Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Water resources

fraught with environmental, economic, and political con-

cerns, they have placed water supply issues in the interna-

tional spotlight.

Historically, more conventional, large public invest-

ment water development schemes have been a vehicle for

economic development. As a result, about 75% of the fresh

water used worldwide is used for

irrigation

, with 90% used

for this purpose in some developing countries. Much of this

water is being wasted. Poorer countries do not have the

technology to irrigate efficiently, using twice as much water

to produce one-half the crop yields of wealthier countries.

Multi-purpose

reservoir

projects that generate hydro-

electric power, control flood, provide recreational benefits,

and supply water have become commonplace worldwide.

Hydroelectric power has fostered both municipal and indus-

trial development. Since 1972, 45% of the

dams

constructed

with

World Bank

support were primarily for hydropower,

in contrast to 55% for irrigation and/or flood control. Al-

though the pace of dam construction has slowed worldwide,

large projects are still being constructed. For example, the

proposed

Three Gorges Dam

on the Yangtze River, China,

will cost at least $10 billion and will be the largest hydroelec-

tric power project in the world. It will generate one-eighth

of the total electrical power that was generated in China

in 1991.

Dams and water transfer systems constructed for eco-

nomic benefit often carry with them environmental costs.

Wildlife habitat

is flooded by reservoir pools, and stream-

flow volumes and patterns are altered, affecting aquatic eco-

systems. The modification of flow by dams in the Columbia

River of the United States has either eliminated or severely

reduced natural spawning runs of

salmon

in much of the

river. The reservoir created by the Three Gorges Dam will

flood one of China’s most scenic spots and will force over

one million people to relocate. Already there are concerns

that high rates of

soil erosion

and

sediment

deposition

behind the dam will threaten the usefulness of the project.

The relocation of people in response to water resource devel-

opment can also bring unwanted environmental conse-

quences. In developing countries, relocated people seek new

land to cultivate, graze livestock, or build new villages, often

accelerating

deforestation

and land degradation.

Small-scale projects offer environmentally attractive

alternatives to large dams and reservoirs. Mini-hydroelectric

power projects, which do not necessarily require dams, pro-

vide electricity to many small villages. Rainfall harvesting

methods in drylands provide fresh water for drinking, live-

stock, and crops. Flood plain management is environmen-

tally and economically preferable to large flood control dams

in most instances.

Groundwater provides large volumes of fresh water in

many regions of the world. A proposed $25 billion irrigation

1487

project in Libya would pump nearly 980 million yd

(750

million m

) of groundwater per year in the Sahara to be

transported 1,180 mi (1,900 km) north. Groundwater sup-

plies in the Sahara are thought to be nearly 20 trillion yd

(15 trillion m

). However, there is concern that such pump-

ing will drop water levels 8–20 in (20–50 cm) per year,

eventually causing water that is too salty for irrigation to

intrude. Groundwater mining occurs if water is pumped

faster than it is replenished. Such mining is occurring in

many parts of the world and cannot provide sustainable

sources of water.

Water requirements for urban areas pose formidable

challenges in the coming years. With 90% of the population

growth expected to occur in urban areas over the next few

decades,

competition

for fresh water between rural agricul-

tural areas and cities will become severe. With urban areas

able to pay higher prices for water than rural areas, legal

and political battles over

water rights

and subsidy issues

will likely ensue. In many cities, however, finding sufficient

sources of fresh water will be difficult. For example, Mexico

City has a rapidly growing population of over 22 million as

of 2002. Fresh water from lakes and springs have already

been exhausted. Groundwater is being mined three times

faster than the rate of recharge. Also, a daily

discharge

29 million lb (13 million kg) of sewage plus industrial wastes

threaten groundwater quality. Furthermore, groundwater

pumping is causing land to subside around the city. Unfortu-

nately, many other large cities around the world are faced

with equally challenging problems of water supply and pol-

lution.

Flooding and droughts are global concerns that

lead

famine

in the poorer countries and will persist until

solutions are found. Flood avoidance or flood plain manage-

ment are not commonplace in many such countries because

people have no alternative places to live and farm. The

recurring floods and devastation in Bangladesh, and the

droughts of North Africa emphasize the dilemma of the

poorest of countries.

