NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS

At the beginning of a new year, it is customary to make personal resolutions for improvements in behavior over the following twelve months. For example, a person may resolve to lose weight, or to exercise more, or to get a new job, or to be more kind to an obnoxious relative or neighbor, or even to drink more water. It also is traditional that none of such resolutions ultimately will come true in actual changes in behavior.

Just what is a New Year's resolution? According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it is defined as "a promise that you make to yourself to start doing something good or stop doing something bad on the first day of the year." No wonder such resolutions can be broken so easily. If a promise to oneself is not kept, who does one sue?

So, perhaps New Year's resolutions can be summarized as simply feel good statements of intentions having little chance of becoming reality. Oscar Wilde said: "Good Resolutions are simply checks that men draw on a bank where they have no account." Mark Twain put it this way: "Now is the accepted time to make your regular good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual."

I think I found one resolution that really makes sense for everyone. Luther Standing Bear, an Oglala Sioux chief, said of the Lakota:

"Conversation was never begun at once, nor in a hurried manner. No one was quick with a question, no matter how important, and no one was pressed for an answer. A pause giving time for thought was the truly courteous way of beginning and conducting a conversation. Silence was meaningful with the Lakota, and his granting a space of silence to the speech-maker and his own moment of silence before talking was done in the practice of true politeness and regard for the rule that, 'thought comes before speech.'"

Simply stated, resolve to "think before speaking." While it may be a challenge to make and keep this resolution, the resulting silence will speak words for a more peaceful world.

©Daniel J. Kucera 2016

GHOST RIGHTS TO WATER CAN BE SPOOKY--PART 2

In my previous post, I discussed "ghost" water rights held by landowners. These are rights to divert water from streams and lakes that were established prior to governmental regulation and permitting of such diversions.

Ghost-like water rights also can arise under different scenarios. One reported example is the dispute between the states of West Virginia and Maryland over water rights in the Potomac River.* West Virginia has sought to take additional water from the river for a proposed new manufacturing plant in that state. Maryland has objected to such an additional take. In 1933, Maryland began regulating
withdrawals from the river by users out of state. West Virginia has claimed that such control is limited by a 1785 compact negotiated by George Washington and a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision which enabled the state of Virginia to have water rights in the river.

Earlier this year, a South Dakota tribe of native Americans living along the Missouri River filed suit against the United States seeking $200 million as compensation for alleged violations of water rights.** The complaint is premised on a 1908 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the establishment of a land reservation for native Americans includes an implied reservation of water rights for the benefit of the tribe. The claim is alleged that water rights to the river given by the United States to others were not legal.

Fresh water is a scarce but indispensable commodity. Accordingly, what these examples illustrate is that sharing of water sources can be a contentious exercise. If sharing cannot be accomplished by agreement or compact, governmental regulation and ultimately litigation appears to be a necessary and likely consequence.

______________________________________________

*Terlep, "P&G Caught in Water-Rights Feud",
Wall Street Journal, November 26-27,2016,
p. B3

**Tupper, "SD Tribe Wages $200M Water Fight",
Rapid City Journal, November 13, 2016,
p. A1

© Daniel J. Kucera 2016

GHOST RIGHTS TO WATER CAN BE SPOOKY

In 1948, the classic song "Ghost Riders in the Sky" was published. Depicting a haunting cowboy legend, it became popular first in 1949 by the deep voice of Vaughn Monroe, but subsequently recorded by over 50 performers.

Now, it appears that there may be ghost water rights in rivers and lakes on earth. In the 1600s, colonists in America began to use water from rivers to power their mills. In doing so, they also assumed rights to use water for these purposes. The formation of states, and the United States, occurred some 100 years later, and the formal regulation of water rights even later.

A recent news story focuses on a thorny issue: do pre-regulation water rights, sometimes called "ghost water rights", survive subsequent governmental regulation of water rights?* According to the article, two pioneer landowners in the Black Hills of South Dakota obtained water rights in 1896 to divert substantial flow from Rapid Creek. The then stated purpose of the water diversion was "for milling, manufacturing, irrigating, domestic and other useful purposes." These water rights were recorded prior to the the adoption in 1907 of state water use laws providing for regulation and permitting of water rights. According to the article, there were hundreds of water rights recorded prior to state regulation.

The article states that the subject water rights, if exercised, would divert almost one-half of the entire flow of the Creek in a typical year. In 1908, a state engineer surveyed pre-existing water rights and found that they claimed large amounts of water. He wrote "the natural tendency was to make the claim large enough to cover all possible requirements, and in most cases greater than there was any expectation of using...This resulted in many instances in absurd and speculative claims, and the records show numerous cases where each of a number of claims to the water of a stream, filed in accordance with the former statutes, involved a larger quantity of water than had ever flowed in it, even during flood periods."

Now, the state board regulating water rights is considering termination of ghost water rights. However, such termination presents several potential issues. For example, do pre-existing water rights ever expire or can they be terminated? If water rights were never used, do they still exist? Do they run with the land benefited from the water rights? Can water rights be abandoned, and if so, what evidence establishes abandonment? If a water right is used partially, does the unused balance still exist? Can a pre-exisist water right be reduced in scope?

Another issue may be Constitutional. If a state terminates or reduces a pre-existing water right, is this a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, requiring compensation?

Ghost water rights appear to be both daunting and haunting. Allocation of the rights to divert water from rivers and lakes can be a complex and contentious exercise. Indeed, to reference the song, ghost rights in the water can be spooky.

_____________________________________________

*Tupper,"'Ghost Claims'Haunt SD Waters,"
Rapid City Journal, September 25, 2016,
page A1

© Daniel J. Kucera 2016

REGULATION AND AN ARCHIMEDES' MOMENT

Shortly before this month's presidential election, a Wall Street Journal article discussed impacts of excessive regulation upon economic growth.* Citing Brexit and G-20 leaders, it stated "Recent developments suggest a new recognition by voters and governments that excessive regulation is responsible for the slow economic growth of the past eight years." The article concluded "There is solid evidence that excessive regulation since the financial crisis has kept the U.S. and other developed economies from growing faster."

Since the dramatic results of the election, media sources have hastened to speculate over actions the new federal administration may take to mitigate or rescind perceived excessive regulation , not only in the financial arena but also particularly in environmental and energy related matters. Rulemaking in such areas obviously can have impacts on manufacturing, job loss and creation, wage growth, etc.

Moreover, aside from economic impacts, recent regulatory developments have extended federal reach to minutia of daily personal living. For example, there now are rules governing who can use what gender of public bathroom, the type of toilet one can have in a home, the kind of faucets and shower heads one can have, the kind of light bulbs to turn on in a bathroom, the amount of water a toilet can flush, etc. One can expect that a federal rule may be proposed governing the type and amount of toilet paper that can be used.

In addition to potential negative impacts on the economy, excessive regulation can distort the federalism structure inherent in the U.S. Constitution. As a reminder, the 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved by it to the States respectively, or to the people." So, for example, should any regulation of bathroom usage be a federal or state issue?

Regulation can also become "excessive" when, under the guise of legitimate rule making it has a hidden agenda such as wealth redistribution or other social engineering. Or, it may become abusive when enacted by fiat without due process benefits of notice, opportunity to be heard, and balancing of costs and benefits.

The result of the recent election, to reference Archimedes' discovery, is a "Eureka!" moment. It has created a timely opportunity to review the current regulatory patterns and to modify rules which may be suffocating economic growth on both national and personal levels. One of the drivers of this country's exceptionalism in the past has been the freedom of ingenuity and hard work to rise above the common denominator. Excessive regulation can be a damper and limiting factor which create only negative inertia. Some positive inertia now is in order and welcomed.

______________________________________

*Wallison, "The Regulatory Tide Recedes",
Wall Street Journal, October 10, 2016,
Page A15

© Daniel J. Kucera 2016

BEARING AND BARING AT THE BAR

In our recent western states drive, we visited several towns dating to the 1880s. Each had a saloon of the same vintage begging to quench thirst--they were the sort of establishments where one could expect to encounter Doc Holliday coughing away at the far end of the bar, Wyatt Erp keeping the peace at the near end, and Marshall Dillon chattering with Miss Kitty in the middle.

Each saloon had an atmosphere that just screamed THE OLD WEST--you know, dark wood wall paneling accented by mounts of buffalo, deer, elk, antelope, moose and what not; dark wood beams hugging embossed tin ceiling tiles; a bar surface whose finish diappeared years ago; a back bar wall lined with a waterfall of half empty bottles and keynoted by the obligatory painting of a Victorian naked damsel.

We became like characters in an old western movie, it seemed. But, we quickly learned that something was unexpected and different. The stereotype image of a bar typically includes a male bartender who becomes a confidant of patrons, listening to them pouring out their problems and troubles to him, and occasionally offering advice in return.

In the saloons we visited, however, the complete reverse became apparent. Each had a female bartender who poured out her problems and troubles to us. As patrons, we became their confidants.

Collectively, these women appeared to have one problem in common: overwhelming personal anxieties. Their anxiety tended to be over such issues as job, financial security, family, self fulfillment, location, etc. None of the issues they cited were the national and international issues discussed in the media and by politicians, although their personal issues may have resulted in part from the more global concerns.

It was sobering to experience this small sample of anxieties on the local level. One wonders how pervasive are these personal issues and whether they in turn are adversely affecting resolution of national issues such as the economy, security, job growth and civil unrest. With all the political noise on the national level, one wonders what is happening below the surface. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin's words at the completion of the US Constitution, are we still looking at a rising sun?

THE OLD WOMAN ON THE BRIDGE

This Fall, my wife and I ventured into a driving trip through several western states. We spent a few days in an old Montana town along the upper reach of the Missouri river. With its 1882 hotel and store fronts, including a saloon with a bar worn from a century of bent elbows, it stepped right out of a John Wayne movie.

One morning, a heavy fog quilted the area. We decided to walk along the banks of the river to an old metal bridge spanning the Missouri. The bridge, completed in 1888, was designed to lead from the far bank to the "downtown" stores to facilitate trade. Now, it serves only for pedestrian traffic and curiosity.

We walked onto the bridge and its floor of wide wood planks spaced to reveal the rushing water below, and headed toward the far reach of the bridge. As we ambled, we suddenly noticed an old woman walking toward us. Dressed in a long coat and scarf, she labored slowly with her cane. As she reached us, she said "I have waited 14 years to see the river in a fog." No other words were spoken. She continued past us and we continued to the far end of the bridge, where we saw that entry to the bridge was barred by a fence. As we turned, the old woman was nowhere in sight. She had disappeared.

Where she came from and where she went, I do not know. Why she was waiting for a fog, and why she told us that, I do not know. Who she was, I do not know. In life, it seems, we encounter most people simply as "passersby." Few if any words may be spoken, and who or why or where remains unknown.

After we exited the bridge, my thoughts became a wish that we had paused to engage the old woman with a cane in conversation. What was her interest in the fog over the river, and what could she tell us about her town and herself? Was this a missed opportunity to be more than passersby, or was that all there was?

As the rising sun intensified and burned through the fog haze, I watched the hypnotic swirl of river current dashing under the bridge, a passerby itself. Interestingly, the water ultimately would become drinking water for much of the St. Louis area, the beginning point of the Lewis and Clark 1804 Discovery trek following the Missouri.

As the sun dispersed the river fog, the mystery of the old woman with a cane on the bridge hovered in my own fog.

BUGS OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS

A recent survey of urban and suburban houses in a North Carolina city found that homes in neighborhoods having higher average incomes had a greater variety of arthropods living in them as "house guests."* In case you have forgotten your high school science, arthropods include insects, spiders, crustaceans and other invertebrate critters with an exoskeleton, segmented body, and jointed appendages. A more scientific name for these things is "bugs."

The survey found that an average household had more than 100 bug species living in the house. However, there was no report of shrimp living in a basement. Among the more popular insect occupants, gall midge flies were found in 100% of homes, fungus gnats in 96% and cockroaches in 74%. Frankly, my vote for most popular would be for the spiders and their arachnid friends. It was reported that this was the first evidence of a link between wealth and greater diversity of bugs in houses. Apparently, climate change is not a factor.

As one might expect, there has been litigation over residential bugs. For example, there have been several cases involving bedbugs in hotel rooms, apartments and rental mattresses. There even is a case where love was lost when a tennis player fell stepping on a dead cicada.

An interesting case involved the purchase of a mobile home by a man and his fiancé who intended it to be their abode after their wedding. Upon their return from a honeymoon, they "found their trailer full of bugs 'hatched all over the trailer' and 'packed on the floor.'" Subsequently, "they observed bugs in the bedroom walls behind the paneling, in the insulation underneath the trailer, in the cabinets, the tub, on the curtains, and all over their home."

The couple hired an exterminator, who identified the bugs as "confused grain beetles." Several treatments did not solve the problem. The couple moved out of their home and sued the seller to get their money back. A witness for the seller stated that the bugs were "confused flour beetles", not "confused grain beetles", and that they could be exterminated successfully. Whatever, one wonders how the bugs would have been were they not confused.

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision for the bugged couple, stating "there is really very little question but that a mobile home infested with beetles in the numbers described by plaintiff and his wife is unfit for use as a residence. Persons of ordinary sensibilities would not want to live under such conditions as were shown to have existed in this mobile home..."**

While wealth may foster residential bug diversity, too many bugs may eat away at wealth. Perhaps, it is the bugs one sees that are the problem. The bugs you do not see are not a problem, unless they bite you.

_____________________________________________________

*Milius,"Richer Homes Host More Kinds of Bugs,"
Science News, Sept.3, 2016, p.15

**Sauers v. Tibbs, 363 N.E.2d 444(Ill.App.)1977

HOW SAFE IS WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY SECURITY?

Fifteen years have passed since the events of September 11, 2001. One of the fallouts of that tragic experience was the rush by water and wastewater utilities to implement more strict security measures. Some went so far as to employ around the clock guards to protect facilities. Eventually, the federal government jumped in to require vulnerability evaluations, although implementation of measures to address vulnerability risks was left to each utility.

Now, fifteen years later, how effective is the present water and wastewater security? Is it time for a fresh vulnerability assessment?

It would seem that there are at least four possible security issues for utilities: grounds security, structure security, procedural security and cyber security.

Grounds Security. Presumably, any physical breach of security would begin with attempted entry onto a utility's property. Protective measures could likely include limited access gates, parameter fencing, lighting and television monitoring. One could assume that such measures have been in place for utilities for some time. However, it would be erroneous to assume that these measures may be all that are needed for security.

Structure Security. Buildings, tanks and the like may be vulnerable in a couple of ways-- physically, such as by ramming, or by way of entry through available doors. How are the structures secured and alarmed? Of particular concern may be how visitors are monitored upon seeking entry. How is identification of a visitor confirmed? Are items brought in by a visitor inspected? How are the movements of a visitor after entry monitored?

Procedural Security. There are at least three vulnerabilities in connection with activities within utility structures: First, how are new employees vetted? Is consideration given to possible security issues? Second, if a utility permits entry of members of the general public--a tour, for example--what security measures are applied? Third, every utility from time to time has outside engineers, consultants, accountants, vendors, suppliers, and contractors visit their premises. Have written security protective agreements been executed by all such visitors?

Cyber Security. Perhaps the major security threat to water and wastewater utilities at this time is from cyberattacks, particularly those concerning process control systems. There are measures available to resist hacking by implementing cyber hygiene in the work force and by developing virtualization of work stations and servers. For more information on this subject see Campbell, "Protect Your System From Cyberattacks",AWWA Opflow, August 2016, p.8 and the AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance Page, www.awwa.org/cybersecurity.

Finally, regardless how extensive security measures may be in place, do utilities also have in place contingency plans and procedures in the event of a security breach that causes interruption to operations?

FLUSHING OUT PUBLIC BATHROOMS

Recently, there has been a great deal of movement involving public bathrooms after the federal government issued "guidelines" that would enable users in public schools to access public toilets based upon the gender with which they identify instead of the gender specified on their birth certificates.

Schools, public institutions and businesses face the prospect of accommodating these or similar guidelines. Issues of privacy or even safety could arise with multi-stall restrooms previously designated by "original" gender, such as "men" and "women." With movement to so-called transgender facilities, multi-stall toilets likely will be phased out in favor of single-user restrooms.

It has been reported that one large airport plans to remodel its public restrooms to convert them to single-user rooms which will be labeled separately for woman, child, man, transgender and wheelchair.

