Water Writes (Rights)

Yesterday I was listening to an old CSPAN podcast of a Supreme Court water rights argument in the
case of Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado.  There are some interesting points that arise in the case as you listen to the SC Justices integrate the prosecution or petitioner and the defendants.

The Case
At issue is violation of both the Republican River Compact and known wrong doing, which seems to arise as a separate issue in my opinion.  Let me simplify this and get to the point because it is made out to be a typical overly complex litigation with meaning getting lost in the language.

These three states made a compact about use of the Republican River.  The violations go back over 10 years.  Nebraska had under estimated water use requirements and violated their use because they argue that the tools to estimate water needs was not accurate enough.  One of their models for the baseline analysis was the dust bowl era.  Seemingly that would be a valuable baseline for water minimums, and it is.  However as it turns out, that water minimum is not the lowest water levels that have been reached over the time since their compact.  Now you might be able to see where this is going.

Colorado is supporting Nebraska's argument, but Kansas is arguing that modifications in the compact are not allowable without acceptable revision (simplified here).  Further Kansas states that such revisions are a "threat" to their water rights; there is also no precedence for addressing disputes for violations of the Compact as can also be found in the Cornell review of that case.

Now there are other factors in the conversation but I am choosing not to go into those because I am not necessarily going in that direction.  As a last note Justices Ginsberg, Alito, Roberts and  Scalia-- as to my memory.

The bigger issue here is the value of water itself.  When considering the volume of water, it is one matter.  And clearly at risk is future violations and what exactly those violations mean going forward if there is not real consequence.  But also this should be an alarm for the real threat of water availability and scarcity.  As we encounter greater concerns over usable water an pollution of it from farms and other industrial requirements for water, how much influence do we as citizens have over this water.

As individuals we lack the power in most cases to even bring our arguments to the Supreme Court, yet our concerns are no less valuable.  Granted that we are getting use from the water that is stated in this case, but I am more concerned about the very nature of the argument that Kansas is making, which is how do we generate consequences for a dispute that satisfies an individual, let alone a state?

Oh!  I found it very interesting that one of the Justices (I believe it to be Justice Scalia) made a point of saying that if better ways of measuring water consumption from the River,  become available that doesn't necessarily meant that you are suppose to continually ask this court to make allowable revisions in the Compact.   Now it is my understanding that the whole point of law is to adapt when things are not accurately accounted for including human behavior relative to the greater good or violations of ideologies that were once though to be sufficient as in the case of civil rights arguments.

This is probably enough to marinate on but it does get you thinking about the importance of water and perhaps how we should elevate our awareness of what it actually means to and in our society.

Efficient Outcomes

We live in a world that is flawed by you, and everyone you do and don't know.  Those everyone's are humans; homo sapiens that reside at the top of the food chain but way below the chain of common sense.

Not to beat up on humans, I love being one, but let's take a look at some primary accusations the rest of living organisms might make if they could, well...only find a way to communicate with us.  One perfect example can be found in a book titled Ishmael.  While I don't purport this novel to answer humanities failures, but it does probe into the culture of our behavior. 

We lack the ability to respond to a fundamental reality of finite resources because in an economic system the value of these resources are externalities that hold little meaning in comparison to wealth building in financial terms.  We fail miserably in efficient outcomes.

Why?  A culture of belief that never ending consumption, is the key to our remaining at the top of the evolutionary chain.  This includes development, a term that has evolved from the establishment of civilization. Humans have a tendency to conquer rather than coexist.  As Darwin might say, survival is based on one's ability to thrive over another organism.  Evidence of this can be seen not only in grand edifice as a symbol of human greatness, but in our crowing achievement of eliminating disease.

To be certain, there is no turning back the magnitude of our achievement, though cataclysmic they may be in

scale.  Sure we will see glimpses of a change in the tides but culture is a difficult thing to change.  Not only are we slow to respond, in many cases we are just to late.  It is human culture that  is the greatest contributor to the accelerating background extinction rate, dominating the landscape with estimates from 1000 to 10,000 times normal extinction rates of other living organisms-- that is the impact of a civilized society.  Wikipedia has a very interesting way of stating it, as long as species have been evolving, species have been going extinct; no species is evolving faster than humans.

Water Whys

Why, is water so important in our life?  

Imagine if you decided to not consume or use anything that was related to water, for just one day:

*The most obvious exclusion would be drinking water- none of that.  On average an adult consumes about two liters of water per day;

*you would also have to stop eating that day; water is required to grow anything that grows from the earth, i.e. agricultural products;

*you'll have to turn off those lights also; coal fired powered plants use about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year (UCS); 

*you would have to decide not to drive that day, because : the amount of water used to manufacture a new car, including new tires? 39,090 gallons per car;

*chicken wings? water is used during the growing/production of a chicken? 400 gallons;

*Water required for irrigation (2005 estimates)  128 billion gallons of water per day.

Water under the bridge

Clearly, water is a key resource to everything we do.  It is important that we are more conscious about making wise consumer choices to avoid over use, of this precious natural resource.  Since only three percent of our earth's water resources is considered drinkable water understanding its scarcity is something we should be educated about, not threatened by.  This simply means as you are making your purchases, go the extra mile and let manufactures know by sending them an e-mail, calling customer service or contacting their head quarters, that you would like to know what steps they are taking to conserve water in their manufacturing and distribution process.

 


Certain arms of the government such as WETT, are looking at the value of water to the environment not just the value of water to for human consumption.  On their web site they state that their research will "...enable an environmentally and economically more appropriate evaluation by including quantified environmental benefits..."  This is an approach of internalizing the externality (or realizing the cost in other than dolar terms).

Putting your best foot forward

With so much effort into understanding water that is taking place behind the scenes, it is understandable why we need to know much more about the impact of our own consumption habits and usage regarding water.  There is not doubt that human related activity has an impact on water quality and availability; so we can make a conscious choice to change the impact we have by reducing and reusing water whenever possible.

Water availability is a real concern and there are a lot of good sites you can visit to understand more about it including: the U.S. Geological Survey; American Water Use; WETT (Water Energy Technology Team) and the radio active risks associated with Japan and our fish consumption.  You might also want to visit the World Health Organization's site to look at impacts around the world.

Ending on a memorable note; in the United States, we consume about 346,000 million (that's "346 hundred-thousand-million" gallons of water each day.

Let water why(s) help you become water wise.  It is a global issue, but the change begins with you.  

Happy drinking!  

...Sky's the Limit

There is no limit to what is possible, an insight into the human mind.  Preserving the environment is no different.  And as long as there is 1% chance I will invest 100% effort.

By far our greatest challenge is preserving the balance between environment and the impact of human activity, rivaling the tragedies occurring in Africa, India as well as other developing nation- humanitarily speaking there is no comparison, but there are many links.  Preserving one can improve the outlook for many.

Fortunately human capacity has the unique ability to adapt and change.  Fraught with compromises, questions and with so many to consider, there is no satisfactory answer for what we face.

World population as of October 1, 2010 6,872,233,191

As I reflect on what my task is at Tufts University I think about the power of the resources at my disposal in Urban Planning and Environmental Engineering.  I reflect on the opportunity as a utility, to apply theory, philosophy, ideology, modeling and structure to produce a transformational strategy to preserve our natural environment-- helping others to understand and improve.  I believe we can learn to help others make immeasurable leaps in faith and progress.  My goal is to produce compelling insights that can move the world-- why not?

Engagement with people from around the world, resembling a United Nations located in a place where  our differences become our indifference-- to barriers.  We to explore the frontier together in order to foster new thinking and energy that makes the planet a more habitable place to live.

Critical thresholds of water resources; debate and dialog on economic influences, health risk factors all leave me capitulating to the evidence that rests before me; knowing that within all of this is not solely idealism that drives my commitment to change, but my unshakable belief in what is possible for humanity to achieve.  People managing scarcity, and transforming it into abundance, implementing strategies around policies and sound planning, collectively represent my drivers.

How much time do we have to achieve all this?

We have exactly enough time... starting right now.

Do something environmental (DSE)

Embracing Climate Change

Healing People and the Earth

by Scotland Willis
When we(those in the field of climate related issues) are in our circles, understanding that most of the U.S. population does not fully grasp the environmental issues that include climate change, the circle can seem full.  It seems like the world knows all about environmental concerns- but we often find ourselves talking to our friends.  With all the recycling(what to recycle, how much, separating compost etc) many people just can't seem to identify the compelling need to support modifying systems that are currently in place.  They are provided with a relatively comfortable lifestyle(for most people), many people are already burdened with economic stressors-- and quite frankly most don't see the difference their efforts will make.  Oh and let's not forget the amenity of cheap oil.

For years agencies and individuals have been working on making climate change a priority for the general public though various campaigns, from hybrid vehicles to littering and even water usage.  Some approaches have been more abrasive; making attempts to threaten non-believers with dyer consequences.  While the consequences are real, approaching environmental concerns should not be about creating fear.  We should no sooner take this approach than thinking that creating fear in the workplace is a good choice- it's not!  Fear does not make people productive; nor do threats, yelling, or misleading bits of information.  There is enough evidence and solid examples we can use to be more persuasive- and we should be.

Response to climate change is a behavioral issue.  As such we need to focus on strategies that change behavior.  Incentives, education(early and adult), inclusionary programs, municipal support and legislation.  People need to see, and feel the difference by contributing to project and ideas that make both large and small scale differences on the environment.  Projects may range from building a small solar panel with their child, to ground water and hydrology research undertaken by research teams.  People need to work, not green jobs but be involved so that we can yield a revolutions of change with waves of people.

A combination of more interesting approaches, visible benefits and opportunities to get involved will prove to be transformational for larger segments of our population.  People are more likely to get engaged in a project they visit while it is under way, especially if it is a large scale project with far reaching implication.

I strongly support environmental and climate change initiatives; as a 15 year consultant and a masters student  in environmental engineering as well as urban planning; how we get these messages out is going to be critical to ensuring successful engagement and implementation for a healthier future for Earth(or our biosphere).

Scotland Willis is an environmental strategist, lecturer and advocate.  He is currently a working on a dual Masters at Tufts in Environmental Engineering and Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning.  He is a management consulting in systems thinking and large scale change.  You can email him at scotland@clearstrategies.us. or visit the clear strategies web site

Bottled water www.(water what a waste)

photo wikipedia

by Scotland Willis

Massachusetts legislation House Bill 3515, Senate Bill 1480 for which the session ended July 31 2010(According to legislative sessions and rules ).  Further discussion on the matter of bottled water and soft drink deposit requirement(of .05 cents) is essentially moot.

Global not just you not just here
Throughout all of this, what rarely comes to the forefront is the impact of plastic on our environment.  Four out of five plastic bottles end up in a landfill, according to UN research. A Pool of plastic swirling in Pacific Ocean commonly known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is visible evidence of how human activity affects the environment(wikipedia maps and description).  Both the manufacturing and disposal have a toxic environmental impact that last beyond your and my lifetime combined.  Perhaps a more effective approach would be to develop a campaign that consistently demonstrates the waste product, its path and the outcome of plastic bottle's aftermath.  Visibility of harmful affects just is not there, despite the discovery of a rubbish patch in the Atlantic as well.  Perhaps politics, plastics, and profits just don't mix- curious.  There should be a 10 cent deposit; there are proven results in other states at this level.  That is a fraction of the toll waste plastic is having on our environment and it is something we can achieve immediately.

Issues with the bottle bill
This bottle bill left out some important provisions in its current form nonetheless.  It did not cover bottles less than 16 ounces(specifically the bill refers to container sizes 16 oz. to 2 liters).  That is ludicrous.  Smaller bottles represent a majority of the container people walk around with daily as well as being the most common container sold at special events because they are easy to hold and store.  Exempting beverage companies from all sizes lesser than 16 ounces is a fatal flaw.  Why? Because if a bill does pass, they will merely begin promoting 15 oz and less bottles.  Worse 15.9 oz bottles.