In contrast to problems of water quantity, water pollu-

tion accounts for over 5 million deaths per year, largely the

result of drinking water that is contaminated by human and

livestock waste. Inadequate

sewage treatment

and a lack

of alternative fresh water supplies can be blamed. These

problems can be solved but will require that

water quality

issues become a high priority in terms of policies, institu-

tions, and financial support.

Water pollution plagues rich and poor countries alike.

Municipalities and industries pollute streams and ground-

water with toxic

chemicals

, sewage, disease-causing agents,

oil,

heavy metals

thermal pollution

, and

radioactive

waste

. Polluted water from municipalities and industries

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Water rights

can and should be treated before it is discharged. Environ-

mental laws and enforcement can ensure that this happens.

Agricultural development has made significant strides

in solving food problems in the world, but it has also contrib-

uted to water pollution. Water supplies have become polluted

as a result of heavy

fertilizer

and

pesticide

use. The focus

on sustainable agricultural practices that do not rely so heav-

ily upon fertilizers and pesticides offer some promise. Sensi-

ble use of chemicals and the adoption of “best management

practices” also offer a means of meeting food requirements of

growing populations without contaminating water supplies.

Just as food security issues attracted global attention

through the 1950s to 1970s, similar efforts will be needed

to provide for water security in the twenty-first century.

Long-term, holistic, and interdisciplinary solutions are

needed. The crises management approach of the past—that

of attempting to deal with droughts, floods, and contami-

nated water only when they are upon us—cannot continue.

We currently have the technology to solve most water

resource problems. Implementing solutions are often con-

strained by inadequate policies, institutions, financial re-

sources, and political instability. In many ways, people man-

agement is more critical than water resource management.

With human populations continuing to grow, water scarcity,

flooding, and disease and death from contaminated drinking

water will become even more pronounced.

[Kenneth N. Brooks]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Brooks, K. N., et al. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Ames,

IA: Iowa State University Press, 1991.

Jackson, I. J. Climate, Water and Agriculture in the Tropics. 2nd ed. Essex,

England: Longman Scientific & Technical, 1989.

Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences. Committee on Opportunities in the

Hydrologic Sciences, Water Sciences Technology Board. National Research

Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.

Van der Leeden, F., F. L. Troise, and D. K. Todd. The Water Encyclopedia.

2nd ed. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1990.

ERIODICALS

Anton, D. “Thirsty Cities.” IDRC Reports 18, no. 4.

“The First Commodity.” The Economist 322 (1992): 11–12.

Winkler, P. “Qaddafi Challenges the Desert.” World Press Review (April

1992): 47.

Water rights

Pure, potable water is an essential resource, second only to

breathable air in importance for life on earth, but it has

other valuable attributes as well. It powers industry, provides

recreation

, irrigates agriculture, and is a highway for ships.

1488

It also takes many forms, from oceans, rivers, and lakes to

groundwater

and even atmospheric moisture. Given this

vital significance, water rights have been contended through-

out history.

One area of frequent dispute is jurisdiction. If a water

right is a right to use water, then who has the authority to

grant or withhold that right? The obvious answer is the

government that has jurisdiction over the territory in which

the water is found. However, water pays no attention to

boundaries. A river that begins in one jurisdiction flows into

another. Problems arise when people in the first jurisdiction

deprive people in the other of a sufficient quantity or quality

of water from the river. Such a situation forced the United

States, which uses the

Colorado River

to irrigate several

western states, to build a plant to remove excess salt from

the Colorado before it flows into Mexico.

Impossible as it seems, jurisdiction over the water cycle

has also been litigated. From atmospheric moisture comes

rain and snow, which replenish groundwater and form

streams that flow into rivers, which in turn flow into lakes

and oceans. Surface water thus forms an interconnected

system. International law has focused on rights to “interna-

tional

drainage

basins” and, more recently, “international

water resources

systems” that include atmospheric and

frozen water.

When jurisdiction is not at issue, water rights are

usually established in one of three ways. The first was

set out in the Institutes of Justinian (533-34

A.D.

