The Problem
The most essential part of the water cycle to all life on Earth is freshwater existing on the land surface. Just ask your neighbor, a tree, or any living organism. Of the total water supply on Earth, only three percent makes up freshwater. Of this small percentage, only thirty percent of freshwater is easily accessible through groundwater, rivers, lakes, and streams. Throughout the majority of this century, inexpensive supplies of high quality water have been taken for granted. Water has rarely been seen as a scarce natural resource, up until now. Today there are several reports of declining groundwater tables, contamination of drinking water with chemical toxins and pesticides, and pollution of lakes, rivers, and streams due to sediment run off caused by urbanization. Each year, 20,000 acres of forest in Virginia alone are converted into urban developments. This attributes to flooding and an increase in filtration costs due to degradation of forest cover. Not only do these issues create costs for industry, agriculture, and water treatment programs, but it is also reducing the amount of storage for drinking water that is available in reservoirs and bays. In addition, these concerns are causing an increase in the depletion of the fresh water supply, a resource we cannot afford to lose. If we continue to destroy forests at this rate in order to create farms and land development, these problems will only continue and will become more drastic.
Our Position
There is little or no need to restrict the property rights in order to protect the natural fresh water supply. The solution to the stresses on the water supply caused by population growth and urban sprawl can be solved by engineering technologies. Skeptics like to believe that these technological alternatives are too expensive and also emit pollutants back into the environment. The fact is that we cannot stop urban sprawl. Restricting property rights can influence economic development for better or for worse. The solution systems do not always have to involve industrial facilities that require energy and create high levels of waste. One example is using constructed wetlands as a waste-water treatment facility. This is a facility that uses retention ponds for pretreatment and constructed wetland cells for treatment of sewage and waste waters. These facilities are generally less expensive to construct and far less expensive to maintain than traditional industrial waste-water treatment facilities. As the quantity of the volume of wastewater per unit time that the facility will treat increases the economic and practical justification of these constructed wetlands decreases. This is because they would require a very large area of land for development and high waste water rates are associated with more urban areas. Constructed wetlands produce significant amounts of concentrated sludge that must be disposed. One option is to sell the waste to farmers as a fertilizer. This is just one example of a technology that has been engineered to address the growing fresh water problems. Other methods include using dams, retaining walls, dikes, reservoirs, and levees. These controls will be sufficient until a system is developed for economical and efficient desalinization. Technological advancements are the best methods to provide a sustainable water cycle while continuing urban sprawl. Conservation and the restriction of property rights will only reduce the symptoms created by the problems that technology can solve.
Their Positions
Without the aid of technology, water restrictions will only get tighter as the human population continues to expand in an endless manner. Urban sprawl will be an on-going issue regardless of whether techno-skeptics criticize engineering or not, so sitting passively will not help reach any necessary goals. Pollutants are actually being contained and redistributed to professionals in the agricultural-arena towards a more sustainable future. With 20,000 acres of forest lands in Virginia being converted into new developments annually, Transit Oriented Development will soon be obsolete as more and more residents will be inhabit the Wildland Urban Interface. With this growth happening, engineering would suffice as the best way to deliver resources to these new households. Private property rights can always be stripped away by the government through eminent domain practices outlined in the Constitution in order to increase the state’s revenue or any other reason they deem appropriate.
References
1. http://www.jswconline.org/content/39/2/86.full.pdf+html
2. http://books.google.com/books?id=YLck0PaQjXUC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=role+engineering+has+with+sustaining+water+needs&source=bl&ots=F5MCBVBt7v&sig=qrBgrbF0EhY8J66lI3nADLZnO34&hl=en&ei=hT2jSp2rMoqe8QbtiMDwDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
3. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/08/EDGOTQ8JBS1.DTL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Technological advancements, that protect ecosystems, provide more jobs, ultimately decrease costs of filtration and sanitation, and protect property rights, can be put to use in providing enough water for the world. According to Group B, levels of fresh water have never been at a lower level, and there are non-expensive technologies available, like wetlands that are used for waste-water treatment. Instead of stripping away property rights, we can use levees, dams, and reservoirs that will allow for a continuation of the unavoidable urban sprawl. TOD is proven as only applicable in certain areas and cities with a certain maturity level. There is some contradiction in your argument that there is “no need to restrict property rights” and then later your assessment that the government can take away “private property rights…through eminent domain practices.” You also fail to address the simple fact that although most of these technologies already exist, we are still continually running out of fresh water.
