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 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.

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

DEJA VU

"Memory is like riding a trail at night with a lighted torch.
The torch casts its light only so far, and beyond that is darkness."

----------- Old Lakota Sioux Saying

Earlier this year, I discussed a published report that scientists have asserted the Earth's water was delivered to it by ice-infused asteroids and/or meteorites.* This conclusion was based upon comparisons of the Deuterium-Hydrogen (D/H) ratios of Earth water with water found in rocks from outer space.

Now, a new published report suggests that this water origin conclusion may not be correct, and that no one yet knows how water got here.** According to this report, there are problems with the prior D/H ratio analysis. Most of Earth's water is deep underground and has a different composition from ocean water. In particular, deep water has a different D/H ratio than the seawater ratio previously used to compare with asteroid and meteorite water.

Further, D/H ratios may not be reliable because Deuterium tends to become more prevalent at lower temperature, and computations are variable with distance from the sun making the ratios of questionable value in locating the origin of a water-bearing comet. Alternative ratios, such as nitrogen and oxygen isotopes have been suggested, but such measurements apparently require development of new instruments.

According to the report, no one knows how much water is inside the Earth. Estimates vary from 1.5 times to 11 times the amount of ocean water. Scientists are studying a series of underground lakes located hundreds of feet below Wind Cave National Park in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Wind Cave comprises at least 170 miles of honey-combed tunnels and is said to be the third largest cavern in the world. The lakes pop up in some of these tunnels and form the top of the Madison Aquifer, a valuable drinking water resource. The Lakota believed that their ancient gods delivered their ancestors from Wind Cave to the surface of the Black Hills.

As if figuring out where Earth water came from was not challenging, another report states that several moons of Jupiter and Saturn contain underground oceans of water, not to mention the possibilities on Mars.***

Is looking for a scientific explanation for the origin of water on Earth or anywhere else like looking for love in all the wrong places? To paraphrase the Lakota, "Looking for the origin of Earth's water is like riding a trail at night with a lighted torch. The torch casts its light only so far, and beyond that is darkness."

____________________________________________

* "Who Cares", May 27, 2015

** Crockett,"Struggle To Find Origin Of
Earth's Water",Science News,September 5,
2015, p.8

*** Crockett,"Ocean Envelopes All Of
Enceladus", Science News, October 17,
2015, p.8

PLUTONIC RELATIONS

Planet or dwarf planet, or round blob of ice, or whatever--Pluto attracted a great deal of attention this summer when photos of it and its moon captured by NASA's space probe hit the media. They briefly replaced reruns of old sitcoms.

The pictures are said to reveal mountains of frozen water. Some have speculated that water is gushing below the mountains. Indeed, one project leader was quoted as saying that water exists in great abundance.

A question comes to mind: how did all that water arrive on Pluto? Recently, published reports have stated that the Earth's water came from bombardments of asteroids. However, photos of Pluto and its moon Charon appear to suggest crusts free of impact craters.

Will water on Pluto be harvested for the benefit of earthlings? Will large space tankers haul ice and water back to Earth? I suppose this is unlikely, if it takes 9 years over 3 million miles to go one way. On the other hand, harvested ice certainly will arrive melted after such travel.

But wait...there already is Pluto Water on Earth. "Pluto Water" was bottled spring water from French Lick, Indiana. It was available and sold from the early 20th Century until 1971 when its lithium content caused it to be labeled as a controlled substance. Pluto Water was famous for being a strong laxative due to its mineral salts. Claims were made that it was "effective" from a half hour to two hours after ingestion. Accordingly, one supposes that it quenched several needs.

Pluto was the Roman god of the underworld. Pluto also was a dog--the pet dog of Mickey Mouse. Both Pluto, the alleged planet, and Pluto, the alleged canine, were discovered in 1930. The assumption is that the alleged planet came first. Pluto, the dog, who is naked, of course should not be confused with Goofy, the dog, who tends to be clothed and also associated with Mickey Mouse and friends. Pluto is not Goofy.