), which

codified Roman law. This holds that flowing water is a

res communes omnium—a thing common to all, at least

when it is navigable. It cannot be owned or used exclusively

by anyone. The second and third approaches have been

developed in the United States, where the doctrines of

riparian rights

and prior appropriation predominate in

the eastern and western states respectively. In a riparian

system, landowners whose land borders a waterway have

a special, if not exclusive, right to the water. In the

arid

western states, however, water rights derive from first use,

not ownership, as in the “first in time, first in right” rule.

See also Environmental law; Hydrologic cycle; Irrigation;

Land-use control; Riparian land

[Richard K. Dagger]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Caponera, D. A., ed. The Law of International Water Resources. Rome:

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 1980.

Goldfarb, W. Water Law. 2nd ed. New York: Lewis, 1988.

Matthews, O. P. Water Resources, Geography and Law. Washington, DC:

Resource Publications in Geography, 1984.

Sax, J. Water Law: Cases and Commentary. Boulder: Pruett Press, 1965.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Water treatment

Water table

The top or upper surface of the saturated zone of water

that occurs underground, except where it is confined by an

overlying impermeable layer. This surface separates the zone

of aeration—the layer of

soil

or rock that is unsaturated

most of the time—from the

zone of saturation

below. The

water table is the level at which water rises in a well that is

situated in a

groundwater

body but not confined by a layer

impervious material

.In

wetlands

, the water table can

be at the soil surface or a few centimeters below the soil

surface, but in drylands it can be several hundred meters

below the soil surface. Perched water tables occur where

there is a shallow impervious layer (such as a clay layer)

that prevents water from percolating downward to the more

persistent, regional groundwater zone. As a result, water

tables can occur at different depths within a region. Gener-

ally, if water tables are close to the soil surface, groundwater

is susceptible to

pollution

from human activities. See also

Percolation

Water table draw-down

A measurement of how a particular water level is affected

by the withdrawal of

groundwater

. It is made by establish-

ing the vertical distance at a given point between the original

water level and the pumping water level. The

water table

of an unconfined

aquifer

or the potentiometric surface of

a confined aquifer is lowered when a well is pumped, and

an inverted cone of depressions develops around the pump-

ing well.

Changes of drawdown at different distances from the

well are shown with a drawdown curve. Specific capacity is

the rate of

discharge

of water from the well divided by the

drawdown within the well. The drawdown within a well

divided by the discharge rate of water from the well—inverse

of specific capacity—is called specific drawdown.

Water treatment

Water treatment—or the purification and

sanitation

water—varies as to the source and kinds of water. Municipal

waters, for example, consist of surface water and

ground-

water

, and their treatment is to be distinguished from that

of industrial water supplies.

Municipal water supplies are treated by public or pri-

vate water utilities to make the water potable (safe to drink)

and palatable (aesthetically pleasing) and to insure an ade-

quate supply of water to meet the needs of the community

at a reasonable cost. Except in exceedingly rare instances,

the entire supply is treated to drinking

water quality

for

1489

three reasons: it is generally not feasible to supply water of

more than one quality; it is difficult to control public access to

water not treated to drinking water quality; and a substantial

amount of treatment may be required even if the water is

not intended for human consumption.

Raw (untreated) water is withdrawn from either a

surface water supply (such as a lake or stream) or from an

underground

aquifer

(by means of

wells

). The water flows

or is pumped to a central treatment facility. Large municipal-

ities may utilize more than one source and may have more

than one treatment facility. The treated water is then

pumped under pressure into a distribution system, which

typically consists of a network of pipes (water mains) inter-

connected with ground-level or elevated storage facilities

(reservoirs).

As it is withdrawn from the source, surface water is

usually screened through steel bars, typically about 1 in (2.54

cm) thick and about 2 in (5.08 cm) apart, to prevent large

objects such as logs or fish from entering the treatment

facility. Finer screens are sometimes employed to remove

leaves. If the water is highly turbid (cloudy or muddy), it

may be pretreated in a large basin known as a presedimenta-

tion basin to allow time for sand and larger

silt

particles to

settle out.

All surface waters have the potential to carry patho-

genic (disease-causing)

microorganisms

and must be disin-

fected prior to human consumption. Since the adequacy of

disinfection cannot be assured in the presence of turbidity,

it is first necessary to remove the suspended solids causing

the water to be turbid. This is accomplished by a sequence

of treatment processes that typically includes coagulation,

flocculation,

sedimentation

, and

filtration

Coagulation is accomplished by adding chemical coag-

ulants, usually

aluminum

or iron salts, to neutralize the

negative charge on the surfaces of the particles (suspended

solids) present in the water, thereby eliminating the repulsive

forces between the particles and enabling them to aggregate.

Coagulants are usually dispersed in the water by rapid mix-

ing. Other

chemicals

may be added at the same time, includ-

ing powdered activated

carbon

(to absorb taste- and odor-

causing chemicals or to remove synthetic chemicals); chemi-

cal oxidants such as

chlorine

ozone

, chlorine dioxide, or

potassium permanganate (to initiate disinfection, to oxidize

organic contaminants, to control taste and odor, or to oxidize

inorganic contaminants such as iron, manganese, and sul-

fide); and

acid

or base (to control

Coagulated particles are aggregated into large, rapidly

settling “floc” particles by flocculation, accomplished by gen-

tly stirring the water using paddles, turbines, or impellers.

This process typically takes 20 to 30 minutes. The flocculated

water is then gently introduced into a sedimentation basin,

where the floc particles are given about two to four hours

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Water treatment

to settle out. After sedimentation, the water is filtered, most

commonly through 24–30 in (61–76 cm) of sand or anthra-

cite having an effective diameter of about 0.02 in (0.5 mm).

When the raw water is low in turbidity, coagulated or floccu-

lated water may be taken directly to the

filters

, bypassing

sedimentation; this practice is referred to as direct filtration.

Once the water has been filtered, it can be satisfactorily

disinfected. Disinfection is the elimination of pathogenic

microorganisms from the water. It does not render the water

completely sterile but does make it safe to drink from a

microbial standpoint. Most water treatment plants in the

United States rely primarily on chlorine for disinfection.

Some utilities use ozone, chlorine dioxide, chloramines

(formed from chlorine and ammonia), or a combination of

chemicals added at different points during treatment. There

are important advantages and disadvantages associated with

each of these chemicals, and the optimum choice for a partic-

ular water requires careful study and expert advice.

Chemical disinfectants react not only with microor-

ganisms but also with naturally occurring organic matter

present in the water, producing trace amounts of contami-

nants collectively referred to as disinfection byproducts

(DBPs). The most well-known DBPs are the

trihalometh-

anes

. Although DBPs are not known to be toxic at the

concentrations found in drinking water, some are known to

be toxic at much higher concentrations. Therefore, prudence

dictates that reasonable efforts be made to minimize their

presence in drinking water.

The most effective strategy for minimizing DBP for-

mation is to avoid adding chemical disinfectants until the

water has been filtered and to add only the amount required

to achieve adequate disinfection. Some DBPs can be mini-

mized by changing to another disinfectant, but all chemical

disinfectants form DBPs. Regardless of which chemical dis-

infectant is used, great care must be exercised to ensure

adequate disinfection, since the health risks associated with

pathogenic microorganisms greatly outweigh those associ-

ated with DBPs.

There are a number of other processes that may be

employed to treat water, depending on the quality of the

source water and the desired quality of the treated water.

Processes that may be used to treat either surface water or

groundwater include: 1) lime softening, which involves the

addition of lime during rapid mixing to precipitate calcium

and magnesium ions; 2) stabilization, to prevent corrosion

and scale formation, usually by adjusting the pH or alkalinity

of the water or by adding scale inhibitors; 3) activated carbon

adsorption

, to remove taste- and odor-causing chemicals

or synthetic organic contaminants; and 4)

fluoridation

,to

increase the concentration of fluoride to the optimum level

for the prevention of dental cavities.

1490

Compared to surface waters, groundwaters are rela-

tively free of turbidity and pathogenic microorganisms, but

they are more likely to contain unacceptable levels of dis-

solved gases (

carbon dioxide

methane

, and

hydrogen

sulfide), hardness, iron and manganese, volatile organic com-

pounds (VOCs) originating from

chemical spills

or im-

proper waste disposal practices, and

dissolved solids

(

sa-

linity

High-quality groundwaters do not require filtration,

but they are usually disinfected to protect against contamina-

tion of the water as it passes through the distribution system.

