular as the American populace responds more positively to incentives and subsidies
than taxation and regulation (Engel et. al., 2008). Current economic policies focus environmental
compliance for the implementation of soil conservation plans and not draining wetlands, new
commodity programs that can shift burden from present farm products, and crop insurance to
mitigate damage from economic upheaval and natural disasters (USDA, 2012). Market
applications, incentives and property rights could all be systematically implemented into future
policy to advance the amount of benefits relative to the costs for society.
The final tool policymakers use to monitor and control soil degradation is cost benefit
analysis. Cost benefit analysis can assist policymakers in weighing current products and
processes for their positive and negative aspects. This specific tool is essential for comparing and

3. selecting decision alternatives according to both of their advantages (benefits) and disadvantages
(costs) measured in a common unit ($) and is used consistently to determine government
oversight and legislature. Cost benefit analysis is commonly utilized in current soil degradation
policy by weighing the advantageous and harmful factors of processes like pollution standards
(carbon and sulfur emissions affecting soil chemistry), heavy metal toxicity accumulation of lead
and mercury, and sustainable erosion practices in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (EPA, 2014).
Salzman does argue that once policy requirements are met, further innovation and conservation
will be redundant, but I disagree because further research brings new dilemmas and requirements
(Salzman, 2013).Future analytical cost benefit studies are needed because of their usefulness in
public representation but also for integration of the new factors discovered annually for current
diagnostic models. For a more precise representation of environmental values and multiple
actors, a multi-criteria analytical assessment could be adapted with greater efficiency that
contributes different factors and perceptions for the variety of values that influence soil
degradation.
From a different approach rather than government regulation or financial manipulation,
communities can actually work toward changing the quality of their soils. The effectiveness of
the community involvement depends on leadership, organization, and participation, and Agrawal
argues that it can actually be more effective than government regulation (Agrawal, 1996).
Communities try to balance the damage of soil from urbanization studied earlier by Van
Bohemon and Van De Laak through joining collaborative action networks and volunteer
associations. The Adopt-A-Street/Highway assists infrastructure from roadway clutter and
littering that pollute soils and the United Parents Against Lead (UPAL) caution other citizens
about the dangerous health hazards of chemical accumulation in soils. The Dallas Morning
News’ also affected community outreach through investigative environmental journalism and
private neighborhood lead testing services; this study increased awareness and action among
Dallas’ citizens (Wigglesworth, 2012). Even in agricultural practices, ranchers and farmers are
collaborating together to manage soils in the Dallas region to prevent erosion and lessen drought
impacts (BMP, 2013). Community and collaborative efforts come in all shapes and sizes,
encompassing many different situations, demonstrating that even citizens can have an impact on
soil degradation.
As it has been shown throughout this policy memo there are a large variety of strategies
used to balance and control soil degradation. These political and non-political strategies did not
appear out of thin air, as many actors have labored to get the policies and strategies that are
currently in place. In regards to soil lead accumulation, media sources, citizens, and the UPAL
organization have united to urge the government to change past soil lead restrictions for
children’s health (Wigglesworth, 2012). Similar to Rothman’s first model of locality
development, the Dallas residents banded together to further reduce lead contamination by
removing lead paints and doing their part to clean-up, as well as working collaboratively with the
City Council towards setting these stricter lead standards (Rothman, 2001). Responding to the
disastrous conditions of Midwestern agricultural land from the Dust Bowl, the Soil Conservation

4. Service (SCS) was formed (Apesci, 2012). The SCS ensured conservation programs to prevent
further erosion, contamination, and to manage federal natural resources of the nation’s soils
(Apesci, 2012). In 2003, the non-governmental organization (NGO) known as the Soil and Water
Conservation Society (SWCS) outlined the effects of climate change and its implications on soil
and water quality (SWCS, 2003). The panel agreed that climate change would increase soil
erosion and runoff without enhanced protective measures and conservation efforts (SWCS,
2003). Shortly after this analysis, two federal organizations shifted important soil criteria. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) began updating their conservation planning
tools with “climate components of primary erosion prediction” and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Adminstration’s (NOAA) changed engineering application thresholds, expanding
the accuracy for current soil structure representation (SWCS, 2003). Eliciting Rothman’s third
model of social action, the residents of Dallas, as well as the aforementioned advocacy groups,
protested soil quality standards, demanded regulatory changes for the degradation from their
representatives, and have rallied the citizens together to demand that the city must clean up the
contamination before further development (Rothman, 2001). All of these methods, whether in
small effect or grand scale, have been shown as potential routes of change for political strategies
that alleviate soil degradation.
After outlining the potential issues soil degradation has caused in the past, the types of
policy methods that have been used to combat soil degradation, and the political strategies that
have helped bring about these changes, a comprehensive policy proposal is in order to assure that
soil degradation is limited as much as possible in the city of Dallas. Since the public is typically
not well-informed about soil degradation in general and of the vast importance it actually can
have, increasing information available locally and structuring the stage for political action will
increase the effectiveness of potential policy change. Information is the main priority as a
misunderstood subject can have little political clout and without citizens behind it, this initiative
will fail. After information has successfully reached the populace and made sure the issue of soil
degradation is better understood, NGOs, concerned businesses, and partisan action will make a
difference by sending a message over soil policy change. Organizations and businesses are key
to affecting policy change as concerned stakeholders in the domestic and economic sectors are
the voice of the people through different avenues. Through partisan actions, protests can be held
to alert the policymakers about soil degradation concerns, lawsuits can utilize the judicial system
to uphold existing regulations, and local government petitioning can demonstrate regional
awareness. Once the public opinion has actually been received by the government, legislators
can ultimately handle the remediation of Dallas’ soil degradation issues. As I believe public
awareness is one of the most important concerns for a policy issue, getting citizen participation
will be pivotal for this regulatory campaign. With the social action of the citizens, the
effectiveness can be extremely high for policy change, but it is ultimately up to how much the
citizens of Dallas care about the degradation of their soil.

5. REFERENCES:
Agrawal, A. (1996). The community vs. the market and the state: forest use in Uttarakhand in the
Indian Himalayas. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 1-15. doi:
10.1007/BF01965667
Apesci (2012). Soil conservation policies in the U.S. [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.glogster.com/apesci/soil-conservation-policies-in-the-u-s-/g-
6lv5g9836olcj0ja84lf2a0
BMP. (2013). 77 Ranch. Beneficial Management Practices. Retrieved from
http://www.nagrasslands.org/77-ranch/
Callender, E., Van Metre, P. (1997). Water-quality trends in white rock creek basin from 1912–
1994 identified using sediment cores from white rock lake reservoir, Dallas, Texas.
Journal of Paleolimnology, 17, 239-249. Retrieved from
http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/geology/journal/10933
Dong, X., Li, C., Li, J., Liu, S., Wang, J., Ye, B. (2010). A novel approach for soil contamination
assessment from heavy metal pollution: A linkage between discharge and adsorption.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 175, 1022-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.10.112
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in
theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics: 65(4), 663-674.
EPA, Lead Regulations. (2014). Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil. Retrieved from
http://www2.epa.gov/lead/lead-regulations
Lang, S. S. Water, air and soil pollution causes 40 percent of deaths worldwide, Cornell research
survey finds. (2007, August 2). Cornell Chronicle. Retrieved from
http://www.news.cornell.edu/
Rothman, J. (2001). Approaches to community intervention. In J. Rothman, J. Erlich & J. E.
Tropman (Eds.), Strategies of community intervention (6th ed., pp. 27-64). Itasca, Ill.:
F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Salzman, J. (2013). Teaching Policy Instrument Choice in Environmental Law: The Five P’s.
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 23(2), 363-376
[SWCS] Soil and Water Conservation Society (2003). Conservation implications of climate
change: soil erosion and runoff from cropland. Retrieved from
http://www.swcs.org/documents/filelibrary/advocacy_publications_before_2005/Climate
_changefinal_112904154622.pdf
TCEQ, Description of BMPs. (2003). Erosion control bmps. Retrieved from
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/401certifica
tion/erosion.pdf
USDA, Economic Research Service. (2012). The future of environmental compliance incentives
in U.S. agriculture: the role of the commodity, conservation, and crop insurance
programs. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/361085/eib94_2_.pdf
Van Bohemen, H. D., Van De Laak, W. H. J. (2003). The influence of road infrastructure and

6. traffic on soil, water, and air quality. Environmental Management, 31, 50-68. doi:
10.1007/s00267-002-2802-8
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2011). Chapter 5; Rationales for Public Policy; Market Failures.
In Weimer, D. L. & Vining, A. R. (Eds.) Policy analysis. Boston, MA: Longman.
Wigglesworth, V. The burden of lead: West Dallas deals with contamination decades later.
(2012, December 14). The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from
http://www.dallasnews.com/