Pluto, the round ball in outer space, is an unlikely destination for weddings or retirees in the near future. However, in addition to its water sources, it does offer the attractive benefit that global warming is not likely there. This should please scientists who may consider going there. It also is unlikely that any of us will drink Pluto Water anytime soon. So, while photos of Pluto's ice mountains were interesting, the only Pluto likely to cross our paths is Pluto, the dog. Beam me up, Pluto!

DROUGHT: CAN GOVERNMENTS LEGISLATE CLIMATE CHANGE?

At an early age, school children probably learn that the age of a tree can be determined by counting rings in a cross section of its trunk. These rings reveal more than just age, however. By their width, they also reveal good years when rainfall enabled expanded growth, and bad years when conditions were less favorable.

Researchers have examined tree rings in Mongolia to study changes in climate as revealed by the rings.* As of the late 12th Century, Mongolia had been experiencing extensive drought. However, in the early 13th Century, the legendary Genghis Khan marched across Asia to establish his huge empire. Analysis of tree rings appears to show that Genghis benefitted a dramatic climate change that facilitated his rapid conquests. The climate change yielded a wet period that produced hearty grasslands for horses and livestock. "Wetter, milder conditions than the previous decades of drought would have given Genghis and his army significant advantages, including a constant supply of horses, increased agricultural production and other resources needed to support a centralized government and large military."**

Interestingly, after many years of favorable climate conditions, beginning in the 1990s, drought has returned to Mongolia. This climate change, in turn, has produced large livestock losses, soil degradation and migration from the countryside to cities.

The climate changes in Mongolia are just one example of the many documented climate changes in the Earth's history. In effect, they appear to be a natural attribute of the Earth, caused without any human activity connection. Whether climate changes are occurring today continues to be debated. If in fact climate changes are occurring, whether they are caused by human activity continues to be debated.

It seems that those who perceive that human activity is causing climate changes propose to change climate by legislation and regulation. Genghis Khan did not change climate to produce conditions favorable to his plans. He benefitted from a climate change that occurred naturally. If historically climate change is a natural phenomenon of Earth. can governments legislate climate change? If they could, that indeed would be climate change caused by human activity.

_______________________________________________

*Juskalian,"Climate and the Khan",Discover,
July/August 2015, p.31

**Id.at p.34-35

DROUGHT: ROUNDING UP THE UNUSUAL SUSPECTS

"But I don't want to go among mad people", Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

----Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

In the 1930s, the center of the United States became the "Dust Bowl" due to prolonged and pervasive drought. The dust was farmland topsoil wind eroded and blown away in dust storms, along with hopes and livelihoods of farm families. As memorialized in John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath", migrant workers and farmers displaced by years of Dust Bowl misery relocated to perceived better times in California.

Now, portions of California and several other western states are experiencing prolonged and pervasive drought which is stressing and displacing lifestyles and livelihoods of residents. Moreover, much of California is naturally dry, and is dependent upon external water sources to sustain population centers and irrigation agriculture. So, the choice now is becoming one of serious reduction in water use or migrating elsewhere, perhaps even back to the center of the country.

The usual approaches to reducing water use have been well publicized, such as
* recycling wastewater
* prohibiting yard watering
* mandating utilities to reduce water deliveries
* mandating reductions in farm irrigation
* requiring installation of low flow water appliances
* adopting inverse rate blocks that rise with volume

These "usual" approaches may produce some success, but perhaps some more "unusual" approaches could also help.

For example, on June 24, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a partnership that would invest millions of dollars to restore the Sierra-Cascade California Headwaters, which is the water source for agriculture and some 25 million residents.

One of the most dramatic periods of conservation in the Unites states was during World War II, when many materials and foods were needed for the war effort, forcing citizens to conserve. Two aspects come to mind: (1) citizens were well educated as to the need to conserve resources; and (2) many items were rationed, a form of mandatory conservation. Could these two aspects be applied to help reduce water demand in drought environments? For example, could a per capital standard of average daily water use be established for households, with high volumetric rates applied to excess monthly use?

