Water sustainability has become a hot issue for utilities and water users. In many areas of the world, including the United States, demand for water is exceeding sources of supply. For example, it appears that ground water use is becoming unsustainable in some locations.
Recently, gravity-monitoring satellites have disclosed that ground water supplies have diminished substantially over the past nine years in many parts of the world, including California's Central Valley. (See Science News, January 14, 2012, p.9). It seems that rapid depletion of ground water particularly is occurring in major aquifers underlying arid regions.
While some reduced recharge may be attributed to climate conditions such as drought, it has been asserted that the largest depletion is due to farming irrigation uses. (Id at p.9).
No doubt, urban development also has been a cause for ground water depletion. For example, rapid housing growth in suburban Chicago resulted in serious mining and reduction of ground water of acceptable quality. Only the availability of Lake Michigan water through pipeline extensions enabled communities to abandon their diminishing wells.
Water sustainability, of course, also is an issue for surface water sources of supply. The same factors of demand and climate create stresses on rivers, lakes and reservoirs.
Concerns over water sustainability are growing. For example, the American Water Works Association is presenting a four day sustainable water management conference March 18-21, 2012, in Portland, Oregon.
Attention to water sustainability by everyone is important. If we simply watch the well go dry, we surely will miss the water...and a lot more.
Fresh water is essential for life and commerce. However, its scarcity is resulting in increased regulation of water resources and their corollary, wastewater. This blog will discuss developments in such regulation. It will be my clepsydra measured by the flow of water law.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
EPA BRINGS BED BUGS TO JUSTICE
This month USEPA announced its $25,000 "environmental justice" grant to a tenants organization to "prevent and treat issues with bed bug infestations."
This announcement is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, traditionally "justice" has been a matter for courts to dispense, adjudged based upon an evidentiary trial or hearing and applicable law. Now, it appears that administrative agencies can dispense "justice", perhaps by internal decision-making and without a public hearing.
But what is "environmental justice"? EPA's Environmental Justice Small Grants Program Fact Sheet discloses the following quote, in part, attributed to Administrator Jackson: "We must take special pains to connect with those who have been historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making, including the disenfranchised in our cities and rural areas, communities of color, native Americans, people disproportionately impacted by pollution and small businesses, cities, and towns working to meet their environmental responsibilities. Like all Americans, they deserve an EPA with an open mind, a big heart and a willingness to listen." It still is not entirely clear what "environmental justice" may be or how it is to be determined, but it does seem to have a flavor of social engineering.
A second interesting observation is to learn that bed bugs are jurisdictional for EPA. It is obvious that EPA is concerned with issues involving safe drinking water, wastewater, clean air, and solid waste. However, it is less obvious that EPA also is fighting insects. Is there any limit to its "big heart"? For example, will stray cats be next?
When I was a small child, my parents often sent be to bed with "sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite." As an adult, I now can sleep tight knowing that EPA will put the bite on my bed bugs.
This announcement is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, traditionally "justice" has been a matter for courts to dispense, adjudged based upon an evidentiary trial or hearing and applicable law. Now, it appears that administrative agencies can dispense "justice", perhaps by internal decision-making and without a public hearing.
But what is "environmental justice"? EPA's Environmental Justice Small Grants Program Fact Sheet discloses the following quote, in part, attributed to Administrator Jackson: "We must take special pains to connect with those who have been historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making, including the disenfranchised in our cities and rural areas, communities of color, native Americans, people disproportionately impacted by pollution and small businesses, cities, and towns working to meet their environmental responsibilities. Like all Americans, they deserve an EPA with an open mind, a big heart and a willingness to listen." It still is not entirely clear what "environmental justice" may be or how it is to be determined, but it does seem to have a flavor of social engineering.
A second interesting observation is to learn that bed bugs are jurisdictional for EPA. It is obvious that EPA is concerned with issues involving safe drinking water, wastewater, clean air, and solid waste. However, it is less obvious that EPA also is fighting insects. Is there any limit to its "big heart"? For example, will stray cats be next?
When I was a small child, my parents often sent be to bed with "sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite." As an adult, I now can sleep tight knowing that EPA will put the bite on my bed bugs.
Monday, January 9, 2012
A FEW GOOD MEN ARE FEWER
In December, 2011, Vaclav Havel died. He was the leader of the 1989 "Velvet Revolution" that overthrew communism in Czechoslovakia and brought democracy to that country. He became the first and only president of Czechoslovakia and the first president of the Czech Republic after Slovakia became independent.