Small systems are sometimes exempted from disinfection

requirements if they are able to meet a set of strict criteria.

Groundwaters withdrawn from shallow wells or along riv-

erbanks may be deemed to be “under the influence of surface

water,” in which case they are normally required by law to

be filtered and disinfected.

Hard groundwaters may be treated by lime softening,

as are many hard surface waters, or by

ion exchange

soften-

ing, in which calcium and magnesium ions are exchanged

for sodium ions as the water passes through a bed of ion-

exchange resin. Groundwaters having high levels of dissolved

gases or VOCs are commonly treated by air stripping,

achieved by passing air over small droplets of water to allow

the gases to leave the water and enter the air.

Many groundwaters—approximately one quarter of

those used for public water supply in the United States—are

contaminated with naturally occurring iron and manganese,

which tend to dissolve into groundwater in their chemically

reduced forms in the absence of oxygen. Iron and manganese

are most commonly removed by oxidation (accomplished by

aeration

or by adding a chemical oxidant, such as chlorine

or potassium permanganate) followed by sedimentation and

filtration; by filtration through an adsorptive media; or by

lime softening.

Groundwaters high in dissolved solids may be treated

using reverse osmosis, in which water is forced through

a membrane under high pressure, leaving the salt behind.

Membrane processes are rapidly evolving, and membranes

suitable for removing hardness, dissolved organic matter,

and turbidity from both ground and surface waters have

recently been developed.

Industrial water treatment differs from municipal

treatment in the specified quality of the treated water. Many

industries use water supplied by a local municipality, while

others secure their own source of water. Those securing

water from a private source often treat it using the same

processes used by municipalities. However, industries must

often provide additional treatment to provide water suitable

for their special needs, which may include process water,

boiler feed water, or cooling water.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Waterkeeper Alliance

Process water is water used by an industry in a particu-

lar process or for a group of processes. The quality of water

required depends on the nature of the process. For example,

water used to make white paper must be free of color. In

some instances, water of relatively poor quality may be ac-

ceptable, e.g., water used to granulate steelmaking slags,

while other uses require water of the very highest purity,

e.g., ultrapure water used in the manufacture of silicon chips.

Water used in boilers for thermoelectric or

nuclear

power

generation must be very low in dissolved solids and

must be treated to prevent both corrosion and scale formation

in the boilers, turbines, and condensers. High purity process

waters and boiler feed waters are typically produced using

ion-exchange demineralization and special filters designed

to remove sub-micron sized particles.

Cooling water may be used once (single-pass system)

or many times (closed-loop system). Cooling water used

only once may receive little treatment, typically continuous

or intermittent disinfection to reduce slime growths and

perhaps stabilization to control corrosion and scale forma-

tion. Water entering a closed-loop system may not only be

stabilized and disinfected, but may also be treated to remove

nutrients (

nitrogen

and

phosphorus

) or dissolved solids.

Additional treatment is usually provided in the loop to re-

move dissolved solids that accumulate as a result of evapora-

tion. See also Safe Drinking Water Act

[Stephen J. Randtke]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Peavy, H. S., D. R. Rowe, and G. Tchobanoglous. Environmental Engi-

neering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985.

Water Treatment Plant Design. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.

THER

“Recommended Standards for Water Works.” Great Lakes Upper Missis-

sippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers.

Albany, NY: Health Education Services, 1992.

Waterkeeper Alliance

The Waterkeeper Alliance is an umbrella organization con-

sisting of 86 Waterkeeper programs (as of 2002) located

throughout North and Central America. The mission of the

Alliance is to restore degraded waters and to protect aquatic

environments and is based on the philosophy that protection

of a community’s resources requires the daily vigilance of its

citizens.

