Over the past 8 days we have discussed general hydrologic concepts, taken a bird’s eye view of Alabama’s rich aquatic resources, heard about local stresses on the Cahaba River Ecosystem, and researched seven different cites to learn more about their water challenges, their water management practices, and their plans to alleviate future water stresses. So, the question now is, so what? I think that water is THE issue. It is out limiting resource for life, necessary for waste management, and allows for economic growth. I see water issues are taking center stage in local politics, and I think water shortages threaten economic growth in the Southeast.
What do you think? Based on our discussions and our Water Summit, do you think water is an important local, regional, or national issue? Be honest. How will water challenges affect life in the city you researched? Can you envision a national water policy where “water rich” regions share resources with “water poor” regions? What would the water rich regions get in return? Do you think a national water policy is feasible, or sustainable? If so, how? If not, why not? If you don’t think a national water policy is feasible, describe at least three practical changes citizens in “your city” can take to alleviate their water challenges.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely think water is an important issue as it, essential for life. I cannot see a national water policy. From listening to the problems of each city during this summit, I saw that different regions had different issues. I do think that certain cities and areas can borrow ideas from each other. However, I do not think one over-arching water policy would be sufficent. It would not be able to address the issues faced by each region. Policies dealing with surface water would not be able to deal with cities getting water from aquafers.
ReplyDeleteI also think that it is not entirely feasible for water rich regions to help water poor regions. The energy required to move large amounts of water and keep it clean or useable would be vast. I think it is more important for water poor regions to find ways to use the water they do have correctly, instead of relying on another place to bail them out.
So what? Water is the most vital molecule on the planet and no one would be alive without it. In San Diego, the projected population will reach 4.5 million by 2050. So in 40 years, the San Diego Water Authority will need to be able to serve 3 times as many people. How does it plan to do that? Can a voluntary system of water cutbacks really triple the water supply? The answer is no. Not that cutting back on water isn't a valuable effort, but it will not be able to support such a massive increase in population
ReplyDeleteThus, the solution must come in some sort of federally mandated water sharing policy. Water rich regions, such as Wisconsin and the Great Lakes areas could provide water to San Diego in exchange for the great economic hamster, MONEY. Money is the only thing that will get people to share their water. I think that laying down piping that distributes water to all of the nation for other parts of the nation would be the ideal way of sharing water, although not the most feasible. There could be one big pipe going from Wisconsin to San Diego, but that's not exactly practical either. The first method is probably better because it allows for other water stressed areas, not just San Diego to receive water, and other water rich areas to pump water into the national water pipes. Perhaps the economic stimulus package has something for a national piping system...
i think water is a regional issue. the water summit taught me that different regions have different problems. Jacksonville mainly uses ground water and Baltimore uses mainly surface water. so the same policy will more than likely not work in both cities. The national government should set up basic standards for water treatment and consumption, but it's really up to the state government to decide what's best for the region. National government should also facilitate negotiations between states since most water sources are affected by more than 1 state (eg.Great Lakes).
ReplyDeleteAlso responsible citizens should make a personal effort to conserve water. That's the most important part.
No I don't believe that water rich states should share their water with water poor states. No I don't believe that a national water policy is necessary. Why? Because if the water rich states pipe all their water out to other states, how long will they remain water rich? By pumping so much water out of their watershed they are not being very wise. California has a projected population of 60 million by 2050! They are already struggling to meet their water needs now! The solution cannot be to suck away other states water, or else inevitable they will dry out to!
ReplyDeleteSo what is the solution?
I've always been a fan of incentives. Making it financially rewarding to make changes. Unfortunately it is past that point. They need to crack down on people trying to water large lawns and on people with insanely large pools. They need to charge higher rates for water to force people to be more conservative. It sounds harsh and I realize it would not be popular policy, but as our water resources dwindle further with our growing population, water prices WILL rise due to supply and demand anyways, so why not raise it now in order to encourage conservation of water.
Desalination plants is something else that California has been using. I'm curious on how effective they actually are when you consider the energy it takes to run them along with environmental problems they may cause, but I'll probably do a post on that. So tune in.
The sad fact is that San Diego can't really fix its water problems because the problem is that they don't have enough water. Their only strategy is to cut back on water consumption while obtaining more water sources. It will be interesting to see how they pull it off.
Water is undoubtedly a very important resource that deserves our attention in the upcoming years. Water has always been something that was there for me, that I didn't have to think about. I turn a faucet and water comes out. Simple as that. But with today's fastly growing population rate causing such a high demand for water, water scarcity will be an issue we have to face in the near future.
ReplyDeleteBy the research done for the water summit activity, I learned a lot about how differently water is handled in different regions of the country. For example, the city Jacksonville, Florida has only recently come across water issues due to their projected 60% population growth and recent years of drought. However, because they have taken such a progressive stand on water issues, they are able to keep water available to people and keep their water source pure. Children education programs on water also help pass the right ideas about water conservation to future generations.