It is a paradox that media in the United States gave limited attention to Havel's passing, although he defeated communism. Yet, the media gave extensive coverage to the death of the North Korean communist leader a couple of weeks later.
Communism, or for that matter any dictatorship government, can be viewed as the ultimate form of government regulation. Havel referred to communism as an attempt to impose "holistic social engineering." (Havel, The Art of the Impossible, p. 203). "It was an attempt, on the basis of a few propositions masquerading as the only scientific truth, to organize all of life according to a single model, and to subject it to central planning and control regardless of whether or not that was what life wanted." (Id. at p. 89).
Havel also said: "By its very nature, life is infinitely colorful and varied. We are constantly being astonished by something new in the rich fabric of social relations, interests, and activities. It simply cannot be predicted, yet alone be planned for or regulated....Democracy is a system based on trust in the human sense of responsibility, which it ought to awaken and cultivate. Democracy and civil society are thus two sides of the same coin." (Id. at p.145).
Government regulation in the United States of commercial and personal activities, including water and wastewater operations, is an ever-expanding phenomenon. Administrative agencies engage in rule-making based upon staff input and often with limited public comment or a public evidentiary hearing. If a hearing is held, evidentiary rules often are relaxed or ignored. As a result, rule-making can have a potential for unspoken agendas, social engineering and unreasonable burdens on those affected.
Those in the water and wastewater operations community-no matter how small or large- have a responsibility to monitor rule-making proceedings that may affect them and to address questions and concerns to the regulatory agency involved. Most agencies have some mechanisms to present these concerns in rule-making proceedings, and if not, court challenges may be available. The time to challenge a regulation which imposes costs in excess of benefits or is unreasonably burdensome, for example, is not when an operator is sued for non-compliance. It is when the regulation is being considered for adoption.
Havel did not disdain all regulation, particularly environmental regulation. However, his message was that environmental regulation must be free of broad social engineering and pie in the sky dreaming. " I believe you should read the message coming to you from our part of the world as an appeal to protect the world against all those who despise the mystery of Being, whether they be cynical businessmen with only the interests of their corporations at heart, or left-wing saviors high on cheap idealogical utopias. Both lack what I would call a metaphysical anchor, and a consciousness of our obligation to it." (Id. at 80-89).
And, so, a thoughtful man has passed into history, but he gave us something to think about.
It is a paradox that media in the United States gave limited attention to Havel's passing, although he defeated communism. Yet, the media gave extensive coverage to the death of the North Korean communist leader a couple of weeks later.
Communism, or for that matter any dictatorship government, can be viewed as the ultimate form of government regulation. Havel referred to communism as an attempt to impose "holistic social engineering." (Havel, The Art of the Impossible, p. 203). "It was an attempt, on the basis of a few propositions masquerading as the only scientific truth, to organize all of life according to a single model, and to subject it to central planning and control regardless of whether or not that was what life wanted." (Id. at p. 89).
Havel also said: "By its very nature, life is infinitely colorful and varied. We are constantly being astonished by something new in the rich fabric of social relations, interests, and activities. It simply cannot be predicted, yet alone be planned for or regulated....Democracy is a system based on trust in the human sense of responsibility, which it ought to awaken and cultivate. Democracy and civil society are thus two sides of the same coin." (Id. at p.145).
Government regulation in the United States of commercial and personal activities, including water and wastewater operations, is an ever-expanding phenomenon. Administrative agencies engage in rule-making based upon staff input and often with limited public comment or a public evidentiary hearing. If a hearing is held, evidentiary rules often are relaxed or ignored. As a result, rule-making can have a potential for unspoken agendas, social engineering and unreasonable burdens on those affected.
Those in the water and wastewater operations community-no matter how small or large- have a responsibility to monitor rule-making proceedings that may affect them and to address questions and concerns to the regulatory agency involved. Most agencies have some mechanisms to present these concerns in rule-making proceedings, and if not, court challenges may be available. The time to challenge a regulation which imposes costs in excess of benefits or is unreasonably burdensome, for example, is not when an operator is sued for non-compliance. It is when the regulation is being considered for adoption.
Havel did not disdain all regulation, particularly environmental regulation. However, his message was that environmental regulation must be free of broad social engineering and pie in the sky dreaming. " I believe you should read the message coming to you from our part of the world as an appeal to protect the world against all those who despise the mystery of Being, whether they be cynical businessmen with only the interests of their corporations at heart, or left-wing saviors high on cheap idealogical utopias. Both lack what I would call a metaphysical anchor, and a consciousness of our obligation to it." (Id. at 80-89).
And, so, a thoughtful man has passed into history, but he gave us something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)