Drought Focuses Attention on Long-standing Water Disputes in the Middle East NC Aquatic Dead zone from floods after hurricane Floyd Watershed Protection in the Catskills International accord to clean up the Rhine river Arsenic in the drinking water: cost vrs. health The chemical war on colombian coca Ogallala Aquifier
Drought Focuses Attention on Long-standing
Water Disputes in the Middle East April, 1999
West Bank, Israel
In the politically charged Middle East, water is one of the most important
political issues, and one that is gaining in significance. Sharing scarce
water resources between Israel and its neighbors has always been a source
of conflict. This year tensions are growing sharply, as 1999 promises
to be one of the driest in Israel's history. Sorting out water rights
and allocations will test the strength of recent peace accords, and commitments
to preserve peace, in the region.
israel (31.0K)israel
The Middle East is always a dry region, with few rivers and a hot sun
that quickly evaporates much of the rain that falls. Conflicts have long
persisted over rights to both groundwater and surface water. At the center
of attention now is an acquifer that underlies the West Bank. Since Israel
captured the region in the 1967 Six-Day War, Israeli cities and farms
have gotten 30% of their water from this acquifer. This is such a large
component of the national water budget that accesss to the acquifer is
considered a matter of national security. Israel has recently ceded land
in the West Bank to the Palestinians, but it has yet to give up its rights
to this precious water. This year the Sea of Galilee, a fresh water lake
fed by the Jordan River that is also an important water source, is also
experiencing extremely low water levels due to the driest rainy season
since 1939. And the heat of summer has yet to arrive.
Recent peace accords between Israel and Jordan and the Palestinians
have detailed water allotments that Israel must provide to the West Bank
and to Jordan. The Palestinian allotments of 30 million cubic meters provides
only about a third as much water per capita as that used by Israelis.
The newly independent Palestinian state desperately needs this water and
more if it is to develop an independent economy, and an improved standard
of living for its growing population. Many Palestinian towns in the West
Bank have no running water; others have irregular supplies and endure
hot summer days with no incoming water supplies. Israel also has agreed
to send 55 million cubic meters of water to Amman, Jordan. The Israeli
government has tried to press to reduce allotments to both Jordan and
Palestinians, but any reductions could seriously test peaceful relations.
Israelis recognize that staying by the agreement is necessary to preserve
peace.
Meanwhile water allotments to farmers have been reduced. But ultimately
more water is needed. Expensive, energy-consuming desalination plants
may be the only solution in the long run.
For further information, see these related sites: Core issues in the Palestinian-Israeli
water dispute Water issues in
the Arab-Israeli conflict News
on desalination needs Water research and management
issues, from Technion University, Haifa, Israel To read more, see Environmental Science, a Global Concern, Cunningham and Saigo, 5th ed.
Water availability and use: p. 419-421
Freshwater shortages: p. 424
Deserts and climate regions: p. 415
Ways to increase water supplies: p. 423-426
Environmental Science, Enger and Smith, 6th ed.
Land use, development, and water: p. 225-229
Water management: p. 84
Aquifers: p. 286-287 NC Aquatic Dead zone from floods after Hurricate
Floyd October, 1999
Eastern North Carolina
North Carolina, the US' leading hog producing states, is also home to
the nation's highest concentration of hog manure-holding lagoons in a
flood plain. In October 1999 those lagoons washed out in the flooding
following Hurricane Floyd. The waste, mixed with the floating bodies of
between 30,000 and 100,000 dead hogs, and with waste from flooded sewage
plants, choked coastal rivers and washed into Pamlico and Core Sounds.
There the waste created a 350-square mile dead zone, devoid of oxygen
and of life, in the nation's second largest estuary. The state's $1 billion
fishing industry is expected to suffer severely as a result of the flooding. Hogmap (13.0K)Hogmap Many of the hog manure lagoons that washed out were on the flood-prone
coastal area of North Carolina. |
No one was surprised when the manure lagoons washed out. Statistically,
North Carolina receives heavy rains and flooding after hurricanes as often
as any other state on the eastern seabord. At the same time, the state has
had explosive growth in the hog producing industry, producing 10 million
animals a year by 1999. Many of the hog producers are located on the flat,
flood-prone coastal plains and the river flats of eastern North Carolina.
Environmental regulations on waste management are relatively lenient. Hogs
are raised in barns holding thousands of animals each-many farms produce
more waste than a small city. Each of these farms would warrant a full-scale
sewage treatment facility if it were a city. Because these facilities are
agricultural, though, they are overseen by the Department of Agriculture,
which requires little or no processing or purification of waste materials.
