The Pacific Institute released A Twenty-First Century Water Policy this year. The book outlines the problems we face in our country with regard to water policy, and the gaps that future policy approaches need to address to meet today's (and tomorrow's) water management needs. This is the first in a series of three entries that review the book.
Think of
A Twenty-First Century Water Policy as a State of the Union address, a dozen chapters assessing where we are and where we should go with regard to water policy in the United States. The scope is incredibly wide, and that is not lost on the authors, who labor to paint a picture of the nation's water resources in the first two chapters: first that our freshwater resources, though relatively abundant in the U.S., are distributed unequally across our geography, most of the water in the eastern half. And second, population growth throughout the last century has led to massive projects that boil down to manipulating surface water and withdrawing groundwater supplies in order to meet needs, often at the expense of ecosystem health and environmental quality. Incremental policy changes has led to
siloed management situation where each state regulates water a little differently, several agencies all have some level of interest in water management, and coordination between all of these governing entities is minimal. Peak water, a sort of limit of how much water can be withdrawn for human use without diminishing future supply, may have already been passed, especially in the West. And increase energy development projects, which require water, put even more strain on water-strapped communities throughout the West. The authors maintain that a new approach is needed: a
"soft path" that re-focuses our policy strategy to deliver "water-related services matched to users' needs and resource availability," instead of relying completely on 19th century infrastructure and decision-making solutions.
 |
| Associated Press |
Water injustice is the focus of the third chapter. Abundant research in the field of Environmental Justice has uncovered depressing evidence that environmental costs are disproportionately borne by low-income communities and communities of color. Current water policies mostly fail to address environmental justice issues. A few of the examples are: subsistence-dependent communities being more susceptible to contamination rates than more affluent communities; higher risks associated with industrial activities; less access to water-related recreation; contamination from energy development; and vulnerability to climate change. Regulatory agencies do a poor job at enforcing water quality standards in low-income communities and communities of color to the same rigorous level as higher-income or white communities. Each of these issues can result in cumulative risks disproportionately borne by the poorer, more rural communities in our country.
These issues have been pinpointed by many researchers throughout the last few decades. The Pacific Institute suggests that environmental justice be more officially integrated into a comprehensive federal water policy framework by encouraging more collaboration between the different regulatory agencies and states, and by recognizing the human right to water.
The pitfalls of our current water policy approach are pretty well known. And I believe the "soft path" to water management is our best chance at avoiding massive water shortages and ethical violations. The next entry will highlight some of the more specific issues involved in the "soft path," including water quality, ecosystem services, urban infrastructure issues, agriculture, energy, and climate change. The final entry will address specific policy strategies suggested by the authors, and discuss the ways in which the soft path can be adopted and implemented.
The last entry will also include my internal monologue over whether the soft path can ever or will ever be implemented in our country, call it the diatribe of a tormented cynic.
Notable Western cities rate hikes:
