Great Article On Water Scarcity At The Economist

I have long been a fan of the Economist. The writing is excellent, well thought-out, and often reports on stories ignored or buried by other news sources here in the U.S.

On Friday, the Economist published an article on water scarcity. The article provides an expansive overview of the problem. While the breadth of the article understandably limits the depth with which it covers various issues, the article is an excellent introduction for anyone who wants to learn about water scarcity.

I highly recommend you check it out.

Senate Climate Bill Sees Light Of Day

Senators John Kerry and Josef Lieberman unveiled their long awaited climate bill, “The American Power Act,” today (The bill, along with some explanatory documents can be found here). Weighing in at almost 1000 pages, the bill tries to provide a little bit of something for just about everyone. Though primarily aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting various energy initiatives, there are some provisions which should be of interest to people involved with water related issues.

Though I am still parsing through the bill myself, Title VI of the bill – addressing adaptation to climate change – has jumped out at me as being particularly relevant to the water community. That part of the bill creates a new “Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel.” The Panel (easier than saying NRCCAP), will be made up of the heads (or their delegates) of essentially every federal agency that has anything to do with natural resources or the environment. And the Panel is tasked, within a year of its formation, of formulating a comprehensive national strategy:

(1) to protect, restore, and conserve natural resources so that natural
resources become more resilient, adapt to, and withstand the ongoing and
expected impacts of climate change; and
(2) to identify opportunities to mitigate the ongoing and expected impacts of climate change.

§6004

Once formulated, this Strategy will be rolled out to all of the various agencies and organizations represented on the Panel who then have to formulate plans of their own to implement the Strategy.

Water management and conservation are mentioned relatively prominently throughout the bill, considering its focus on energy and GHG emissions. And from a number of the provisions it appears that the bill will provide at least some new federal funding for water management and conservation efforts.

Of course, this bill is in its infancy. And there is no guarantee that it will pass in its current form, or at all. And at the end of the day, where the rubber meets the road here is less with the terms of the bill, and more with the regulations and rules that come out of it.

A Human Right To Water

I have written a couple of times on the issue of whether there is, or should be, a human right to water. I was recently contacted by Isobel Foulsham, an MA student in human rights at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies in London. Isobel created a short video advocating the existence of a human right to water.

The video is only three minutes, but is actually very well done – in particular I like the style of animation that was used. From a more substantive perspective it also imparts important information about the dire straits much of the world is in when it comes to access to potable water.

I agree with Isobel’s positions on the nature of the problem, the problems with bottled water, and the need to make better use of municipal water supplies. I am not quite as against the commoditization of water as Isobel appears to be, though my concept of commoditization doesn’t really apply to water used for personal uses (i.e. drinking, bathing, washing etc.), which is the thrust of the video.

Given the inherent limitations of a three minute treatment of a complex issue, I think Isobel did a very good job encapsulating many of the issues associated with a human right to water. I highly recommend you check it out.

When Does Efficiency Not Lead To Conservation?

It is a hallmark of current thinking among conservationists that one of the greatest tools in our arsenal to promote the conservation of natural resources is increasing the efficiency of our use of those resources. The entirely logical line of reasoning being that if we get more bang for our buck, then we need less bucks – or water, coal, oil, electricity etc. This is a bedrock principle of modern water management. But recently I have been called on to look at “efficiency” a little more closely.

A couple of months ago I wrote a post about a recent report issued by the Pacific Water Institute on the great strides that can and have been made to increase the water efficiency of agriculture in California. In particular was one example I cited from the report of a farm that reported increasing its water efficiency by 20% (which can be found on p. 33 of the report).

I just received an extensive comment to the post asking about that particular 20% number. Wayne Bossert, manager of the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4, asked whether the 20% increase in efficiency represented a decrease in “consumptive use” or a decrease in water “diverted and applied.” Mr. Bossert explained the question as follows:

In any hydrologic system where the water supply and the water sink (where non-consumptive water uses go) are the same, increasing irrigation application efficiency just eliminates the sink supply and provides a higher percentage of the applied water to consumptive use crop production. You can pump less water with the higher efficient irrigation system, but you can also actually consume more water.

The 65% efficient irrigation system only makes 65% of the applied water available for crop production. The rest is non-consumptive use that returns (eventually) to the supply - at least in a traditional groundwater aquifer system. When a new 99%efficient drip system is installed, the producer pumps 75% of what he used to, but 99% of it is made available and consumed by crop production. My math tells me that 99% of 75% is more than 65% of 100%.

It is this extra water use that increases the yields so often reported when higher efficiency systems are converted to.

(Please read the rest of the comment here)

This comment struck me in two ways. First, I had always assumed that “efficiency” must be “good” in all circumstances – this comment has made me realize that “efficiency” is really a far more nuanced concept in water management. Second, as I have discussed in several different contexts, I believe that water management really needs to be looked at holistically, taking into consideration the entire hydrologic cycle. And that is exactly the point Mr. Bossert is making. In his example of the 65% efficient irrigation system, the other 35% of the water that does not go to the crops is not necessarily lost or destroyed. In fact, usually, that water simply returns to the natural hydrologic cycle. The same cycle that ultimately is the water supply.

To answer Mr. Bossert’s specific question, I have to say that the report doesn't provide a clear answer because as far as I can see it doesn’t squarely address the issue (though I admit I did not comb through all 75 pages). But my reading of it leads me to believe that the 20% increase in efficiency referred to a decrease in water “diverted and applied.” If the goal of water conservation is to reduce human use (i.e. consumption) of water, it seems we need to give greater thought to what it means to increase the efficiency of our water use.

This doesn’t mean that increased efficiency is a bad thing. Indeed, Mr. Bossert himself makes that point. And the Pacific Institute Report notes a number of non-consumption related environmental benefits associated with increasing irrigation efficiency. What it does mean is that increased efficiency may not be the ultimate solution for one of the largest water management challenges we face – dwindling supplies.

New EPA Construction Site Effluent Rule

Those who read this blog are aware of my coverage of new numerical standards for nutrient pollution the EPA is enacting in Florida. Well that is not the only place they are putting numerical criteria into effect. Below is a news alert from two attorneys at my firm, Ralph Ferrara and Jennifer Simon Lento. Ralph is the head of our construction law practice, and Jennifer is an associate in our environmental department (who also has an excellent blog on off-shore wind farms that you can find here). So without further ado:

On February 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made effective a new final rule that imposes national monitoring requirements and enforceable numeric limitations on storm water discharges at all construction sites larger than one acre.

Under both the present and past regulatory schemes, all construction activities that could result in the discharge of pollutants into nearby bodies of water require the owner or operator to obtain permit coverage pursuant to the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program or through a state administered analog program.

The new limitations, which include new effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and new source performance standards (NSPS), must be incorporated into all permits issued under EPA’s NPDES program or under analog programs administered by state agencies.

Compliance with the new rule will be staggered over the next four years. As of the effective date, construction site owners and operators that disturb one or more acres must use “best management practices” (BMP) to ensure that soil disturbed during construction activity does not pollute nearby water resources.

Specific numerical limitations will take effect in 2011 and 2014 for sites larger than 20 acres and 10 acres respectively. These sites must sample stormwater discharges, and meet a limitation of 280 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units). Sites larger than 20 acres must begin monitoring and sampling discharges to comply with the new limitations beginning on August 1, 2011. Sites larger than 10 acres will become subject to the same monitoring, sampling and compliance obligations on February 2, 2014.

These requirements will apply both to EPA’s Construction General Permit (CGP) and to individual permits issued by the states or by EPA. New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware issue their own CGPs and individual permits. The new requirements must be incorporated into any new general permits issued after February 1, 2010. However, any CGP or individual permits issued by a state or by EPA prior to February 1, 2010 will remain valid until their expiration dates, and need not comply with the new final rule.

This rule is further evidence that the once sleeping EPA is now becoming active. And I believe we can expect this trend to continue into the foreseeable future.

ps. Please note that this is a brief summary of the new rule and there are other changes not discussed here which may impact specific situations. If you have a specific construction matter that you are concerned may be impacted by this new rule, please contact either Ralph or Jennifer to discuss it.

Is A Human Right To Water A Bad Idea?

Dr. Mike Compana of Oregon State University – known as Aquadoc – recently put up a post asking whether the human right to water is a bad idea. The question is prompted by an article in Global Water Intelligence opposing the UN High Commission For Human Rights’ (UNHCHR) possible adoption of an obligation on the part of utilities to provide a basic supply of free water to low-income groups, regardless of whether the supply could be successfully financed. I will not repeat the arguments in the article, other than to say that they focus on whether such an obligation would halt private investment in extending water services. It is worth a read and I highly recommend you head over and check it out.

Florida Gets Another Reprieve, In Part, From Numerical Standards

I have written several posts about the EPA’s decision, in settlement of a lawsuit, to enact numerical standards for nutrient pollution in Florida. The original settlement called for the EPA to have issued such criteria by now. Two months ago the EPA extended the comment period for its proposed criteria – a step that many expected.

Yesterday the EPA issued a new letter to the Florida DEP stating its intention to delay the implementation of numerical standards for estuaries and coastal waters until 2011. In addition, the EPA will apparently seek “additional third party review,” to be announced next month, to review the scientific basis for water standards applicable to these environments.

For environmentalists this is bad news in as much as it delays the implementation of standards until next year. For those who oppose new environmental regulation, that regulation has just been put off a year for a large swathe of areas that would otherwise be affected.

I believe however that this announcement is a good thing in the end. Numerical nutrient regulations are probably necessary, but given their complexity should not be rushed into. If the regulations are going to be meaningful they need to be backed up by science addressing the particular environments to be regulated – something that is thin on the ground at the moment. Remember, unlike other contaminants, these are compounds that are both naturally occurring and necessary for normal aquatic ecosystems. Appropriate levels of these compounds can also vary from one water environment to another. As a result, generalized standards are neither appropriate nor possible.