Over the years, the James River has been affected by Kepone, PCBs, nitrogen, phosphorus and countless other pollutants. But Patti Jackson has had her own impact on the river as well.

 

Jackson was executive director of the James River Association, a post she held for 22 years. Her previous positions with the state gave her the footing she needed to lead and expand the environmental advocacy group.

 

“I first went to work for the state, and went into the pollution response program at what was then the State Water Control Board. I was basically responding to oil spill fish kills, and any other kind of environmental crises or problem that arose.” From there, Jackson left to head up the James River Association in 1983.

 

Her years there included a number of successes for the association. “Some issues we tackled include the Chesapeake Bay particularly, and that has driven a lot of the initiative that has been undertaken. When I went to the James River Association, one of the first things I did was go to the first Chesapeake Bay conference, where the initial results for EPA’s study of the Bay were presented, and the first Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed. It was really a huge event in terms of bringing all the players together at the federal and state levels to recognize that the Chesapeake Bay was an important resource, and that we needed to have more of a commitment jointly to improving the Bay.

 

“Over time, there was this recognition that it wasn’t just the Bay, it was all the rivers leading into the Bay, and then all the watersheds draining to the rivers. So we’ve really seen how significantly land use has impacted water quality. I think that has driven a lot of those initiatives, and unfortunately it has not happened as quickly as we would have hoped, and there has not been sufficient funding … to really achieve all of the goals that have been set over years in the various Bay agreements. But I think the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act was sort of the first official action that recognized that connection, that what we do on the land impacts water quality.

 

“I still think funding is a huge issue for all of the natural resources agencies,” Jackson says. “We’ve never had sufficient funding since when the secretary of natural resources was separated from the secretary of commerce and resources. I don’t think that Cabinet position has ever fully had as much prominence as other Cabinet positions, and they certainly have had very limited funding—like 1 percent or less [of the state budget] over all the years. Without it being a priority at the state level, then it sort of trickles all the way through the process, and people realize that it’s not as much of a priority as other things are.”

 

“There are more issues out there. There is more activity around these issues. I think there is more attention paid now because the public is concerned about the environment, and sort of forcing the hand of those various players, whether it be the state, or the regulated industry, or the farmers, or even the environmental advocates. Because of that concern, I think it has elevated the attention somewhat, and I do think that there’s a perception that there’s more going on. Well, I do think that there’s more going on. The question is, is it enough?”