PROPHETS

In early television days, a local weatherman always concluded his forecast with a cartoon figure called "the vice president in charge of looking out of the window." It was a classic juxtaposition of prediction and reality, almost metaphysical in nature. I have retained memory of that example as I consider the many speculations offered by many people regarding climate change and its assumed effects.

Recently, an article was published under the caption "Climate Change Could Exacerbate Inequality"* Since "inequality" is a hot button issue these days, my eyes perked up. The article reported that, using climate change simulation, researchers have predicted that by the year 2100 counties in the southern portion of the United States will have a greater risk of economic decline due to climate change than those in the north. Thus, they concluded, climate change will make worse wealth disparities.

The reality is that daily weather forecasts, which are based on models or simulations, frequently miss the mark on predictions of rain or snow or sunshine, for example. Likewise, longer term forecasts, several days or even a week forward, prove even less reliable or even speculative. So, how accurate are climate change predictions over the next 83 years to 2100 and resulting conclusions about economic and wealth conditions?

How are we to respond to climate change prophesies founded upon climate change simulation assumptions? Perhaps best have an umbrella and sunglasses handy and keep looking out of the window.

____________________________________________
*Temming,Science News,August 5, 2017, p.13

© Daniel J. Kucera 2017

CLIMATE CHANGE AND A WATER UTILITY'S DUTY TO SERVE

Climate change prophets have been raining alarms as to predicted adverse impacts on economies, culture, the environment and human activity in general. Water public utilities have not escaped such climate change speculation. Numerous articles and conferences have addressed the need for water utilities to adopt reactive measures to deal with assumed effects of climate change.

Sidestepping questions whether climate change actually exists and, if so, what are its causes, one should ask whether such concerns about it--particularly in the case of water utilities--are ignoring the real elephant in the room.

Inherent in the concept of public utility is the common law duty to serve all demands for service from all actual and potential users within its service area. Generally, this duty has been codified in legislation and acknowledged in court decisions and administrative agency regulations. In some instances, satisfaction of customer demand has been interpreted as including peak day demand as well as safe and adequate service in general. Over time, the duty to serve has been expanded to include service on a nondiscriminatory basis and at reasonable rates.

In short, the obligation of a public utility is to satisfy, at all times, the public requirements for water service. Failure to do so can result in consequences, ranging from penalties to involuntary acquisition by another utility.

So, perhaps there is nothing new about climate change speculation regarding water utilities. Whether driven by concerns over global warming, or by customer or demand growth, or by aging infrastructure, or any other driver, a water utility's obligation remains the same. It is perceived to have a duty to satisfy its customer demand. Whether a utility's response to such drivers may be conservation, re-use, alternative sources of supply, interconnection with other utilities, purchased water, etc., the key to an appropriate response would seem to rest with the duty to serve.

As an aside, one is reminded of the hysteria over "Y2K" in 1999-2000. Predictions and speculations offered dramatic adverse consequences if computers could not adjust to the new century. When the new date actually arrived, the parade of horribles marched to a whimper.

Chicken Little may have cried "the sky is falling", but the sun still shines where it always has.


© Daniel J. Kucera 2017

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAMMALS

I now know why I am getting shorter. I thought it was an aging thing. No--it is because of global warming!

According to a recent article, mammals on Earth have shrunk on at least two occasions when carbon dioxide levels and temperatures rose as part of "a natural warming."* In one example, about 54 million years ago, a compact horse shrunk to the size of a cat due to global warming. (Think of a cowboy saddling up on a cat and hitting the prairie to herd cats.) About 56 million years ago, it is said that mammals also experienced a shrinking.

The studies reportedly were based on fossils found in Wyoming. Interestly, the article stated that smaller animals are better adapted for warm climates because they have more skin per pound of body. Larger animals are more adapted for colder climates because they have less skin per pound.

Well, now I realize why I am shrinking, and understand that I should lose weight in order to confront climate change. But, I wonder--if this trend continues how much will mammals shrink? For example, will cows become so small that they can give only evaporated milk?

What are we to do? Cry global warming! and make way for the Lilliputians?

_________________________________________

*Associated Press, "Fossils show Mammals
Shrinking When Earth Heats Up, Study
Says," Rapid City Journal, March 16,
2017, P. A4

© Daniel J. Kucera 2017

CLIMATE EXERCISE

Climate change fans appear to be drilling down to some fine details. A recent newspaper (remember those?) article reported on a new study suggesting that more mild winter months will cause people to get more exercise outdoors--an apparent benefit of global warming.

