Navigating Tribal Sovereignty: Legal Challenges and Governance in the US
The Idaho Science & Technology Policy Fellowship program hosted a session on Tribal Sovereignty, Governance, and Law on Sept. 27, 2024. The event provided an informational overview of the legal, cultural, and governance structures that define tribal nations within the United States.
Jordan Gross, a faculty member at the University of Idaho College of Law specializing in criminal Law and procedure, criminal justice in Indian Country, comparative criminal law, and professional ethics, highlighted both historical and contemporary legal frameworks that impact tribal nations.
One of the central themes discussed was the federal government’s evolving legal relationship with tribes. While the U.S. Constitution recognizes the sovereignty of Native nations, both federal oversight and state interference often restrict tribal sovereignty, leading to a complex and sometimes contradictory legal framework. Building on work including Stephen Pevar’s The Rights of Indians and Tribes (Oxford University Press, 2024), Gross unpacked these challenges, highlighting how tribes continue to navigate a legal system that can simultaneously recognize their inherent sovereignty and limit it through legislative acts like the Major Crimes Act of 1885, one of the key legal frameworks limiting tribal autonomy in legal matters.
Another significant topic discussed during the webinar was the complex history of treaties between Native American tribes and the U.S.government. Nearly 400 treaties were signed between tribes and the US until Congress passed a law in 1871 (25 U.S.C. 71), which prohibited the federal government from entering into additional treaties with Native tribes. This law, however, did not invalidate existing treaties, affirming that "no obligation of any treaty... shall be hereby invalidated or impaired." Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) determined that Congress could abrogate, or break, treaties with tribes through federal law. Over the years, Congress has utilized this power, abrogating many treaties in the process.
The conversation also touched on how tribal constitutions, many of which were adopted under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, reflect varying levels of federal influence. Some tribes have constitutions that mirror Western governance structures, while others have resisted adopting such frameworks, asserting their governance systems. This diversity underscores the complexity of tribal sovereignty and governance across different Native nations. The webinar highlighted how these issues are not only legal but deeply tied to cultural autonomy and self-determination.
In a short Q&A discussion following the webinar, participants explored how the governance of gaming on tribal lands has further infringed over time. While Native nations traditionally maintained control over gambling within their territories, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 introduced federal oversight of tribal gaming operations. Many tribes viewed this as an encroachment on their sovereignty, as it required them to negotiate compacts with states for certain gaming activities like casinos and slot machines. These intersecting jurisdictions—federal, state, and tribal—have created ongoing tensions, particularly regarding the federal government's authority to determine tribal status and recognition.
Key Resources:
Professor Maggie Blackhawk, Federal Indian Law as Paradigm Within Public Law, 132:7 Harvard Law Review (2019)
Professor Stephen L. Pevar, The Rights of Indians and Tribes, Oxford University Press (2024)
Sonya Rosario (director), Idaho’s Forgotten War (2009) [YouTube]
Redefining the Norm: Making Plant-Based Options the Default
Our “Local STEM” series highlights local government and community initiatives and organizations in areas that relate to STEM.
Greener by Default uniquely applies behavioral science to food policy in an effort to make plant-based food the default across foodservice. Katie Cantrell is the CEO and co-Founder of Greener by Default and emphasizes the importance of switching the norm in institutional food service to preserve the freedom of choice for consumers . ESAL discusses the idea of using choice architecture to create more inclusive, sustainable food options in hospital, corporation and university settings with Cantrell.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
MS: What is the larger need that you hope to address through Greener by Default?
Cantrell: Our ultimate goal is to switch the norm in institutional foodservice. Currently, meat is the default. The standard American diet with tons of meat, cheese and dairy in every single meal is not inclusive for the many people who are lactose intolerant, trying to eat healthier or have religious or cultural beliefs that restrict certain animal products.
It's also not good for the environment, but it's the norm. In order to opt out of it, you have to take a stand and put in a lot of conscious effort, which usually only strict vegetarians or vegans would bother to do. You have to speak up and be a little bit of a pain. We're trying to make plant-based the default and give people the choice to opt into meat and dairy. This preserves freedom of choice. It is not forcing people to eat meatless.
MS: What are some areas of foodservice that Greener by Default has impacted?
Cantrell: We worked with New York City Health and Hospitals to implement plant-based defaults for their patient meals at all 11 hospitals. We started with a pilot program for patient lunches. The way that it works there is they have a verbal menu. A food service associate goes into the patient's room, says, “Our chef special today is spaghetti. Would you like that?” If the patient says no, they say “Our other chef special of the day is curry, would you like that?” If they say no to both of those, then there's a static menu of options that they can choose from. Before the pilot program, they did “Meatless Mondays,” but every other day of the week, both of the chef specials had meat in them, and patients had to specially request a vegetarian meal.
Katie Cantrell
For the pilot, we made both of the chef specials plant-based. If patients didn't want either of those, they had other options to choose from that included meat. It was a huge initiative and joint effort between us, the mayor's office, New York City Health and Hospitals, and the culinary director of Sodexo.The pilot went so well that they have now implemented it permanently at all 11 hospitals for patient lunches and dinners, transitioning 800,000 meals per year to plant-based.
MS: What are a couple examples of meals that chefs have created that have been used for this program?
Cantrell: We often encourage leaning on international cuisines that are naturally plant-forward, like Mexican food that has black beans, Vietnamese pho or banh mi that have tofu, or Indian cuisine with lentils or chickpeas. Those are times when diners will expect to see plant-based proteins and they won't even think twice about it.
MS: Are there any other strategies Greener by Default has used?
Cantrell: Another strategy that we recommend is what we call subtle substitutions. A friend and colleague of mine worked with a school district in Colorado to switch out the eggs and dairy in their baked goods with flax seeds, applesauce, bananas and oil.
No one noticed the difference. They saved $10,000 a year and they cut as much carbon as driving 50,000 miles.