The Waterkeeper concept started in 1966 on the

Hud-

son River

in New York, when a coalition of commercial

and recreational fishermen was formed to protect the Hud-

son from

pollution

. The coalition constructed a boat to

1491

patrol the river; in 1983 this coalition, calling itself the

Riverkeepers, using funds from successful lawsuits, hired a

full-time public advocate and began filing lawsuits against

municipal and industrial polluters. By 1998, after over 100

successful legal actions were filed against Hudson River pol-

luters, resulting in $1 billion in

remediation

costs, the Hud-

son River was once again a productive

ecosystem

. The

Hudson River program was modeled after the British Isle

riverkeepers, or game wardens, who were responsible for

protection of private trout and

salmon

streams from

poach-

ing

for estates, manors, and private fishing clubs.

New ecosystem protection programs, with names such

as Lakekeeper, Baykeeper, Coastkeeper, as well as Riv-

erkeeper, have been established, based on the Hudson River

model. In 1992, these programs joined to form the National

Alliance of River, Sound, and Baykeepers, which was re-

named the Waterkeeper Alliance in 1999. Responsibilities of

the Alliance include overseeing new Waterkeeper programs,

licensing the use of Waterkeeper names, organizing confer-

ences, working on issues common to Waterkeeper programs,

and serving as a clearinghouse and networking center for

information and strategy exchange among the programs.

In 2002, the Waterkeeper Alliance was working with local

advocates to establish Keeper programs in Belize, the Czech

Republic, Italy, Poland, and the Philippines. The president

of the Waterkeeper Alliance is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who

also serves as the chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson

Riverkeepers.

A Waterkeeper program may utilize a variety of meth-

ods to protect a water resource, including

water quality

monitoring, participation in planning organizations, public

education, development of technical solutions and remedies

to problems, and litigation to ensure enforcement of environ-

mental regulations and laws. Since most environmental laws

contain citizen suit provisions, the ability of citizens to prose-

cute polluters is an important tool of Keeper organizations.

Another essential component of a Waterkeeper program is

the employment of a “Keeper,” who is a full-time, privately

funded, non-governmental ombudsman who acts as a public

advocate for the identified water body. The Keeper is aided

by a network of local fishermen, environmental experts, and

concerned citizens, who act as a “neighborhood” watch pro-

gram. Most Waterkeeper programs patrol and monitor their

water bodies regularly, by wading with hip boots or using

boats ranging in size from canoes to research vessels. Every

water body has its own set of challenges, and each

Waterkeeper program develops unique strategies to address

those challenges.

Waterkeeper Alliance members are concerned with

many different types of water issues. The Waterkeepers of

Wisconsin are working to prevent water bottling companies

from using spring water. Spring water is a high quality source

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Waterkeeper Alliance

of surface water, as it is cold, oxygenated, and drinkable. If

spring water is used commercially, the Wisconsin

Waterkeepers are concerned that surface water, without re-

charge by spring water, will become polluted as a larger

proportion of recharge would be

runoff

from fields, barn-

yards, and roads.

The California Coastkeeper Alliance (CCKA), a

group composed of the Baja California Coastkeeper, San

Diego Baykeeper, Orange County Coastkeeper, Santa Mon-

ica Baykeeper, Ventura Baykeeper, and Santa Barbara Chan-

nelkeeper, is participating in a Regional Kelp Restoration

Project in coordination with the National Oceanic and At-

mospheric Administration’s Community Based Restoration

Program. Kelp forests provide homes and shelters for a wide

diversity of ocean organisms, including many commercial

and sport fishing

species

. Kelp is also harvested for the

extraction of algin, which is used as a thickening, stabilizing,

and smoothing agent in a variety of commercial products.

However, nearly 80% of the kelp canopy area along the

southern California coast was lost between 1967 and 1999.

Kelp losses are attributed intensified winter storms, low nu-

trients, and warmer sea surface temperatures associated with

El Nin

o events. Increased turbidity,

sedimentation

and

pollution from

wastewater

discharges, increasing human

populations, coastal development, and

storm runoff

nega-

tively affect the ability of kelp to recover naturally. Also

over-fishing of species that prey on sea urchins also affects

kelp forests, for without predators, sea urchin populations

expand; sea urchins using kelp as a food source can decimate

entire forests, creating “urchin barrens.” The CCKA restora-

tion project involves growing kelp in the Kelp

Mariculture

Laboratory, planting juvenile plants, and maintaining kelp

forests. Another component of the project is providing porta-

ble kelp nurseries to schools throughout southern California

to teach students about the importance of kelp to the coastal

ecosystem.

