Schroeder, Linda

English

Research Papers in Economics

WATER QUALITY  ISSUES:  THE NEED  FOR A
NEW APPROACH
Linda Schroeder
Freshwater  Foundation
The  Freshwater  Foundation  is  a national  nonprofit  nonendowed
organization established  in  1968.  Its goal is to translate and interpret
freshwater issues and implications  for the public.  In that role, I have
been asked to address water concerns,  water issues relating to those
concerns,  alternative  responses  for  addressing  those  concerns,  and
the implications  of some of those alternatives.
Water Concerns
Water quality concerns in the United States are many.  I will touch
on only a few,  to provide a sense of the diversity of challenges  we
face.
Surface  Water
One area  of concern involves  lakes and rivers.  The  Clean  Water
Act  in the  '70s  focused  on cleaning  up  surface  water.  Great strides
have been made, but we still face many surface  water problems,  in-
cluding sewage dumping,  algae blooms,  acid rain, such exotic weeds
as purple  loosetrife and Eurasian  water milfoil and such  "solutions"
as the treatment of lakes with copper sulfate.
Wetlands Depletion
Wetlands  depletion is a concern throughout the country.  Of 215
million acres  of wetlands  that existed  in colonial times,  only  93  mil-
lion acres  remain.  We continue  to deplete  wetlands at the rate  of
500,000 acres per year.  In California  alone,  5 million acres of wet-
lands have been reduced to about 280,000  acres.  Ninety thousand  of
those remaining are unprotected.
Solid Waste
There  are  18,500  municipal  landfills  in the United  States that  re-
ceive  135  million tons of waste per year.  That represents  3.5 pounds
per person per day or 1,300 pounds of solid waste  per person per
year going into our country's landfills.
117Underground Tanks
Leaking underground  storage  tanks (LUST)  are another  growing
concern.  There are an estimated  1.4 to 2.5  million underground  stor-
age tanks  in this country and estimates for how many are leaking
range from  100,000 to  1 million.  When we realize that 1 gallon of gas-
oline per day can significantly  contaminate  a water supply for  50,000
people,  we then begin to understand the potential risk that these un-
derground  storage tanks represent.
Hazardous Waste
A 1986  study of hazardous waste sites indicated the following num-
bers:  885 current  sites on the National  Priorities List  (NPL) with
2,500  anticipated  as  final  NPL  number;  7,900  confirmed  hazardous
waste  sites with 30,000 suspected as hazardous waste  sites; and
13,000 anticipated  sites still to be identified  for a  total of nearly
54,000-each of which is a potential risk to those nearby.
In  1981 the United  States Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA)
regulated  264,000,000  metric tons of hazardous  waste-enough  to fill
the New Orleans  Superdome  1,500 times.
We  all  need to realize  that hazardous  waste is not just  "somebody
else's  problem."  Household hazardous  waste  is also  a major  con-
cern.  Of those  1,300 pounds per person per year of municipal  waste,
it  is estimated  conservatively  that every family  disposes of at least  1
pound of hazardous  waste per year along with that family's share  of
solid waste.  That means  for a landfill that services 20,000 families,
20,000 pounds,  or  10 tons, of hazardous  waste are dumped  in that
regular  landfill.  That  is  10  tons  of hazardous  waste  not being  regu-
lated  in  any  way.  In one Miami  suburb,  an  "amnesty  day"  resulted
in  the  collection  of  12  tons  of household  hazardous  waste  which
would otherwise have gone into garbage cans.
Groundwater and Drinking Water
Groundwater  and drinking  water are,  of course, major  and grow-
ing concerns among the entire country's population.  Groundwater  is
the drinking water source  for 50 percent of all Americans and for 97
percent  of our rural population.  Groundwater  is a major drinking
water source  for thirty-two states and  for 30 percent  of our urban
population.  Of this country's one hundred largest cities,  thirty-four  of
them rely completely  or in part on groundwater  as a drinking water
source.
Agrichemicals
Another  concern we  face  is agrichemical  use.  In  1952  there were
500  commercial  chemicals  on  the market.  Today that  number totals
11845,000.  Seventeen pesticides  have been found  in groundwater  in
twenty-three  states and nitrates have been found in  20 percent  of
wells  tested throughout  the country.  Pesticide  use has tripled  since
1964.
Agrichemical  use is not just a rural problem.  In  1986  more than
one-third  of pesticides  used were  not used by farmers.  This  1.1  bil-
lion pounds of agrichemicals  used in 1986 was twice that used in  1964
for urban use. Ninety-one  percent of American households  use
pesticides-and  they use them at  a higher per-acre  rate than farm-
ers do.