MS: Are you using data to inform future decisions of implementing Greener by Default to other contexts?
Cantrell: We conduct focus groups with the front lines of foodservice: foodservice staff in hospitals, nurses, and dieticians to learn what worked and what didn't. There is a lot of nuance to this. Data can help show the types of cuisines and what works best for different diners. One place may prefer bowls and healthier options, while another place prefers more comfort food. Certain traditional diners that are very meat and potatoes may be resistant to fully plant-based options. In those situations, we lean on meat reduction rather than fully plant-based dishes.
MS: What research has the Greener by Default Team conducted so far?
Cantrell:Our co-founder and COO, Ilana Braverman, recently published a paper with several members of our research board about plant-based defaults at on campus events. Researchers at Harvard, UCLA, and ASU studied how people RSVPing to an event and on the form, it just says, “Click here to request a vegetarian meal”, “Click here to request a gluten-free meal”, for instance. With the default being meat, they found less than 20 percent of people went out of their way to request plant-based. For the study, they flipped it. In accordance with our commitment to sustainability inclusivity, plant-based will be the default: “Check here if you'd like to request a meal with meat”. About two-thirds of people stuck with the plant-based default. A third of people requested meat. Changing the language on the registration form resulted in an almost 50% increase in the number of people eating plant-based. They calculated the environmental impacts and found that the carbon footprint of the event decreased by around 40% just by changing the language on the registration form to normalize the plant-based option.
MS: What advice would you have for scientists or engineers that want to get more involved with Greener by Default?
Cantrell: The most direct way is to reach out to us if you think it's a good fit for your company. We give “Lunch and Learns” or webinars. If there is a green team or your company has a sustainability speaker series, we can come in and give a talk. If you work for a place that has a cafeteria or catered menus, we have tips and easy best practices that can be implemented. For example, in a buffet, putting the plant-based option first and having meat at the end and having smaller serving utensils for meat and dairy. It just kind of subconsciously shapes how we fill up our plates.
Our website has DIY guides for different food serving styles and events. Folks who work at larger institutions can email us at info@greenerbydefault.org. Generally, there's often a lot more that you can do than you realize. Companies care most about their employees, not what random outsiders think.With both food and sustainability more broadly, people don't think about these things if there's no one to voice it. So there are a lot of great opportunities to make changes.
Working to Implement Water Conservation Legislation in California
James Nachbaur is the Director of the Office of Research, Planning, and Performance within California State's Water Resources Control Board, which runs and supports short-term and long-term efforts on a variety of topics, including climate change, water use efficiency, emergency management, and economic analysis. He has been involved with environmental policy and clean energy policy on both the federal and state levels. ESAL interviewed James about the Office of Research, Planning, and Performance's recent accomplishments, future plans, and the steps that brought him to this point in his policy career.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
MFD: What is the California state's Water Resources Control Board? And your title is the Director of Research, Planning, and Performance; what does that entail?
Nachbaur: The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) has big roles in California's water management. The Water board oversees nine regional water quality control boards across the state. Collectively, the boards preserve, enhance, restore and allocate water to protect public health and the environment.
Within the Water Board, I lead a special projects team that coordinates some of the Board’s climate change adaptation work, among other things. We also have a role in the state's water use efficiency and water conservation. The team, for example, worked on a major new policy to increase urban water use efficiency; it shifts how the state engages with local water agencies. The team also implements several cross-cutting functions, such as staff training and development through our training services program and the economic analysis of policy proposals. We also help teams that are developing policies based on science.
MFD: What is the process of implementing a new policy? What have some of the challenges been?
James Nachbaur.
Nachbaur: A lot of what we do is to implement laws. In 2018, the California Legislature passed laws that were responding to a drought in California from 2011 through 2017. The water conservation and efficiency legislation was complex. It was rewarding, and sometimes challenging, to work over many years and with many different groups of interested parties to try to clarify what kinds of policy decisions our board might want to consider, and how policies could ultimately get formalized by the board as a regulation and then implemented. This policy will be really useful; one of the reasons the Legislature developed this framework was that the state’s previous approach was not as tailored to local conditions.
MFD: What was one of those details that popped up that surprised you, or was something you hadn’t considered before?
Nachbaur: Part of treating the different areas of California differently was learning about the uses of water in particular areas. For example, there are communities where significant amounts of customer water use is for cooling homes or to support populations of horses or livestock. How to address that in a statewide framework was not something I personally had considered before working on this project. That kind of water use would not be clear based on simplistic data such as the number of people who live in the area or how many acres of residential landscaping there are. We worked, with local water managers, environmental groups, and other colleagues, to better understand those kinds of water use and how to incorporate them into the conservation framework.
MFD: What made you want to work in this capacity for the state of California, or even just in water or the environmental policy space?
Nachbaur: My parents both worked in policy-related jobs and would talk with me about what was going on. Over time, enjoying that merged with my appreciation of the natural environment here in California and in other places. Moving into environmental economics seemed natural. Looking back, economics (and math, which I studied in college), gave me tools and perspectives that could be applied to a range of different projects. I didn't feel, by moving into environmental economics, or environmental policy, or public policy in general, that I was going to be limited to one kind of thing. I have now been lucky to have been involved in policy discussions for years.
MFD: For scientists in general, and people who aren't in government, how could they get involved in some of your issues and initiatives?
Nachbaur: There’s a real need for folks with all backgrounds, including scientific or engineering backgrounds, to get involved in policy issues. I think there's also a need to be aware of how complicated some of the issues are, and how deep and long the histories are that have brought us to where we are, and that simple fixes are not always possible or not always going to work, even if they seem promising. For folks with a science background, I think it helps when they can combine technical expertise with a sense of curiosity and humility around how things actually work.
More generally, lots of government decisions are made and there are a lot of different ways people should use to get involved. At the Water Board, for example, we often receive hundreds of comments during a rulemaking process. We read every one of those comments and we get lots of good information from them.