Liquid manure is normally spread on fields, where growing vegetation, ideally,
takes up the excess nitrogen before it washes into groundwater or surface
waterways. Every year there are dozens of significant lagoon spills, some
of which have resulted in major fish kills. The floods after Floyd were
only the most recent and most serious in a long series of lagoon spill catastrophes.
In addition to the hogs killed in the floods, about 2 million chickens
and 700,000 turkeys were drowned in the aftermath of Floyd.
The governor of North Carolina has asked Congress for $5.3 billion in
disaster relief aid, to rebuild hog barns and lagoons on the coastal plain
as well as to help rebuild houses in the area.
To read more, see Environmental Science, A Global Concern, Cunningham and Saigo, 5th ed.
Canadian cod fishery decline: page 213
Fish farming (alternative fishery source): page 218
Environmental Science, Enger and Smith, 6th ed.
Fishery management: pages 201-203
For further information, see these related web sites: Report
from the Washington Post Hog Watch: Environmental Defense
Fund information on hog farming General
report from Salon.com Report
on the flood from Disaster Relief Watershed Protection in the Catskills New York City has long been proud of its excellent municipal drinking water.
Drawn from the rugged Catskill Mountains 100 km (60 mi) north of the city, stored
in hard-rock reservoirs, and transported through underground tunnels, the city
water is outstanding for so large an urban area. Yielding 450,000 m3 (1.2 billion
gal) per day, and serving more than 9 million people, this is the largest surface
water storage and supply complex in the world. As the metropolitan agglomeration
has expended, however, people have moved into the area around the Catskill Forest
Preserve, and water quality is not as high as it was a century ago. When the 1986 U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act mandated filtration of all public
surface water systems, the city was faced with building an $8 billion water
treatment plant that would cost up to $500 million per year to operate. In 1989,
however, the EPA ruled that the city could avoid filtration if it could meet
certain minimum standards for microbial contaminants such as bacteria, viruses,
and protozoan parasites. In an attempt to avoid the enormous cost of filtration,
the city proposed land-use regulations for the five counties (Green, Ulster,
Sullivan, Schoharie, and Delaware) in the Catskill/Delaware watershed from which
it draws most of its water. With a population of 50,000 people, the private land within the 520 km2
(200 mi2) watershed is mostly devoted to forestry and small dairy farms, neither
of which are highly profitable. Among the changes the city called for was elimination
of storm water runoff from barnyards, feedlots, or grazing areas into watersheds.
In addition, farmers would be required to reduce erosion and surface runoff
from crop fields and logging operations. Property owners objected strenuously
to what they regarded as onerous burdens that would cost enough to put many
of them out of business. They also bristled at having the huge megalopolis impose
rules on them. It looked like a long and bitter battle would be fought through
the courts and the state legislature. To avoid confrontation, a joint urban/ rural task force was set up to see
if a compromise could be reached, and to propose alternative solutions to protect
both the water supply and the long-term viability of agriculture in the region.
The task force agreed that agriculture is the "preferred land use" on private
land, and that agriculture has "significant present and future environmental
benefits." In addition, the task force proposed a voluntary, locally developed
and administered program of "whole farm planning and best management approaches"
very similar to ecosystem-based, adaptive management. Fig. 1. Investing in soil conservation and water-quality protection on
small dairy farms and agroforestry programs within the Catskill/Delaware watershed
has saved New York City billions of dollars in filtration costs and has also
improved community relations. Image13 (20.0K)Image13 This grass-roots program, financed mainly by the city, but administered
by local farmers themselves, attempts to educate land owners, and provides alternative
marketing opportunities that help protect the watershed. Economic incentives
are offered to encourage farmers and foresters to protect the water supply.
Collecting feedlot and barnyard runoff in infiltration ponds together with solid
conservation practices such as terracing, contour plowing, strip farming, leaving
crop residue on fields, ground cover on waterways, and cultivation of perennial
crops such as orchards and sugarbush have significantly improved watershed water
quality. As of 1999, about 400 farmers-close to the 85 percent participation
goal-have signed up for the program. The cost, so far, to the city has been
about $50 million-or less than 1 percent of constructing a treatment plant. In addition to saving billions of dollars, this innovative program has
helped create good will between the city and its neighbors. It has shown that
upstream cleanup, prevention, and protection are cheaper and more effective
than treating water after it's dirty. Farmers have learned they can be part
of the solution, not just part of the problem. And we have learned that watershed
planning through cooperation is effective when local people are given a voice
and encouraged to participate. International Accord to Clean Up
the Rhine River April, 1999 Basel, Switzerland The Rhine River, which flows through some of Europe's biggest industrial
districts, has long suffered from severe pollution, including chemical
spills that have caused catastrophic fish kills. At times the water has
been so contaminated that long stretches the river were emptied of living
fish. In recent years several European governments have made special efforts
to clean up and protect the Rhine. On April 12 conservation efforts moved
forward with a new international convention (agreement) on the protection
of the Rhine. Five countries signed the convention: Switzerland, France,
Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands (see map).
