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.

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

WILL THE RIVERS CLAP THEIR HANDS?

Rivers are a primary source of supply for many water utility systems. Such utilities are responsible to treat river water in compliance with applicable safe drinking water regulations. As rivers and their tributaries meander through agricultural land, they are susceptible to farm field soil erosion and fertilizer runoff. Perhaps the most troublesome constituents of such runoff are the nitrates. In the United States, there are strict limits on the permitted levels of nitrates in drinking water, which impose in many cases costly treatment protocols.

For example, in its 2014 annual report, the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that agricultural related nitrate pollution is a growing threat to the state's drinking water from all sources. The report states: "Roughly half of Minnesota's land is in agricultural production, primarily in the southern and western parts of the state. Up to 20 million acres of Minnesota is in row crop production annually. Row crops, which include corn, soybeans, sugar beets, and potatoes, are a major contributor to Minnesota's economy. However, since soils in row-crop production can lose nitrate during the non-growing season, these lands are the biggest influence on Minnesota's ground and surface water nitrate levels." (p.7)

Farm soil erosion is another issue for rivers. According to a published report, to mitigate erosion, farmers are switching to no till farming, a practice of planting crops without tillage of the soil. Stubble from prior crops is left on the ground. The new crop is planted by drilling seed into the soil without disturbing the ground by tilling. Accordingly, this practice tends to hold soil in place.*

So, could no till farming be the answer for both erosion and runoff control? Maybe not, according to another published report. It states that researchers have found that fields managed by conventional and turbo-tillage practices can produce lower concentrations of pollutants in runoff than those managed by no till practices.**

Maybe further research will conclude that both new seed and fertilizer could be drilled into the soil, leaving the surface otherwise undisturbed. This approach, of course, could cause increased costs for agricultural interests. But it also could assign costs to the cost causers and reduce treatment costs for utilities and their customers. Perhaps, an alternative approach could be no till practices for erosion control and more modest and efficient application of fertilizers. Whatever, with further research, maybe some day rivers will have less concern over erosion and runoff, and will clap their hands.

______________________________________________

*Lutey, Billings Gazette, republished in
Rapid City Journal, April 27,2015,p.A8

**Environmental Science & Technology,
November 20, 2012

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

U.S. SENATE ATTACKS ALGAE!

In February, the U.S. Senate made a bold move to legislate a fight against harmful effects of algae blooms on fish. It passed S. 1254, a bill whose title has a bit of a bloom itself--the "Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act."

The subject blooms, of course, are the growth of blue-green algae in waterbodies, and hypoxia is the depletion of oxygen in waterbodies--which can be caused by the die-off of algae blooms. The bill would require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (another title bloom) to establish a task force to study algae and causes of hypoxia, to create an action plan and to report to Congress. The bill would provide $92 million to fund the project.

It is good to learn that Congress apparently has made algae a high priority concern and has taken such positive action to address the issue. On the other hand, one wonders whether it will be as decisive in dealing with such issues as the economy, unemployment, national debt, defense, the budget and foreign policy, to name a few. These "blooms" may be more difficult to control.

AS THE RIVER TURNS

In March, USEPA issued its findings from a survey of thousands of miles of rivers and streams through out this country. It concluded that 55% of the miles are in poor condition for aquatic life. The assessment includes the following conclusions:

1. Some 27% of the rivers and streams have excessive levels of nitrogen and 40% have high levels of phosphorus. These constituents form "nutrient pollution" which causes adverse increases in algae and adverse decreases in oxygen in the water.

2. Some 24% of rivers and streams are considered poor due to loss of healthy vegetative cover needed to mitigate erosion, remove pollutants and maintain water temperatures.

3. Some 9% of miles contain high levels of bacteria, which can be unsafe for swimming and other recreation.

4. More than 13,000 of miles contain fish with high levels of mercury, which may be a health issue for humans.

In early April, a report funded by the National Science Foundation describes a record breaking 2011 algae bloom on Lake Erie. Such blooms in freshwater can result from runoff containing nitrogen and phosphorus, with high precipitation, poor lake circulation and warm temperatures. Decomposition of algae and aquatic plants deplete oxygen in the water needed for aquatic life.

The EPA's Office of Water Acting Assistant Administrator is quoted as stating: 'We must continue to invest in protecting and restoring our nation's streams and rivers as they are vital sources of our drinking water , provide many recreational opportunities, and play a critical role in the economy." (EPA Release, March 26, 2013)

So, what have EPA and other governmental agencies have done over the past 40 years to protect rivers and streams from such adverse environmental impacts as described in these reports and to enhance their drinking water and recreational potential uses? Maybe it is time for less reliance on promised action; and instead time for us to actually take ownership of what we own.