Water Concerns as Water Issues
Not all water  concerns become  water  issues, but the potential for
that occurring  continues  to increase.  Water  issues are  many.  They
range from conflicting use questions,  to priorities  of use, to overlap-
ping jurisdictions  to an  awareness  of the "management  maze"  that
we all face.  In Minnesota alone, for example,  there are more  than
3,000  organizations  that  share  management  responsibilities  for Min-
nesota's  water resources.  We may believe  in the "committee  ap-
proach,"  but the  idea of that kind  of a  group coming  together to
agree is frightening  indeed.
Other water issues include funding priorities,  limited dollars,  mak-
ing "hard choices,"  and determining what doesn't get funded rather
than what does get funded.  Other  issues include  some  of the  major
questions we are beginning  to face:  Who decides  these  difficult
issues?  Who pays? Who faces liability for water contamination?  How
clean is clean?
One of the major  public issues we'll be facing in the future  is risk:
risk perception,  risk communication  and risk management.  We  also
face  a strong difference  of opinion over regulatory  versus voluntary
approaches.  Finally,  we  face  many questions  regarding federal ver-
sus state versus local rights and responsibilities.
These are only a few of the water issues we face and will continue
to face in the future.  And they won't be easily decided.  Water issues
are  prime  public  policy issues,  because  virtually  everyone  has a
vested interest in the outcome.
Traditional Responses-and  Implications
We have employed a number of traditional responses to dealing
with water quality issues and we have become well aware of the im-
plications of these traditional responses. Many of them will no longer
work as  we look to new issues and the need to  explore new  re-
sponses to effectively addressing these issues.
119More  Federal Dollars
Traditionally,  we have simply sought more federal  dollars. We are
all aware by now that there is little chance of this being a reasonable
solution.  Furthermore,  with the federal  deficit that  we face,  pursu-
ing such a possibility  is unethical to say the least.
Minimize  Problems
Another approach  has been to  minimize  the  seriousness  of prob-
lems or  potential problems.  The  implication  there  is that,  sooner  or
later, we  will  "get  hit hard"  and lose  many  options  for appropriate
response.
Deal Reactively
Another approach is to deal with problems reactively using "band-
aids"  to  "solve"  problems  as they  come up.  The implication  of that
approach is that everything is done at great cost, that there is no end
in  sight and that we  end up  developing  a fragmented,  willy-nilly
"policy"  regarding water quality issues.
According  to Senator  Dave Durenberger,  we spent in  one  recent
year 200 times more dollars  on cleanup than on prevention-$1.2  bil-
lion on Superfund  cleanup versus $6  million directed  to states for
protection of groundwater.
The Freshwater  Foundation  recently  completed  a study of the
economic  impacts of groundwater contamination  on twenty-one Min-
nesota municipalities  and eighteen Minnesota businesses.  That study
resulted  in  verified  groundwater  contamination  costs  of at  least $67
million,  including  costs for  cleanup,  new  equipment,  monitoring,
legal fees,  losses to tax base and real estate devaluation.
Expand Regulations
Another approach  is to expand  regulations,  laws and penalties.
The problem there  is again greater  costs,  alienation  of people and  a
removal  of responsibility.  The  "just don't  get  caught"  syndrome
begins  to  kick in  and  we allow  abdication  of responsibility  by those
who should begin to become part of the solution.
Legislate  Solutions
A  final  approach  is to leave  solutions  to our country's  legislators.
That means we have to  live with short-term responses,  with two- or
four-year  mindsets.  It's difficult to expect an elected  official  on
election eve to say to his or her constituency,  "I'm doing a lot of good
long-term  things for the environment.  I  know you haven't  seen any
results, but you will. Just trust me.  And, by the way,  vote for me to-
120morrow."  We really  can't expect  that of our legislators because  the
general  public isn't yet ready to demand it. Politicians are very good
at distributing pleasure.  They aren't as good at allocating pain.  And,
furthermore,  we as public  citizens aren't prepared to accept pain.
Walter Mondale tried it when he ran for president against Ronald
Reagan.  He told the truth.  He promised  to raise taxes-and  he
never got a chance to do it. The public is not ready for long-term so-
lutions, so we cannot expect our legislators to foist them upon us.
Seeking Alternative Responses
We need  to stop planning  for an unknown  future  based  on para-
digms  and  mindsets  of the  past.  The  time  is  right  for  a  new
approach.
Russell Train,  former EPA head and chairman of the Conserva-
tion Foundation,  said in the latest issue of the EPA Journal:
The nation is once  again undergoing the national soul search-
ing that accompanied  the first Earth Day in 1970. Public concern
is so strong that we can be said to be experiencing a fresh wave
of environmentalism.
Recent  public  opinion polls  indicate  that two  out of three  Ameri-
cans believe protecting the environment  is so important that regula-
tion standards  cannot be too high and that continued  environmental
improvements must be made regardless of cost.