Single-user bathrooms formerly known as as "unisex" now are said to be called "gender neutral" or "all genders."

Creating new public single-user bathrooms to accommodate perceived gender identity could conflict with another important cause--control of climate change. All the resulting remodeling construction and energy demand could contribute to global warming. Accordingly, toilets and climate change may merge into a global issue.

Another issue is what to call single-user facilities. They can be called "bathrooms", but no one can bathe in them. They can be called "restrooms", but no one enters them to rest. They can be called "water closets" or "WC", but no one goes into them to obtain water. They can be called "powder rooms", but there is no powder in them. They can be called "toilets", but the room is not a toilet. So, in addition to the issue of gender identification, there also is an issue of room identification. Perhaps, a solution for both issues could simply be to have a door with a question mark.

The ultimate concern may be whether the federal government should be involved with who can use a public toilet. Thirteen states have filed suit against the guidelines contending that public bathrooms are a matter only for state and local law. In an opinion released August 21, a federal judge in the litigation temporarily enjoined the federal guidelines, finding that, in effect, they were binding regulations, and that the government failed to follow applicable procedures for adoption of regulations.

Admittedly, the federal government already regulates toilets. However, a quick reading of the U.S. Constitution fails to disclose an enumerated federal power to regulate their usage.

A BONE OF CONTENTION

There may be more going on with your toes than you think.

According to a published report, scientists have analyzed a toe bone from a 50,000 year old Siberian Neandertal woman. They found that from 1.0 to 7.1 percent of her DNA is human DNA. They also discovered that she shares more "modern" human DNA than two European Neandertals previously studied. It is known that humans have some Neandertal DNA Interestingly, this toe finding is the first time human DNA has been discovered in Neandertal genes.*

The report noted that "exactly who the humans were who mated with the Siberian Neandertal's ancestors isn't clear." Indeed, one wonders what the attraction was for a human to pursue a Neandertal or vice versa. Perhaps eligible mates were scarce in the tundra. Or, perhaps with limited sun in winter, it may have been difficult to determine who was what. Or, simply one was looking for love in all the wrong places.

Another article states that Melanesians living near Papua New Guinea mated with both Neandertals and with relatives of Neandertals called Denisovans. Melanesians have been found to have from 1.0 to 4.0 percent of their DNA from Neandertals and from 1.9 to 3.4 percent from Denisovans. DNA from these sources cover genes involved in metabolism and immunity, but not brain development.**

There you have the hot and cold of human mating evolution--from the South Pacific to Siberia. Perhaps it is understandable why a human might want to bundle with a Neandertal in Siberia to keep warm. It may be less obvious why that reason would be true in the South Pacific. Maybe it is as the song suggests, she just could not wash that "man" right out of her hair.

______________________________________________

* Saey,"Humsn DNA Found In Neandertal Bone,"
Science News, March 19, 2016, p.6

** Bower,"Melanesians Carry Denisovan Genes,"
Science News, April 16, 2016, p.8

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 8--INVALUABLE

Is attempting to value water a valueless exercise? Clearly, water has value. We understand that humans, and all life upon which we depend, cannot exist or thrive without sufficient water. When deprived of adequate water resources, we suffer. When too much water floods our land, we also suffer. Accordingly, water is a paradox. It is necessary for life, but at the same time, it can suppress life. How, then, can its value be measured?

We can see water, we can feel water, we can drink water, we can use water in many ways. However, we cannot measure its worth with a dollar price. We can only arbitrarily assume a price when we suffer an economic loss due to insufficient water or even excessive water.

The old cliche is that one never misses water until the well goes dry. Obviously, the value of water becomes subjective for ever user who depends upon, and is affected, by water. When there is not enough water available to satisfy demand, we likely highly value it. When rain events or rivers flood our land with too much water, our valuation likely diminishes. This result is only human.

Direct, quantitative calculation of the value of water is impossible. Indirect measurement using a surrogate, such as the cost of crops due to drought, provides a speculative economic impact that may have resulted from influences in addition to lack of water. Further, calculating the dollar value of a water source, such as an aquifer, necessarily must be based upon assumptions, not hard evidence. For example, the extent of ground water below the Earth's surface is not fully known and is affected by the rates of rain events and withdrawals.

Clearly, ratemaking for water service cannot be predicated upon the subjective valuation of water by each user. More importantly, rates do not compensate for the price of water. They compensate for the price of water service received by each user.

So, it is possible to conclude that water has infinite value, which cannot be measured and is incapable of price. In other words, it is invaluable and priceless. This infinite value of water, however, should be acknowledged. For example, we know that fresh water on earth does have some finite amount, so its value must be recognized by conservation and wise use.

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 7--PRICING

Water utilities do not sell water. They provide water service. Their water service commonly may include withdrawal of raw water from a source, transport to a central treatment facility, treatment of the raw water to safe drinking water standards, storage of finished water in tanks which also may maintain desired pressure, and delivery of the finished water to users in a distribution network. They charge a price for their water service. Accordingly, water utility rates are not the prices of water delivered--such as the price of a bottle of water at a store--but are the prices of water service provided to customers.

From time to time, some have asserted that water utility rates should be based upon the "value of water" perceived by users. Such assertions are flawed and misplaced. It is unlikely that users of a water system could agree on a single definition, or measure, of such "value". Moreover, such perceived "value" has no correlation with the provision of water service and the costs incurred to provide the service. Simply stated, the value of water is incapable of an acceptable objective methodology for its calculation.