Corporations need to have a greater sense of accountability for what human demand and activity has on the environment.  Beverage companies don't want to see(what amounts to a .03 cent increase) in handling fees because of the marginal additional cost, or the perceived added expense to the consumer.  What is most disconcerting is that these very same beverage companies will not hesitate to discover new gimmicks to increase their profits by raising the price.  Apparently they are very unfamiliar with the triple bottom line and within that context, corporate accountability.  Beverage companies just don't seem to care.

A little education in corporate responsibilityA basic notion of accountability in this instance might suggest that an organization profiting from the beverage market ( i.e. wastefully [editorial license] manufacturing and packaging municipal grade or lesser water- and call it pure) in bottled water, has a social responsibility( vis a vis corporate accountability) to give back to that from which I took.  Protecting the environment is an investment not a cost.  Damaging the environment is a cost, clearly greater than beverage companies care to realize, which comes from the manufacturing of plastic containers and the waste associated with them(about 2,500,000).  Profits over people, or profits over preservation, both compromise a triple bottom line.

Here is a good exercise for fellow consumers.  Visit the web site of each beverage company that services your area; find out what there mission statement is( these are the principles that guide their work); call them up and hold them accountable for what they promise or state in their mission if it is at all related to creating a sustainable environment, or preserving our natural resources.  Even if they claim to have a connection to the natural environment- hold them to it.

There is absolutely no excuse to allow beverage companies to escape their responsibility to protect the environment; nor should we as consumers allow them to.  So today, protest:   1. learn how safe your local municipal drinking water is (I have been drinking water from the City of Boston for years and I feel great) 2. buy a reusable water container.  They are relatively inexpensive as low as $4.99 and without harmful chemicals in most cases (read the label).

I don't buy bottled water or soft drinks.  If you have it within you, stop or write your beverage company and tell them to step up their commitment to the environment and to you.  Hold them accountable for the mess they are making- literally.  And tell Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge) and Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) 1. do not give up and 2. make the policy stronger.  Let them know that you will work to gain additional support to get this bill into legislation.

Green Note: Cement accounts for 5 to 8% of CO2 output, the 3rd largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. 

Scotland Willis is an environmental strategist, lecturer and advocate.  He is currently a working on a dual Masters at Tufts in Environmental Engineering and Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning.  He is a management consulting in systems thinking and large scale change.  You can email him at scotland@clearstrategies.us. or visit the clear strategies web site

Carbon Footprints and H2O

Think reducing your C02 footprint and H20 footprint could be reduced by using less water or energy YES and NO. Water usage is not just about how much you as the end user are using but how much water is consumed in the production of the product.

So for example, your ice tea may only be a 16oz beverage(mostly water), but a significant amount of water is used to produce the tea leaves themselves.

Water is like processed food, the more you process your food the more nutritional value you lose. By growing your own food you increase nutrient intake. By mass producing water(processing water i.e. irrigation) you decrease the efficiency of water usage.

Water works essentially the same way; when you use a system to harness water, that system requires energy and large water production- or irrigation . Using irrigation to water a farm means using thousands of gallons of water for an agricultural area or crop. This means each piece of fruit, vegetable, or coffee bean, uses more water than what goes in your cup of coffee or juice that comes out of your watermelon. Much of the water results in runoff as well. Rain barrels also sound like a good alternative but there is an environmental production cost with making rain barrels as well.

Ultimately the best approach is to find a way to capture rain water without manufacturing special products or producing high volumes of water i.e. commercial farming. Enter the natural reservoir or a form of detention tank in a natural area. Not the simplest approach in an urban area but it is possible. Urban farms are also an excellent approach, individuals use much less water than commercial applications and the food does not have to travel over long distances.

So where do you begin and end with all of these environmental concerns, footprints etc. The first and best step is to start doing more to accelerate protection of the environment. Work to reduce water consumption by using reusable water bottles, capturing rain, placing a container under your shower to capture the water before your shower heats up and use that water to water your plants. I am always happy to do a training or information session so you and others can learn how to make more of a difference.

Visit me at Clear Strategies Environmental Consulting at www.clearstrategies.us

Scotland Willis is an environmental consultant for Clear Strategies, columnist for the South End News and freelance writer.