There are many things that can be done locally to conserve water. The rain gardens brought up by Mr. Beitelman that Kansas City uses would be very beneficial to our society. This would be better for keeping our water clean and for reducing the amount of water used to water our gardens/lawns. I also liked the idea presented by San Diego for having incentives for doing things like putting in artificial turf. Due to the last several summers of drought, artificial turf would allow people to have green yards without wasting water when it is so scarce.
From the research that our group did about Baltimore and from what was said in other groups, the main issue with water throughout the nation is human neglect. Rather it is contaminating the water supplies or overuse of the resource, most issues facing water quality and stress stem from us. And the natural issues that come with water sources like flooding and subsequent erosion can be addressed, if there is enough money and time and actual attention paid to these problems. And that, I think, is the heart of the issue. Getting citizens concerned about water quality, how they use water, how much they use, and what goes into it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that national intervention is necessary beyond establishing an actual point system or standard evaluation to determine water quality and efficency throughout the country, but taking care of the problems is a regional issue. Every watershed has its own problems that need to be dealt with in ways that benefits that community, and I think it starts with informing the consumer about issues and what can be done about them.
I certainly think a national water system would be difficult. The returns for water-rich areas would have to be considerable, first of all; taxes or some other form of monetary gain would be effective, but it would probably raise the price of water in water-challenged areas. Also, many states (and many individuals) would be strongly opposed to any government interference, particulary because water is so vital to life, and therefore so easy to use as a tool or weapon by those who have control of it. However, it would be interesting to have some sort of national water-piping project, because it would create a huge number of jobs. Right now, a project that big is just what our economy needs.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Colorado Springs individually, I think it would be interesting if they and the other areas that depend on Rocky Mountain run-off formed a coalition like the Great Lakes area has, and develop a plan to protect and preserve the snowpack up there, which is vital to several states in many ways.
Local, regional, and national water use are all intertwined; each plays an important role in determining sustainable management systems which are unique to the other types (in other words, planning local water use is going to look and be different from regional or national water planning).
ReplyDeleteThe Baltimore region will experience challenges in not only increasing their water quality and decreasing turbidity, but also encouraging other states part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed to do the same. If communities, or at least organizations, were formed depending on watersheds instead of county/state boundaries, then issues concerning intra-state waterways would be more readily addressed.
I'm sure that any movement towards sustainable water distribution, national water policy or no, is going to be benificial... but i don't like the fact that all of this requires MONEY from the government- for piping from alternative sources, money which in a sagging economy we do not and may not have (especially here in Birmingham). And the population will continue to rise, regardless of faulty lines, sewage leaks, and construction costs! If people really started to use rainbuckets and greywater for household chores/gardening/recreation, (let alone just reducing the amount of water consumption), then costs would be minimized for everyone...
DEFINITELY! I think water is one of the most important resources on the planet. I mean, look at the other resources we consider "valuable." Oil is quickly being used up, and we will run out of it in (if I remember correctly) 80 years using conservative estimates. There is only a certain amount of gold on Earth, and that will never change. That's not to mention that there's no real good use for gold aside from the fact that it looks pretty and doesn't tarnish very easily. Diamonds can be created, are still being mined, and can be used in hi-tech drills for cutting edges; but how useful is that to everyday people? Really, of the limited resources on Earth, water is the most precious. All living organisms require some water to be able to sustain themselves, so that means that we're not only using water for drinking, but also for growing all of our food. I just can't understand why it is valued so little. Perhaps this is because of the perceived availability of it.
ReplyDeleteWater is undeniably important, it's a necessity for life, and I think it would be helpful to think about it as a national issue, but have measures taken on a regional level. There can't be only be a national policy dealing with water because, as demonstrated at our Water Summit, different regions have different problems, but I don't think it should be purely regional. If water control is isolated region to region there are a lot more mistakes being made because a lot more regions are having trials and errors. If there was some sort of national communication similarly equipped regions could compare and contrast their policies and initiatives to see what worked best and see what do avoid at all costs.
ReplyDeleteDihydrogen Oxide. It provides life and joy. That's why I think we need to have both a national and regional water policy. There should be national restrictions on general usage of water. Every state should have general restrictions for conserving, reusing, cleaning, and protecting water. For example, each body of water should have a green belt around it to protect the environment, as well as, to add aesthetics to the surrounding area.
ReplyDeleteEach region should have an additional plan for water protection because each region has different issues. For example, in areas with good rainfall, rain barrels can be used to limit the amount of water needed to be piped to the houses. Also, in Michigan, water sanitation is an issue while in Austin Texas, flooding is the issue. So, a national policy concerning every environment, city, climate, etc. is not feasible or possible.
And no, I do not think water rich cities should share water because that would require great amounts of pipes and a ridiculous length to travel. It is more efficient to use the water in the water poor area more effectively.