The only objective and fair methodology for water utility rate making is cost of service recovery. This fact has been confirmed repeatedly by numerous court decisions, statutes, regulatory commission polices and writings.

At times, some jurisdictions have attempted to adjust cost of service rate making to effect a particular goal or social engineering. For example, to encourage water use conservation, some agencies have modified rate structure to increase rates as water use increases. Others have suggested special rates for certain levels of low income users, with costs subsidized by other users.

Another example may be denial of the full cost of service recovery to reflect a finding that water service was not of an acceptable quality. In one case, an agency reduced a water utility's recovery in rates of its full cost of capital (rate of return on rate base) for such a reason.

In short, water utility rates do not, and cannot, measure or be predicated upon the perceived value of water.

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 6--NEGATIVE VALUES

The assumed negative values of water can be illustrated by at least five examples.

First, water in excess, in the form of flooding, can have a substantial negative impact upon life and property. Indeed, during flood events, water can destroy life instead of sustain life. The measure of such negative value of water may equate to the often difficult and arbitrary value of lost life and the replacement cost of lost property, including economic losses.

Second, absence of water, in the form of drought, obviously can have a substantial negative economic impact, ranging from loss of crops to displacement of people. The Dust Bowl in the United States in the 1930s illustrates this effect. Further, the negative values of crop, home and income losses can include collateral impacts due to health, social and educational challenges.

Third, certain contaminates carried in water can have serious adverse health consequences if such contaminates are not removed by treatment before water is used. The costs incurred to heal illnesses or to suffer destruction of crops contaminated by polluted water can be measures of negative value.

A fourth example of negative value of water may be illustrated when sources of water become depleted. A recent Yale led research study sought to measure the value of natural capital assets such as water. The study demonstrated pricing of natural capital by focusing on the Kansas High Plains groundwater aquifer, which supports the region's agriculture-based economy. The study found that groundwater extraction and changes in aquifer management policies reduced the state's total wealth held in groundwater by a total of $1.1 billion in the period 1996-2005. (See Yale News, March 14, 2016, "What's Nature Worth. Study Puts a Price on Ground Water and Other Natural Capital.")

Finally, public perception of tap water appears to imply a negative valuation regardless of compliance with all applicable regulatory standards. It appears that people in the United States are willing to pay significantly more for bottle water than for tap water. A 2013 American Water Works Association study found that tap water costs only $0.004 per gallon, or 1/300 of the average price of a 16.9 oz bottle of water. Another survey found that the public was willing to spend from 250 to 10,000 times more for bottled water, although USEPA estimates 40% of bottle water actually is more highly treated tap water.* Does the greater cost and use of bottle water indicate a negative value for tap water? Should it?

__________________________________________

*Bui,"No Sacred Cows:Getting To The Crux
Of The Matter," Journal AWWA,June 2016,
p. 12

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 5--FAITH

An aspect of water generally not broadly discussed, but whose value may be great, is water's importance to faith.

By way of example, the Judeo-Christian scriptures contain numerous references to the role and value of water. Some references relate to dramatic events, others to important sacraments.

Many references to water are to its cleansing role. In the Old Testament of the Bible, perhaps the most dramatic cleansing was the Flood, when water literally is said to have cleansed the entire earth. More commonly, washing with water of the body and/or clothes was a required ritual is a theocratic environment when one was said to be "unclean" due to a transgression or when entering a place of worship.

Water wells and springs also became a meeting place. Young unmarried men, searching for romance, would gather around wells and springs to meet young unmarried women coming to gather water. Perhaps this could have been the first singles bar.

More seriously, there is conjecture that the Annunciation may have taken place when Mary, the mother of Jesus, actually was outside of her home drawing water from a well or spring.* In addition to a second century biography of Mary, a painting at the Yale Art Gallery suggests this conclusion. The painting, excavated by Yale archeologists in the 1920s or 1930s, apparently was a piece of wall art from a third century house used as a church.

For Christians, baptism--washing with water--is a sacrament performed by churches. The washing with water reminds one of the cleansing from sin accomplished by Jesus' sacrifice at the cross and resurrection. Baptism also is a recognition of entry into the larger community of Christian faith.

Just as we put faith in water for its life sustaining value, water qua water can be an element of faith itself.

_____________________________________

*See Peppard, "Birth Announcement",
Yale Alumni Magazine, May/June 2016
p.56

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 4--SCULPTOR

Water is the great sculptor of Earth. It has many chisels available to the task--rain, snow, ice, vapor and flowing water in various environments. It uses all of these tools to erode the earth, to dissolve the earth, to move the earth, to deposit the earth, to lift the earth, and generally to carve the earth constantly into a myriad of features.

A well known example of water's sculpture in the United States is the Grand Canyon. It is carved by the Colorado River over endless time into a spectacle.

Another example are the moonscape Badlands in western South Dakota. Here, water has worked in several ways to build up and to tear down. Sediments were deposited when the area was under a shallow sea. Later, when the Black Hills uplifted, streams and rivers deposited more sediments from the Hills. Sediments became soft rock formations. However, when streams and rivers diverted away from the area, depositions faded in favor of erosion to now constantly carve away these formations.

The Great Lakes formed when global warming caused the glacial continental ice sheet to retreat, carving out the Lakes' basins. The same glacier also carved much of the features of such states as Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois, creating flat lands, hills, valleys and countless smaller lakes. Before the glacier, much of middle United States was under an extensive shallow sea, resulting in layers of limestone prevalent in the area today.

Water also floods from rivers, enriching some adjacent land , eroding other land and creating new land. However, not all of water's work is above ground. Consider caves and the interesting formations within them; and, of course, there are the sinkholes that pop up.

