The need for clean, fresh water has become a growing concern over the decades, and according to a new study fresh water is going to become even higher in demand in the upcoming years. This study was carried out in four specific areas in the world where a combined 42% of the projected water demand will be located. The study, conducted in China, India, South Africa and Sao Paulo state in Brazil, determined that by the year 2030, global fresh water usage will be “40 per cent higher than current supplies and agriculture is predicted to suck up 65 per cent of all [fresh water] resources” (The Straits Tines, 2009). Specifically in India, the study found that in 2030, fresh water supplies will need to be double what they are today in order to satisfy the needs of this ever growing nation’s population.
In the study, it is stated that “'…the situation is getting worse. There is little indication that left to its own devices, the water sector will come to a sustainable, cost-effective solution to meet the growing water requirements” (The Straits Times, 2009). Water basins in India are currently the main source of fresh water for millions in the nation, and are at a great risk if no action is taken to protect this important resource. If no immediate action is taken, these basins are at risk of depleting greatly in size, and even vanishing completely, leaving these millions who depend on them without any fresh water source.
Due to the fact that India’s population is constantly on the rise, the need for food is also going to continue to increase. Demand for these foods, such as rice, wheat and sugar will mean that India’s agricultural division will utilize approximately 1.5 trillion cubic metres of water by 2030. It may be hard to control the use of water in India due to these rising numbers in population and the demand for food; however it is a necessary precaution that must be taken in order to ensure that future generations in India have any water at all. Therefore it can be determined that in order to avoid these massive increases in fresh water demands the precautionary principle must be implemented.
The Precautionary Principle is defined as being a solution used when an action or activity raises threat or harm to human health or the environment. In a case where the precautionary principle is necessary, there may be some cause and effect relationships not fully established scientifically. The basis of the principle is to do as little harm currently as possible in order to benefit as many people as possible in the future. By implementing the precautionary principle, such taxing companies and agricultural facilities that regularly use fresh water in processes, the amount of fresh water needed in the future may be reduced.
The Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998, recognizes that “every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being…to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations…”(Environmental Principles and Policies, 2006). By examining this statement, a conclusion can be drawn in the issue of depleting fresh water resources all around the world. In order for future generations to develop and strive, it is necessary that we take drastic action today by means of implementing the precautionary principle.
Resources
Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies; An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan: London, 2006
The Straits Times. “India water needs set to double”. The Straits Times. 24 November 2009. http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_458438.html
Envrionmental Earth Perspectives. “The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science” September 2001. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/109p871-876kriebel/kriebel-full.html#def
Emily Hartwig
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wetlands: Our Most Valuable Water Resource
One of the most underappreciated and vital water resources are the marshes, swamps, bogs and fens of North America. These ecosystems not only provide water filtration and storage for human populations, they also are home to a huge number of plant and animal species. Other functions of wetlands include pollution control, ground water recharge, drought mitigation, shoreline protection and recreational opportunities. (Beder 2009) Yet despite these benefits, wetlands have been and are still being destroyed at an alarming rate. The blog post Wetland Restoration: The Best Alternative to Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies by Jeremy Jacquot highlights another reason that wetlands should be protected: they are a valuable form of carbon storage. Perhaps this benefit will finally be the key to wetland survival.
Carbon is stored primarily in the peat soils formed in undisturbed wetlands. Plants photosynthesize throughout their lifetime, absorbing carbon dioxide. When they die, the carbon containing plant matter settles to the bottom of the marsh to form a peat soil. Oxygen does not reach this submerged soil so decomposition occurs very slowly, resulting in little release of that stored carbon dioxide. Now that it is known what a valuable combatant to global warming wetlands can be, there needs to be a way to protect them from further degradation.
Many conservation methods have been attempted throughout the world. One technique is to give people the right to a resource, because if they own it, or are entitled to it, they are more likely to protect it for the future. Communally owned wetlands are degraded because it benefits the individual to use them up before someone else does. This entitlement puts a market on conservation because people would be able to buy and sell these resource rights. Although it may seem that this would give the environment some standing in an economic world, tradable rights to a resource actually degrade the environment further. This will be outlined in the following example of attempted wetland conservation.
The most common method of wetland conservation, as outlined in Sharon Beder’s Environmental Principles and Policies, is the use of Wetland Mitigation Banking. This form of economic environmental protection attempts to preserve the net amount of wetland remaining. Compensation for building can be achieved through the restoration of another wetland. This is challenging for large companies to do, because they lack the expertise. Instead, another company can improve and remediate a wetland independently and then sell the credits earned to the large company. In theory this is intended to create large tracks of protected wetland and stop the net loss of this valuable resource.
This is not a perfect solution. If you totally destroy 5 hectares of marsh and then remediate 5 hectares somewhere else, there is still a net lost of 5 hectares of wetland. Also, the benefit of the wetland is locally important. Usually companies pay for the improvement of a wetland that is far from the area that has been destroyed, maybe even in another watershed. This leaves no purification, flood protection or biodiversity for the area with the brand new shopping mall. Location also is important when considering what species can live in it, and even what kind of wetland it is. If all of the restored and protected wetlands are located in one spot, the diversity of many smaller marshes, bogs, fens and swamps is lost. Finally, there are some wetlands that are much cheaper to create and/or restore. Larger ponds with a rim of wetland are far easier to create but are worth the same amount of credit as deep peat swamps. The more ecologically diverse and beneficial types, such as bogs and swamps, are far more expensive. They are also the best at carbon dioxide absorption.
I think that if resources such as wetlands are going to be bought and sold on a market, there needs to be a much better system of evaluating their dollar value. There must be some division between the types of wetlands, and the services they provide can not be undestimated. It seems that in most cases the environment is devalued when put on the market. To improve ecomonic conservation, valuation methods need to be changed. Mitigation banking has some merit and could probably be reformed into a much better method of environmental conservation. Restored wetlands would have to be located in the same region as the wetland that was destroyed and the replacement for a wetland would have to be more than just that area restored somewhere else. Maybe twice as much restoration in exchange for the complete annihilation of a wetland would suffice.
Although I hate to think that wetlands might one day all be individually owned and not for the enjoyment of the public, it does make sense that they would be better looked after that way. Although many would litter on a public beach, they probably won’t dump garbage on their own dock. It would work the same way for wetlands.
Overall, the mitigation banking system has many faults, but if it was implemented for the purpose of protecting wetlands then it is a step in the right direction. We depend on these riparian ecosystems more than most realize, making it worth the effort to protect what is left. Hopefully the need to offset global warming will give wetland conservation priority in the years to come.
- Amy Adair
References
Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies. Sterling: Earthscan.
Jacquot, J. E. (2009, October 22). Wetland Restoration: The Best Alternative to Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from treehugger: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/wetland-restoration-ccs.php
Carbon is stored primarily in the peat soils formed in undisturbed wetlands. Plants photosynthesize throughout their lifetime, absorbing carbon dioxide. When they die, the carbon containing plant matter settles to the bottom of the marsh to form a peat soil. Oxygen does not reach this submerged soil so decomposition occurs very slowly, resulting in little release of that stored carbon dioxide. Now that it is known what a valuable combatant to global warming wetlands can be, there needs to be a way to protect them from further degradation.
Many conservation methods have been attempted throughout the world. One technique is to give people the right to a resource, because if they own it, or are entitled to it, they are more likely to protect it for the future. Communally owned wetlands are degraded because it benefits the individual to use them up before someone else does. This entitlement puts a market on conservation because people would be able to buy and sell these resource rights. Although it may seem that this would give the environment some standing in an economic world, tradable rights to a resource actually degrade the environment further. This will be outlined in the following example of attempted wetland conservation.
The most common method of wetland conservation, as outlined in Sharon Beder’s Environmental Principles and Policies, is the use of Wetland Mitigation Banking. This form of economic environmental protection attempts to preserve the net amount of wetland remaining. Compensation for building can be achieved through the restoration of another wetland. This is challenging for large companies to do, because they lack the expertise. Instead, another company can improve and remediate a wetland independently and then sell the credits earned to the large company. In theory this is intended to create large tracks of protected wetland and stop the net loss of this valuable resource.
This is not a perfect solution. If you totally destroy 5 hectares of marsh and then remediate 5 hectares somewhere else, there is still a net lost of 5 hectares of wetland. Also, the benefit of the wetland is locally important. Usually companies pay for the improvement of a wetland that is far from the area that has been destroyed, maybe even in another watershed. This leaves no purification, flood protection or biodiversity for the area with the brand new shopping mall. Location also is important when considering what species can live in it, and even what kind of wetland it is. If all of the restored and protected wetlands are located in one spot, the diversity of many smaller marshes, bogs, fens and swamps is lost. Finally, there are some wetlands that are much cheaper to create and/or restore. Larger ponds with a rim of wetland are far easier to create but are worth the same amount of credit as deep peat swamps. The more ecologically diverse and beneficial types, such as bogs and swamps, are far more expensive. They are also the best at carbon dioxide absorption.
I think that if resources such as wetlands are going to be bought and sold on a market, there needs to be a much better system of evaluating their dollar value. There must be some division between the types of wetlands, and the services they provide can not be undestimated. It seems that in most cases the environment is devalued when put on the market. To improve ecomonic conservation, valuation methods need to be changed. Mitigation banking has some merit and could probably be reformed into a much better method of environmental conservation. Restored wetlands would have to be located in the same region as the wetland that was destroyed and the replacement for a wetland would have to be more than just that area restored somewhere else. Maybe twice as much restoration in exchange for the complete annihilation of a wetland would suffice.
Although I hate to think that wetlands might one day all be individually owned and not for the enjoyment of the public, it does make sense that they would be better looked after that way. Although many would litter on a public beach, they probably won’t dump garbage on their own dock. It would work the same way for wetlands.
Overall, the mitigation banking system has many faults, but if it was implemented for the purpose of protecting wetlands then it is a step in the right direction. We depend on these riparian ecosystems more than most realize, making it worth the effort to protect what is left. Hopefully the need to offset global warming will give wetland conservation priority in the years to come.
- Amy Adair
References
Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies. Sterling: Earthscan.
Jacquot, J. E. (2009, October 22). Wetland Restoration: The Best Alternative to Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from treehugger: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/wetland-restoration-ccs.php
Endocrine Disruptors Harmful to People and Ecosystems
A recent study in Alberta discovered that many pesticides are common and widespread in the province’s surface water. 44 different types of pesticides were found in 65% of the samples located mostly in agricultural areas of the province (Water Matters, 2009). The large amount of pesticides found are believed to be responsible for sex changes in fish as many of these pollutants act as endocrine disruptors interfering with hormones. Since these endocrine disruptors are known to be harmful to fish, people have begun to wonder how they will be affected by these potential toxins.
The Participation Principle states that, “Environmental Issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision making processes.” (Rio Declaration 1992, as cited by Beder, 2006). Essentially, people have the right to know about potential dangers in their community and should be involved in processes to eliminate these threats. This information must be made accessible to them at all times, and if it is not the government should be held accountable.
There are many risks associated with Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC) as the University of Calgary discovered. While the impacts that EDC’s have on humans are not well known, they are believed to be quite harmful. They include an increased risk of cancer, neurological impairment, developmental effects, reproductive effects, organ damage and hormone interference (Water Matters 2009). At this point in time, a maximum allowable concentration (MAC) is not known, so precautions must be taken. It is important for governments to act in a proactive manner providing maximum disclosure to their citizens through publications, promotion of open government, making sure that disclosure does not take precedence over other laws (Beder, 2006).
Most EDC’s are released through municipal wastewater in the form of laundry detergent or even prescription drug residue. If the wastewater is not properly treated, it emerges in many freshwater ecosystems harming the organisms who inhabit it. Since this is not from a single point, it makes it very difficult to pinpoint who the actual polluters are. The wastewater treatment plant obviously requires new infrastructure to reduce pollution, and this could be obtained by implementing an overall pollution tax. This idea would support the Polluter Pays Principle which believes that the person or company responsible for the pollution be the one to pay to rectify the damage. Unfortunately it would be difficult to support this principle in this situation as the pollution is not caused by a single point source but by entire cities.