Crafting Policy to Regulate AI from the Virginia Senate
Sen. Lashrecse Aird is a member of the Virginia Senate and served previously as an elected member of the House of Delegates for six years. She is currently serving on commissions such as the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, and its Artificial Intelligence Subcommittee. ESAL interviewed Sen. Lashrecse about her experience working at the state level to develop policy on artificial intelligence.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
MFD: Can you tell us about your experience as a Virginia senator and your experience with AI policy?
Aird: This is my first year of a four-year term. I previously served in Virginia's House of Delegates for six years, which was where my journey in science policy began. As someone who grew up with very humble beginnings, I've seen people's suffering and the social challenges that exist and have catapulted those issues through a technological lens.
During my six years in the House, I worked on legislation that was specific to criminal justice reform, environmental justice, economic justice, and maternal health, among other similar social issues. What I came to learn is that many of the battles that we continue to fight in those categories have now transitioned to technological battles. So much decision-making, so many tools, and so many individuals are now looking to emerging technologies to aid them in resolving different types of issues.
Back in 2020, while I was still in the House, I introduced legislation in Virginia that would have merely conducted an assessment of how the commonwealth of Virginia currently interacts with various artificial intelligence (AI) tools, be it the Department of Education, or the Department of Health, Transportation. We wanted to know how we are currently allowing our state agencies to utilize these tools. And I was really surprised that at my doorstep were your Amazons, your Googles. And they said to me that the state has no business interfering in this type of policy and that it should be left to the federal government. And so, we did not conduct the assessment at the time. Well, here we are, how many years later, and the federal government has not been able to move forward comprehensive legislation in this regard.
I'm excited about the direction that we're moving in now and the progress that we're making. This past legislative session, 2024, I introduced what’s called Senate Bill 487, which specifically combats the use of algorithms by public bodies by requiring both state agencies and local governments to have a series of metrics that they must verify from an accountability standpoint before they adopt a tool.
MFD: How did AI specifically come to your attention?
Aird: I got to this issue through algorithmic bias. That is where I first began to learn more about data sets, and about the accountability that we are asking developers to have. Because I had been working in other spaces around combating bias, particularly in maternal health and with other decisions that are made on behalf of impoverished people, I began to learn that some of this decision-making is now being handed off to some of these tools that are in existence now. That opened the door wide open to look into a lot of other areas like facial recognition, technology, surveillance, blockchain, and other emerging technologies.
Senator Lashrecse Aird.
I know it's so sexy now, but when I was first beginning as a policy maker to talk about it, I was a younger member in the General Assembly. And people would just glaze over! It was not as popular as it is now. It was not likened as a tool that everyone had access to. There was a learning curve for policymakers, and that's why I wanted to start with the assessment.
I think the fear is that policymakers are going to come out and ban products, that our policymakers are going to put regulations in place that are so stringent that it stymies development, research, and evolution of the technology. But that is not at all the intention. I think, as policymakers, we have an obligation to adopt an agreed-upon set of principles regarding how we interact with this technology so that citizens know exactly what is being used on their behalf and know how they are being affected by it.
MFD: What are your thoughts on how states in general can engage with AI in a way that the federal government can't? How has Virginia, in particular, engaged with it so far?
Aird: I think the way I would look at it, is that every state is different. And when the federal government acts on a policy, no matter what unique nature exists for a state, what the needs are for those citizens, you are forced to confine to that one policy. However, as it is structured, states have the opportunity to structure policies that are based solely on the unique nature and needs of their constituency. I mean, think about the geographic diversity that exists in this country!
I love that the federal government has put out aspirational language on AI regulation. This has generated interest and has developed a task force and working groups. There has been legislation introduced, but it has, as I mentioned before, not gone anywhere. And so I think states have a responsibility and obligation to act in its absence.
In Virginia, we have what's referred to as VITA, Virginia's Information Technology Agency, which has put in place some internal regulatory requirements for how the state agencies are currently assessing the various AI tools that they are using. But then you drop down to the local government, the governing bodies for cities and counties, and that requirement isn't there, and that's a level of inconsistency.
Virginia was very fortunate to be one of the first states to pass a Consumer Data Protection Act. But what we also see is that the act is missing what has become standard practice by other variations of that law in other places. Because it is outdated, that will affect any comprehensive AI policy that we put in place since privacy is the foundation for any comprehensive AI policy. I think the biggest problem in Virginia right now is that you have a patchwork of approaches as it pertains to accountability and as it pertains to the type of tools you can adopt and use. And we just want to make sure we have some consistency there, that you're not utilizing something that can be discriminatory, or putting someone’s data at risk.
For example, Virginia is very new to using automatic license plate readers. We’re seeing several localities throughout the state working with a specific company to set this technology up, but there is no regulatory structure for how often the data is pulled, the storage of that data, and additionally, the ability to hold these developers accountable.
MFD: Is there a way for interested individuals to get involved with Virginia's work on AI?
Aird: Right now, at every Joint Committee on Science Technology meeting, we allow for public comment, for advocates and for experts and practitioners to weigh in on the discussion, to ask questions, and to say, "Hey, you might want to rethink your approach to this." That is the stage that we are in, the sausage-making stage right now.In fact, at our September meeting, we will have our preliminary discussions about a recommendation for the comprehensive bill that will come before the General Assembly in 2025. This will literally be the difference between whether legislators are moved to vote for the bill or not. And I hope they will. We desperately need it. We're in the wild wild west right now when it comes to AI from a regulatory standpoint, and I invite the practitioners to come in and tell us whether we know what we're doing or not.
Fighting for Graduate Student Rights
Tell us about yourself.
I am currently pursuing a doctoral degree in Biochemistry at the University of Oregon. My research involves localized and controlled drug delivery for bone regeneration.
What is important to you about engaging with your local government?
I think it is a privilege to be able to pursue expertise in a specific field, and it is necessary to give back to the community that helped foster that interest. Through the accessible STEM Outreach initiatives provided to me in grade school, I was encouraged to pursue my interest in science and scientific inquiry. Additionally, I feel a sense of responsibility to recognize inequity in the community and help replace it with initiatives that champion equity and communicate accessible resources. The Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation on campus upholds these responsibilities for the graduate student community.
Malvika Singhal
What did you do?
As a general member, I have been involved with the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation graduate student union on campus, which aims to defend the rights of graduate employees and push for safer and equitable working conditions. This past year we had the opportunity to negotiate for a fairer contract that included an increase in graduate stipends to meet the burden of increased interest rates, among other things.
What happened then?
The university and the union agreed on a contract with historic precedent compared to previous deals made with the university, which in the past have not compensated graduate employees to make up for inflation and overall increased cost of living. The new contract would provide salary increases across the board for all grad employees over three years. Additionally, it guarantees continued health insurance support and tuition and fee benefits.
What did you get out of this experience?
It feels good to be part of a community that cares about the experiences of its constituents and works towards improving their quality of life. The ability to observe the power of student voices for creating positive change has motivated me to further get involved in local policy outside the university grounds and pursue ways of engaging with the nexus of science communication and local policy in my community.
Advocating for Salmon Fishing Regulations
Tell us about yourself.
What is important about “who I am” changes with the audience. For some, it may be important to say that I have a PhD in Environmental Chemistry; for others, that I have been an Alaska resident for about 30 years, or that I was in the commercial fishing industry for several years, or that I work for a Tribe, or that I live without being connected to power and water. Each of these opens and closes doors, and changes someone’s impression of me.
What is important to you about engaging with your local government?
I am entering my third year as a member of my borough’s Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC). We advise the Borough Assembly on issues that affect fish and wildlife. I felt uncomfortable applying initially as I no longer hunt, trap, or fish, but I ended up fitting in because everybody on the Commission cares about habitat.
What I really enjoy about being on the Commission is we come from all kinds of backgrounds. A member of the Green Party can sit next to someone with an NRA ball cap, a retired regulator can sit next to someone new, and we all work together for the benefit of fish and wildlife.
Kendra Zamzow is a member of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission
What did you do?
Recently a court order forced a national regulatory body – the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to develop a plan to manage salmon fishing in federal waters within Cook Inlet, previously managed by the state of Alaska. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), which makes recommendations to NMFS on managing federal fisheries, met in Seattle in February so that both of their committees (Scientific and Advisory) and the full Council could take up the Cook Inlet issue.
The FWC was very concerned about what the NPFMC would advise, because all the salmon that come to our borough come through the federal zone in Cook Inlet. Since 2011 State regulators have restricted fishing for two weeks in the summer so salmon could move north to the borough’s streams. The NMFS was proposing to double fishing time in the zone during those two weeks, which would impact “personal use” (dipnetting), a small commercial fishery, sportfishing, as well as whales and the ecosystem. They were also proposing very high “allowable catch” limits for each salmon species.
Two of us in the FWC flew to Seattle to testify. I testified in front of the Science Committee, and the other commissioner testified in front of the Advisory Panel and the full Council. Our ask was simple: don’t double the fishing time in late July. Too late we learned that these bodies were only meeting to determine how much of each salmon species they would recommend as a “catch limit”. I had actually worked through a lot of the relevant data, and I scrambled to testify that the Council should reduce the catch limit, providing my analysis. I testified as a citizen, not a commissioner, because I had not had time to get approval from the rest of the commission.
What happened then?
The Council actually did agree with my recommendation, and put it in as part of the motion to be voted on that the catch limits would be much lower and much more in line with recent harvest years than the original NMFS and Science Council recommendations. This was the only motion they considered on the entire Cook Inlet salmon fishery issue, and on February 11th the vote failed 5 to 6.
Now it goes back to NMFS with the original high catch and doubled fishing time recommendations. The NPFMC has a meeting in April, and there is a court-ordered May 1 deadline for a plan to be published in the Federal Register. I am still not clear on whether the NPFMC needs to make the decision or if it is now up to the Department of Commerce, which NMFS is under.
What did you get out of this experience?
I thought I had learned the importance of “know your Ask”, but we weren’t familiar with this process, and we should have done more homework when approaching an entirely new part of government. I’m not sure that we would have been more effective, but I do think it is important to make sure you are asking for something the body can actually act on. There are always staff at these bodies that can help with the process, and sometimes the best option is to pick up the phone and call them. I am also learning more about how different regulatory bodies intersect; the multi-agency NPFMC, the federal NMFS, the state Board of Fisheries and the borough.
Despite this the learning curve hasn’t scared me off from local Government and the FWC has appointed me to be their representative on another advisory body (on water bodies, not fish). I’m re-learning that the only downside to being useful is you might be too useful – it can be hard to keep up a 40-hour per week job alongside everything else.
Promoting Civic Engagement through Clean Air
Cindy Hua is a board member of Downwinders at Risk, a community-organizing nonprofit that works to improve air quality in Dallas, Texas. When Hua first joined Downwinders in 2018, she found a group of progressively like-minded people who were passionate about environmental justice. She now chairs the Particulate Matter Education Committee while pursuing her PhD at Southern Methodist University. ESAL interviewed Hua about Downwinders’ accomplishments and her own journey into local activism.
LZ: What is Downwinders at Risk?
Hua: Downwinders is a grassroots environmental justice nonprofit in Dallas, where we work to empower residents through community science and civic engagement. We are a small but passionate group that believes cleaner air is an avenue toward better democracy. We teach people how to engage in civic processes. It's not just going to the polls. It’s navigating the city's website to find meetings and to have your voice heard at City Hall, a lot of nitty gritty stuff. Even for a person with a college degree, that level of digging requires a lot of motivation.
LZ: What is your background?