Agriculture can pose a more difficult issue. There is a significant difference, obviously, between land that produces annual crops such as corn and land that is used for orchards of fruit and nut trees that take years to mature. Perhaps some land can be taken out of temporary production, with governmental financial assistance. Or, irrigation rights temporarily waived or reduced. However, some farms may have contractual water rights which would likely require mutual consent for reductions.

One unique source of additional water could be human sweat. A Swedish engineer created a device to harvest sweat from clothing and to purify it to drinking water. A sweaty T-shirt is said to have produced two teaspoons of clean water. However, sweaty socks may be more productive. A pair of human feet is said to yield a half-pint of sweat every day. If true, sixteen pairs of socks could yield one gallon a day. Perhaps, here is an opportunity for another government program to establish a sock exchange where people would bring in dripping socks and pick up dry ones.*

Two other solutions may be available. If people in California do not like the drought and water use limitations, they might consider moving to the Midwest, where there has been so much record-breaking rain this year that it is a "Flood Bowl."

Or, if people want to stay in California and want more rain, why not just ask God?

______________________________________________________

* Festa, "Sweat", Discover, July/August,2015, p.98

DROUGHT: WATER UTILITIES CONFRONT CONFLICTING POLICIES

"If you don't know where you are going any road can take you there."

---- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

The photo depicts the arid wonderland of the South Dakota Badlands. They are a drought stricken moonscape that stands in dramatic contrast to the verdant Black Hills 50 miles to the west.

The Badlands once were full of rich vegetation and animal life also. Fossils evidence now extinct critters such as sabre tooth tigers, sheep-like oredonts, rhinos and miniature horse. At another time, the landscape was under water.

Some have asserted that parts of California naturally are arid and subject to drought--where farming must depend upon irrigation and cities on water sources located elsewhere. Whether current drought conditions in California and other states may be due to climate changes or temporary weather conditions, water utilities must deal with drought in some rational manner. Unfortunately, they can confront conflicting policies that make rational solutions difficult. Some of these policy conflicts include the following:

* Legal Duty To Serve vs. Service Restrictions. Generally, water utilities have a monopoly in their given service areas. This is because of the costly infrastructure required to provide water service; rarely are there competing water utilities within the same service are. For their monopoly status, water utilities incur certain obligations: whether by statute or by court decision, water utilities generally are required to satisfy the water demands of customers within their service areas. This obligation likely can be expected to apply to both investor-owned utilities and to municipal-owned utilities.

However, there can be a conflicting policy when, for example, state or local governments seek to impose restrictions on the amount of water utilities may deliver to their customers. The restrictive regulation limiting water delivery can clash with the legal obligation to serve customer water requirements.

* Higher Rates To Force Conservation vs. Cost Of Service Ratemaking. Some have urged dramatic increases in rates, such as inclining rate blocks as volume of water delivered increases, as a way of forcing reductions in water usage. However, while such measures may appear to have merit from the standpoint of objective, they can clash with applicable legal requirements that to be reasonable, rates must be based upon costs of service.

* Higher Rates To Force Conservation vs. Affordability. Some have argued that higher rates will enable "market forces" to naturally enable the desired reductions in water usage, and thus conservation. However, such a policy may well conflict with the notion of affordability of water. While "affordability" is not a precise concept, one can assume that higher water rates will take a larger chunk out of low income earner budgets. Moreover, affluent customers may feel no pain from higher rates and continue to use their typical amounts of water, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the conservation effort.

* Higher Rates To Force Conservation vs. Reductions In Revenue. Assuming that increased rates are successful in creating reductions in usage, the end result of conservation may also be a reduction of needed revenue to the utility as eell as excess treatment and delivery capacity that still must be funded--pushing rates still higher or forcing excess capacity to be abandoned as no longer used and us full.

* Contracts vs. Abrogation Of Contracts. A water utility serves customers pursuant to contract, which includes the tariffs of a regulated utility and ordinances of a municipal utility. However, if a governmental authority imposes service restrictions, does such an action also abrogate the contracts between utility and its customers?

For water utilities in limited source water environments, determining the best road to travel can be perplexing and full of potholes of policy conflicts. Indeed, the best destination may not be clear. It may seem that the only road available could be a circle.

WHO CARES?

"Blow, blow, thou winter wind. Thou art not so unkind as man's ingratitude."

Shakespeare's King Lear


More than 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water. How did all this water get here?

According to a recently published report, scientists assert that all this water was delivered to Earth from rocks arriving from outer space--ice-infused asteroids and/or meteorites from an asteroid called Vesta.* ""This bombardment of asteroids a few million years after the start of the solar system could have easily delivered enough ice--locked inside the rocks, safe from the sun's heat--to account for the Earth's oceans, computer simulations indicate."** These conclusions are based upon comparisons of the Deuterium/Hydrogen ratios of the Earth water with water found in the space rocks.

It is not clear how the asteroids that hit the earth or Vesta got their water in the first place. So perhaps the issue of original water source is pushed back to an earlier time period and more computer simulations.

Of course, there can be another explanation for water on Earth: God or so-called "intelligent design". Under the "Anthropic Principle", the Earth as well as the entire universe evidence having been designed for the purpose of sustaining life, including human life. Physicist Arno Penzias is quoted as having said "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying, one might say 'supernatural', plan"*** Water, then, could be viewed as an ingredient placed on Earth for the specific purpose of enabling and sustaining life.

However, perhaps the more important question is not where water came from but where is water going. Earth's water controls climate and weather, molds the land, and enables life. In particular, clean water is essential for human life. How humanity respects water really has become the issue for now and the future.

Waste of water resources has the potential to upend the "delicate balance" Penzias referenced. Waste can take many forms, such as excessive usage, diversion to lesser or non-essential uses, overpopulation or over irrigation of areas with limited local water sources, and pollution of surface and ground water.

Perhaps it is best that we express our gratitude for water, regardless how it got here; because without it, we never would be here.
__________________________________________
*Crockett."Water, Water Everywhere",
Science News, May 16,2015, p.18

**Id. at p. 20

***Paper,"God and Science", Dr.Josh Moody

A RIVER RUNS THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT

Not all decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court make headlines in newspapers or excite panels of talking heads on television or in social media. However, this does not mean that such decisions have no importance.

One such "quiet" ruling was issued by the Court in February.* It involves the Republican River Compact, a contract between the states of Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado to allocate the "virgin water" originating in the Republican River basin Congress approved the Compact in 1943.

However, as can be the case with any contract, disputes arose. In 1998, Kansas sued in the Supreme Court ** asserting that Nebraska's increased groundwater pumping was regulated under the Compact to the extent that the pumping reduced stream flow in the basin. The Supreme Court agreed with Kansas, resulting in a settlement producing certain accounting protocols.

In 2007, Kansas sued again, alleging that Nebraska had exceeded its allowed allocation of water. In turn, Nebraska alleged that the accounting protocols under the Compact improperly charged it for using imported seater. The Supreme Court appointed a special master to hear the matter. The master's report concluded that Nebraska knowingly failed to comply with the Compact and recommended that Nebraska disgorge part of its gains and pay damages to Kansas. The Supreme Court agreed with these recommendations. It found that Nebraska knowingly exposed Kansas to a risk of receiving less water than its entitlement.

Interestingly, the Court stated that an award of damages in a case involving compact rights may be an inadequate remedy to deter an offending state from disregarding its obligations when it is advantageous to do so. Therefore, it stated, the additional remedy of disgorgement is appropriate to stabilize the Compact and to deter future breaches.

Water is a valuable resource and, when it runs though several jurisdictions, it must be shared in some structured manner. When states enter into contracts with each other, they, as is the case of contracts between people, must comply with their obligations or consequences follow. In this case, the consequences flowed through the Supreme Court.