Even the absence of water can become a sculptor of earth. The lack of rainfall for several years in the 1930s created the Dust Bowl in the Great Plains, eroding topsoil and displacing farms and their residents.

We enjoy, and utilize, water's sculptures for recreation, commerce and sustenance--and even just to admire the scenery. So, what is the value of water as sculptor of Earth? What do you think?

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 3--LIFE

A common saying is: "you never miss the water until the well goes dry." The plain fact is that life today--all life--would not exist without water. Earth would be barren rock.

Humans, of course, are mainly composed of water. So, water certainly is essential for human life. However, humans also need food to sustain life. Without water, there would be no food. Water is essential to grow crops and to sustain livestock. No water, then no grains, fruit, vegetables, poultry, meat and fish.

Humans cleanse with water. We wash our bodies, our food, our clothes, our dishes, our cars, our houses,etc. with water. Without water, cleansing essentially would not be possible.

Manufacturing is dependent upon water. Our products have some connection with water either in the process of production or in the ingredients. Without water, this would not be possible.

Water is a primary protection against fires. Further, our recreation depends upon water. One cannot swim, fish, go boating without water.

One is reminded that W.H. Auden put it this way: "Thousands have lived without love, not one without water." So, what is the value of water? Essentially, water equals the value of life on Earth. Our planet seems to have been specially deigned for life. The earth, and all living things on it, are fortunate to have water--in all its forms and in all its quantities and locations--sufficient to sustain life as we know it. In that reality, the value of water in invaluable, an unmeasurable, boundless treasure.

Such a conclusion, however, has consequences for humans charged with responsibility to protect water resources so that their value is not diminished by waste, misuse, and ignorance. If we do not show love for our water, we may be treading on life without it.

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 2--ORIGINS OF LIFE

The story of life is the story of water. As discussed in my recent postings, scientists have derived differing hypotheses as to the origin of water on Earth. They range from ice-bearing asteroids and meteors colliding with Earth to water-bearing cosmic dust particles binding together to form the Earth. However, there does not appear to be any cogent evidence to support these assertions. In point of fact, no one really knows how water was delivered to Earth.

Nevertheless, the fact is that there is water on Earth, in aquifers below the surface; in oceans, lakes, rivers, ponds and puddles on the surface; and in clouds above the surface. And, this water is in all its various forms and states.

So, what does this water mean for us? In the first instance, it appears that animal life on earth originated in water--in seas and oceans. How this happened, again, no one knows for sure. One hypothesis is that life came from rocks. Water, as a solvent, over time eroded certain minerals from rocks, resulting in chemical formation of amino acids from the mineral mix, which in turn resulted eventually in formation of living organisms.

Assertions of chemical evolution, however, were criticized in the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin" by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen. "They showed that attempts to explain the origin of the first living cell from simpler nonliving chemicals had failed and that these theories had specifically failed to explain the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life." (Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt", 2013, p. 341) In other words, chemistry alone could not produce information in DNA leading to life.

The oldest period in Earth history is called pre-Cambrian, perhaps a little over 4 billion years ago. The first forms of life appeared in the pre-Cambrian period, according to fossil records. They appeared in water, in seas and oceans. They were one-celled organisms and sponges, simple soft tissue organisms having few cell types.

After the pre-Cambrian period, the following period was the Cambrian, which began about 540 million years ago. The fossil record reveals that beginning about 530 million years ago, the "Cambrian Explosion" occurred. Literally, this was an explosion of a multitude of many different and complex animal forms in the seas and oceans. They include trilobites, jelly-fish like creatures, worm like things, shrimp like critters and shell bearing animals. Indeed some of the examples looked like something out of a 1950's science fiction movie. These Cambrian sea animals had sophisticated body plans, including such features as compound eyes, legs, outer skeleton, mouth, digestive system, stomach, reproductive organs, skin, wings and anus. In other words, these sea animals were characterized by features that we can expect to see in all forms of contemporary animal life.

The Cambrian Explosion appeared suddenly. There is no fossil record of any evolution or transition from the simple pre-Cambrian organisms to the complex body plans evidenced in the Cambrian fossils. Darwin's basic theory is that animals have evolved through the process of random mutations and natural selection. In his book "Darwin's Doubt", Meyer reviews Darwin's theory as well all of the off-shoots from that theory that have followed. Meyer concludes that Darwin and Neo-Darwin theories of evolution cannot explain how the genetic information and the novel proteins and systems to regulate expression of that information necessary to build the complex Cambrian body plans could arise. He concludes that the only supportable explanation for the source of the necessary genetic information to build the new body plans is "intelligent design."

The Earth is exceptional. It is designed for life. An important component of the design for life is water. And water was the environment for the beginning of animal life and its explosive Cambrian expansion into countless different and complex body plans. Clearly, water has had value.

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 1--DEFINITIONS

In water utility rate making hearings and meetings,it is common to hear customer grumbling against rate increases because water they drink, like air they breathe, is perceived to be free. Why should I pay for water that is free? customers object.

If water is free, does it have "value"? In recent years, partially in response to such objections, some industry writers have urged water utilities to inform their customers of the "value of water". Some have gone further to claim that rates for water service should be calculated based upon the "value" of water service to customers, not upon the costs of service.

When applied to water, the word and concept of "value" is capable of many different definitions, sums objective, some subjective. In fact, efforts to describe the "value" of water can take on a metaphysical proportions. Without the particular context for use of the word, reference to the "value of water" in reality can itself become meaningless.

What is "value" and how can it be quantified? What are the possible contexts in which water has value? Does the term "value of water" refer to life;; or to economic activity; or to environment; or to history; etc.? How can value rate making for water service work? Does informing customers of the "value of water" provide any benefit?

In following postings, I will attempt to explore some of the possible meanings of the "value of water"; the contexts in which water may have "value"; whether "value of water" can be measured; and whether the term, in fact, is meaningful.

LIFE CAN BE A GAS

It seems that everything on Earth is to be blamed for causing alleged climate change, except for the Earth itself. The latest culprits? Birdbaths, small ponds and cows.

According to a recent report, small ponds are a significant contributor of methane gas and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.* In fact, a study found that small ponds produced a disproportionate greater amount of these emissions than large ponds and lakes. These higher amounts of gases are said to result from the higher amounts of carbon sediment, such as leaves and droppings, in small ponds together with their shallow nature.

Perhaps, this discovery suggests that EPA should regulate all small ponds and even birdbaths to mitigate climate change. After all, birdbaths can accumulate leaf litter, seeds and bird debris of all sorts, surely contributing to global warming gases.

Another report asserts that cows are responsible for 26% of U.S. methane emissions, an amount almost equal to the 29% produced by vehicles and the oil and gas industries.** A mid-sized cow produces about 150 kilograms of methane per year, and the U.S. has about 98 million cows roaming around. Do the math.

The bovine methane machine results from the unique ruminant digestion system, featuring a mult-chambered stomach housing unique microorganism activity, including methanogens which create methane. It appears that cow methane is released primarily by burps, followed in lesser degrees by cow patties (manure) and flatulence. Cow manure produces 10% of U.S. methane emissions.

Scientists are trying to reduce cow emissions by altering cow diet and breeding cleaner cows through genetic engineering and other experiments.

A related development has been to use cow manure to produce electricity by means of anaerobic digesters to capture methane gas. The gas then is burned to generate electricity or is cleaned, pressurized and transported into natural gas pipelines. However, interest by farmers in such manure-to-energy technology has declined for economic reasons.

What is the solution to these methane producers? Fill in all small ponds, prohibit birdbaths and raise cattle only at power plants, so that burps and patties can be fed directly into generators? All of this cries out for more federal grants.

At any rate, puddles have become muddles. And, as Groucho Marx said in "Duck Soup", "I could dance with you till the cows come home. Better still, I'll dance with the cows and you come home."

________________________________________________

*Shelton, "Small Ponds Produce An Outsized Share
Of Greenhouse Gases," Yale News, February 1, 2016

**Beil, "Greener Cows," Science News, November 28,
2015, p. 22

***Kesmodel, "Bull Market Fades For Manure Power,"
Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2016, p. B1

POWER PLAYS

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the EPA's new carbon emissions regulation targeting coal-fired power generating plants. There are more than 30 lawsuits challenging the rule, filed on behalf of some 25 states and others. The stay of the enforcement of the rule allows the lawsuits to work their way through the lower courts before the matter, in all probability, winds up back before the Supreme Court.

Such a stay in the Supreme Court is rare. Some pundits in the press have opined that it means the Supreme Court likely will reverse EPA'a carbon emissions rule on the merits. In a broader sense, some have asserted that the stay is a significant blow to the President's environmental agenda.

Perhaps these comments arise from the typical requirements for a court stay, such as a showing of likelihood of success on the merits and denial of a stay would result in the threat of irreparable harm.
However, the grant of a stay is not a ruling on the merits of a case, and there is no assurance that the Supreme Court ultimately will reverse the rule.

In theory, there are two primary grounds that could justify any reversal of the regulation: (1) a finding that EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act and/or (2) a finding that EPA did not find and consider the costs, including economic impacts, and benefits of the carbon emissions rule. For example, does causing the shift away from coal-fired power plants result in substantial economic impacts on the coal mining industries, utilities, jobs and ratepayers?

In addition to such "traditional" arguments against a rule, there may be more subtle issues at play here. They may arise from the concept of federalism established in the U.S. Constitution.

First, while Congress may have delegated to EPA regulation of air pollution, they may have not delegated authority to enact major national policy decisions such as policy on climate change, what fuels can be used for power generation, and impacts on the coal industry. Policy issues of substantial economic and political significance would be expected to be determined by Congress, not by an administrative agency.

Second, there is the federal-states relationship inherent in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited to the States by it, are reserved to the states, or the people. There has been a long recognition of states' role in regulation of electric utilities, generation and transmission assets and reliability of service. While a federal agency seeks to phase out coal-fired power plants, the result is to shift to states the burden to assure that lights will still be lit when those plants are retired. In a way, the carbon emissions rule is directed to the states as much as to the power plant owners, as it is the states that will have to reorganize their energy economies and regulatory oversight. In that sense, states seem to be called upon to implement a federal administrative agency policy decision.

CONSOLIDATION AND REGIONALIZATION

It is no secret that drinking water infrastructure in the United States has aged and needs substantial repair and replacement. It also is no secret that the estimated cost of such repair and replacement is huge and will require substantial financial resources. For example, in a 2012 report, the American Water Works Association estimated that the cost to restore water infrastructure will be one trillion dollars over the next 25 years.

Water systems in the United States tend to be "individualized" --that is, stand alone water supply and distribution systems within, and generally owned by, each city. Indeed, there are some 54,000 community water systems in the country. Accordingly, the financial burden, and the responsibility, for repair of water infrastructure likely will be borne by ratepayers served by each system.

One possible alternative for dealing with infrastructure obligations is for individual water systems to consolidate with other systems in some manner--as complete systems, or functionally such as to source of supply, or treatment to produce finished water. Such joint action or regionalization can offer several potential advantages, such as economies of scale, management and operational expertise, and most importantly, additional financial resources and opportunities.