I'm not sure. Warmer winters could mean less snow, thereby reducing time for exercise by shoveling snow. It also could encourage people to get out and sit in their cars and drive more, particularly to stores, and to restaurants to eat more.

Frankly, I am likely to stay indoors regardless of winter temperatures in order to watch other people exercising in televised football, basketball, and hockey games. I would have mentioned golf, also, but is that exercise?

Warmer winters could also mean more indoor exercise, chasing after more spiders, ants, stinkbugs, beetles and other crawling varmints running around my feet due to reduced hibernation.

Maybe the real benefits of winter warming are in the lower gas and electric bills for heating and lower credit card bills for coats, sweater and boots. It may not be good for the economy but will be for the wallet.

According to the article, the limiting factor for people spending time outdoors is a high temperature of 84 degrees. I'm not sure about that either. My limiting factors are mosquitoes, biting flies and ticks. Warmer weather suggests more of them, which again likely will cause me to stay indoors, watching televised games--even golf, if necessary.

So, what is the point of all this climate exercise conjecture? You decide!


© 2017 Daniel J. Kucera

SOME LIKE IT HOT, ALL OVER AGAIN

A recent published report states that the year 2016 was the warmest year on Earth since 1880, when record keeping began.* The article asserts that the global average surface temperature in 2016 was 1.69F degrees higher than the 20th Century average of 57F degrees.

The article also asserts that human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, increased temperatures, but also blames the effects of a strong El Nino which released heat from the ocean. The article does not allocate the temperature increases as between the two mentioned causes.

Interestingly, another report in the same publication states that Earth's ocean surface temperatures 125,000 years ago were comparable to the current reported temperatures.** In fact, it is estimated that the prior global warm period was 2C degrees warmer than today. According to the article, average global ocean surface temperatures 125,000 years ago were "indistinguishable" from the 1995-2014 average. Although the report does not mention it, one presumes human activity contributions to global warming 125,000 years ago would have been modest.

About ten days ago, my midwest area experienced several February days of record-breaking temperatures of at least 60F degrees. This warm period was, of course, quite unusual. But, before I could hyperventilate over climate change, I heard on local television news that this warm period could not hold a candle to a more extensive similar unusually warm period in February of 1898.

So, it was hot 125,000 years ago, it was hot in February, 1898, and it was hot in February, 2017. I put away the snow shovel and windshield ice scraper, watched daffodils pop up and snow drops bloom sooner than usual, noticed honey bees burdened with pollen from somewhere, and dared to exit the house without a coat. Maybe, some of us like it hot.

______________________________________________

* Sumner,"2016 Shattered Earth's Heat Record,"
Science News, February 18,2017, P.9

** Sumner,"Earth's Last Major Warm Period Was
As Hot As Today",Science News, February 18,
2017, p.19


© Daniel J. Kucera 2017

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.

GONE! WHAT HAPPENED TO SANTA CLAUS?

BREAKING NEWS.....Dateline December 25, 2050

Officials announced today the climate change agreement of all nations to ban Santa Claus from the Earth.

Under the agreement, authorities also have closed down Santa's workshop, seized his sleigh, and deported his reindeer from the North Pole to Finland.

Reached for comment, Santa declined comment on advice of his attorney. Mrs. Claus was quoted as exclaiming "What am I going to do? That old man now is going to be hanging around the house all day." One of Santa's elves, an officer of the Elves Union (EU) who asked not to be identified, said "We elves are now are unemployed and are in shock. We are short but have a long history. We will review our options."

Prior to 2015 and Climate Change Agreement I, carbon was pervasive. When Santa Claus made his rounds of houses, he came down the chimney with clothes all tarnished in ashes and soot. After the 2015 agreement, which banned carbon, Santa was able to come down chimneys free of pollutants.

Now, 35 years later, international governmental leaders have adopted Climate Change Agreement II to resolve additional issues with Santa Claus. Scientists have determined that, as Santa travels around the world, his reindeer produce excessive methane from belching and pooping, resulting in increases global warming. It is estimated that by the year 2100, the reindeer will have caused an increase in earth temperature of 0.01 degrees, unless remedial action is taken.

Even more serious, officials state, is that Santa's reindeer are leaving their chips and pies (poop) on top of mandatory rooftop solar panels of homes he visits. These deposits then block the production of electricity for the homes. Since there no longer is an electric grid or natural gas service, the result is that homes are without electricity for heating, cooking and lighting.

Therefore, government leaders concluded, it was necessary to ban Santa Claus in order to save the Earth.

For those who embrace the tradition of Christmas gift giving, governments are providing alternatives to Santa Claus. In the United States, the Affordable Gift Act was enacted, which provides for regional gift centers operated by government agency staff. Children will be able to select gifts from the centers, The centers will be funded by cash donations from adults, who then will receive tax credits as their gifts. Adults who decline to fund gift centers will pay an income tax penalty surcharge.

Authorities commented that under the terms of the Affordable Gift Act, the public will not miss Santa Claus at all, and the environment will be saved. "Those who once believed in Santa Claus can now happily believe only in government," one said.

One official was heard to say to an inquisitive little girl, "Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus."

A SOLUTION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Some political leaders and scientists have asserted that climate change is the most critical issue facing the world today. Assuming this admonition to be true, perhaps the solution is at our feet.

This photo shows a fresh, dried cow chip, in situ. It is sometimes also called a cow pie or meadow muffin. Cow chips, simply stated, are the waste products of bovine digestive processes, or dung, if you will. They may contain undigested plant matter residue. The pictured chip, which I barely avoided stepping on, is about 10 inches in diameter and 2 inches high. Sort of gray-tan in color, the chip has the consistency of cooked oatmeal left on a plate to harden. (This why I have corn flakes for breakfast).

Cow chips are the successor to buffalo chips, which became obsolete when buffalo all but were exterminated by hunters. Buffalo chips, and cow chips when cows arrived, facilitated the settlement of the American Great Plains and the migration of settlers to the West Coast. Travelers through the prairies seeking the Oregon Trail and other trails through the Rocky Mountains soon discovered that there were no trees on the Plains. Homesteaders staying on the prairies had the same discovery.

Because wood and coal were not available for heating and cooking fires, buffalo chips became the fuel of choice. If a settler or traveler was accompanied by a cow, cow chips also were used-- unless the cow was used for food when game was sparse. "As a fuel, cow and buffalo chips offered the advantage of not throwing sparks into bedding or clothing, which was especially important in military tents and tipis. One early settler reported, 'Don't feel sorry for us cooking with cow chips. They had their advantages--didn't need to use pepper."*

Plains Indians also used buffalo chips for heating and cooking fires. In addition chips sometimes were used on the prairies as a building material, as a cure for various medical issues, as landmarks when piled high, and more recently for recreational cow chip throwing.

Since cow chips have a proven and important history as a fuel for heating and cooking, perhaps they can offer a solution in modern times for mitigation of concerns over perceived climate change. For example, under appropriate legislation such as the Affordable Cow Chip Act ("ACCA"), the government would provide each homeowner with one cow per member in the household. Thus, a house with two people and a two car garage would become a house with a two cow garage. Each home owner would be required to disconnect from the electric grid and from natural gas service. Instead, the home owner would be required to harvest his/her cows' chips and burn them in cook stoves, furnaces and fireplaces as the fuel for cooking and heating. Waste heat and gases would be recycled to in home generators to produce electricity. In the case of apartment buildings, where keeping of cows could be impractical, landlords or their tenants would be required to purchase chips from government operated exchanges. Commercial and Industrial facilities also would disconnect from the grid, and use cow chip independent generation, solar or wind power for energy needs.

Homeowners unable to afford maintenance of their cows would receive subsidies from the government for feed. Parties failing to participate fully in the ACCA program would be assessed a substantial monetary penalty, which would be called a tax.

Under the ACCA, therefore, all carbon related fuels would be eliminated from use as energy sources, thereby eliminating carbon emissions and stopping climate change. In addition, another benefit of the ACCA is that milk would be a byproduct of chip production from all those cows. Homeowners could sell surplus milk to the government for incorporation into the government milk grid.

Clearly, when the chips are down, governmental regulation will solve all our problems, including climate change.