In 2002, the Cook Inletkeeper of Alaska joined with

other environmental activist groups in a citizen’s lawsuit

under the United States

Clean Water Act

to force the United

States Department of the Army and the Department of

Defense to address pollution and safety hazards associated

with past and present bombing of Eagle River Flats. More

than 10,000 unexploded bombs and munitions have contam-

inated Eagle River Flats. The munitions release

chemicals

such as RDX, 2,4-DNT, toxic metals, and other explosive

and propellant compounds that present a danger to

wildlife

and people. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

placed Fort Richardson on the National Priorities (Su-

perfund) List of polluted sites in 1994, but the area has not

yet been remediated.

The New Jersey Baykeeper is sponsoring an oyster

gardening project where volunteers are growing oysters at

1492

their own private piers and marinas. Upon reaching sexual

maturity, the oysters are transplanted to estuaries, where

they serve as spawning stocks to increase the wild population.

The Baykeeper provides seed oysters to volunteers, conducts

workshops to teach volunteers how to grow oysters, and

places oysters in the estuaries. Oyster populations in the

New Jersey and New York areas have decreased due to over-

harvesting, pollution,

siltation

, and disease.

The Columbia Riverkeeper has been working with

other groups of activists in a fight to remove the Condit

Dam on the White Salmon River in southern Washington.

It is estimated that removal of the Condit Dam would result

in recovery of more than 4,000 salmon and steelhead in

the White Salmon River per year. The Dam, owned by

PacificCorps, is 90 years old, cracking, and produces only

14 megawatts of energy. In 1999, PacificCorps agreed to

remove the Condit Dam by 2007. However, the agreement

must be approved by the Federal Environmental Regulatory

Commission, and county commissioners have suggested that

the local county government operate the dam in place of

PacificCorps.

The Hudson Bay Riverkeeper is working with govern-

ment, business, civic, and environmental leaders to shut

down the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in order that

a full review of the plant’s operating safety procedures and

its emergency preparedness plans. Indian Point is located

30 mi (48 km) from New York City, with 20 million people

(20% of the population of the United States) living within

50 mi (80 km) radius of the plant. It is a potential terrorist

target due to its proximity to major financial centers, major

transportation

centers, and drinking water reservoirs for

Westchester County and New York City, and due to its

inventory of highly radioactive materials. In 2000 Indian

Point was given a “red” designation by the United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, giving it the highest

risk assessment

. The rating was based on operators’ failure

to detect flaws in a steam generator tube before a radiation

leak. In December 2001, Indian Point received a notice of

“substantial” safety concerns from the U.S. Nuclear Regula-

tory Commission when four control room crews failed to

pass annual re-qualification tests.

The San Diego Baykeeper has been focusing on ship-

yard pollution since its formation in 1995. San Diego Bay,

with 56% of its sediments acutely toxic to marine organisms,

was ranked in 1996 as the second most toxic of 18 United

States bays studied by the National Oceanic Atmospheric

Administration. For ten years, the Bay has been posted with

warnings to avoid eating bay fish because of elevated levels

mercury

arsenic

, and

polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs). Major contributors of contamination to the bay

include shipbuilding and repair facilities that serve the

United States Navy and commercial oil tankers, dry cargo

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Watershed management

carriers, ferries, and cruise lines. The Baykeeper’s first activi-

ties focused on preventing ongoing and future pollution by

suing shipyards over chronic stormwater permit violations.

Additional activities now include campaigns to challenge

and/or force shipyards, local and state regulators, and elected

officials to remediate existing contaminated sediments.

The Santa Monica Baykeeper refers to itself as a “citi-

zen” park ranger for Santa Monica Bay, San Pedro Bay,

and adjacent coastal waters and watersheds. The Baykeeper

maintains a 24-hour Pollution Hotline, recruits members

and volunteers to serve as an “observer flotilla” and environ-

mental watch prograram, provides a public awareness pro-

gram that includes lectures and displays, publicizes violator

“busts,” tests the bay’s water and sediments and provides the

results to the public and government agencies, and partici-

pates in legal prosecution of violators.

