Yet another rant on the land-water nexus from Aquadoc, right? Not so fast, my friend.
Sarah Bates, one of the best thinkers on this topic, who doesn't rant and is always worth reading, sent me this notice about a short piece she just posted to the Science Progress site.
The photo from the article, courtesy of AP/Ed Andrieski, is of a "lake" near Frisco, CO.
To whet your appetite, here are the first three paragraphs:
A recent issue of National Geographic featured a compelling story on the double-barreled threat facing western states: rapid population growth and climate change. “The American West was won by water management,” proclaims the article. “What happens when there’s no water left to manage?”
This question vexes more than water managers. It may seem absurd to approve development without reliable water supplies, but that is exactly what has happened in many communities—leaving homeowners and other taxpayers holding the bill when extravagant measures become necessary to gain access to water.
Just as homeowners demand, and building codes require, safe wiring and solid foundations for their dwellings, they also deserve to know that their drinking water taps will deliver clean, reliable water for decades to come. Moreover, states are currently reckoning with the question of what happens when there is little water left to manage—two weeks ago, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought.
Development is still progressing in some states despite the recent water shortages, and in areas where the supply is suspect. Agricultural water rights are being transferred to urban areas. But there are some places where concerns are being expressed, such as in Nevada, where Las Vegas' plan to pump rural ground water is casuing alarm among some.
Bates mentions the recently-passed Colorado law that gives local governments the right to deny developments without adequate water supplies, but the law gives local governments the power to permit such development. There are no "time horizons" prescribed in the Colorado law, unlike in other states.
So what would an ideal water supply assurance law look like? Back to Bates' article:
According to Utah law professor Lincoln Davies such a law would be: (1) mandatory; (2) stringent; (3) statewide; (4) broadly applicable, applying to more than just large projects; and (5) interconnected with broader planning mechanisms for land, water, and environmental protection. Thus far, no state statute meets all these criteria, though the legislation enacted in California in 2001 comes closest.
She's written just a short paper this time around, but she mentioned that she will be preparing a more detailed policy briefing paper with specific legislative options for making this (land-water) link.
I'll anxiously await that one.
And some day, it'll all be right.
"Life has two rules. Number one: never quit. Number two: remember rule number one." -- Duke Ellington
Comments