Assignment #6 - Frameworks for Environmental Policy

Assignment #6 - Frameworks for Environmental Policy and the 21st Century Water Commission

1. The components of the 21st Century Water Commission policy which are most relevant to Cohen’s “values framework” are: a) it is an issue stemming from a fundamental behavior of our lifestyle and b) the problem raises fundamental issues of conflicting values. Humankind needs fresh water to survive. Humans use fresh water to meet basic needs of living and we use water to irrigate farmland, produce electric power and manufacture goods, additionally fresh water is a source of religious practice. Once a commodity believed to have an infinite supply, we are finding that in not only the United States, but worldwide, fresh water is becoming scarce. There needs to be a fundamental change in how the average American views fresh water. It is too easy to turn on the tap and have fresh, drinkable and affordable water. This fact makes water too easy a commodity to take for granted and further makes it prone to waste.

There is a fundamental issue of conflicting values surrounding fresh water. Water is in huge quantities, used and wasted in agriculture, mining, hydroelectric power and manufacturing ventures. In the breadbasket of the country, farmers draw water from the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate 30% of the nation’s crops. Water is being withdrawn thirty times faster than it is naturally replenished. Lowering freshwater table levels leads to increased concentrations of pollution, subsidence on land, and smaller quantities of water to be distributed among farmers to feed a growing nation (Reilly et al., 2008). These facts are brought to light in the American Southwest where we are in a constant battle between states for allocation of the fresh water of the Colorado River. Furthermore, the American Southwest is experiencing more land subsidence, development of land fissures and depletion of surface water resources than ever before.

2. The political framework components most relevant to Cohen with regard to this measure before Congress are: a) The status of the issue on the policy agenda is eye-opening. This bill, first introduced in 2003, and every session since is to date, unsuccessful. Representative John Linder (GA-R) and Senator John Isakson introduced legislation, H.R. 135 and S. 2728. The original bills were identical. In 2003 this bill passed the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, furthermore it was debated and passed by the House. It failed to pass the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works before Congress adjourned. Subsequent sessions of Congress saw the bill introduced, but to date is has not passed Congress to become law. b) This issue does act independently of other political issues, yet it appears to be clustered with other key issues. For example, although the Act will create no new laws or mandates, there is concern that it is an attempt to give the federal government more influence over freshwater policy. The most vocal opponents of this position are Representative Candice Miller (MI-R) and Representative Vern Ehlers (MI-R), who has gone so far as to say he would “call out the local militia” in response to any attempt to move Great Lakes freshwater elsewhere. (Columbia, 2008) This concern persists despite the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and its subsequent amendments which prohibit diversion of Great Lakes freshwater unless all governors of the eight Great Lakes States approve it. This opposition on the grounds of increasing federal power is an important issue to address in order for this Commission to be fully accepted (Spangler, 2007). c) In the U.S. context, which level of government is considered primarily responsible for addressing the issue (state, federal or local)? State governments hold the primary power over water resources in their respective states. There are several interstate compacts, like the Colorado Compact, which allocates the resources of the Colorado River among the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states. This Commission hopes to make recommendations to help resolve interstate conflicts like the Colorado Compact in which California uses more than its equitable share of the water from the Colorado River.

3. Science and Technology: Cohen points out that problems caused by the impact of technological innovation on the environment are not easy to measure. The problems take a long time to develop, and sometimes it is hard to establish a causal relationship between and environmental problem and the introduction of a specific technology. (Cohen, 27) Water is not unique in this realm of environmental issues – clean water was the initial need to be addressed nationally (and globally). We did just that very thing with the Clean Water Act and its progeny. Now we are suffering the consequences of the overuse of water.

The Commission historically is at a juncture that it would be a great national asset to combine all the regional knowledge and ideas into one nationally available resource.

a) There is a certainty about the causes and effects of the overuse of water resources. We know there is a prolific overuse of the nation’s natural water resources and because of the overuse we are creating a deficit in the overall amount of water resources available for the United States and this is further complicated by the knowledge that the overuse is a leading cause of pollution in our waterways and aquifers. b) Control and mitigation technologies are widely available and we have experience with their management. Dr. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, commented on the legislation, pointing out “water technologies and research efforts are scattered among disparate and uncoordinated federal agencies and departments.” Dr. Gleick would like to see a re-evaluation of the control and mitigation technologies presently available across the various federal, state and local levels and have this Commission coalesce these programs into one nationally based, easily accessible program for federal state and local leaders to utilize in their regional water issues.

4. Policy Design Framework – a) The policy design reflects strategic thinking. It is not based on political considerations, stakeholder compromises or lucky guesses. b) The regulated community does not appear to understand what this Commission is asking them to do and while there appears to be limited opposition there is limited support. As was noted in the research done at Columbia University in 2008, this Commission will not create any new laws or mandates. There appears to be concern about the federal government gaining more influence over freshwater policy. Cohen tells us that the goal of regulation is to influence individual or organizational behavior. (Cohen, 31) As previously mentioned, this Commission is about recommending a national strategy to preserve our freshwater resources, not create new “command and control” regulations.



5. Management Framework- a) We have an enormous amount of experience in addressing this issue. The problem is that historically the water resource issue has been primarily focused in regions (southwest, southeast, great lakes) not nationally except for the water commission, federally created and funded in the 1980’s. The legislation requires that the Commission must consider how future climate change may impact freshwater supply and quality, based on scientific projections. The Commission’s recommendations must also consider existing freshwater management programs used by states, municipalities, and the private sector. While the Commission’s broader purpose is to help ensure an adequate and reliable freshwater supply for the US, the legislation requires that the Commission develop a comprehensive national water strategy with five explicit goals regarding existing management systems and four goals aimed at the consideration of the potential impacts of climate change and population growth on freshwater availability and quality. (Columbia, 2008) Federal agency cooperation will also play an integral role in the ongoing research. When requested by Commission members, federal agencies are obligated to 1) honor requests of information from the Commission within 30 days, and 2) temporarily assign members of their staff on a reimbursable basis to assist the previously stated duties of the Commission. Id