ReplyDeleteGroup B are the techno-optimists. They feel that current trends should continue unchecked because our engineering know-how will find a solution. They suggest the use of constructed wetlands and retaining ponds increase the supply of fresh water. Constructed wetlands are very expensive to build and have a relatively low success rate at simply qualifying for jurisdictional wetland statues with the Army Corps of Engineers, much less at actually filtering human excrement. I am not sure this group has considered this possibility fully. At one point they advocate that they taking of private property rights is not necessary. However, they contradict themselves later by saying that solutions can be found through eminent domain.
ReplyDeleteGroup B also agrees that water is a scarce natural resource and that the declining groundwater tables, contamination of drinking water with chemical toxins and pesticides, pollution of lakes, rivers, and streams are reducing the amount of available water even further. Group B is definitely a techno-optimist, in that they believe that the decreasing water supply caused by population growth and urbanization can be solved by engineering technologies. One way they plan to improve water quality is through the construction of wetlands. This is a bad idea that is destined to fail. Wetlands created by humans typically are very unsuccessful, and I am not sure that I want the sludge from these wetlands sold to farmers to fertilize the crops that I intend to eat. Why should we have to create wetlands when we could be preserving the ones we currently have instead of converting them into habitat for humans. Also, they mentioned other methods such as, dams, dikes, reservoirs, and levees that could be implemented to assistant in solving the water problem. These methods would only be short-term and would cause more damage to ecosystems, creating a cascading effect of problems that our techno- optimist will have to fix, and in fixing the first problem, they are more likely to create more problems.
ReplyDeleteGroup B is in the opinion that with new technology the impending water crisis can be averted. They claim there is no need to restrict property rights in order to conserve water, but then have contradictory statements and solutions. The closing line says that property rights can be stripped away from citizens, but never states for what reason. Also, you only describe a couple solutions, engineered wetlands and desalination, and then explain how they do not work. Engineered wetlands are an example of technology that has been developed to help water quality, but then by Group B’s own opinion it will not be a feasible long term solution. Group B hopes that in the future new, better technologies, will be created to fix the water problems in American. I think Group B has a lot of good technological solutions, but maybe picked the wrong ones to mention in their position paper. Listing levees as a solution, but not saying exactly how they would be implemented, especially after the Katrina aftermath, can leave readers wondering how something that failed so horribly in the past and help the future.
ReplyDeleteGroup B
ReplyDeleteThis group believes there is no need to restrict property rights, because of advancements that can be made through technology. They state that water treatment does not have to be pollutant emitting or expensive. The example provided is of wetlands water treatment plants, in which wetlands pools are used to treat water. This form of water treatment is known to produce a potential fertilizer. It does however require a large lot of land. Wetland water pools sounds like a similar method to the use of green spaces in smart growth to purify and sequester water. They recommend the creation of water reservoirs to build up water supplies. The damming of rivers has a major impact on migratory and anadromous fishes such as salmonids many of which have endangered subpopulations because of dams. These are sufficient until desalination becomes an economically feasible means of water purification. Desalination also carries with it negative environmental impacts on the ecosystems the precipitate is discharged into and water is pumped from.
Sure technology would be a great fix, but you haven’t really mentioned the price tag of these expensive solutions to our declining water supply. They are all very costly. What about the affects of desalination on the environment? So much energy is put into these plants and so much water is used to produce a small amount of usable water to humans. It seems as if you did not really consider the affects of your technological fixes. Are they really worth it? Will they hurt the environment even more?
ReplyDeleteGroup B are techno-optimists who claim that engineering solutions are the way to solve our water problems. They cite the use of constructed wetlands to deal with waste-water treatment instead of industrial waste-water treatment plants. These wetlands are generally less expensive than industrial solutions, but take up far more land. This needs to be taken into consideration when deciding which option to use for large cities. They do not think that we need to do anything about urban sprawl, because restricting property rights will only reduce the symptoms, not the overall problem. According to Group B, the Transit Oriented Development proposed by Group A will soon be useless because the population is growing too quickly. I think that constructed wetlands are a good solution to waste-water treatment in small cities, but what does this group propose that we do in larger cities? They mention dams, retaining walls, dikes, reservoirs, and levees to hold water, but what do they want to do with it after that? They don't seem to have an overall solution to the problem, just bits and pieces.
ReplyDeleteThis position paper did not prevent a strong enough argument to convince me that technology is the answer to our water problems. The perception that any ecosystem service can be replaced by technology-a basis of your argument-was proved false by the Biosphere 2 experiment. This group also said that there is plenty of space left-no need to worry, but by allowing endless growth this land will fast-deplete. Also, their proposed techniques to filter and treat water through constructed wetlands seems odd- why not prevent their damage in the first place by protecting the surrounding areas of existing wetlands through Smartgrowth, etc. In response to building dams, reservoirs, etc. there is ecological damage that comes along with the construction of these structures- mostly because of their overpowering PERMANENCE on a body of water. There is not a sufficient follow through with this argument. There were only scattered facts and potential solutions-but the long-lasting solution was not apparent through this group's paper.
ReplyDeleteYour argument doesn't seem to be very well-supported by your paper. You mention constructed wetlands as a possibility, but admit that the justification for this technology wanes with increasing water demands. Why not preserve existing wetlands?
ReplyDeleteGroup B is suggesting that engineering technology can increase supply in order to meet our water needs. They address the diminishing water levels and the fact that urban sprawl is inevitable and cannot be stopped. One of the technological solutions proposed is to convert existing wetlands into waste-water treatment facilities. This would require large areas in order to be able to handle the waste-water supplied by urban areas. This system would also create sludge that Group B suggests using for fertilizing crops. This may raise concern that the sludge is contaminated and require extensive screening to ensure it is safe. Group B also provides other examples such as dams, retaining walls, dikes, reservoirs, and levees, but does not provide explanations of how each would work. Although some of the technologies may truly make a difference, Group B does not address other possible solutions and the concerns of technological failure.
ReplyDeleteOver all this is a fairly good position paper, the typos make it hard to read at times and there is not very much supporting "back-bone".
ReplyDeleteIn the problem definition, group B states, “If we continue to destroy forests at this rate in order to create farms and land development, these problems will only continue and will become more drastic.” This fundamental truth is obvious to any objective person looking at the water crisis we face today. The group then goes on to detail one of the reasonable ways that technology can improve water quality efficiently – constructed wetlands. Constructed wetlands are not only land area intensive, they are based upon ecosystem services that are being readily performed without any human intervention. Toxic sludge collected from treatment is also mentioned as an issue of their ‘superior’ technology, but by limiting the sludge produced, soil treatment of water minimizes this issue. If ‘restricting property rights can influence economic development for better,’ and natural systems can readily perform water treatment services, then why not limit sprawl and maximize worry-free ecosystem services? Technological advances are needed for wastewater treatment, but they are not enough to guarantee clean drinking water for our grandchildren.
ReplyDeleteGroup B takes the position that urban sprawl is imminent and our water problems must be solved through technology. Constructed wetlands can be used as waste-water treatment facilities which are cheaper than traditional practices. Restricting property rights is also not needed to protect our water supply. Using other methods can also help make fresh water more accessible such as utilizing dams, retaining walls, dikes, reservoirs, and levees. The problem with these methods is that you run the risk of drastically altering the environment. There is a way to slow or even stop urban sprawl, even if it is an uncomfortable topic, by restricting population growth. Using the constructed wetlands seems slightly questionable; how concentrated and toxic is this sludge? It is even stated that on a large scale these wetlands are not practical so would it just be a phase that we should use these?
ReplyDeleteThis is not a very strong paper. You make vague references to some technological advances that would help, but really how are these helping if you are going to continue urban sprawl. Is it possible to keep building and also have constructed wetlands wouldn't one side eventually have to give?
ReplyDeleteGroup B clearly did some good research, because they had a few good examples of technology that could be very helpful in the battle to preserve our water supply. However, their paper was not as well organized or as well proofread as it could have been. One thing I noticed was that this group was immediately on the defensive, saying, in the first paragraph of their paper: “skeptics say . . .” It would have been much more effective to save the skeptics arguments until the section of the paper devoted to “their arguments.” Despite the fact that group B had some very good examples of water saving technology, they did not present a coherent argument and there were some glaringly unsupported statements which could certainly have been expanded on, for example “sprawl is inevitable.” This will be rapidly shot down by group A, I am afraid. Though I was not entirely convinced that technology will solve the whole problem, I did learn of some technological measures that I think will be incredibly helpful in solving the problem.
ReplyDeleteB argues that the human mind revels in adversity. That yes we have a water problem, but why worry about it, someone with think of some brilliant idea to save the world like every time before. Group B feels that property rights are not a price worth paying for clean water. Technology has come through for us in the past and will do so in the future, this water situation is no exception. This is a powerful argument seeing as technology has saved us many times in the past. However an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure, why put ourselves in harm’s way and wait till the last minute for someone’s brilliant idea. The water problem is here now and we need a solution now, conserve water and filter it faster.
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that technologies will be able to solve water quantity and quality. They argue that urban sprawl is not possible to stop, and that taking away property rights from the people is not a solution to the problem. Developing a natural water treatment facility is inexpensive and easier to maintain than industrial waste water treatment plants. However, dams or other barriers would need to be constructed to retain the clean water, and an additional solution would need to be found for the waste that has been filtered out. Selling human waste products to farmers to use as fertilizer does not seem very sanitary, and I would be interested in knowing if there is any sanitation procedure that would occur before being sold to the farmers, or if there is any risk of contaminating crops with human-waste fertilizer.
ReplyDeleteGroup B states that the issue of the decreasing fresh water supply is not something that needs to be approached from a development standpoint, but rather rely on advancements in technology. An example presented was the use of wetlands as waste-water treatment facilities. These facilities are cheaper than industrial treatment facilities and are less expensive to maintain. I find that this is a an interesting and very plausible solution to the problem, however, I would like to hear more about different technological options that would aid in the problem of a decrease in fresh water supply.
ReplyDeleteGroup B says that any potential water shortages can be solved by technology. They argue that urban sprawl cannot be stopped and that technology is the only thing that is flexible enought to work around this new growth. Also, that technology doesn't have to be all water treatment plants; we can use more natural techniques to improve water quality such as artificial wetlands. Technology is advancing and there is no reason to think that it wouldn't be able to solve our problems. I think that Group B should have identified the scale of these methods. I believe that their argument could have been a lot more persuasive if they had went into how technology can save us.
ReplyDeleteGroup B‘s position is that our future water demands will be resolved by engineering technology and that there is no need for taking property rights. This group says that current trends of water use should go unchecked because we will develop a solution through technology. They provide valid ideas such as constructing wetlands and retaining ponds to increase the supply of fresh water. This idea though also has a lot of issues including where they will retain the lands especially in urban areas also the successful rate is low in human made wetlands. I liked the idea of selling the sludge to farmers as fertilizer but it would have been nice to see more facts on it. Group B talked about a lot of other engineering advancements for water supply, but they didn’t go into much detail on any of them. The one they did go into detail about I felt was not one of the better engineering advancements.
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that advances in technology will be able to match increasing demand for water. Water will be more effectively accessed, transported, and purified for human consumption, while innovations in waste water use can reduce the impact of water usage on environmental systems. While there’s truth to and value in this technology, this is definitely the least effective way to go about dealing with the problem. Instead of accommodating wasteful practices, we should make an effort to educate on the value of reducing usage so that returns from engineering are maximized.
ReplyDeleteGroup B seem to be the techno-optimists who only want to use technology to solve the problem of scare drinking water supplies. However once it came time to actually show technologies might in this area of fresh water acquisition, conservation, and retention, group b fell short of even convincing me that they themselves were convinced in the argument. I believe that if more research was done, this would have been a brilliant position. However, it was all to easy to accept that this may not be a solution.
ReplyDeleteGroup B describes ground water as being the most important resource globally and it has become an increasingly scarce resource due to pollution. This group had a well thought out description of their view, however I feel it would have been more effective with more extensive and numerous examples of ways that technology will be a more preferable solution than any other.
ReplyDeleteGroup B feels technology and solve all of our issues with the declining quality and quantity of our fresh water supply. I would have liked to gain a better understanding on how more of these systems would have worked, instead of mainly focusing on the waste water treatment facility. What about the devastating affects on the land that some of your solutions such as retaining walls, dikes, and reservoirs cause? You say that stopping urban sprawl would not work because of restricting property rights, but I think I’d rather have my property rights restricted than have my property underwater. Good job at providing some ideas of how technology can be used to help in improving our water conditions.
ReplyDeleteWe can clearly see that Group B proposes that technology will save our water problem, but which is more efficient to our economy now, technology or zoning. First of all, making new technology will cause us to spend more money than we have to use. Therefore, it would be more cost efficient to just zone urban areas because houses are already being built so there is no extra cost.
ReplyDelete30 or 40 years ago, they may not have had an untenable position to defend. Still today, there is not enough realistic optimism about geo-engineering solutions to rely on them. If there were a natural disaster, for example, that would compound the engineering solutions for maintaining clean water. There isn't enough proven technology to not be very careful, conservative and frugal about water use.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to Group A, the techno-optimists believe there is no need to restrict property rights in order to protect the fresh water supply. To address the stress on the water supply caused by population growth and urban sprawl, use engineering and technology. Urban sprawl cannot be stopped and taking property rights will not settle well with property owners. They suggest using constructed wetlands instead of industrial processes to prevent adding more pollution to the environment while cleansing the water. This sounds good, but there are costs to consider. A sizable plot of land will have to be used and sludge accumulates which has to be dealt with. The biggest doubt I see is that all hope and trust is being put into something that isn’t certain. By leaving current practices unchecked, the problem continues to worsen while solutions are being engineered. This just makes the problem harder to fix in the long-run.
ReplyDelete