Across the country, there already exist examples of regional water authorities, such as water districts, commissions, joint agencies, partnerships and even cities extending service beyond borders. In addition, investor-owned water utilities also are achieving similar results through ownership of local utilities, public-private partnerships and the like. For example, American Water Works Company, Inc. serves 15 million people in 45 states; Aqua America serves 3 million people in 8 states; and California Water Service Group serves 2 million people in 4 states.

A recent example of consolidation on a local level is a proposed agreement in Illinois between the Village of Bartlett and the City of Elgin. Currently, Bartlett receives half is water from wells and half from Elgin, whose source is a local river. Bartlett faces the need to perform costly repairs or replacements of its wells. As an alternative to such infrastructure work, it analyzed other possible sources of supply. According to a published report, Bartlett determined to obtain all its water supply requirements from Elgin, as a more economic solution. It is said to offer stability in costs and supply, which are important given financial uncertainty that local governments are experiencing.

The Elgin city manager is quoted as saying, "By leveraging our significant capacity, we are able to pass along significant savings to our residents and businesses, while Bartlett residents are able to increase their use of a highly reliable , predictable and affordable commodity."*

_______________________________________
*Ferrarin,"Water Plan For Elgin,
Bartlett", Daily Herald, January 21,
2016, p.1

VISIONS

What is new eventually becomes old. However, what is old often becomes new. It is a all in how we choose to see things.

Last November, I wrote about cow chips or pies. In America, frontier people and Indians used cow chips to fuel heating and cooking fires. I suggested that such chips could be used in modern times as a solution for perceived climate change.*

Well, it turns out that in parts of India today, cow chip patties are prepared, harvested and burned for fuel, cooking and religious rituals. In fact, it is reported that cow chips are so popular that they are hot sellers online with retailers including Amazon and eBay.** While the patties long have been associated with rural life, the demand now appears to be from urban dwellers longing for the old days. People are said to find the smell of dung fires to be "pleasant." So, what may be old for rural life has become new for city life.

In the case of water, old is becoming new also. Orville and Wilbur Wright are the acknowledged inventors of the first successful airplane that actually flew. For years, their father had warned them of the dangers of contaminated water. Newspaper stories indicated that every case of typhoid was due to water. However, before their success, Orville became sick with typhoid from drinking water at the age of 25 in 1896. For several days, he had a fever of 105 and was delirious After nearly two months, Orville finally recovered.

Wilbur Wright was not as fortunate. After successful demonstrations of their airplane in both the United States and Europe, Wilbur died in 1912 from typhoid. He was only 45 years old, and it was only some four years after the first flight.***

Thankfully, chlorination and other disinfection protocols have alleviated concerns over typhoid, except in some less developed countries where safe water remains an issue even today. However, the elimination of typhoid in developed countries in modern times has not eliminated concerns over safe water even there. For example, in the United States recent examples of contamination of water supplies include cryptosporidium, chemical waste products, algae toxins and lead. These examples illustrate that the old issue of safe water can pop up again as new issues.

While science seems to focus on hypotheses over how Earth got its water or whether Earth is or is not warming, that focus may be shortsighted given the continued pressing need for safe and adequate water on Earth. Sometimes, as the photo above suggests, we can spend too much time gazing into the brightness of the distance instead of dealing with the darkness of what is on the table before us.

__________________________________________

* "A Solution For Climate Change",
November 22, 2015

**"Cow Dung Patties Sell Like Hotcakes
In India", Rapid City Journal,January 3,
2016,P.D2

***See McCullough, "The Wright Brothers",
(2015), P. 27,256

STILL HUNTING FOR THE ORIGIN OF WATER

"Water is the driving force in nature."

-----Leonardo da Vinci


Scientists' quest for the origin of water on Earth seems to echo the song "Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places."

In May, 2015, I discussed a report that scientists have asserted water was delivered to Earth from the bombardment by asteroids and/or meteorites containing ice. This hypothesis was based upon measurement of deuterium concentrations in surface water compared with that found in these invaders.*

However, in November, I stated that a subsequent report indicated the asteroid/meteorite assertion was flawed because deuterium levels in ground water were found to be significantly lower than those in seawater.**

Most recently, it has been reported that scientists have developed a new hypothesis. "The researchers have found that deuterium levels in water trapped inside of molten rock and unaltered since the planet's early days are significantly lower than those in seawater. The lower deuterium fingerprint for Earth's primordial water hints that the world's wetness resulted from water-soaked dust grains present during the planet's assemble;y, the researchers conclude." In other words, water was part of the Earth's formation and was not delivered to Earth at a later time.***

So, where in the world did water come from? One could question how all the surface water and groundwater on Earth could have come from "cosmic dust." And even if it did, where did all that watery dust come from, etc.,etc.?

Perhaps da Vinci's statement is instructive. Water is the driving force IN nature, he says. Is water, in reality, a part of nature? If so, the larger question may be how did nature originate on Earth? It appears that all conditions on Earth, including water, came together in a purposeful way to create and sustain nature and life.

Then, again, why is so much scientific research energy being expended on a quest for the origin of water? No amount of such labors will produce more water than the Earth already has. And, it would seem that there are many more critical issues needing Earth's attention, such as hunger, safe water, sustainability of water resources, sanitation, disease, and the like.

_________________________________________

* "Who Cares", May 27,2015

** "Deja Vu", November 3,2015

*** Sumner,"Origin of Earth's Water
Questioned," Science News,
December 12,2015, p.12