I have a meandering background. I was a biology major in undergrad and was on the pre-med track for a long time, but it wasn’t in my heart. I took a few environmental science courses, and after graduating, I taught for a few years at our local science museum in Dallas. That’s where I saw the interconnectedness of different STEM fields.
I went back to school for my master's in sustainability and urban development, which was inherently interdisciplinary. At that point I was already volunteering for Downwinders at Risk. I did my thesis on how teaching children to build low-cost air monitors for their school impacted their sense of empowerment. I’m really interested in science education and how it connects to learning about your own backyard. Now, I’m doing my PhD, and I keep digging deeper and deeper!
LZ: How did you first get involved in the organization?
Hua: Interesting story. During my master's studies, my advisor picked up the Dallas Morning News and was like, “Hey, have you heard about this group?” She showed me an article about Shingle Mountain and how Downwinders was trying to expand awareness around this environmental hazard. Shingle Mountain was an illegal dump that was essentially created overnight in 2018 by a roofing recycling company. Shingles were dumped next to a black residential neighborhood, Floral Farms. I went to a few Downwinders workshops about air quality and it took off from there. I was immediately roped in.
Cindy Hua
LZ: What happened to Shingle Mountain?
Hua: We advocated for the removal of Shingle Mountain for three years. Nothing happened until 2020 when the city of Dallas received negative national attention about what they had perpetuated by inaction. Alongside neighborhood leaders, we finally got rid of Shingle Mountain and now there’s going to be a park there.
LZ: What is your role in Downwinders?
Hua: Some days I buy the snacks, and other days I go out and install air monitors. My role varies drastically, but officially I chair the Particulate Matter Education Committee. I’m in charge of Purple Air monitors that we purchase and deploy in local neighborhoods. Then we maintain and change them out every two years.
I host outreach sessions to talk about air quality and how the EPA measures it. I also provide information on Shared Air DFW, our regional air monitoring network that works in partnership with Dallas County and University of Texas, Dallas to deploy sophisticated EPA-grade particulate matter monitors. We help residents learn about the quality of air they're breathing using live data on a map.
LZ: How does Downwinders operate as an organization?
Hua: At its heart, Downwinders is a community organizing group. We rely heavily on the relationships we build with residents, who come to us when they have nowhere else to turn. Our organizers work with residents to figure out a game plan and to make sure the city hears their concerns and wishes. Every neighborhood has a different vision.
Downwinders is almost like a startup. I attend community groups to talk with residents, but I also help with media and graphics when needed. We’ve figured out the ins-and-outs of an effective framework for social change. We’ve built and gotten things done. Structurally what makes that happen is trust in relationships. Trust is more important than committees or project groups.
LZ: How can those with STEM backgrounds help the cause?
Hua: Working professionals with STEM backgrounds can look for a community organizing or environmental justice (EJ) group near them, because there's bound to be at least one. EJ groups should also reach out to STEM professionals who might not know about this kind of work. I strongly believe there needs to be more focus in academic institutions and industries to partner with neighborhood-led groups. I think it's a two-way street.
LZ: Where do you see Downwinders going in the future?
Hua: Every state in the US has a history of redlining and industrial adjacency to minority neighborhoods. Downwinders has developed a framework that could work to undo racist zoning at the local level. It’s hard but not impossible to do in places without existing organizing resources, because we’ve been able to prove it out in Dallas. If Downwinders can build a more equitable city here, then it is possible elsewhere. I have a lot of hope that what we are doing is implementable for any place and any city.
Oregon Environmental Council: Strengthening Environmental Strategies with Volunteer Scientists
Over the past year, the Oregon State Legislature has enacted several key sustainability-focused bills, establishing a significant role as an environmental advocacy and climate resiliency leader. The 2023 legislative session saw the signing of 28 environmental bills into law, including the Climate Resilience Package. This package will support local job creation as well as improve energy efficiency, increase access to renewable energy sources, and protect the state’s natural resources through healthier crops, improved water quality, and increased drought and wildfire resistance.
The passage of all this legislation was helped in no small part by the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC), a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that advances solutions to Oregon’s environmental challenges. Jacqui Treiger is campaign manager for climate and transportation at OEC, working to further initiatives that reduce climate pollution, increase community resilience, and build a transportation system that works for everyone.
AP:Could you elaborate on the initiatives and activities that the Oregon Environmental Council has been engaged in across Oregon recently?
Treiger: Since our founding in 1968, OEC has been a part of passing landmark environmental legislation in Oregon. From securing the status of Oregon's beaches as public goods to spearheading the Bottle Bill and pioneering bottle recycling in the state, the OEC relentlessly advocates for impactful and enduring solutions. These initiatives target the root causes of Oregon's environmental issues, yielding tangible benefits for public health and overall quality of life. Our goals are a stable climate that safeguards our communities and economy; clean and plentiful water that supports local residents and wildlife; and healthy neighborhoods free of air pollution. This past legislative session, OEC worked to pass a number of bills that will protect youth from toxic chemicals, phase out “forever chemicals,” protect frontline workers from climate-fueled extreme weather, and set Oregon up to leverage federal funding for water, climate, and transportation infrastructure. OEC not only works to pass legislation, but we follow through and ensure the implementation and agency rulemaking is strong.
AP: With the evolving landscape of environmental policy, is there a growing demand for experts in STEM within your organization?
Treiger: Absolutely, expertise in STEM fields is a distinctive niche in our work. Individuals with a background in these areas bring invaluable authority and insight, especially when it comes to engaging with legislators and key decision-makers. Their knowledge not only enriches our campaign strategies but also enhances our credibility and effectiveness when we present complex scientific data and advocate for policy changes.
AP: What kind of work do volunteers with STEM backgrounds engage in?
