Do We Need To Be Worried?

     The article “Water Crisis Looms Unless We Understand Freshwater Cycles” discusses a study that shows the importance of not only knowing the amount of freshwater on the planet, but also finding out how it is ‘renewed.’ Taikan Oki and Shinjiro Kanae are the authors of the study. They believe that in order to preserve freshwater resources, we must follow water through the entire water cycle.

     Toward the end of the article, there are a couple of quotes that seem to contradict each other at first glance. Further explanation of the first quote is needed in order for the article to make sense. The first quote was:

“The anticipated global warming will accelerate the water cycle. Precipitation will increase and therefore runoff and river discharge will be increased, thus available freshwater resources will be increased on a macro scale (COSMOS).”

This is true, seeing as water that was previously ice will melt and contribute to higher water levels. There have been other studies done which conclude that precipitation patterns will be more erratic in the future. Areas will most likely receive an extreme version of the precipitation that they have now. Whether this results in flooding or drought depends entirely on the area. This leads to the second quote:

  “However, the more intense and intermittent precipitation characteristics anticipated in the future under global warming may not allow us to be optimistic… (COSMOS)”

While the first quote can lead the reader to believe that we are not on the verge of exhausting our freshwater resources, the second quote clearly eliminates that idea.

     The first quote is the problem, because there are no explicit details as to how this will affect our freshwater resources in the long run. They use a generalization that hurts their cause more than it helps it. More intense precipitation could lead the reader to believe that there will be more water available for consumption. But as water levels rise in the ocean due to melting ice, the salt water will flow into the freshwater aquifers. This will result in water that is not fit to drink because of the increased saline level. Desalination of contaminated ground water would be just as costly and harmful to the environment as the desalination of ocean water.

     This misunderstanding would be quite easy to make. The author of the article could include a bit more background to avoid any confusion for the reader. 

Sources:

"Water crisis looms unless we understand freshwater cycles | COSMOS magazine." COSMOS magazine | The science of everything. Web. 26 Oct. 2009. .

Privatization of Water Resources

Within the broad topic of fresh water resources there is a reliance on these fresh water systems to provide the necessities of life to all living organisms. In the blog article Is the privatization of water the right thing to do? , the author states “If water distribution was privatized, prices for individual consumers would likely increase with use, which would have the positive side effect of encouraging conservation”. This statement is ambiguous in nature because it makes the reader conceptually analyze to understand what the author is trying to convey in this blog about how water privatization will bring about instant conservation if water were privatized. In this blog post I will try to examine what is meant by the authors use of this phrase and how the authors statement can be misunderstood.

The use of this phrase is trying say how if water was to be a resource at the fingertips of privately state controlled places and companies that its prices would no doubt rise. With this rise in the price of water the amount used by people, companies, states or nations would undoubtably become more conservative. Water would be conserved because people would be more scared to use it due to its economic toll it would take. This sort of scare tactic would lead people to use less water but when it comes to fresh water conservation scaring people away from using it isn’t the best way to go about conservation.

The author’s theorized system of private water management is ambiguous because it involves a system that is tremendously different in comparison to the modern world. Water has never been a resource that has never strictly belonged to a person or place because of its universal importance to living organisms. This would be such a dramatic change from the way water is currently unowned that this purposed change to the ownership of water is not achievable. The inexact nature of the authors proposition of privately owned water makes it hard to conceive and ultimately impossible to put into practice. Without the sharing of resource of water like we currently partake in all over the world water ownership would become very hostile and militarily run. This argument is misunderstood on the basis that its application is almost impossible long with its effects that include cutting off impoverished nations along with starting disputes about the distribution of water.

In the article upon which this blog is based the statement that claims that if water were to be privately owned that it would lead to conservation. This statement is very easy to misunderstand because of the complete ill-defined terms of conservation and private ownership that it is based on. Without complete understanding of those two terms this concept is hard to understand. This is because our system of water distribution is much different today than it is in theory within the article. Although the idea in the article may be valid it does not include the critical ideas of how it would be practiced and some of the possible consequences it would bring.

Reference:

"Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?" Web log post. Water In The Works. Water and Wastewater in the Canadian context, 26 Oct. 2009. Web. 27 Oct. 2009. <http://waterintheworks.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/is-the-privatization-of-water-the-right-thing-to-do/

Written by:

Kendra Bester

Freshwater fish are depleting in numbers; but who or what is the main cause of this depletion?

