Obama Presidential Center will displace vital South Side Chicago trees, advocates say
The Center will remove hundreds of trees that provide cooling in the summer, cleaner air, and a quiet respite for residents—but promises to re-plant the area and provide an economic boost.
On August 16, the Obama Foundation started work on the Obama Presidential Center, but without the fanfare that one might expect. Over the past five years, the Center's South Side Chicago location has prompted multiple lawsuits and a recent Supreme Court petition.
Positioned between the University of Chicago and Lake Michigan, Jackson Park is a 550-acre green space in the southeastern edge of the city, used for everything from family get-togethers to sporting events.
The park's lush tree canopy is a refuge from the sweltering summer heat, which has been growing increasingly worse due to climate change. Trees can reduce local temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. "We go [to Jackson Park] to be cooler, to be comfortable as we hang out," Jeannette Hoyt, director of CCAM Research Partners and former resident of the area, told EHN, adding that many of the nearby residents can't afford air conditioning. Hoyt is not affiliated with Protect our Parks.
However, if the Center's construction continues as planned, some of those trees will come down. According to a 2020 Environmental Assessment of the area conducted by the National Park Service, the project will remove 326 trees at the site of the Center, along with an additional 463 trees due to project-related construction, including transportation improvements and relocation of the park's track and field.
Aside from their cooling effect, the environmental benefit of trees in this area also include the removal of roughly 22 tons of carbon dioxide and 342 pounds of air pollution each year, according to a 2018 survey of the area. The latter is especially important in a city that is ranked as the 16th most polluted city in the US for ozone pollution and whose asthma rates surpass national averages.
Trees also benefit our mental health, Kathleen Wolf, a research social scientist at the University of Washington, told EHN.
"Short amounts of time in nature can help us to restore our minds, and not just make us feel better, but actually reduce potential aggression, reduce irritation, reduce anxiety," she said.
An Obama Foundation spokesperson told EHN in an email that many of the trees are currently dead or in poor health. However, the 2018 survey of the area, performed by experts hired by the Foundation, states that only 64 trees currently need to be removed from the area due to their condition or suboptimal locations.
The spokesperson said current design calls "for more trees than exist on the site today" and that there are plans to increase the biodiversity of the species. This will include bird- and pollinator-friendly plant selections that will benefit the wildlife that frequents the area.
But "one tree does not equal one tree," David Nowak, an emeritus senior scientist with the U.S. Forest Service, told EHN, explaining that the environmental benefits derived from a large tree are 60 to 70 times greater than smaller trees.
He also added that planting new trees comes with a risk. "There's no guarantee that the young tree is going to survive," he explained. "New trees have a fairly high mortality rate before they get established."
Designing with creativity
Protect Our Park and other community members are pushing for the Center to be relocated to nearby Washington Park. "It's relatively treeless," said Hoyt, who points out that there are also many vacant lots in the area that the Foundation could build on.
"It would bring the same amount of jobs [and] it would bring more tourism" since it's near a major train line, she added. "And we get to save...our safe space" and the environmental benefits it provides.
That said, if the Center stays in Jackson Park, Wolf wonders if there is a way to integrate some of the existing trees into the development. "Design is about creativity," she said, "yet the first move is to remove the trees [and] create this blank slate of a parcel."
Gentrification concerns
The battle is still ongoing, creating a conversation that goes beyond trees. Local communities fear this construction project will gentrify the area, displacing the predominantly Black residents. On the other hand, there's the benefit of tourism and jobs that the Center has promised to provide.
"I certainly couldn't say which is better, said Nowak. "It depends what the [local] people want."
Still, he hopes that as this debate continues the value of these trees isn't discarded. "There's a cost associated—not just removing the trees—but the cost of the loss of benefits that would have been there."
“Putting resources toward carbon capture and storage instead of renewable energy is wasting time we don’t have.”
PITTSBURGH — A group of more than 30 environmental and health advocacy groups have asked Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to veto a bill that would pave the way for carbon storage in the state.
The bill, SB831, which was passed by the state legislature on Friday, creates a legal framework for climate-warming carbon emissions captured from burning fossil fuels to be injected underground and stored indefinitely to prevent them from escaping into the atmosphere. Some environmental advocacy groups support the bill, while others oppose it.