Water pollution has become a very serious issue affecting large amounts of the world’s already scarce freshwater supplies. In todays large industrialized cities, people are able to literally dump large amounts of pollutants down their drains and are given safety in numbers as it would be quite impossible to track down who discarded what and where. Controlling how and where harmful substances are disposed is necessary in order to preserve water.
-Elisabeth Shapiro
Sources:
Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies; An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan: London, 2006
Water Matters. What's in your water? Understanding Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. www.water-matters.org, 2009.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
To Control or to Charge?
The article “Wells Voters decide on Water Extraction Regulation” discusses a regulation that is being voted on in the town of Wells. This regulation was originally proposed in 2008, after talks between Poland Spring and the Wells Water District. Poland Spring is a part of the Nestle corporation, and it’s purpose is selling bottled water. Presently, the town has placed a ban on large ground water extraction (i.e. from aquifers). This ban is only meant to be temporary. The upcoming vote is meant to find a permanent solution for the debate over bottling Wells’ freshwater resources.
The proposed regulations are meant to monitor the amount of water being removed from the area, as well as ensuring the least amount of environmental changes. In order to be considered for water extraction, companies must outline every single part of what they expect to do. They have to provide a reason for the water extraction, as well as analyses of recharge rates, and resulting (added) vehicular traffic. For the environmental side, they need to list potential effects of the operation (good or bad). They also show a map of any plots of land being used, and what they are going to be used for. All of this information is given to a “Planning Board” which has the ability to grant or deny the applicant permission to water extraction. Each approval only stands for three years. After the three years are up, the applicant goes through the entire process again. The final major aspect of this proposed regulation is that the Board may rescind their approval if something goes wrong (the extraction limits are exceeded).
Another approach to this problem could be economic incentives. Monetary restrictions and offers are very useful tools when dealing with anyone, from big corporations to smaller individuals. One possibility could be charging per gallon. The town has chosen large scale extraction to be “extraction of water from ground water sources, aquifers, springs, wells, and similar sources in a total amount on any given day of 20,000 gallons or more (Kanak, 2009).” After this 20,000 gallon mark is reached, the price per gallon can be raised significantly to reduce the chances of exceeding this level. A second possibility could be to sell permits for the use of Wells water. The town can sell a certain number of permits for water extraction and distribute them amongst the approved applicants. This would ensure that their ideal extraction amount is never exceeded. If the company that has the permit doesn’t extract all of the water allowed under the permit there are three options. The town could (a) let the company sell the remaining amount to another company, (b) let the company sell the remaining amount back to the town, or (c) allow the remaining amount to carry over to the next day.
I think that the permit idea would work the best out of the options listed above. Selling permits would make sure that no matter how many people or companies want to extract water, the ‘acceptable’ amount would not be passed. It would still be necessary to get proposals from the parties interested in extraction. This would be to prevent any possible environmental change or damage. If permits are in place, it is then up to the ‘extractors’ to allot amounts among themselves, as opposed to a proposal board deciding who can extract how much after each application.
References:
Kanak, Jim. "Wells Voters to decideon Water Extraction Regulation." The Weekly Sentinel. 30 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2009..
The proposed regulations are meant to monitor the amount of water being removed from the area, as well as ensuring the least amount of environmental changes. In order to be considered for water extraction, companies must outline every single part of what they expect to do. They have to provide a reason for the water extraction, as well as analyses of recharge rates, and resulting (added) vehicular traffic. For the environmental side, they need to list potential effects of the operation (good or bad). They also show a map of any plots of land being used, and what they are going to be used for. All of this information is given to a “Planning Board” which has the ability to grant or deny the applicant permission to water extraction. Each approval only stands for three years. After the three years are up, the applicant goes through the entire process again. The final major aspect of this proposed regulation is that the Board may rescind their approval if something goes wrong (the extraction limits are exceeded).
Another approach to this problem could be economic incentives. Monetary restrictions and offers are very useful tools when dealing with anyone, from big corporations to smaller individuals. One possibility could be charging per gallon. The town has chosen large scale extraction to be “extraction of water from ground water sources, aquifers, springs, wells, and similar sources in a total amount on any given day of 20,000 gallons or more (Kanak, 2009).” After this 20,000 gallon mark is reached, the price per gallon can be raised significantly to reduce the chances of exceeding this level. A second possibility could be to sell permits for the use of Wells water. The town can sell a certain number of permits for water extraction and distribute them amongst the approved applicants. This would ensure that their ideal extraction amount is never exceeded. If the company that has the permit doesn’t extract all of the water allowed under the permit there are three options. The town could (a) let the company sell the remaining amount to another company, (b) let the company sell the remaining amount back to the town, or (c) allow the remaining amount to carry over to the next day.