According to a recent study, as many as four in ten species of fish inhabiting lakes and rivers in North America are in danger of becoming endangered. Through this study, it was also concluded that he number of subspecies of fish in danger in theses water bodies have doubled since 1989.
In the article “Freshwater fish in N. America in peril, study says” the author of the news article summarizes the methods and results in the study, which claims that “people are the chief cause of the problem” (CBC, 2008) for the decline in fish species in North America. Not included in the report however is how these species of fish are being affected so greatly by these “people”. In one sentence stated in the report “people are the chief cause of the problem by polluting and damming freshwater habitats” (CBC, 2008), however nowhere else in the article is this re-touched. This statement requires conceptual analysis due to the fact that the article lacks to describe or go into any detail at all how the human population is damming these freshwater habitats, or how damming these habitats is related to the decline in fish species numbers. After the statement, denoting people as the main problem in this issue, the author then begins to discuss the study to the reader, stating “In the first massive study of freshwater fish on the continent in 19 years, an international team of dozens of scientists looked not just at species, but also at subspecies…” (CBC, 2008) and the previous statement of the main cause is ignored.
In my opinion, I believe the author was trying to explain that by humans damming bodies of water they are negatively affecting the habitats of these fish species, which in turn affects their breeding and feeding grounds, which then forces the certain species to decline in numbers. In order to reiterate this point, the author could have allowed more room for discussion of why people were deemed the main cause of the problem, instead of stating random facts from the study. The statement “people are the chief cause of the problem” (CBC, 2008) could be misinterpreted by the reader due to the fact that the statement appears to be stating that the only reason that so many species of fish are becoming endangered or extinct is do the fact that people are damming freshwater habitats. However this is incorrect due to the fact that other components are affecting the decline of fish population such as environmental (change of temperature in climate) and ecological factors (predators of fish species becoming great in numbers).
Therefore, in order to be more concise with the wording of this particular statement, the author could have added more clarity by further discussing the accusation of people being the sole factor causing the decline in fish populations in North America.

Resources:
CBC, 2009, Freshwater fish in N. America in peril, study says
September 11th 2008, Accessed October 27th 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/09/11/fish-endangered.html

Emily Hartwig

National Parks Losing their Flow

According to Peter H. Gleick, national parks in the United States are suffering and will continue to suffer the effects of climate change and of the improper use of their natural resources. With the combination of melting glaciers through climate change and of intense commercial use of freshwater resources, the odds are that they will become dry and lifeless.

In Gleick’s blog, “Managing the Waters”, water is considered an important part of ecosystems, and “healthy ecosystems require healthy waters” (Gleick, 2009). The blog mainly focuses on the importance of taking care of freshwater resources in the national parks versus depriving the parks of them. Ecosystems such as rivers are seen as just as important as, if not more than, the wildlife living in them.

There was a bit of confusion in one particular sentence in the blog:

“If we let our parks become fenced, static, ecologically impoverished oases in a sea of unsustainable development, they will cease being the living wonders envisioned by their founders.” (Gleick, 2009)

After having read the whole blog, it is clear that the word “static” in this sentence relates to a lack of water flow; however, with it being one of the first things mentioned, the use of this term is questionable and may seem exaggerated. The word “static” meaning motionless and unchanging, the original thought is that national parks cannot be static, as they are constantly changing environments and can survive without humans interfering.

Mainly because of the extent of their commercial use in national parks, freshwater resources are becoming scarce and their availability for the wildlife that shares their environment is nearing insufficiency. One can therefore see why the term “static” could have been used; disappearing water can lead to immobile ecosystems (lack of moving water as well as the death of wildlife that depends on it). That being said, it would have been helpful to include the author’s meaning of the word “static”, as, even though water is included in the title, the relation between water and the word “static” is not very clear. Gleick’s interpretation of human impact on national parks is still very well written, and his blog is useful in the recognition of the possible consequences of a badly looked-after national park.

Reference:

Gleick, Peter H. “Managing the Waters”. The New York Times. Sept. 27, 2009.

Sustainaby Managed Water

Freshwater is becoming the most precious commodity on the planet. In the article Have we reached peak water?, Paul Hanely highlights how as the human population increases the earth is becomes less able to support our water needs. Rivers are running dry in the United States, forcing people to rely on finite underground sources of water. China is experiencing a massive drought that is putting already polluted conditions into an emergency state. Finally, all over the world our trend towards the use of bottled water is augmenting the problem by using more energy and producing more greenhouse through packaging and shipping.

The way to combat the trend towards a global water crisis, says Hanely, is to improve upon sustainably managed water. In the article, this concept is related, “to the way we use, manage, and abuse the fresh water that is regularly replenished by precipitation” (Hanely, 2009). This includes lakes and rivers, not underground aquifers that will take years to replenish themselves. These sustainable or renewable sources must be protected and used wisely. Hanely explains that the proper management of these sources includes the reduction of water use, and the improvement of water treatment to clean what we have. Also, how we obtain and use water should be considered because the use of fossil fuels increases global warming and the water crisis.

