Global warming isn't for the birds. Every spring millions of ducks and other waterfowl come to the pothole wetlands of the north-central United States and south-central Canada to nest. According to CAS Research Assistant Professor of Biology Lisa Sorenson, global warming could have a severe impact on the breeding ground of these birds, drastically decreasing their population.

"Pothole wetlands" refers to the millions of depressions in the ground left by the retreat of glaciers from the Northern Great Plains. These depressions fill with rainwater and snowmelt, creating a unique habitat. "This is the breeding ground for 50 to 80 percent of North America's ducks," Sorenson says. "These potholes are also an important stopover point for migrating waterfowl."

Shallow prairie wetlands are vulnerable to drought, which climatologists believe will occur with greater frequency and severity as global warming increases. According to Sorenson's study, the number of prairie ponds the waterfowl use could be cut in half by 2060. "Studies have already shown that ducks breeding in the pothole region during drought years produce fewer surviving offspring," she notes. And while ducks can adapt to changing breeding conditions by moving to other areas, their population may decline if they're forced to move to areas with shorter breeding seasons and less available food.

Unfortunately for the waterfowl, competing claims make it hard to balance needs in the pothole region. "If drought increases," Sorenson wonders, "will there be pressure from farmers to bring more wetland habitat into agricultural production, or will farmland be abandoned? We don't know."

Wetland conservation is essential to protecting waterfowl habitats. Sorenson and colleagues are currently identifying the least drought-sensitive areas of the prairie pothole region, so these sites can be placed on the priority list for protection. Better monitoring of habitat conditions and data on breeding areas outside the pothole region also are needed. Finally, citizens can do their part in reducing emissions that contribute to global warming. "We can all help minimize the impacts of climate change on future generations of humans and wildlife," she says.

Sorenson's study appears in the current issue of "Waterfowl 2000," a publication of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at www.fws.gov, and in a recent issue of the journal Climate Change.

Is EMF a phantom risk? Courts and agencies are now dealing with an environmental health risk -- electromagnetic fields (EMF) --that scientists aren't even sure is indeed a risk, according to Professor of Law Michael Baram, codirector of the Center for Law and Technology.

Electromagnetic fields are generated by various electrical consumer products and power lines. "While we still don't know the full effects, if any, of EMF, the public is getting alarmed, and this is reflected in lawsuits across the country," Baram says. "To date, EMF cases have been pursued on the basis of personal injury and loss of property value. Now minority groups believe they're suffering disproportionate exposure to EMF and are going to court for remedies under the Civil Rights Act and new environmental justice policies." However, the only type of case that has succeeded so far is when landowners sue over property near power lines that has become devalued due to public fear of EMF health risks.

State regulators have responded weakly to EMF health concerns with "prudent avoidance" policies, which require utilities to use "due care" in addressing public health concerns. However, Baram notes, this only affects new power projects, not existing ones, and doesn't respond to environmental injustice claims. And any costs utilities have in complying with prudent avoidance will likely be passed on to customers. "This raises some ethical questions," Baram says. "Like who should pay these costs: all consumers or only those served by the new or retrofitted power lines?"

Baram suggests that state regulators redefine prudent avoidance policies to ensure that minorities and low-income areas aren't disproportionately exposed to EMF from new power projects. "Common law and the marketplace aren't capable of responding to these concerns," he says. "This can't be done piecemeal, either. In order to meet their responsibilities to society, state regulators need to take a holistic approach to addressing EMF health risk and environmental justice concerns." Baram's article appeared in the October 7, 1998, issue of Toxics Law Reporter and is based on his testimony at hearings held in California by several state agencies.