___________________________________________

*Kansas v. Nebraska,574 U.S.__(2015)

**The Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction in controversies
between states

A CHRISTMAS GIFT

The photograph above shows a small segment of the Rio Grande river just south of Taos, New Mexico. The river simply is one of the countless millions of waterbodies that cover the earth, ranging from oceans to creeks to puddles to huge underground aquifers.

All of this water, in one form or another, is a gift. But, obviously, not all share in this gift, for one reason or another. So, this Christmas season perhaps water can become a much needed gift for some.

Organizations such as Water For People* and many churches have programs which fund and construct water wells and systems in villages located in developing countries. These programs seek to make the gift of clean water possible, but depend upon the generous resources provided by those who already receive the gift of water.

But wait, there is more! Another gift may be possible. It is ironic that many who already share in the availability of clean water fail to actually drink sufficient amounts of water for good health. So, this Christmas perhaps each of us can also give to ourselves the gift of water.
______________________________

* see waterforpeople.org

WHERE'S THE WATER?

We live on the surface of the earth's crust, and what we see is only on the surface. Thus, we know that about 71% of the earth's surface is covered with water, and about 97% of that water is saline water in the oceans. So, fresh water--that which we drink and use in our lives--comprises only about 3% of all the water on the earth's surface.

Between the earth's crust and its core is a thick layer called the mantle. Now, according to a recent report, scientists believe that the mantle contains a huge amount of water deep in the earth.* It is suggested that this water is about 440 to 660 kilometers below the surface, perhaps where the upper mantle transitions to the molten lower mantle. Some have suggested that the mantle may contain as much water as all of the surface oceans, or even more.

Some of the mantle water may date back to early earth history. Another source may arise when tectonic plates collide, allowing ocean-soaked crust to seep into the mantle.

What does all this mantle water mean for us surface dwellers? Our wells penetrate only the earth's crust, so mantle water may be a wishful source of supply. On the other hand, mantle water may have other impacts, such as causing tectonic plates to move or producing volcanoes.

One thing may be sure: still waters run deep.

_________________________________________________

* "Water Permeates Earth's Interior", Science Newa,
(July 12, 2014, p. 9)

MOVING MOUNTAINS FOR WATER

According to to a recent report, withdrawal of large volumes of groundwater in California's Central Valley is causing nearby mountain ranges to rise and may also be triggering small earthquakes.*

Over the past 150 years, the aquifer in this area has been depleted by about 160 cubic kilometers of groundwater. A concern beyond the loss of such water is that the resulting mountain movement could stress the San Andreas Fault.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports that from 1900 to 2008, U.S. aquifers were depleted by more than twice the volume of water contained in Lake Erie and explains more than 2% of the observed global sea level increase during that period. In the period 2000-2008, the depletion rate averaged 25 cubic kilometers per year. Municipalities in the Gulf Coastal Plain, High Plains, Pacific Northwest and Desert Southwest have experienced declines of groundwater levels up to hundreds of feet. As an example, pumping from the large and important Ogallala aquifer since the 1940s has resulted in a lowering of the water table of up to 160 feet.

According to USGS, use of groundwater in the highly populated Milwaukee-Chicago corridor has reduced groundwater levels by as much as 900 feet. In the last half of the 20th century, Chicago suburbs experienced accelerated growth, with their water systems almost exclusively relying on groundwater. As pumping increased, wells were drilled deeper , not only to get more water but water of higher quality. As growth continued, however, wells became less reliable-- particularly deep wells such at the 1500 foot level or more, which began to mine salt water. Fortunately, for most of these communities eventually Lake Michigan water became available, enabling wells to be retired. Of course, cities away from Lake Michigan do not have Lake water as an option.

Draining of fresh water aquifers is not limited to the United States. It is a global issue. So, what is the point? It should be obvious. If this trend continues unabated by common sense conservation and development of alternative sources of supply, withdrawal of groundwater may not just move mountains--but people everywhere may have to move mountains to find water.
___________________________________________________________

*Science News, June 14, 2014, p.9

WHERE IS HOME?