________________________________________

*"Buffalo Chips", Encyclopedia of the
Great Plains

THE AUDACITY OF ASSUMPTIONS

Last month, the EPA announced its new regulation requiring a 32% reduction from 2005 levels in emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants. According to media reports, U.S. power plants produce 5% of global carbon emissions, but the current Administration assumes other countries will follow and that the U.S. reduction will counteract assumed climate change. However, media have quoted the Senate majority leader as saying that the regulation would not meaningfully affect global climate, and several states have initiated litigation challenging the regulation.

One problem with regulations can be that they may be predicated upon assumptions of fact rather than evidence of actual fact. Proposed climate change regulations may be no exception, as they appear to be based upon the following assumptions:

Assumption No.1: Global Climate Is Changing

If an assumption is repeated enough times in media or by politicians, it can take on the color of fact. Assertions that global climate is changing appear to be based upon selective temperature readings and computer modeling. While some scientists have suggested that Earth is experiencing global warming, others have pointed out that global temperatures have not changed in several years. In turn, some have proposed that somehow warmth has been sucked into the bottom of oceans, so that surface temperatures have not changed. And, so the debate goes on. But regulatory climate change proposals appear to be based upon the assumption that global climate change is fact.

Assumption No. 2: Assumed Climate Change Is Caused By Humans

Climate change is a natural and repetitive process of Earth. Climate has changed countless times and can be expected to continue to do so. History evidences such ongoing change, as continents have shifted, lush lands have become deserts, and glaciers have frozen and thawed. For example, according to a recent report, 252 million years ago, climate change caused by volcanic eruptions caused extinctions of 90% of marine species and 75% of land species. "Volcanic gases prompted environmental changes that made the planet uninhabitable for most life".*

Another report explained that during the Ice Age abrupt climate changes caused mass extinction of large native animals such as the wooly mammoths."** Even the 18th Century Christian leader Jonathan Edwards believed that the Earth experiences "continuous creation." That is, the Earth was created. has changed over the years, and is constantly changing. "Tis certain with me that the world exists anew every moment," he said.***

Nevertheless, the assumption is being made by those proposing so-called climate change regulations that climate is changing due to human activity such as emissions from power plants and other sources.

Assumption No. 3: Government Has Power To Regulate Climate Change

Regulatory proposals to control hunan activities assumed to cause climate change also assume that government has legal authority to adopt and enforce such regulations. Because such regulations can have restrictive effects on activities, this assumption can have serious adverse impacts on business and jobs. Thus, in the case of the U.S., the focus can be expected to be on Constitutional issues, relations with the states, and statutory authority of administrative agencies proposing regulations.

Assumption No. 4: Benefits of Climate Regulation Exceed Costs

A finding, and weighing, of the costs and benefits of any regulation is essential. This should be particularly applicable to regulations adopted to control such activities as air emissions when a substantial negative impact could result from such action. It apparently is assumed that U.S. carbon emission limits will cause a significant reduction in global climate change. Will that assumption become fact if other countries do not enforce similar rules? Will it be fact even if they do?

On the other hand, significant costs can result from such regulations. such as the write-off of abandoned existing infrastructure, reduction in service reliability, loss of jobs and increased costs to consumers.

Assumption No. 5: Government Can Control Climate

Perhaps the most audacious and speculative assumption is that humans, through their government, can change climate change by reversing or reducing the change. If all the emissions from all the sources ceased, and humans returned to living in caves without fire, would the climate change assumed to be now occurring cease?

It may be that too much of modern secular culture is based upon assumptions, and too little on Truth.
___________________________________________

*"Volcanism Convicted In Permian Die-off",
Science News, September 19, 2015, p.10

**"Climate Change Drove Ice Age Die-offs",
Science News, August 22, 2015, p.9

***Moody, The God-Centered Life (2007),
pp. 98-99

REGULATION FLEES ON WINGS OF MERCURY

Often, important court decisions escape serious media attention. One such example may be the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion concluding that U.S. EPA's regulation requiring power plants to reduce mercury emissions was improperly adopted.*

The federal Clean Air Act states that EPA can regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power plants only if such regulation is "appropriate and necessary". In its rulemaking for mercury from power plants, EPA refused to consider the costs of compliance that would be imposed on the plants, finding that costs were irrelevant to "appropriateness" of such regulation.

The Supreme Court disagreed with EPA's interpretation the law. Accordingly, in this situation, proper regulation depends upon a comparison of the economic cost of compliance with the health or economic benefits. As Justice Scalia wrote for the majority: "The Agency must consider cost--including, most importantly, cost of compliance--before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary."

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings, thus imposing on EPA the obligation of reviewing and revising its regulation after consideration of a cost/benefit analysis that will meet the Supreme Court's requirement.

Mandating that administrative agencies consider costs and benefits in deciding whether and how to impose regulations would seem to be both rational and obvious. Perhaps the importance of the Supreme Court's decision may be that not only are compliance costs relevant but also potentially controlling as to the propriety of regulation. In that sense, cost/benefit analyst can be viewed as a means to mitigate possible agency over-reach and unreasonableness.

What could be interesting is whether the Court's ruling will have impact beyond mercury for all of EPA's efforts to dictate so-called climate change rules, particularly those related to carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Moreover, beyond air pollution, cost/benefit analysis logically should be relevant to all EPA rulemaking affecting water and wastewater utilities, it would seem.

__________________________________________________

*Michigan v. EPA, 576 US __ (2015),June 29,2015

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.

CLIMATE CHANGE: HOW DOES THE WIND BLOW?

Midwestern states in the United States again are under attack from the Arctic Vortex beast. As was the case in 2014, bitter cold this month has plunged temperatures below zero degrees Fahrenheit, with howling wind chills of 20 to 40 degrees below zero. Again, it is the wind that is cold's messenger.

It came as no surprise, therefore, to read a report that, since the late 1990s, global warming has not increased.* Apparently, the forecasted rise in global surface temperatures has not occurred for some 15 years.

Now, scientists have come up with their explanation why forecasts of warming have not come true. According to the report, they assert that unusually strong winds over the Pacific ocean have pushed surface water of the ocean to the west, causing cold water from the depths to rise to the surface. In turn, the newly cold surface water pulls heat from the atmosphere, thereby changing global atmospheric conditions.

However, this wind process accounts for only about one-half of the stall in global warming, according to the report. The cause of the other half was not suggested.

The cause of these strong winds apparently is not known, but may have some connection to the so-called El Nino and La Nina effects. The report states that the winds are expected to reduce as the earth warms. However, according to the wind argument, the earth has not warmed because of the winds.

As the cold north wind numbs much of the country, one wonders how much the global warming assertion is written on the wind.

____________________________________________

* Sumner,"Drought Linked to Warming Pause",
Science Newa, February 7, 2015, p.15

HOW HIGH IS THE OCEAN?

A well known Irving Berlin song asks "How Deep Is The Ocean?" However, more recently, scientists have been singing a different tune: "How High Is The Ocean?"

A recent report states that computations of global sea-level increases in the period 1900 to 1990 have been over-estimated by as much as 30%.* That could be good news. However, since 1990, according to the report, it is estimated that sea levels significantly have accelerated, creating fresh concerns. That is not so good news.

According to the report, there may be several possible causes for the recent sea level increases, including global warming, changes in patterns of ocean currents, and melting of ice sheets in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica.

Part of the challenge in attempting to more accurately measure global sea level changes is selection of measurement models and methodology. One cannot sail the oceans with a mammoth yardstick. Generally, it seems that reliance has been placed on records from regional ocean tide gauges, which then are averaged. However, the report asserts, such simple averages are not accurate. Therefore, new estimates have been developed using modeling of the physics behind sea level "finger prints", using simulation and statistical methods.

Perhaps another cause of ocean level increases has been overlooked: all the trash that is polluting the seas. According to another report, it is estimated that there are 5.25 trillion pieces of waste plastic floating on the oceans, weighing 270,000 metric tons.** The smallest pieces of plastic are said to sink or become eaten by fish and other sea creatures.

Maybe it is time for a new ballad: "How Trashed Is The Ocean?"

__________________________________________________________

* Reuell, "Sea Level Correction", Harvard Gazette,
January 20, 2015

** "The Trash Man", Science News,January 24,2015,p.4

WHO DO YOU BLAME FOR CLIMATE CHANGE SEVEN MILLION YEARS AGO/

According to a recent report, scientists now believe that the Sahara desert formed seven million years ago due to climate change.*

A large sea called Tethys formed some 200 million years ago between what were then the African and Eurasian continents. Then, about 100 years later, the sea began to contract, and about 5 million years ago it wound up divided into the current Mediterranean, Caspian and Black seas.

Scientists found that, when Tethys was its old, large self, it facilitated rainfall over North Africa due to temperature differences between its warm water surface and cool surrounding land. These temperature differences allowed moisture fro the Atlantic to be carried over the area. When Tethys began to shrink, it created a climate change which resulted in much less rainfall on the Sahara area, thus ultimately causing a desert.

United Nations reports now assert that climate change is occurring due to human activity. global warming being man-made. So, who caused the climate change that created the Sahara desert? If the age of its formation is correct, it arose about the time that early mankind allegedly evolved. Do we blame them or chimpanzees?

In a way, water created a climate in North Africa, and water also changed that climate. Rainfall resulted from temperature differences involving the sea, and rainfall ceased when the water in the sea contracted. It is thought that Tethys contracted when squeezed by the two continents approaching each other. Who do we blame for that?

As I write this, most of the United States is buckling under an invasion by the arctic vortex for the second year in a row. It is bringing heavy snow, sub-freezing temperatures and high winds--all abnormal compared with historical data. The only warming I am experiencing is micro-warming belching from a much burdened home furnace as I squint out the window at a premature, autumnal winter scene.
___________________________________________________


*"Sahara May Be Twice As Old As Thought", Science News,
November 1, 2014, p. 12

GLOBAL WARMING OR GLOBAL FATTENING?

A new hypothesis asserts that climate change has resulted in fat people. The sort of climate change it is talking about is that encountered when a person moves from a cold climate location to a warm climate.* According to this notion, people living in cold areas have genes that produce higher metabolic rates, thereby maintaining warm body temperatures and resulting in less obesity. However, humans migrating to warmer climates develop lower metabolic rates to remain cool and, accordingly, hold on to excess fat. If this hypothesis is proven true, it would seem that alleged global warming is causing the current growth in fat people. (Those who migrate for the winter to Florida or Arizona take note.)

But wait--is there global warming? According to a published report, "since the turn of the century, global average temperatures have remained flat despite an unabated rise in greenhouse gas emissions."** Some apparently not willing to acknowledge that global warming may not exist now have developed a hypothesis that excess global heat is being swallowed by oceans and stored as warm water deep under the surface. If deep ocean waters are becoming warmer, then will fish and other sea life become fatter under the climate change hypothesis discussed above? Of course, if fish become fatter, then people eating such fish may become even fatter, allowing for a further hypothesis that global warming does indeed cause obesity.

Speaking of fat, remember England's King Richard III, the Royal whose remains were excavated in 2012 from under a paved parking lot? Before getting his crown, he is said to have a lean diet of bread, barley, ale and water. However, once crowned, it is claimed he ate luxury meals, such as game birds and freshwater fish, downed with wine. His diet analysis was based on two teeth, a rib and an upper leg bone. It is not clear whether richer foods may have made him obese or contributed to his demise in battle. When he was found, he was just skin and bones.***

All of this gives food for thought. If global warming does exist, and if it causes obesity , maybe the solution is to drink more water to cool body temperatures, wash food through one's system and to fill stomach cavities to dampen appetite. And, of course eating less and more wisely might help, too.

(Was the unusually large frog in the photo above affected by global warming?)

__________________________________________________

* "Ancient Genes, Modern Meals", Science News,
September 20, 2014, p. 18
** "Two Oceans Implicated In Warming Lull",
Science News, September 20, 2014, p.10
*** "Richard III Ate Like A King",
Science News, September 20, 2014, p.17

THE OTHER CLIMATE CHANGES

We hear much discussion about climate change these days--the purported changes in earth weather patterns. Many assert that such climate change is caused by human activity. Governmental agencies increasingly seek to regulate such activities under the assumption climate change can be controlled. Others assert that such regulation is misplaced because either climate change does not exist or, if it does exist, climate change results from the earth's natural cycles over time.

Regardless, another type of climate change appears to be causing discussion: increasing concern over intrusion by administrative agencies and their regulatory power into details of private lives of the public.

For example, Senator John Thune (R. South Dakota) recently expressed concern about a proposed rule that would enable EPA to garnish wages to pay for fines levied by EPA for violation of its compliance orders.* He said, in part, "The EPA has been busy trying to expand its authority over the lives of Americans by arbitrarily imposing a multitude of new and expensive regulations that are leading to higher costs for middle-class families."

Along similar lines is a recent editorial from the Bismarck Tribune.** It asserts that EPA has compiled detailed maps of not only permanent waterways but also of intermittent streams and wetlands as a means to expand its regulatory power over a wide range of canals, ditches, reservoirs and wetlands. It stated, in part, "Burdening private landowners and the farming and ranching community by extending the EPA's jurisdiction to include seasonal waterways would come at a price. If the EPA is allowed to make a new ruling defining temporary waterways as being within its control, private landowners' rights will be diminished. The EPA's approach is problematic in many ways. The lack of transparency from yet another government agency further erodes public trust. The intent of the maps strongly suggests an underlying motive to expand reach and control--another troubling example of government overreach."

A recent editorial commentary in Barrons discussed concern over the regulatory fallout from the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare").*** It pointed out that today regulations promulgated by administrative agencies and subsequent court decisions are more overreaching than the actual legislation enacted by COngress. It said, "We really can't know what a bill will mean until long after passage, when the courts tell us what the regulations mean." The commentary added:"Although the doctrine of enumerated powers was paramount for more than a century and a half, few Americans now living can imagine the restraints on federal power that held sway as late as the 1920s. Nowadays, the ninth and 10th amendments are "dead letters" in a country that does not even remember what a dead letter office was....What we now know is that we have lost our constitutional government of laws enacted by our elected representatives. Now we are governed by rules and judges."

When governmental agencies dictate what students can eat for lunch and what kinds of toilets and light bulbs people can have in their homes, one can understand a growing climate change of concern over what may seem to be unfettered regulatory expansion over private activity. From a constitutional standpoint, perhaps we have moved from a government of enumerated powers to one of enumerated prohibitions--if the constitution does not say government cannot do something, then it has the power to do it. That is climate change in and of itself.

______________________________________

* Rapid City Journal, July 21, 2014, p.B4

** Reprinted Rapid City Journal
September 5, 2014, p.B3

*** July 28, 2014, p.39

DRINKING WATER ENCOUNTERS PERCEIVED CLIMATE CHANGE

It has been like a 1950s science fiction thriller: "THE ATTACK OF THE GIANT POLAR VORTEX!"....Coming to all the theaters near you, for an extended stay. It sends chills up your spine!

As I huddle before my furnace enjoying record high heating bills this endless winter, I squint at three foot plus drifts of snow in the yard and icicles clinging from the roof. News reports echo record snowfalls and record frigid temperatures, and even weather reporters seem to tire of the weather. Both water service lines and the entire Great Lakes are frozen.

Yet, many politicians continue to assert that warming climate change is upon us, and they call for embrace of their proposed regulatory agendas. However, I remain a climate change skeptic--not only because the polar vortex has turned me into a human snowman. As one report has it, the polar vortex has wiped out 95% of the stink bugs in the Washington, DC general area. I am happy that I survive to pay the heating bills.

But, wait there is more. As recently reported in the Wall Street Journal by two professors of atmospheric science: *

" The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts, have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."...

"The models mostly miss warming in the deep atmosphere--from the Earth's surface to 75,000 feet--which is supposed to be one of the real signals of warming caused by carbon dioxide. Here, the consensus ignores the reality of temperature observations of the deep atmosphere collected by satellites and balloons, which have continually shown less than half of the warming shown in the average model forecasts."

Again, this reminds me of the Chicago television weatherman who invented the "Vice President In Charge Of Looking Out The Window" to confirm that reality matched his forecast models.

So, how should water utilities respond to allegations of climate change? The importance of respecting and conserving ground water and surface water sources of supply cannot be overstated and exists today separate and apart from climate change concerns. Accordingly, it really is not a matter of being bullied by panic over climate change assertions. Instead, for water utilities, it should be a matter of continued protection of freshwater resources, through such measures as encouraging use of more efficient water appliances by users, implementation of rate structures that give proper signals, implementation of expanded desalination facilities and recycling, installation of meters where they are not installed, etc. These, and many other, steps are needed, not because of climate change fears but because fresh water is such an essential but limited resource.

I am putting on another sweater and welcoming the return of the polar vortex this week with numb arms and hot chocolate. Then I will look out the window and watch for any melting of snow which has buried the outdoor Christmas lights and decorations, including the smiling Santa face, probably until April or May...if the climate ever changes by then.

__________________________________________________________________

* McNider and Christy, "Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate CHange", February 20, 2014, P. A15