Carbon capture and storage infrastructure is being advanced across the country thanks to federal funding and tax credits through the federal Inflation Reduction Act, but the technology remains controversial.
Proponents say it can reduce carbon emissions while protecting the power grid, while opponents say the technology is unproven and will divert resources from the rapid clean energy transition needed to slow climate change. The debate over the Pennsylvania bill has mirrored the national and global debates about carbon capture and storage.
“Inviting this technology into the state is just setting us up for more fossil fuel extraction, which is what it’s actually all about,” Karen Feridun, co-founder of the Better Path Coalition, a Pennsylvania-based environmental advocacy group, told EHN. “Putting resources toward carbon capture and storage instead of renewable energy is wasting time we don’t have.”
On July 16, the Better Path Coalition submitted a letter on behalf of more than 30 environmental advocacy groups calling on Governor Shapiro to veto the bill.
“Inviting this technology into the state is just setting us up for more fossil fuel extraction, which is what it’s actually all about." - Karen Feridun, Better Path Coalition
“The bill strips Pennsylvania landowners of their subsurface property rights, shifts liability to the state, and exposes everyone to a new and very dangerous generation of fossil fuel Infrastructure,” the letter reads. “SB 831 should not be enacted for the sake of the Commonwealth and the people who depend on you to make the courageous choice to protect them.”
The letter also references a previous letter the group sent to lawmakers prior to the vote on the bill that outlined scientific concerns about the shortcomings of carbon capture and storage technology.
“There are a lot of unanswered questions about how to do carbon storage safely and effectively in general, and even more about doing it in Pennsylvania where we have unique geology and hundreds of thousands of abandoned [oil and gas] wells, many of which are in unknown locations,” Feridun said. “It’s premature at best to pass a bill allowing this and saying it’s in the public interest when this process has never been done successfully.”
Several lawmakers, including state Senator Katie Muth and state Representative Greg Vitali, made remarks opposing the bill prior to its passage.
“This bill is deeply flawed and does not provide the necessary safeguards for communities or our environment nor does it provide an actual solution for combatting the climate crisis,” Muth said.
The bill received support from business and labor organizations including the Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades Council, the AFL-CIO, and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.
“Carbon capture technology has the potential to create a significant number of good paying jobs in the construction industry while simultaneously creating family-sustaining permanent jobs for the citizens of our commonwealth,” said Robert Bair, president of the Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades Council, in a statement.
A handful of other environmental advocacy groups, including the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Environmental Defense Fund, the Clean Air Task Force, and the Nature Conservancy, worked with lawmakers in the House to amend the bill and ultimately supported its passage.
“Carbon capture technology has the potential to create a significant number of good paying jobs in the construction industry while simultaneously creating family-sustaining permanent jobs for the citizens of our commonwealth.” - Robert Bair, Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades Council
The amendments included public land protections, special provisions for environmental justice communities, community engagement requirements, improved landowner rights, preventative requirements for induced seismic activity, extending the default post-injection site care period, and enabling the Department of Environmental Protection to promulgate and enforce additional regulations as needed to protect the people and environment of the Commonwealth.
“The future of [carbon capture and storage] in Pennsylvania remains to be seen, but we cannot forgo the opportunity to adopt necessary performance standards,” the Pennsylvania Environmental Commission said in a statement. “Now we have the basis to make that happen.”
Feridun said of the amendments, “They’re like putting on cologne when you have really bad body odor… the bill is still fundamentally a bad bill.”
Carbon capture and storage are necessary to pave the way for Pennsylvania to be part of two proposed, federally funded hydrogen hubs — the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub and the Appalachian Hydrogen Hub — which would rely on the technology. Both projects have the potential to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to industry partners, which include numerous fossil fuel companies.
CAMERON PARISH, La. — Late into the night, John Allaire watches the facility next to his home shoot 300-foot flares from stacks.
He lives within eyesight of southwest Louisiana’s salty shores, where, for decades, he’s witnessed nearly 200 feet of land between it and his property line disappear into the sea. Two-thirds of the land was rebuilt to aid the oil and gas industry’s LNG expansion. LNG — shorthand for liquified natural gas – is natural gas that's cooled to liquid form for easier storage or transport; it equates to 1/600th the volume of natural gas in a gaseous state. It’s used to generate electricity, or fuel stove tops and home heaters, and in industrial processes like manufacturing fertilizer.
In the U.S., at least 30 new LNG terminal facilities have been constructed or proposed since 2016, according to the
Oil and Gas Watch project. Louisiana and Texas’ Gulf Coast, where five facilities are already operating, will host roughly two-thirds of the new LNG terminals – meaning at least 22 Gulf Coast LNG facilities are currently under construction, were recently approved to break ground or are under further regulatory review.
Although the U.S. didn’t ship LNG until 2016, when a freight tanker left, a few miles from where Cameron Parish’s LNG plants are today, last year the country became the global leader in LNG production and export volume, leapfrogging exporters like Qatar and Australia. The
EIA’s most recent annual outlook estimated that between the current year and 2050, U.S. LNG exports will increase by 152%.
Allaire, 68, watches how saltwater collects where rainwater once fed the area’s diminishing coastal wetlands. “We still come down here with the kids and set out the fishing rods. It's not as nice as it used to be,” he told
Environmental Health News (EHN).
That intimacy with nature drew Allaire to the area when he purchased 311 acres in 1998. An environmental engineer and 30-year oil and gas industry veteran, he helped lead environmental assessments and manage clean-ups, and although retired, he still works part-time as an environmental consultant with major petroleum companies. With a lifetime of oil and gas industry expertise, he’s watched the industry's footprint spread across Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico’s fragile shores and beyond. Now that the footprints are at the edge of his backyard, Allaire is among a cohort of organizers, residents and fisher-folk in the region mobilizing to stop LNG facility construction. For him, the industry’s expansion usurps the right-or-wrong ethics he carried across his consulting career. For anglers, oil and gas infrastructure has destroyed fishing grounds and prevented smaller vessels from accessing the seafood-rich waters of the Calcasieu River.
From the view of Allaire’s white pickup truck as he drives across his property to the ocean’s shore, he points to where a new LNG facility will replace marshlands. Commonwealth LNG intends to clear the land of trees and then backfill the remaining low-lying field.
“You see what’s happening with the environment,” Allaire said. “When the facts change, I got to change my mind about what we’re doing.”
Community bands together
John Allaire, left, purchased 311 acres in Cameron Parish in 1998, and has watched the oil and gas industry's footprint spread to his property.
Credit: John Allaire
During an Earth Day rally in April, community members gathered in the urban center of Lake Charles to demand local oil and gas industries help deliver a safer, healthier future for all. In between live acts by artists performing south Louisiana’s quintessential zydeco musical style, speakers like James Hiatt, a Calcasieu Parish native with ties to Cameron Parish and a Healthy Gulf organizer, and RISE St. James organizer Sharon Lavigne, who’s fighting against LNG development in rural Plaquemines Parish near the city of New Orleans, asked the nearly 100 in attendance to imagine a day in which the skyline isn’t dotted by oil and gas infrastructure.
Not long ago, it was hard to imagine an Earth Day rally in southwest Louisiana at all. For decades, the area has been decorated with fossil fuel infrastructure. Sunsets on some days are highlighted by the chemicals in the air; at night, thousands of facilities’ lights dot the dark sky.
“It takes a lot of balls for people to start speaking up,” Shreyas Vasudevan, a campaign researcher with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, told EHN in the days after the rally. In a region with its history and economy intertwined with oil and gas production, “you can get a lot of social criticism – or ostracization, as well – even threats to your life.”
Many are involved in local, regional and national advocacy groups, including the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Healthy Gulf, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Turtle Island Restoration Network, the Center for Biological Diversity and the National Audubon Society.
“You see what’s happening with the environment,” Allaire said. “When the facts change, I got to change my mind about what we’re doing.” - John Allaire, environmental engineer and 30-year oil and gas industry veteran
But environmental organizers are fighting a multi-billion-dollar industry with federal and state winds at its back. And LNG’s federal support is coupled with existing state initiatives.
Under outgoing Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards — a term-limited Democrat — the state pledged a goal of reaching net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050. Natural gas, which the LNG industry markets as a cleaner-burning alternative, is cited as one of the state’s solutions. Louisiana is the only state that produces a majority of its carbon emissions through fossil fuels refining industries, like LNG, rather than energy production or transportation. Governor Edwards’ office did not return EHN’s request for comment.
This accommodating attitude towards oil and gas industries has resulted in a workforce that’s trained to work in LNG refining facilities across much of the rural Gulf region, said Steven Miles, a lawyer at Baker Botts LLP and a fellow at the Baker Institute’s Center on Energy Studies. Simultaneously, anti-industrialization pushback is lacking. It’s good news for industries like LNG.
“The bad news,” Miles added. “[LNG facilities] are all being jammed in the same areas.”
One rallying cry for opponents is local health. The Environmental Integrity Project found that LNG export terminals emit chemicals like carbon monoxide –potentially deadly– and sulfur dioxide, of which the American Lung Association says long-term exposure can lead to heart disease, cancer, and damage to internal or female reproductive organs.
An analysis of emissions monitoring reports by the advocacy group the Louisiana Bucket Brigade found that Venture Global’s existing Calcasieu Pass facility had more than 2,000 permit violations.That includes exceeding the permit’s authorized air emissions limit to release nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds 286 out of its first 343 days of operation.
The Marvel Crane, the first liquid natural gas carrier to transport natural gas from the Southwest Louisiana LNG facility, transits a channel in Hackberry, Louisiana, May 28, 2019.
“This is just one facility,” at a time when three more facilities have been proposed in the region and state, Vasudevan said. Venture Global’s operational LNG facility — also known as Calcasieu Pass — “is much smaller than the other facility they’ve proposed.”
In an area that experienced 18 feet of storm surge during Hurricane Laura in 2020 — and just weeks later, struck by Hurricane Delta — Venture Global is planning to build a second export terminal Known as “CP2,” it’s the largest of the roughly two dozen proposed Gulf LNG export terminals, and a key focal point for the region’s local organizing effort.
Residents “don’t really want LNG as much as they want Cameron [Parish] from 1990 back,” Hiatt told EHN of locals’ nostalgia for a community before storms like Rita in 2005 brought up to 15 feet of storm surge, only for Laura to repeat the damage in 2020. Throughout that time, the parish’s population dipped from roughly 10,000 to 5,000. “But the wolf knocking at the door is LNG. Folks in Cameron think that's going to bring back community, bring back the schools, bring back this time before we had all these storms — when Cameron was pretty prosperous.”
“Clearly,” for the oil and gas industry, “the idea is to transform what was once the center of commercial fishing in Louisiana to gas exports,” Cindy Robertson, an environmental activist in southwest Louisiana, told EHN.
Helping fishers’ impacted by LNG is about “actual survival of this unique culture,” Cooke said.
In a measure of organizers’ success, she pointed to a recent permit hearing for Venture Global’s CP2 proposal. Regionally, it’s the only project that’s received an environmental permit, but not its export permit, which remains under federal review. At the meeting, some spoke on the company’s behalf. As an organizer, it was a moment of clarity, Cooke explained. Venture Global officials “had obviously done a lot of coaching and organizing and getting people together in Cameron to speak out on their behalf,” Cooke said. “So, in a way, that was bad. But in another way, it shows that we really had an impact.”
“It also shows that we have a lot to do,” Cooke added.
Environmental organizers like Alyssa Portaro describe a sense of fortitude among activists — she and her husband to the region’s nearby town of Vinton near the Texas-Louisiana border. Since the families’ relocation to their farm, Portaro has worked with Cameron Parish fisher-folk.
“I’ve not witnessed ‘community’ anywhere like there is in Louisiana,” Portaro told EHN. But a New Jersey native, she understands the toll environmental pollution has on low-income communities. “This environment, it’s so at risk — and it’s currently getting sacrificed to big industries.”
“People don’t know what we’d do without oil and gas. It comes at a big price,” she added.