Most sources appear to define "home" as the place where a person lives--in effect, "home" means the same as "house" or other dwelling. Other definitions tend to be more metaphysical. For example, home is said to be the place where a person belongs; or is a place of refuge or rest; or to use the classic definition, "home is where the heart is."

Frankly, however, none of these definitions adequately characterize "home" for me. Perhaps the best definition I have found was in a television documentary a few years ago. The film featured a very old man who was living alone in a modest cottage in Siberia. He had occupied that cottage for much of his life. After his wife had passed away, the family repeatedly begged him to leave the cottage for a warmer climate elsewhere. He refused to move. He said he did not want to leave his home. "Why?", he was asked. He explained, "Home is where the trees know you. This is my home."

My mind has churned for some time over his definition of home--"where the trees know you". I know it is profound, but I still do not fully understand it. However, it suggests something greater than longevity. Rather, it suggests that home is where there is a mutual respect and understanding between humankind and nature is a sphere in which both dwell. Without that, perhaps, there is no home.

I would expand that definition, however. "Home also is where the water knows you." Some dwellings in parts of the world do not have access to reliable sources of safe water. The water does not know them. In other parts of the world, persons waste clean water, or use excessive amounts, or abuse rivers and lakes. The water does not know them. But in some areas, persons use water carefully and conservatively, and respect their rivers and lakes. The water is able to know them.

Does your water know you, or do you simply know the water? Are you at home?

WHO WILL GIVE THANKS FOR WATER?

On the last day of November, Americans celebrate Thanksgiving Day. By tradition, the first Thanksgiving is said to have occurred in November, 1621 when Pilgrim colonists at Plymouth, Massachusetts held a harvest feast, a festival lasting three days. It is said that the meal included lobster, seals and swans. Governor Bradford invited friendly Wampanoag Indians, including Chief Massasoit who added five deer to the menu. Pumpkin pie was not baked, as there were no ovens.

The Pilgrims certainly had much to be thankful for--not the least of which was survival. Only about one-half of those arriving on the Mayflower in 1620 had survived the winter. In addition, they were thankful for the Indians who had taught them how to grow corn, harvest maple sap, catch fish and avoid poisonous plants.

In 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed an annual Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday in November. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Thanksgiving Day is constitutional. It said: "Our history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Devine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders. Beginning in the early colonial period long before Independence, a day of Thanksgiving was celebrated as a religious holiday to give thanks for the bounties of Nature as gifts from God. President Washington and his successors proclaimed Thanksgiving, with all its religious overtones, as day of national celebration and Congress made it a National Holiday more than a century ago. Ch.167, 16 STAT. 168 (1870). That holiday has not lost its theme of expressing thanks for Devine aid any more than has Christmas lost its religious significance."*

Now, in 2013, almost 300 years after the Pilgrims launched their first Thanksgiving feast, the Day means sacrificial turkey, potatoes of some sort, squash, cranberries, pumpkin pie and other treats. It also means falling asleep before a television set blaring boring football games as an escape from listening to boring relatives. It also means running to all the stores that open even before all the football games are over to buy things on sale that no one needs or wants. In effect, the so-called Black Friday becomes a Black Thursday all-nighter.

But,there's more! Even though thanks may be uttered for the turkey, the trimmings, the football, the sleep, the open stores and their sales--oh yes, even the boring relatives--it is likely that no one will give thanks for the most important thing that day. Who will give thanks for water?

Without water, there would be no turkey, no trimmings, no football, no television, no stores, and no boring relatives. Indeed, for example, it has been reported that, according to a U.S. Geological Survey, it takes an average of 39,000 gallons of water to make a car to get to stores, and it takes 1,440 gallons of water to produce a dozen of eggs that might be used for the meal. And, of course, without water, there would be no one to give thanks for anything.

So, this Thanksgiving Day, maybe we should start giving thanks for water and acknowledging our responsibility to conserve and protect it.

______________________________________________________________________

* Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), p. 675