I think that the permit idea would work the best out of the options listed above. Selling permits would make sure that no matter how many people or companies want to extract water, the ‘acceptable’ amount would not be passed. It would still be necessary to get proposals from the parties interested in extraction. This would be to prevent any possible environmental change or damage. If permits are in place, it is then up to the ‘extractors’ to allot amounts among themselves, as opposed to a proposal board deciding who can extract how much after each application.
References:
Kanak, Jim. "Wells Voters to decideon Water Extraction Regulation." The Weekly Sentinel. 30 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2009.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Freshwater Fish: An Invaluable Resource
The choice of regulatory control as opposed to economic incentives is a very debated topic. Many rationalists tend to agree that in order to measure a population’s effects on the environment, it is logical to create a monetary value for everything and to use these monetary values to compare the benefits and costs of doing certain actions. The opposing thought would be that certain things in life, for example clean air, simply cannot be measured monetarily, and that it would be immoral to do so.
In a policy statement created for the regulation of fish species in Victoria, Australia, the concept of regulatory control is favoured. The purpose of this policy statement was to illuminate the fact that many native species of fish are disappearing from Victorian freshwater waterways, mostly due to today’s human’s actions. In order to maintain a good amount of self-reliant native fish, Native Fish Australia (NFA) decided the waterways should be separated into three distinct categories, that is to say, Native Fish Waters, Trout Waters, and Mixed Fishery Waters. The separation would ensure that trout and exotic fish would not interfere with the native fish, and that the Trout Waters and Mixed Fishery Waters would provide good amounts of fish for recreational use. The Native Fish Waters would also be separated into sub-categories, with the intention of keeping or breeding certain species, depending on the amount remaining in the waterways.
The regulatory control is applied in the cases of the different categories and subcategories, permitting or restricting certain actions. Such restrictions include limiting the size or the amount of bags of resources fished per species; having ‘closed’ seasons to prevent over exploitation; having total closures for certain parts of the waterways; regulating the methods of fishing (i.e. maximum number of rods per person); and banning the use of live bait to prevent diseases.
On the other hand, if economic incentives were to be used rather than regulatory control, excise taxes might have been a good way of managing the amount of fish remaining in the waterways. The idea is that a certain percentage be paid by the consumer, depending on the amounts and species fished, as well as the location (higher taxes for the areas with endangered species). Excise taxes could help protect certain species from being over-fished, and the money raised through these taxes could go toward research into conservation and harvesting of new fish.
I believe the policy of economic incentives is beneficial if used wisely. That being said, I disagree with certain economic ways of calculation such as cost-benefit analysis, since certain aspects of the environment do not get their full value in consideration. I also disagree with the idea of “willingness to pay” since a person who has less money will usually be willing to pay less, and so his or her lifestyle will be less respected than that of a richer person since they “cost less” to the government. However, when used properly such as with taxes on the resources used or with marketable permits, the results can be rewarding.
Both regulatory control and economic incentives can aid in keeping resources at a desired level. What is important to keep in mind is that everything has a value and that certain natural resources cannot be revived once they are over-exploited. Our natural resources are a gift and their upkeep requires important thought and discussion.
Resources:
Native Fish Australia. NFA (Victoria) Freshwater Fisheries Management Policy, 1993. http://www.nativefish.asn.au/fwpolicy.html#objective. 17 Nov. 2009.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Waterloo Regional Water Usage
The Waterloo regional policy of household water usage is a policy that holds much controversy. In this article written by Peter Shawn Taylor he analysis’s some of the downfalls to Waterloo’s water regulations. In addition he discusses improvements that would make the water regulation more effective and equal for all households within Waterloo region. This topic of Waterloo’s water usage will be analyzed further by using economic incentives within this blog post.
Living in Waterloo, Ontario comes with strict water regulations in the summer. These regulations make much confusion, because of all the detailed rules that include “only watering your lawn by sprinkler once a week, only hand spraying your garden every other day. But only during certain hours.” (Taylor, 2009) When these regulations are not followed the region of Waterloo’s policy dictates a fine to a household of 150 dollars, which will be set upon these offenders. This kind of regulation is not the most reasonable and rational approach to handle the amount of water consumption used in the summer. Different more simplistic approaches could be taken to improve the amount of fresh water used rather then paying a fee for not following unnecessary strict rules that are implicated within Waterloo water regulations.
In the article, written by Peter Shawn Taylor his view of Waterloo’s regional regulations towards water usage is seen as an irresponsible way to handle such a precious natural resource. Taylor states in his article “If we really want people to think carefully before using it, we should charge more for it.” (Taylor, 2009) This explains if the region really wants to control Waterloo’s water usage a fluctuating price could be place on water during peek seasons. A good example that is mentioned in this article is about how “We pay for more strawberries in winter. Why shouldn’t we pay more for water in the summer?.” (Renzetti, 2009) This example gives a good idea to a new way of conserving water, when people have to put out money it is most likely there willing to think before they use it.
On top of Taylor’s idea of putting a price on the amount of water during different seasons, there are many different approaches to make households conserve fresh water. The regulations that the Waterloo region placed on water, which are shown in this blog and also in the article proves that the regulation is not the best way to conserve the amount of water that Waterloo is using. The Waterloo region may benefit by handling the conservation problem in terms of using an economic incentives. This would mean using a type of tax exemption or a kind of government refund to control water usage. This sort of method would be better in comparison to enforcing a regulation on the citizens of Waterloo. When there is some type of benefit involved for the people, they are more likely to following rules and guidelines. Therefore in the case of conserving water, it can be more beneficial for the future of the people within the region to have an economic incentive instead of regulation placed upon them.
The water policy of Waterloo is full of confusing regulations that leaves the residents of Waterloo in confusion. If Waterloo residents are perplexed with these regulations it will most likely to leave them with a fine of 150 dollars. This may not be the best way for Waterloo to regulate and conserve fresh water. A plausible alternative to this problem could be easily solved by an economic incentive, or an idea along the lines of Peter Shawn Taylor’s as described above. The regional of Waterloo needs to revise its regulations to reserve a natural resource that will be essential in years to come.
Kendra Bester
Regulatory Control vs. Economic Incentives: Which is better for the fresh water shortage in Florida?
Currently in the state of Florida, inhabitants consume on approximately 7 billion gallons of fresh water per day. It has been estimated that by 2025, and increase of up to 2 billion gallons more will be consumed per day. This fact is staggering considering that Florida is already facing freshwater shortages and with irrigation regulations already in affect. In some parts of the state mining has already begun in order to access groundwater from the Lower Hawthorn aquifer from depths up to 1000 feet below the surface of the earth. In order for this water to be deemed suitable for human consumption, it must be first treated by reverse osmosis, which is an expensive process which only increases as the cost of energy increases as well. As a result to the problem, a solution that has been proposed includes enforcing regulatory control by implementing a “state water czar”.
This idea of implementing a “water czar” was introduced in 2003 by the Tampa-based Council of 100, an influential business lobby group in the state, to solve the problem of depleting water sources. The main goal of the proposal was to allow for fresh water from the northern regions of the state, where water is more abundant, to be shared equally with those in the southern regions of the state where fresh water is scarce.
Presently in Florida laws are being enforced which regulate water resources based on regional locations in order to manage the agricultural, environmental and domestic needs, and conservation and recycling of the resource is being encouraged. There are five existing water management regions, which have the responsibility to employ programs, collect and evaluate data, construct and maintain flood control facilities, and plan for future water related projects with local municipalities. However no law is in place to ensure that more water is not consumed by one region than another. Due to the fact that each of these five regions can regulate and distribute water as they please within their own region, no common regulation is in place. From this it can be determined that a water czar, who by definition is “any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field” (Dictionary.com, 2009) could be greatly useful in order to determine equality and fairness in water distribution and use between all regions in the state.
Problems that may arise with the use of this regulatory control include the use of a “safeguard” to ensure that areas with vast amounts of water and low populations are able to retain water for use in the future, and that not all water is distributed from these areas to regions with little fresh water resources. Also, the appointed “water czar” may be subject to political implications, such as bribery for the allowance of more water.
Another solution to the fresh water scarcity of Florida may be to impose economic incentives. Such incentives could include a law where a state controlled amount of water per day is set out, and a refund could be made available to those who use under this set out amount of water. Another incentive could involve deductions on monthly energy bills according to the amount of water saved by households. By marketing this solution of saving water and making money individuals would have the notion that they are helping the environment by reducing water use and also helping themselves by making a profit by doing something positive for the environment. These incentives would promote water reduction by individuals in order to obtain monetary gain, which in these times of economic need would be very beneficial for these individuals.
From examining the two options that could be used, regulatory control and economic incentives, I believe that in order to make a serious effort of reducing water use and conversing existing fresh water, both methods should be used. By implementing a “water czar” a universal method, by way of one person overseeing all water use, would allow for the equality in fresh water distribution and use between all regions in the state. By using economic incentives the individuals are more inclined to want to reduce water use due to monetary gain, and the notion that they are helping the environment.
Resources:
Gaddy, Peter. 11 November 2009. “Water wars may be the wave of the future”. Collier Citizen (2009)
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/nov/11/peter-gaddy-water-wars-may-be-wave-future/
Accessed: November 17th 2009
Dictinary.com. “Czar”. (2009)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/czar
Accessed: November 17th 2009
Emily Hartwig
This idea of implementing a “water czar” was introduced in 2003 by the Tampa-based Council of 100, an influential business lobby group in the state, to solve the problem of depleting water sources. The main goal of the proposal was to allow for fresh water from the northern regions of the state, where water is more abundant, to be shared equally with those in the southern regions of the state where fresh water is scarce.
Presently in Florida laws are being enforced which regulate water resources based on regional locations in order to manage the agricultural, environmental and domestic needs, and conservation and recycling of the resource is being encouraged. There are five existing water management regions, which have the responsibility to employ programs, collect and evaluate data, construct and maintain flood control facilities, and plan for future water related projects with local municipalities. However no law is in place to ensure that more water is not consumed by one region than another. Due to the fact that each of these five regions can regulate and distribute water as they please within their own region, no common regulation is in place. From this it can be determined that a water czar, who by definition is “any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field” (Dictionary.com, 2009) could be greatly useful in order to determine equality and fairness in water distribution and use between all regions in the state.
Problems that may arise with the use of this regulatory control include the use of a “safeguard” to ensure that areas with vast amounts of water and low populations are able to retain water for use in the future, and that not all water is distributed from these areas to regions with little fresh water resources. Also, the appointed “water czar” may be subject to political implications, such as bribery for the allowance of more water.
Another solution to the fresh water scarcity of Florida may be to impose economic incentives. Such incentives could include a law where a state controlled amount of water per day is set out, and a refund could be made available to those who use under this set out amount of water. Another incentive could involve deductions on monthly energy bills according to the amount of water saved by households. By marketing this solution of saving water and making money individuals would have the notion that they are helping the environment by reducing water use and also helping themselves by making a profit by doing something positive for the environment. These incentives would promote water reduction by individuals in order to obtain monetary gain, which in these times of economic need would be very beneficial for these individuals.
From examining the two options that could be used, regulatory control and economic incentives, I believe that in order to make a serious effort of reducing water use and conversing existing fresh water, both methods should be used. By implementing a “water czar” a universal method, by way of one person overseeing all water use, would allow for the equality in fresh water distribution and use between all regions in the state. By using economic incentives the individuals are more inclined to want to reduce water use due to monetary gain, and the notion that they are helping the environment.
Resources:
Gaddy, Peter. 11 November 2009. “Water wars may be the wave of the future”. Collier Citizen (2009)
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/nov/11/peter-gaddy-water-wars-may-be-wave-future/
Accessed: November 17th 2009
Dictinary.com. “Czar”. (2009)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/czar
Accessed: November 17th 2009
Emily Hartwig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)