Southwest Louisiana’s Cameron Parish is one of the state’s most rural localities. Marine economies were the area’s economic drivers until natural disasters and LNG facilities began pushing locals out, commercial fishers claim.
Credit: Xander Peters for Environmental Health News
Residents “don’t really want LNG as much as they want Cameron [Parish] from 1990 back,” James Hiatt , a Healthy Gulf organizer, told EHN. "But the wolf knocking at the door is LNG."
Credit: Xander Peters for Environmental Health News
For the most part, Cameron Parish’s life and economy has historically taken place at sea. As new LNG facilities are operational or in planning locally, locals claim the community they once knew is nearly unrecognizable.
Credit: Xander Peters for Environmental Health News
A disappearing parish
The stakes are seemingly higher for a region like southwest Louisiana, which is the epicenter of climate change impacts.
In nearly a century, the state has lost roughly 2,000 square miles of land to coastal erosion. In part driving the state’s erosion crisis is the compounding impacts of Mississippi River infrastructure and oil and gas industry activity, such as dredging canals for shipping purposes, according to a March study published in the journal Nature Sustainability. Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority said Cameron Parish could lose more land than other coastal parishes over the next 50 years. A recent Climate Central report says the parish will be underwater within that time frame.
On top of erosion and sea level rise impacts, in August, 2023, marshland across southwest Louisiana’s Cameron Parish burned. The fires were among at least 600 across the Bayou State this year. Statewide, roughly 60,000 acres burned — a more than six-fold increase of the state’s average acres burned per year in the past decade alone.
But while the blaze avoided coastal Louisiana communities like Cameron Parish, the fires represented a warning coming from a growing chorus of locals across the region — one that’s echoes by the local commercial fishing population, who claimed to have experienced unusually low yields during the same time, according to a statement from a local environmental group. At the site of the Cameron Parish fires are locations for two proposed LNG expansion projects.
"The idea is to transform what was once the center of commercial fishing in Louisiana to gas exports.” - Cindy Robertson, an environmental activist in southwest Louisiana
It was an unusual occurrence for an area that’s more often itself underwater this time of year due to a storm surge from powerful storms. For LNG expansion’s local opposition, it was a red flag.
As the Louisiana Bucket Brigade has noted prior, the confluence of climate change’s raising of sea levels and the construction of LNG export terminals — some are proposed at the size of nearly 700 football fields — are wiping away the marshland folks like Allaire watched wither. Among their fears is that the future facilities won’t be able to withstand the power of another storm like Laura and its storm surge, which wiped away entire communities in 2020.
Amidst these regional climate impacts, LNG infrastructure has shown potential to exacerbate the accumulation of greenhouse gasses that cause global warming. For the most part, LNG is made up of methane — a greenhouse gas that’s more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Among the 22 current LNG facility proposals, the advocacy group Sierra Club described a combined climate pollution output that would roughly equal to that of about 440 coal plants.
The climate impacts prompt some of the LNG industry’s uncertainty going forward. It isn’t clear if Asian countries, key importers of U.S. LNG, will “embrace these energy transition issues,” said David Dismuke, an energy consultant and the former executive director of Louisiana State University’s Center for Energy Studies. Likewise, European nations remain skeptical of embracing LNG as a future staple fuel source.
“They really don't want to have to pull the trigger,” Dismukes added, referring to Europe’s hesitation to commit more resources to exporting LNG from the American market. “They don't want to go down that road.”
While there will be a tapering down of natural gas supply, Miles explained, “we’re going to need natural gas for a long time,” as larger battery storage for renewables is still unavailable.
“I'm not one of these futurists that can tell you where we're going to be, but I just don't see everything being extreme,” Dismukes said. “I don't see what we've already built getting stranded and going away, either.”
For now, LNG seems here to stay. From 2012 to 2022,U.S. natural gas demand — the sum of both domestic consumption and gross exports — rose by a whopping 43%, reported the U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA. Meanwhile, in oil and gas hotbeds like Louisiana and Texas, natural gas demand grew by 116%.
