Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] A Water Strategy for the United States

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] A Water Strategy for the United States
  • Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:33:29 -0700


Hi neighbor; I couldn't agree more.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 1/12/2009 at 12:33 PM Lynn Montgomery wrote:

>Dear Paul,
>The main flaw in all this is the assumption that mega-govermental
>solutions to water problems is the only game out there. Water management
>actually can only be efficient and effective if its carried out at a very
>local level. When the power to manage their water is removed from local
>people and they are not given any role, then the mega-forces force-feed
>water administration on everyone, which becomes an oppression and
>guarantees that the resource will become overused and abused. Those
>entities that can enforce the most political influence, which are large
>cities, corporate agriculture, and bloated industrial complexes, will end
>up with all the water and the common person and the enviroment will go
>thirsty.
>The problems we face are completely exasperated by all parties finding
>themselves in adversity to all others. The only way to purge our water
>administration of this is bottom-up. All these government entities, etc.,
>are adversarial to each other and everyone else presently. Returning them
>to a state of service to citizens is necessary. Only if localities that
>hold real power to manage water are allowed to exist, can this happen.
>Restraint is the missing element, and restraint only works well if people
>impose it on themselves, and not from above. It only works well in a
>climate of cooperation and respect, and not from one of hostility and
>arrogance. No large agency can really know the water as locals do, so no
>large agency can really get a handle on administration. Their role must be
>engendering an open legal and social climate and offering support, rather
>than imposing policies created in back rooms and ignorance. There are
>strong federal statutes that defer to state laws in adjudications and
>water administration, so it is improper for the feds to try and rule the
>roost.
>In New Mexico, we have a priority senior rights legal system that gives us
>the foundation to create a locally based water administration governance
>that provides proper restraint to protect the resource, people's rights,
>and society in general from abuse, ignorance, and neglect. Such a
>governance would require much effort from all sectors and all would have
>to sacrifice and conserve in major fashion, but the rewards of having a
>stable water adminstration system that involves everyone and everything
>working together in a cooperative environment, and a sustainable resource,
>would be inestimable. The legislature is considering many bills that try
>and run around priority administration of water rights, and create many
>loopholes that conflict with it. The courts recently have been adamant
>that no appropriation will occur without proper rights, and that the due
>process rights of senior rights holders will not be compromised. The
>legislature should recognize this and craft their bills to reflect this,
>or put all they do in peril. This is a power thing, and branches of
>government never, never, give up any power, so we can be confident the
>courts will hold firm. All of us that try and influence legislation,
>should always keep this fact in the foreground and not let them wander off
>in grow-grow land. A five year timeline is necessary to bring about this.
>Trying to fix our problems in one session is impossible, and the complex
>construct necessary to carry out local administration would take some
>time, and a lot of thought and planning. In this year of no funds and much
>need, perhaps we should just do planning, which doesn't cost much.
>Regards, Lynn
>
>"Anyone who believes in infinite growth in a
>finite world is either mad or an economist"
>
> -Kenneth Boulding-
>
>A Water Strategy for the United States
>By Jim Thebaut and Erik Webb
>http://awramedia.org/mainblog/2009/01/09/water-strategy-for-the-usa-op-ed-b
y
>-jim-thebaut-and-erik-webb/
>
> Those Americans even aware of Zimbabwe's recent fight against the
>disruption and death caused by cholera, a highly treatable water-borne
>disease, carry an unfounded confidence that clean, abundant water will
>always be available and a similar water-borne disease epidemic could never
>occur here. However, many areas of our nation aren't far from the
>conditions facing third-world countries in ensuring adequate, clean
>drinking water for their people. Various regions of our country face
>problems including dwindling surface and groundwater supplies,
non-existent
>water and sanitation infrastructure, closely packed septic systems,
>inadequate reinvestment in existing water treatment infrastructure, and
>expanding contamination of surface water including both biological and new
>chemicals (including pharmaceuticals) that all increase our risk of
>water-borne illness outbreaks.
>
> Like the proverbial frog in slowly heated water, we are rapidly
>reaching crisis levels without truly being aware of the risks. This
crisis
>is curable if the United States chooses to establish a modern, integrated,
>national water policy framework, implements sustainable water use
planning,
>invests in the changes needed to pursue water resource sustainability, and
>provides leadership to assist the rest of the world meet similar goals.
>
> The region of the country closest to the breaking point is the
>Colorado River basin, which provides drinking water for 30 million people
>in the American Southwest. Although most of the region's residents still
>have adequate, untainted water, portions of the Navajo and Hopi
reservation
>communities of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado - about 80,000
people
>- live with inadequate plumbing and sanitation and regularly drink
>untreated water. This portion of the Native American population suffers
>from birth defects and skin diseases out of proportion to the rest of the
>country. Additionally, it is anticipated that as climate change causes
>rising water temperatures greater disease risk will occur.
>
> Creating plentiful, clean water for the Southwest's Native Americans
>is one small part of a bigger picture. Similar water supply and sanitation
>challenges are emerging throughout the nation. Over two thirds of state's
>chief water managers anticipate drought and other water crisis in the near
>future. Infrastructure investment is grossly inadequate to maintain
current
>systems, let alone meet the demand anticipated by another 100 million
>people over the next 3-4 decades.
>
> We've faced these issues before and started down a path of
>coordinated policies. In the post-World War II era, the nation faced a
>decade of drought that triggered intense national pressure to coordinate
>expansion of water supplies. Congressional committees and White House
>offices were coordinated in order to address water supply issues allowing
>water development to proceed at an accelerated pace. We then realized and
>began to face the environmental consequences of expansion with greater
>national emphasis on protection of natural resources. Unfortunately,
while
>addressing environmental issues our over-reaction to development allowed
us
>to sweep away the essential coordination functions embodied in the White
>House Water Resources Council. The consequence is that our nation's water
>policy has devolved into a tangled mess of competing initiatives and
>policies intended to govern increasing demands, managing runoff, pollution
>abatement, improving quality, using reservoirs and underground water
>storage, conservation and efficiency improvements, all overseen by a
>complex infrastructure of federal, state and local bureaus, departments
and
>agencies with overlapping and competing responsibilities. As a result, we
>have a hodgepodge of laws and regulations that benefit some at the expense
>of others. At best, our nation's water use and planning structure is
>fractured and inefficient. At worst, it's headed for complete breakdown.
>
> Presently, at the federal level alone, 20 agencies and bureaus,
under
>six cabinet departments, directed by 13 congressional committees with 23
>subcommittees and five appropriations subcommittees are responsible for
>water-resource management. Consolidation of these responsibilities would
>make the job of managing water resources easier, but such consolidation of
>power and control is unlikely. A more likely approach might involve White
>House coordination of partnerships between federal agencies and
>coordination with state and local agencies to create integrated water
>policies as part of a national framework.
>
> Additionally, decision-makers at every level must learn to embrace
>the principles of integrated water resources management, the concept of
>considering multiple viewpoints before making decisions. While this
>practice is gaining acceptance and application, it is woefully under-used
>in our highly fractionated U.S. water management system.
>
> Integrated management would be based on clear principles. For
>example, as a nation, we must begin to treat water as we would any other
>scarce resource and learn to live within our means. This requires
>efficiency and planning for sustainable use in the face of increasing
>demands for water, particularly in agriculture, industry and power
>production.
>
> One of the best ways to promote sustainability is to make consumers
>aware of the true cost of water. What we pay to the water company each
>month only reflects the price to bring clean water to our taps and does
not
>reflect the value of the resource in each of its various uses. Water
>management, resource expansion, environmental protection, and
>infrastructure maintenance is expensive, and much of the cost is
>redistributed through state and federal taxes and local and regional bond
>measures. Transparency about the real cost of water should be a
fundamental
>principle, irrespective of the source of funds that underwrite the supply.

>
> The good news is that the United States has experience with
>integrating national water policy. The Water Resources Planning Act of
1965
>created the Water Resources Council, empowered to assess the adequacy of
>the nation's water supplies, to establish principles and standards for
>federal participants in water projects, and to review agricultural, urban,
>energy, industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife water needs. The
Act
>also established a grant program to assist state development of
>comprehensive water and land use plans. This law was passed in an era
>before we understood the full environmental impact of our water resource
>management actions, and therefore needs to be strengthened to be
effective.
>Nevertheless, the law creating the Council was never repealed.
>
> It is now time that we re-empower and revise the Act to coordinate
>the nation's efforts toward sustainable water resources development.
>
> This revision could benefit by incorporating the much stronger
policy
>framework for international water policy objectives embodied in the
Senator
>Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, signed into law in late 2005, which
>establishes access to safe water and sanitation as a major U.S. foreign
>policy objective. Merging our domestic and international water policy
>framework, and placing its operation directly under the umbrella of the
>White House, would unite and organize our national and international
>efforts and help solve both domestic and international water problems.
>
> When it comes to drinking water, our nation and the planet are
>clearly at a crossroads. Ensuring each member of our nation and the world
>community access to clean water is a humanitarian mission that will assure
>a safer world and avoid environmental calamity. Population growth,
>increased demands and changes in our hydrological systems caused by
climate
>change make addressing the water crisis an imperative. The United States
>can assume global leadership by setting a viable example in solving our
own
>drinking water and sanitation issues, finding a viable way to coordinate
>our national water policy, and coupling our domestic efforts with our
>international policy.
>
>
>
> Jim Thebaut is the writer, director and executive producer of public
>television's "The American Southwest: Are We Running Dry?" and "Running
>Dry," a documentary about the global water crisis. Erik Webb is a PhD
>hydrologist at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and a former
>Congressional Fellow with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
>Committee.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page