Treiger: At OEC, we pride ourselves in identifying and advancing science-based policy solutions to Oregon’s pressing environmental challenges. Individuals with STEM backgrounds have an important role to play in lending their expertise to inform the development of policy. For instance, when OEC and partners were working to develop protections for frontline workers from wildfire smoke and extreme heat, we worked closely with health and science experts to understand the health impacts of these climate hazards and how best to mitigate them. We also rely on scientific consensus to identify goals for state greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Volunteers with STEM backgrounds have a powerful voice and perspective to contribute to the policymaking process in Oregon. Many of our volunteers possess this expertise, which has been a significant asset to our cause.
We are often up against well-funded companies that don’t always want to change how they do business. Whether it's addressing tailpipe pollution from car exhaust or toxic chemicals used in consumer products, using your STEM expertise can lend credence to the need for policy action. And your voice can be decisive in persuading legislators to act.
Volunteers pose while holding signs that describe their goals.
AP: What are the benefits of civic engagement?
Treiger: Elected officials are in office to serve their communities and want your input along the way. They’re there to represent us, so it's our job to make sure they know what we find important and that they prioritize it. Whether you are sending emails, making phone calls, submitting written testimony, verbally testifying at a hearing, or participating in a lobby day and meeting with your legislators and their staff, hearing from you makes a big impact!
This past legislative session, Senate Republicans led the longest walkout in state history, effectively stalling legislative action on hundreds of bills. When the walkout ended, there was very little time remaining before the constitutional end of session. We worked to make sure that OEC members and constituents across the state were kept informed about legislative developments and key opportunities for climate action. Thanks to a consistent drumbeat of support from Oregonians across the state, lawmakers committed to prioritizing climate action and voted to pass the Climate Resilience Package in the final remaining days of session. This sweeping climate package could enable Oregon to leverage more than $1 billion in federal funding in climate and clean energy to create and sustain local jobs in construction, energy, and agriculture, expand access to renewable energy sources, and support the state’s natural resource economies. It could not have happened without robust, sustained civic engagement, especially through the six-week walkout, from volunteers calling, emailing, submitting comments and attending lobby days in support of climate action.
These opportunities occur during the legislative sessions, but also at the local level, with your city and county officials. After a bill is signed into law, there is often a next step called “rulemaking,” where government agencies fill in the details to determine how the law will actually work. Throughout the rulemaking there are opportunities for the public to weigh in. These don’t get as much attention, so your voice can have a big impact. Rulemakings are where environmental laws are either given the strength they need to protect our future, or completely gutted. That’s why it is vital that community members pay attention, show up, and make your voice heard.
AP: How did you get involved with OEC?
Treiger: I studied environmental science and public health in college, and while I love science, I found I really enjoyed translating what I knew to people less engaged in the “wonkiness” of it all. I really enjoy connecting with people. I found that civic engagement helped to combat my climate anxiety and that taking action and being part of a broader community is really empowering.
AP: What are you doing now with the organization?
Treiger: For the 2023 legislative session, OEC and a number of partner organizations created a coalition to work on efficient and resilient buildings. Buildings are the second largest source of climate pollution in Oregon and our first line of defense against climate harm. The Building Resilience Coalition came together to advance a package of bills that provide incentives and tools for Oregon to rapidly reduce the use of fossil fuels in new and existing buildings while ensuring that buildings are affordable and healthy for all Oregonians. I co-managed the broader coalition of over 50 organizations working to support this legislation, which passed as part of the Climate Resilience Package. Now we are focused on the implementation of these bills and looking at what are the next steps in continuing to create a resilient, efficient, and electric building sector.
I also work on transportation policy. Transportation is the largest climate pollution-emitting sector in Oregon. Both the 2024 and 2025 legislative sessions are gearing up to have a large focus on transportation. Every few years there is a transportation package, the last one was passed in 2017, and 2025 is expected to see the next one. OEC is working with many organizations and agencies in the hopes of creating the greenest transportation package in the nation that cuts climate pollution by reducing the miles people drive in their cars and electrifying the rest.
AP: What are the future priorities for OEC, and for Oregon in general?
Treiger: On top of gearing up for the upcoming legislative sessions, we are focused on strong implementation of the policy progress we have been proud to help deliver. This includes climate emissions reductions and resiliency, creation of jobs in the clean energy economy, and ensuring workers are protected as the climate changes and we face more extreme weather and wildfires. We are eager to work with Governor Kotek’s administration and legislators to build on the progress we’ve made and accelerate emission reductions with the best available science. Working at the same time to protect people from climate impacts and co-pollutants associated with greenhouse gas emissions. We are continuing to find new tools and ways to engage with communities and to grow our partnerships across the state including with folks in STEM. Oregon’s science community is at the forefront of research and analysis when it comes to environmental challenges Oregon faces today. Every day there are new studies and articles published that help demonstrate the need for urgent and lasting policy solutions.
OEC is also focused on assessing water quality and quantity - ensuring communities and natural resource economies have sustainable water supplies moving forward. As well as advocating for legislation that protects public health and the strong implementation of these laws, such as the Toxic Free Kids Act and the Toxic Free Cosmetics Act, which are aimed at eliminating harmful toxins from these products. To learn more, you can sign up for OEC’s email list or check out our website- oeconline.org.
Since the Toxic Free Kids Modernization Act was first passed in 2016, more than 4,000 reports showed the presence of arsenic, lead, formaldehyde and other toxins in children’s products. According to the OEC, “Engaging in genuine negotiations, building strong relationships, and being credible advocates for science-based protections led to…environmental wins.”
Data Dive on Eviction Data
In Maryland in 2018, 69.6 evictions were filed for every 100 renter households. Right next door in Delaware, the number was only 15.9 evictions. Why?
West Virginia, with a median household income of only $44,000, had only 4.9 evictions for every 100 households. New Jersey, with a household income nearly twice West Virginia’s, (2018: $81,740), had an eviction rate nearly three times higher.
What gives, you might ask? How can a major household crisis like eviction be so different for two neighboring states? Or so much higher in a state whose residents have a higher median income?
Questions like these once lurked in the shadows of national public awareness. That only began to change a few years ago when the Eviction Lab at Princeton University pioneered a nationwide database of evictions to throw a bright light on the social problem of housing insecurity. Over the years, the Lab has searched court filings covering every county in the United State to build a collection of over 100 million court eviction records between 2000 and 2018.
Recently, Engineers and Scientists Acting Locally (ESAL) joined with the Eviction Lab in a panel discussion exploring this gap and helping our audiences understand the power of data, especially in the areas of housing insecurity, equity, and social justice.
Sociologist Peter Hepburn, associate director of the Eviction Lab at Princeton University and assistant professor at Rutgers University, discussed the obstacles faced by the Lab’s founder, Matthew Desmond, when he set out to study the scope of housing insecurity nationwide. “The federal government collects little or no data about eviction,” he said. “And states vary widely in what data they make available, if any. It's very hard to answer those questions without that sort of data being made available.” To remedy this, Desmond and the lab spent years compiling a national eviction database of more than 100 million court eviction records from almost every part of the country. This huge task allowed them to generate interactive maps showing local eviction filing rates, how many households were affected, and how much eviction varies between different states. They found that evictions tended to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods, even certain buildings, with strong racial and gender disparities.
When the pandemic hit, Lab researchers used web scraping tools to find contemporary eviction data from courts in select jurisdictions around the country, letting them compare COVID-driven evictions to historical data about pre-pandemic evictions. Over time, they built a website with pandemic-related eviction data on ten states and 34 cities, a total of almost 3 million cases, which allowed them to track the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated housing policies in real time. Using this resource, they were able to illustrate the impact of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agency moratorium on evictions, which successfully drove eviction rates down throughout the country. Since the moratorium has lifted these rates have steadily risen, and in some cities have gone well above historical averages.
Alan Mallach, a senior fellow with the Center for Community Progress, used data to help him write multiple books about urban growth, decline and housing, especially in smaller American cities that struggle with deindustrialization. He sees eviction as a failure within a total housing ecosystem that includes the rental housing stock, tenants, property owners, and the multiple policies that interact with them and can intervene in the system.
Mallach highlighted that there are some amazing data sets that are available to better understand this system, including published data on population demographics and mortgage lending, as well as public records data on real estate transactions, vacant property, and foreclosures. He also noted that rental registration requirements are becoming increasingly common in most states, which enables the creation of databases on landlords and rental properties. This information makes it possible to ask specific and focused questions: who owns particular properties? What are the characteristics and conditions of each unit? What rents are being charged? Most importantly, analyzing this data helps to inform what policies will be most effective at preventing evictions and other housing ecosystem failures. “I want to stress the purpose of gathering all of this data is not so much to create a database for research,” Mallach noted, “but to create the basis for effective interventions in the rental system.”
KC Tenants, a citywide tenant union in Kansas City, faced some of the same data gathering challenges as the Princeton Eviction Lab but on a tighter budget. The third panelist, Jaz Hayes, used his self-taught programming skills to find ways to build up an eviction data set with 1.2 million records. Hayes grew up in poverty himself in Kansas City; his mother faced eviction herself when she was pregnant with him. Working as a volunteer for KC Tenants, he recognized data gaps and acquired the skills to begin filling them, allowing the organization to further galvanize and organize tenants and support their policy demands with local data. “We started by a one-off request from one county spanning about 20 years and it included about 200,000 records,” he said. “Since then, we have expanded that data set to the entire state of Missouri, over the entire period that is digitally available.”
By geocoding addresses in the eviction records, Hayes can map out where evictions are happening and determine which properties have the highest rates of eviction. Today, KC Tenants has a database of 1.2 records going back 30 years.
That data helped point out a decades-old pattern of legally-enforced segregation in Kansas City. KC Tenants’ database shows how the minority population concentrated east of Troost Avenue correlates with concentrations of both poverty and eviction filings. Mapping eviction filings as a percent of renter occupied housing units shows this effect no matter the time period. “If you're from Kansas City, this is completely unsurprising,” Hayes said. “But it's validating to have the data to reinforce that knowledge.”
The data gathered by KC Tenants also found only about three percent of tenants have a lawyer when facing eviction proceedings. “This creates a huge imbalance in the power relationship between a landlord and tenant when they go to court,” Hayes said. KC Tenants used this knowledge to help the city reach out to tenants to explain how the Kansas City government guarantees the right to an attorney in eviction cases. “Our city has a complicated political geography, where our city limits span across four different counties and only one of those counties has agreed to share their court filings with the city government,” Hayes said. “The other three have not.” KC Tenants stepped in to fill that gap, sharing their current eviction data with the city so they could inform tenants of their right to a lawyer. “There are countless ways that we could use this data. We haven't even really scratched the surface on it,” Hayes said.
All three panelists agreed the importance of data for policymaking and pursuing social justice doesn’t mean they’re easy to use. But it is still an exciting time for anyone who wants to use data for advocacy. Anyone who wants to advocate for a cause can start with what’s already there. “How do you understand systems?” Alan Mallach said. “You don't understand them by just looking at them or trying to wing it. You understand it by grabbing all the data you can and analyzing it so you can get a comprehensive picture of the system. You start with the insight from basically kind of a gut understanding what's going on and then you use data to build your real understanding of how the system is working.”
With all that potential, the panelists agreed on the importance of knowing where data came from and how they were created. “These are messy records,” Peter Hepburn said. “Learn how those data were actually collected. Things that look self-evident at face value may be a lot more complicated when you really dig into the creation of that data. It's important to understand where data come from before you start using them. There are a lot of ways to misstep.”
It's also important to understand that social statistics begin their life as events, things someone actually lived through. Jaz Hayes found his own childhood experience with housing insecurity helped him put a human face on the bare bones of the numbers. “A lot of public policy doesn't so much come from data as it comes from lived experience,” he said. “We have a massive base of poor and working class tenants. We know that we know the problems we face and we've got some sense of an idea of how to address them. Where data is useful is convincing the people who are not personally experiencing it. A lot of our members know personally that going through eviction court is really difficult. It's a complicated legal system. You're scared and alone and like it doesn't take data to know that. The place where data comes in is where we can take a step back outside of our own lived experience and look at it systematically and say you're not alone.”
It's become clear that new data on evictions, while not solving all problems, have succeeded in casting eviction in a new light in a relatively short time. Evicted, by the Eviction Lab’s founder Matthew Desmond, became a bestseller and won multiple prizes. All three panelists agreed that data about eviction can play multiple roles in shaping urban policy and achieving social justice. Many aspects of eviction, including the questions about its size, scope, and unequal impact that began this report began to emerge as policy questions only after the data compiled by groups like the Eviction Lab and KC Tenants allowed them to emerge as something that could be measured.
Our “Local STEM” series highlights local government and community initiatives and organizations in areas that relate to STEM.
Kavin Manickaraj wants to bridge the gap between science and political action. He serves as the chief data scientist at Greenlink Analytics in Atlanta, GA, where he earned his undergraduate and masters degrees at the Georgia Institute for Technology. Aside from his work with ATHENIA, a predictive modeling tool for understanding energy systems under different conditions, Manickaraj advises Seckinger High School secondary school in Gwinnett County on its AI-integrated curriculum. In a conversation with ESAL, Manickaraj reflected on how his concern for the well-being of the local community and effects of climate change informs his science and career path.
MS: What inspired you to pursue energy systems?
Manickaraj: It started in high school with a passion for astrophysics and astronomy. This was in my hometown right outside Princeton, NJ, a town whose many renowned astronomers were local celebrities of sorts. My dad is a mechanical engineer by training. He would say that mechanical engineering is similar to physics, but you get to build things. That’s when I started thinking about what I would want to build.
MS: What did you decide?
Manickaraj: At the time, no one in the area had solar panels. In fact, a few neighbors were petitioning against permitting them in the community. Watching my dad steadfastly work to change their minds, and also install panels on our own home, inspired me to learn about clean energy technologies. During my undergraduate studies at Georgia Tech, I briefly researched solar materials, which motivated me to pursue that further in graduate school.
MS: What did you do during your time in Georgia Tech?
Manickaraj: My focus in graduate school was on creating new, high-efficiency solar cells using low-cost and non-toxic materials. A close friend of mine was studying fusion energy sciences, and we frequently discussed our research projects. Her goal was to solve the energy crisis – I wanted the same thing. But the only reason we knew about each other’s work was through our friendship. We realized a disconnect between related research must be happening campus-wide. And we wanted to do something about it. That’s why we created Georgia Tech’s first Energy Expo, bringing together industry experts, researchers, and students in a two-day event. The event is still going strong today.
Kavin Manickaraj
The gaps in research also forced a conversation about the visible and invisible blocks to clean energy development. I started learning about the gap between science and action. I thought for durable change to actually occur, politics must be involved in some way. I made the hard decision to leave my program, and find a path that would help me be an engineer in the energy policy field.
MS: What do you consider “political action?”
Manickaraj: I like to think of it as a place where politics and government coexist to create a strong foundation for action. Elected officials are responsible for leaning on experts to help build a stable foundation for launching ongoing improvements.
MS: How have you been able to merge the worlds of political action and energy sustainability?
Manickaraj: I work for a small, nonprofit organization called Greenlink Analytics. The organization was founded by public policy students at Georgia Tech. Together, we created a model called ATHENIA. The tool forecasts how energy systems will operate under cleaner scenarios and estimates the impacts to economic development, health, and climate, amongst other things, based on thousands of historical data points. If we can show how these seemingly disparate sectors interact, impact people’s daily lives, and can address a community’s most pressing concerns, then we’re onto something. That’s how science and political action can go hand in hand.
MS: Is there a specific example through your work with ATHENIA you've observed some interesting connection within the data?
Manickaraj: Some of the things we look at are the implications of different energy pathways, including the financial costs, health impacts, and carbon emissions, ranging from a business-as-usual scenario to a completely decarbonized grid. This way people know the price of getting the greatest benefit.
In Atlanta, our modeling with ATHENIA showed that the price of electricity will increase more than 40% over the next few years as the costs of the new nuclear power plant get distributed to residents. We’re examining how many homes will experience significant energy burdens as a result of the rate increase. Many of these homes could be retrofitted to become more energy efficient and, therefore, use less electricity for their basic needs. The new WeatheRISE program is helping to make this possible. Greenlink is one of the partners on this awesome project.
MS: What has been the biggest challenge outside of differing ideologies that you come across?
Manickaraj: There’s a lot of data out there and it can be hard to parse the signal, or true trend, from the noise.Once I start the process of verifying and investigating the data, it can feel like there is no end point. The problem with getting lost in the data is that I can miss the chance for the information to provide meaningful results within a critical period of time, such as funding cycle, or political cycle.
MS: How do you envision future politicians making decisions? Will they start to use data science more regularly?
Manickaraj: Imagine a future where policy makers have a science advisor who can quickly digest data, examine the information, and predict trends to help get ahead of problems. Instead of a lagging cycle of issues, the science community identifies the problem, creates a policy solution grounded in the data, and advocates for a specific solution.
MS: How do you suggest other scientists start working towards a more equitable space for their communities and becoming more engaged in local policies?
Manickaraj: The answer is intrinsic to how science is done. Good science follows the scientific method. First, there is an observation, then a hypothesis, and then you collect data and go where it tells you. Translating that method to the community level means talking to people in the community.
For many years, there has been a savior phenomenon where well-educated people, who might have good intentions, think they have the answer for a community they do not represent. It’s critical to work with people who can speak for a community, establish trust, gather accurate data, and then assess the best way forward. This way, the solution is by and for the community and already has the buy-in necessary for getting it passed.
Additional information on Greenlink Analytics is available on their Instagram, LinkedIn, and X pages.