The author’s description of sustainably managed water is fairly precise. However, though the use of the word sustainable he implies many additional meanings that do not come across in the rest of the article. The Sustainability Principle is the idea that there is a limit to economic growth. (Beder, 2006) To sustainably manage our water could mean that we decrease economic growth to fit within the limits of what water we have already appropriated. Sustainable management implies that we should put regulations on our water consumption so that it does not exceed what the earth can provide. To implement regulations more research, funding and willingness is required. Sustainably managed water can not arise overnight.

Beyond extra meanings, the concept of sustainability has inherent vagueness. Firstly, it is impossible to totally recycle and reuse a resource. Certainly we can minimize our impact such that the ecosystem will recover, but it will still have been changed through basic wear and tear. Also, questions of how long we responsible for sustainability to last arise. Are we accountable for the rest of our lives, our children’s lives, or the time of humanity on earth? Aquifers although usually considered finite, will replenish themselves over time. It is hard to decide if using these resources is sustainable or not if we know they could run out, but not for a long time if used correctly. Finally, who is responsible for these sustainably managed waters? A global commandment on how to be sustainable can not be made because many unindustrialized countries simply do not have the means to prevent degradation of water.

Sustainability has become one of the key phrases in environmentalism. However to use it correctly requires a very specific definition.

- Amy Adair


Resources

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies. London: Earthscan, 2006.

Hanely, Paul. canada.com. 10 March 2009. 24 October 2009 . .

Clean Water Act Confusion

The Clean Water Act is a piece of legislation in the United States that aims to protect the quality of surface water by using a variety of tools to reduce the amount of direct point pollution discharge into the nations waters. Landowners must go through a lengthy permit process in order to build on wetlands and other areas (U.S Environmental Protection Agency 2009). Recently, the regulators of this Act turned away two Michigan landowners who wanted to build on wetlands that they already owned. After taking this unfavorable decision to the Supreme Court, it was ruled that the regulators may have misinterpreted the Act.

The way the article phrases this incident makes it seem as if the regulators are incompetent at their job. It later mentions the fact that the Clean Water Act was just one vote away from being terminated as federal legislation. The author seems to be shedding negative light on this Act and the people who enforce it. Another way of viewing this statement, is that the author is merely relaying what has happened. She continually mentions the idea that water conservation can be very subjective, “And that makes it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins (Totenberg).” This concession makes it seem as if the author does not really think the

regulators are incompetent as each situation where this act is utilized is quite unique.

Overall, this article can be read in two totally different ways and this ambiguity does not give the reader a clear idea of what the author means. Read one way, both the situation and the Clean Water Act are seen as unreliable and antiquated. The other understanding that readers may have of it, is that water legislation is so subjective that it is nearly impossible to define right or wrong in any given situation. Perhaps given this idea, the Clean Water Act is indeed outdated and a new piece of legislation that encompasses all possible scenarios is necessary to prevent the Supreme Court from being involved in such an episode again.

-Elisabeth Shapiro

Sources:

Divided Supreme Court Rules on Wetlands Law, Nina Totenberg (2006). www.npr.org

Summary of the Clean Water Act, U.S Environmental Protection Agency (2009). www.epa.gov

The WWF Uses the Precautionary Principle for the Protection of Water

     In the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the precautionary principle was stated to be “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degredation (Rio).” It is along these lines that the article “Climate Crisis Putting Canada’s Rivers at Risk (Sympatico.ca)” makes its case. This article refers to a report released by the WWF (“Canada’s Rivers are at Risk: Environmental Flows and Canada’s Freshwater Future”). This report talks about altered water flows and their effects on any downstream ecosystems.

     In the race to find a cleaner energy source, many have turned to hydropower. These projects are changing the basic structure of the rivers. The flow of (among others) the South Saskatchewan River and the St. Lawrence River have been altered so much in the past that it is placing pressure on the surrounding ecosystems.

     The WWF recommends that we look at what is happening to these rivers, and try to prevent it from happening to others. They made two suggestions: first, find a long-term plan to keep the rivers flowing; and second, create agreements to protect the ecosystems downstream of the altered river flow. They say “start planning now to protect river flows to ensure water security for the communities and economies that depend on them.”

     In short, the WWF would like the Canadian government to take action before something critical happens that can’t be undone. The use of the precautionary principle is effective, because we have no proof that these rivers will ever be able to fully restore themselves. Simply because the damage doesn’t seem widespread at the moment, that doesn’t mean that it won’t be in the near future.

 

 

Sources:

"Climate crisis putting Canada's rivers at risk | Sympatico.ca News." Home | Sympatico.ca News. Canada News. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. .

 

"- Rio Declaration - Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) --." -- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - Home page --. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. .