The new agreement has impressive environmental protection goals. Included
among these goals are
- Habitat protection along the river's banks.
- Flood management, including aims to re-establish parts of the river's
natural course. By allowing the river more room to flood, severe floods,
such as those that took place in Germany and the Netherlands last fall,
could be avoided.
- Reintroduction of salmon, after an absence of almost 50 years, as
far upstream as Basle, Switzerland. Recent pollution prevention efforts,
as well as the installation of fish ladders to help the fish get around
dams, have already helped salmon return to lower stretches of the river.
The new convention also gives some environmental groups the right to observe
progress by signing countries. Giving these groups a voice is an important
step in ensuring that the words on paper will be translated into some sort
of actual progress. Also important in the effectiveness of the agreement
are extended powers of oversight and enforcement that will allow an international
commission to ensure that signatory countries live up to their promises.
For further information, see these related sites: European Rivers Network
homepage Description of the
Rhine River, from the World Meteorological Organization To read more, see Environmental Science, a Global Concern, Cunningham and Saigo, 5th ed.
Water pollution: p. 435-37
Types of water pollution: p. 437-443
Water pollution control: p. 451-455
Environmental Science, Enger and Smith, 6th ed.
Wastewater treatment: p. 302-304
Water use and pollution in industrialized and developing countries: p.
300
Arsenic in Drinking Water When we think of water pollution, we usually visualize sewage or industrial
effluents pouring out of a discharge pipe, but there are natural toxins that
threaten us as well. One of these is arsenic, a common contaminate in drinking
water that may be poisoning millions of people around the world. Arsenic has
been known since the fourth century B.C. to be a potent poison. It has been
used for centuries as a rodenticide, insecticide, and weed killer, as well as
a way of assassinating enemies. Because it isn't metabolized or excreted from
the body, arsenic accumulates in hair and fingernails, where it can be detected
long after death. Napoleon Bonaparte was found recently to have high enough
levels of arsenic in his body to suggest he was poisoned. Perhaps the largest population to be threatened by naturally occurring
groundwater contamination by arsenic is in West Bengal, India, and adjacent
areas of Bangladesh. Arsenic, in the form of insoluble salts, occurs naturally
in the bedrock that underlies much of this region. Under normal conditions,
the groundwater stays relatively free of arsenic in a soluble form. Rapid population
growth, industrialization, and intensification of agricultural irrigation, however,
have put increasing stresses on the limited surface water supplies of this region.
Groundwater has all but replaced other water sources for most people in West
Bengal, especially in the dry season. In the 1960s, thousands of deep tube wells were sunk throughout the region
to improve water supplies. Much of this humanitarian effort was financed by
loans from the world bank in the name of human development. At first, villagers
were suspicious of well water, regarding it as unnatural and possibly evil.
But as surface water supplies diminished, dusty Bengali villages became more
and more dependent on this new source of supposedly fresh, clean water. By the
late 1980s, health workers became aware of widespread signs of chronic arsenic
poisoning among villagers in both India and Bangladesh. Symptoms of chronic
arsenicosis include watery and inflamed eyes, gastrointestinal cramps, gradual
loss of strength, scaly skin and skin tumors, anemia, confusion, and, eventually,
death. Why is arsenic poisoning appearing now? Part of the reason is increased
dependence on well water, but some villages have had wells for centuries with
no problem. One theory is that excessive withdrawals now lower the water table
during the dry season, exposing arsenic-bearing rocks to air, which converts
normally insoluble salts to soluble oxides. When aquifers are refilled during
the next rainy season, dissolved arsenic can be pumped out. Health workers estimate
that the total number of potential victims in India and Bangladesh may exceed
200 million people. But with no other source of easily accessible or affordable
water, few of the poorest people have much choice. Although few places in North
America have as high groundwater arsenic content as West Bengal, there are worries
that millions of Americans also are exposed to dangerously high levels of this
toxic element. In 1942, the U.S. Government set the acceptable level o arsenic
in drinking water at 50 micrograms per liter (50 parts per billion or ppb).
Although this standard was set before the connection between arsenic and cancer
was understood, it has never been revised. Recent studies suggest that the risks
of certain kinds of cancer from a lifetime of drinking water with 50 ppb of
arsenic may be as high as 1 in 100, or 10,000 times the normally accepted threshold
for acceptable risk. Repeated attempts to lower the standard to 10 ppb have
been met with resistance from public officials and private water supply owners,
who complain that it would cost too much to upgrade their systems. The government
has no business, they maintain, in telling us what we can or cannot drink. Ethical Considerations What do you think? If you choose to drink water that gives you a 1 in 100
chance of cancer, is that your business or does the government have a right
(or obligation) to stop you? Is it ethical to allow customers of water districts
to be exposed to a poison that they know nothing about? Would it be enough to
require public systems to inform their customers of the risks involved? Would
your parents or friends understand the implications of 1 in 100 risk of cancer?
Do they smoke? What could be done to help the hundreds of millions of people
in India and Bangladesh who now drink contaminated water? Is it our responsibility?
What if it was our money that installed the tube wells in the first place? Does
that change the picture? Image12 (28.0K)Image12 Colombia to Spray Coca Cops with
Stronger Herbicide June, 1998
Environmental Consequences Could Be Severe After more than a decade of pressure, the Colombian government agreed
in June to US demands to test a new herbicide for use in the war on cocaine
producers. The new herbicide is tebuthiuron, a pelletized herbicide that
is more effective, persistent, and environmentally dangerous than herbicides
used in Colombia in the past. Critics, including a US General Accounting
Office report of February 1998, argue that this new offensive is taking
place at the expense of other, possibly more effective, interdiction efforts.
For four years Colombian police have used airplanes to spray fields with
liquid herbicides. But several problems have made these treatments relatively
ineffective. Applications by air frequently miss target plants, or reach
only parts of targeted fields, so that only about 30% of treated plants
are killed. Rainfall quickly disperses and dilutes liquid herbicides,
further reducing effectiveness. Most important, applications must be done
low to the ground, at times of day when there is no rain and little wind
to cause drift from the target fields. These low-level applications in
fine weather make airplanes especially vulnerable to attack from the ground. Colombia2 (60.0K)Colombia2
Colombia's south-central provinces are likely to recieve the greatest
focus in the tebuthiuron application program. |
In contrast, tebuthiuron comes in pea-sized solid pellets, which can
be dropped from higher altitudes even in rainy or windy weather. This
makes tebuthiuron applications much safer for pilots. The solid pellets
are expected to hit target fields with better accuracy, increasing the
effectiveness of applications. Pellets break down and disperse more slowly
than liquid herbicides, making the application more likely to kill plants.
At the same time, tebuthiuron, which is sold in the United States under
the brand name Spike, is a highly toxic, extremely persistent, broad-spectrum
herbicide. Labels warn that even slight exposure to roots can kill trees.
Persistence means that the chemical compound breaks down slowly, so that
the herbicide can remain potent for 15 months. In a moist environment,
such as in the rain forests of southern Colombia, water can quickly carry
persistent herbicides through the environment. Broad-spectrum herbicides
are lethal to a wide variety of vegetation. Tebuthiuron is effective not
just against coca plants but also against any broadleaf or woody vegetation--including
mature trees, shrubs, and vines. Environmentalists and members of the Colombian government worry that
the persistence of the herbicide will make fields useless for subsistence
agriculture after the coca plants have been killed. The region's peasants
rely on subsistence farming in the forest for survival. Damage to forests
surrounding coca fields could be extreme. And further deforestation is
inevitable as coca growers--and subsistence farmers--are forced to clear
more land for farming after tebuthiuron applications.
Fears of Herbicide Persistence, Water Contamination One of the most urgent worries, though, is water contamination. The persistent
herbicide moves and disperses quickly once it enters streams or groundwater.
Although the herbicide is designed to kill plants, it is also poisonous
to animals, and dispersal by water poses serious health threats to local
farmers and to wildlife. The maker of tebuthiuron, a subsidiary of Dow
Chemical Company, insists that the chemical be used only under carefully
controlled conditions and where there are no nearby water bodies, streams,
or shallow groundwater. But uncontrolled conditions and heavy rainfall
are precisely the reasons the US government has insisted on tebuthiuron's
use on Colombia's cocaine fields. The company strongly opposes this use
of the herbicide.
If approved for use, tebuthiuron could be used on more than 80,000 hectares
(nearly 200,000 acres), mainly in the southern provinces of Caqueta, Putumayo,
Guaviare, and Meta.
Some Illegal Use Already Underway? Reports have surfaced that covert tebuthiuron applications have been
under way at least since last spring, long before the Colombian government
agreed to its testing. Until July the chemical was strictly banned in
the country, but early last spring farmers were reporting on finding pea-sized
pellets in their fields--pellets that experts contend could only be tebuthiuron.
Pellets were found in nearby subsistence food plots, as well as in illegal
coca fields.
To read more, see Environmental Science, A Global Concern, Cunningham and Saigo, 5th ed.
Persistence and mobility of pesticides and herbicides: page 256
Tropical deforestaton: page 297
Environmental Science, Enger and Smith, 6th ed.
Herbicides: page 268 Ogalalla Aquifer The Ogallala Aquifer System is the largest known underground freshwater
reservoir in the world. Lying under parts of eight states in the arid, high
plains region, this reservoir has supplied water to one of the most important
agricultural areas in he United States and has been a significant factor in
the high rates of productivity we have enjoyed in recent years. However, the
enormous amounts of water now being pumped out of the aquifer are depleting
it much faster than it can be recharged from surface infiltration. In some areas,
water tables are falling as much as 1 m (3 ft) per year. Many farmers are having
to abandon irrigation, either because the aquifer has been exhausted under their
land or because the costs of pumping from greater and greater depths are no
longer justified by the crops produced. It is estimated that this vast aquifer once contained about 2,000 cu km
(2 billion acre-feet) of water in porous rock layers, ranging in thickness from
a few meters around the periphery of the formation to more than 400 m (1,200
ft) in the center of the pool under the sand hills of Nebraska. This is about
sixteen times as much water as all lakes, streams, rivers, marshes, and other
surface freshwater bodies on earth. Most of the water in the aquifer is thought
to have been left by the glaciers that melted 15,000 years ago. In 1930, the
average depth of the water was nearly 20 m (58 ft). In 1987, it was less than
3 m (8 ft) and falling. Some places are essentially out of water. Image11 (19.0K)Image11 Exploitation of the high plains groundwater began about one hundred years
ago when pioneer farmers and ranchers set up windmills for domestic supplies
and to water crops and livestock. Although this early technology played a vital
role in the settling of the American West, it had relatively little effect on
the enormous amount of water contained in the aquifer. The real change came
in the 1960s with the invention of center-pivot irrigation systems. In these
systems, a high-capacity well drilled in the center of a field pumps water to
large sprinklers that ride on a pipe up to 1 km (0.6 mi) long. The pipes are
carried on motor-driven wheels in a huge circle around the well. Because the
pipes have flexible joints and the wheels are driven independently, the whole
apparatus can traverse hilly land that could not be irrigated by conventional
gravity-fed methods. The amount of irrigated land on the high plains jumped from about 1 million
ha (2.5 million acres) in 1950 to 6.5 million ha (16 million acres) in 1980.
More than 150,000 wells supplied the water for about 33 percent of all cotton,
50 percent of all grain, and 40 percent of all beef produced in the United States
in the early 1970s. At the peak of irrigation, more water was being drawn out
of the aquifer each year than the entire annual flow of the Colorado River. In contrast to surface waters, which are tightly controlled by water laws and
appropriation rights, there are no limits on how much water a person can pump
from the ground, even though it is a shared resource that underlies neighboring
land as well. There also are no regulations about how and for what purposes
the water can be used. The rule was, and still is, "Those who pump fastest,
get most." What will happen when the aquifer runs dry? Farmers may have to return
to dry land farming that typically yields only one-third as much per unit of
land as irrigated field. Alternative sources for municipal and industrial water
supplies often do not exist. Cities may become ghost towns unless water is brought
in from elsewhere. Pressure undoubtedly will rise for water transfer projects that can ship
water from the Great Lakes states or the Mississippi River valley. The costs
of those projects would be billions of dollars and the price of water delivered
might be ten times what farmers comfortably can pay. Should the government bear
some or all of those costs? Another interesting question is whether the areas
that have plentiful water supplies should share their water. Many of the states
that have lost industry and agricultural production in recent years to the western
states might prefer that people and businesses move back to where the water
is, rather than moving the water to where the people and businesses are. Where
millions of dollars are invested in farms and communities, however, there are
also human considerations. Should society have restricted population growth
in areas where water has always been limited? Could we have foreseen the implications
of water overdraft? What can we learn from this situation about the future use
of water? |