Throughout 25 years, Allaire has witnessed southwest Louisiana’s land slowly fade, in part driven by the same industrial spread regionally. Near where the front door of his travel trailer sits underneath the aluminum awning, he points to a chenier ridge located near the end of the property. It’s disappearing, he said.
“See the sand washing over, in here?” Allaire says, as he points towards the stretches of his property. “This pond used to go down for a half mile. This is all that's left of it on this side.”
Despite record-breaking heat and public concern over climate change, the Republican National Convention focuses on expanding fossil fuel use, dismissing climate science.
The Republican National Convention in Milwaukee highlights energy policies favoring oil, gas, and coal.
Former President Trump and party leaders dismiss climate change as a priority, mocking scientific evidence.
A significant portion of Americans support renewable energy, but the GOP platform promotes fossil fuel development.
Key quote:
“Global warming is fine. In fact, I heard it was going to be very warm today. It’s fine.”
— Former President Donald J. Trump
Why this matters:
Ignoring climate change can worsen environmental and public health crises. The push for fossil fuels contradicts global efforts to mitigate climate change impacts, potentially leading to severe long-term consequences.
Donald Trump, if re-elected, would likely face fewer legal and bureaucratic barriers to significantly alter environmental and climate regulations, leveraging a more favorable judicial landscape and conservative support.
Trump's previous attempts to roll back environmental regulations were often blocked by courts and internal resistance.
Project 2025, led by conservative allies, outlines plans to weaken the EPA's authority on climate rules and environmental protections.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority could facilitate Trump's regulatory changes, posing a challenge to existing environmental policies.
Key quote:
"It's going to be easier. They’re going to have better people, more committed people, more experienced people."
— Myron Ebell, former EPA transition leader
Why this matters:
A weakened EPA could result in reduced efforts to combat climate change, affecting global warming mitigation. Regulatory changes may increase environmental risks and undermine public health protections.
The Biden administration is evaluating further restrictions on oil drilling in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve, potentially designating more areas off-limits to development.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will seek public input on expanding “special areas” in the 23-million-acre reserve, which could restrict new oil exploration.
The move follows the approval of the controversial Willow oil project, which could add up to 199 new wells in the reserve.
The evaluation will involve consulting with Indigenous tribes and communities reliant on the reserve's resources for subsistence.
Key quote:
“We have a responsibility to manage the western Arctic in a way that honors the more than 40 Indigenous communities that continue to rely on the resources from the Reserve for subsistence.”
— Tracy Stone-Manning, BLM Director
Why this matters:
Increased restrictions on drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska could significantly impact oil production and the local economy, while aiming to protect vital ecosystems and Indigenous ways of life amid rapid climate change.
A new federal order aims to reduce grid bottlenecks hindering clean energy projects, but Maryland officials urge faster compliance from their grid operator, PJM Interconnection.
Maryland’s coal plant continues to operate due to delays in clean energy project integration.
PJM Interconnection requested a rehearing of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order, which mandates long-term grid planning.
Maryland and neighboring states press PJM to expedite transmission expansion to meet clean energy goals.
Key quote:
"Maryland electric utility customers are now bearing huge costs resulting from the failure of PJM to plan the transmission system to meet customer needs."
— David Lapp, head of the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel
Why this matters:
There is a pressing need for efficient grid management to support the influx of clean energy projects. These projects are pivotal in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change. The slow pace of compliance by PJM Interconnection could delay the state's progress in meeting its renewable energy targets, ultimately affecting public health and environmental sustainability.
Global climate pollution from fossil fuels is showing signs of stabilizing, thanks to advances in clean technology like solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles.
The Carbon Monitor Project reports a slight decline in global climate pollution from February to May 2024 compared to the same period in 2023.
Despite the peak in emissions, atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise rapidly due to centuries of accumulated pollution.
China and the U.S. play pivotal roles in reducing global emissions, with clean energy advancements being crucial.
Key quote:
"Now we are finding that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing faster than ever. We must recognize that these are clear signals of the damage carbon dioxide pollution is doing to the climate system, and take rapid action to cut fossil fuel use as quickly as we can."
As mounds of dredged material from the Houston Ship Channel dot their neighborhoods, residents are left without answers as to what dangers could be lurking.