Louis Harris suggests that by  1992 or 1996 we will have a president
"chosen and elected with a pro-environmental  stance as his primary
identification."  I might suggest, Mr. Harris,  that this stance might be
his or her primary identification.
A new approach to water quality policy will require adopting some
new paradigms:
1. We  will become  willing to define risk  within a social,  economic
and political  context  as well as a scientific one.  Science  doesn't exist
in a vacuum and science alone  will never dictate public policy.
2.  We  will become willing  to set policy  and develop  management
practices  "without  all the data" because  we'll never have "all the
data." Research  is an ongoing process;  so too  are management  and
policy.
3.  We  will recognize that effective  water  quality management  will
require new management  structures  based on resource boundaries,
not political boundaries.  As water bodies cross  political boundaries,
so too must our management  approaches.
4.  Economics and public health will become  the driving forces be-
hind water quality management  decisions.
5.  We will focus more on long-term rather than short-term solu-
121tions.  The public  will begin to demand  it,  and  our  legislators  will
begin to respond.
6.  We will begin to allocate pain, not just pleasure-recognizing
that change  brings change,  that the status  quo will be  affected  and
that what has always been may not always be.
7.  We  will prepare to reprioritize.  We  will ask the hard  questions
and make the  hard decisions.  The 1988  State  of the World report
from the Worldwatch  Institute suggests that the earth's current envi-
ronmental decline could be halted  with an international  expenditure
of $150 billion  annually,  a fraction  of the $900  billion spent  annually
on the military.  It's all a matter of priorities.
8.  We'll continue  to  explore new  funding sources  such as cost-
sharing,  user fees and privatization.
As  Dan Glickman  said,  "The  public  is  in a right-to-know  mode."
We need  to take advantage  of this  "right-to-know  mode"  and listen
to the words of Thomas Jefferson:
I  know of no safe depository  of the  ultimate powers  of the  soci-
ety but the  people  themselves,  and  if we  think them  not  en-
lightened  enough to exercise  their control with a wholesome  dis-
cretion,  the remedy  is not to take it from  them, but to inform
their discretion by education.
Abraham Lincoln said much the same thing:
With public sentiment,  nothing  can  fail.  Without  it,  nothing can
succeed.
So how do we secure and assure the enlightened  sentiment?  I em-
phasize the word "enlightened"  because public perception  is not al-
ways truth.  We need  to recognize,  however,  that in the eyes  of the
public, perception  is truth. It is, therefore,  our role as public  edu-
cators to be sure,  as Thomas Jefferson  said, that the public does get
the truth.
So how  do we accomplish  this goal?  Through a three-step process
of information, education and incentives to act.
The first step, information,  is  fairly easy.  We  have lots  of it.  The
problem  is that much  of it is  unusable,  unreadable,  too heavy  or
gathering dust on  shelves somewhere.  Information  in and of itself is
stagnant and unusable.
It is the second step-education-that takes  information  and turns
it into something usable.  Education is  a process. Education is getting
the appropriate information to the appropriate  audience in  appropri-
ate ways at appropriate times.  That  speaks  of the  concept  of the
teachable  moment.  Education  can change  attitudes.  Information
cannot.  Education  changes  attitudes  and  it  is critical  to the process
but, as Fred  Woods said,  "Education  is not a costless undertaking."
122Unfortunately,  many people realize  that research  costs money,  but
not as many people realize that education costs money too.
The third step in this process  focuses on providing incentives to
act. Education can change attitudes, but it takes incentives to change
behavior. We  need  to constantly  consider the audience's  needs, the
audience's  "enticements."  We  need  to  constantly  answer the  audi-
ence's question,  "What's in it for me?" Incentives  to act may take
the form of a water rate increase to encourage conservation  or finan-
cial incentives  to encourage farmers  to risk new management  prac-
tices.  Incentives  to act may be  as simple  as clearly  spelling out the
implications of various choices to the public.
These  three steps have  to work together.  All three-information,
education and incentives  to act-are needed to adequately  prepare
the public to determine its own destiny.
One  more thought  on paradigm  shifts.  John Naisbitt,  in Mega-
trends, said the following:
Centralized structures are crumbling all across America,  but our
society is not falling apart.  Far from  it.  The people of this coun-
try are rebuilding  America from the bottom up into  a stronger,
more balanced,  more diverse society.
It's happening,  it's exciting and the potential is unlimited-for  ex-
tension,  for public involvement  and for society-to grow up rather
than grow old.
Then, finally,  a word on behalf of coalition-building.  Joe Rossillon,
former president  of the Freshwater  Foundation,  issued a clear,  suc-
cinct challenge  to us all:
If you can,  mandate;
If you must, legislate;
If all else  fails, cooperate.
We have a lot to do, but I sincerely believe that, working together,
we  are up to the task.  The future  of our water resources-and  our
own future as well-depends  on it.
123

WATER QUALITY ISSUES: THE NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics