Tuesday, November 3, 2009

No More Water Permit Process for Washington

In the State of Washington, a policy statement was issued by the department of ecology that states the “Washington resident can collect and store rooftop or guzzler collected rainwater for on-site use without having to go through the permit (water right) process of RCW 90.03.” (Department of Ecology, State of Washington, 2009) For many years in Washington it was required by law to have a water rights permit to use any type of water that was found on, below or above the surface within the state. The guzzlers are a type of equipment that can catch store and provide drinking water for wildlife, when water sources are insufficient. Within this blog article, different types of views and issues about Washington's policy will be discuss and evaluated. These include demarcation problems, utilitarian's view, and deontologist view.


The government of Washington is overcoming the demarcation problem of collecting rainwater because of the science of ecology that is providing facts that in times of insufficient sources of water. Guzzlers can provide much water to organisms in need, such as livestock and wildlife. The department of Ecology in Washington has taken action in fixing water rights policy to make it easier for the residents of Washington to obtain water in a stainable way to better the life of everyone in much easier and accessible manor.


The process of collecting rainwater without having to obtain a permit, has a very strong utilitarian view. This is because without having to go through the struggle of obtaining a permit, all the residents of Washington can very easily use the rain water for many uses instead of wasting water that has been treated. The collecting of rain water is good for the conversation of fresh water resources, the people of washington, and also the many living organisms can benefit from the water guzzlers in times of insufficient water.


The deontologist view of the problem can be obtain from the department of ecology of Washington because they would be more likely to analysis the action the guzzlers have on the relation between the organisms and environment. Such that when people are able to collect rain water without a permit, it will then encourage more people to have a guzzler. This change will have a positive affect on the organisms in harsh environment conditions where there is a lack of water. This would be known as the deontologist view of collecting rain water because the department of ecology will only look at the action of collecting water and not the causes that it may create.

The policy statement issued by the department of ecology in Washington provides a solution to the demarcation problem by providing facts that guzzlers will provide water to livestock and wildlife in time of limited water. The policy of collecting rain water without having to receive a permit provides a utilitarian view because it benefits all forms of life in Washington. Also not having to receive a permit provides a deontologist view because the department of ecology just views this policy as a good action between the organisms and the environment.


Resources:


"Focus on Rainwater Interpretive Policy." Ecy.wa.gov. Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Nov. 2009. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0911026.pdf>.


Dunagan, C. "Rainwater harvesting at home given a ‘thumbs up’." Web log post. Kitsap Sun. 15 Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Nov. 2009. <http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/10/15/rainwater-harvesting-at-home-given-a-thumbs-up/>.

2 comments:

  1. I recall hearing about this policy when reading other news articles for previous projects in high school, so I was very drawn to your blog and I found it quite interesting. I agree with Olivia that parts of the blog are confusing due to clarity, such as the guzzlers and how they function, or how they help fix the water problem. Overall however I would say that you made clear the principles of the utilitarian view and deontologist view associated with this particular problem, great work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked the topic that you chose, but I think the blog itself is a bit confusing. In the blog there isn't much of a difference between your chosen consequentialist and non-consequentialist views. The paragraph supporting utilitarianism doesn't seem to differ form the paragraph about the deontologist point of view. It would help if a different idea was covered for the utilitarian view, because that paragraph seemed like it helped to explain what the guzzlers were. Instead it should point out the moral/ ethical considerations for a utilitarian.

    ReplyDelete