The Waterkeeper Alliance has launched a national

campaign in the United States to focus on protecting water-

ways from pollution caused by Confined Animal Feeding

Operations, or CAFOs. Activities include filing lawsuits

against animal producers, alleging that they have polluted

waterways, working with farmers to reduce chemical use and

improve animal environments, and educating consumers.

[Judith L. Sims]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Kennedy Jr., Robert F., and John Cronin. The Riverkeepers. New York:

Simon and Schuster, 1999.

ERIODICALS

Rosenblatt, Roger. “Heroes for the Planet: In Search of the Beauty and

Mystery of Home.” Time.com August 2, 1999 [cited July 2002]. <http://

www.time.com/time/reports/environment/heroes/heroesgallery/

0,2967,kennedy,00.html>.

THER

The Hudson Riverkeepers. Videotape. Outside Television, 1998.

The Waterkeepers. Videotape. Outside Television. 2000.

RGANIZATIONS

Waterkeeper Alliance, 78 North Broadway, Bldg. E, White Plains, NY

USA 10603 (914)422-4410, Fax: (914)422-4437, Email:

info@waterkeeper.org , <http://www.waterkeeper.org>

Waterless toilets

see

Toilets

Waterlogging

Saturation of

soil

with water, usually through

irrigation

resulting in a condition under which most crop plants cannot

grow. Although naturally wet soils are extremely common,

1493

human-caused waterlogging occurring on active croplands

has created the most concern. Where fields are irrigated

regularly, some means of

drainage

is usually necessary to

let excess water escape, but if drainage is inadequate, water

gradually accumulates, filling pore spaces in the soil. Once

the oxygen in these pores is displaced by water, plant roots

and soil

microorganisms

die. Waterlogging frequently oc-

curs where

flooding

has been used. There are two main

reasons for flooding: it is a simple, low-technology method

of irrigation and in some cases it reduces harmful mineral

concentrations in soils. Ideally, flood waters seep through

the soil and into

groundwater

or stream channels, but in

many agricultural regions, impermeable layers of clay block

downward drainage so that irrigation water collects in the

soil. Farmers who can afford it avoid this problem by install-

ing some means of field drainage, such as perforated pipes

below ground. However, the expense of this procedure is

prohibitive in many regions. See also Soil conservation; Soil

eluviation

Watershed

A catchment or

drainage

basin that is the total area of land

that drains into a water body. It is usually a topographically

delineated area that is drained by a stream system.

River

basins

are large watersheds that contribute to water flow

in a river. The watershed of a lake is the total land area that

drains into the lake. In addition to being hydrologic units,

watersheds are useful units of land for planning and manag-

ing multiple

natural resources

. By using the watershed as

a planning unit, management activities and their effects can

be determined for the land area that is directly affected by

management. The hydrologic effects of land management

downstream can be evaluated as well. Sometimes

land use

and management can alter the quantity and quality of water

that flows to downstream communities. By considering a

watershed, many of these environmental effects can be taken

into consideration. See also Watershed management

Watershed management

Watershed

management is planning, guiding, and organiz-

ing

land use

so that desired goods and services are produced

from a watershed without harming

soil

productivity and

water resources

. Goods and services produced from water-

sheds include food, forage for livestock and

wildlife

, wood

and other forest products, outdoor

recreation

, wildlife

habi-

tat

, scenic beauty, and water. Essential to watershed man-

agement is the recognition that production must be accom-

panied by environmental protection.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

James G. Watt

The specific objectives of watershed management de-

pend on human needs in a particular area and can include: (1)

the

rehabilitation

of degraded lands; (2) the protection of

soil and water resources under land use systems that produce

multiple products of the land; and (3) the enhancement of

water quantity and quality. Rehabilitating degraded lands is

sometimes mistakenly thought of as the only role of watershed

management. Rehabilitation requires that both the produc-

tivity and hydrologic function of degraded lands be restored.

Thisusually entails the construction of engineeringstructures,

such as gully control

dams

, followed by vegetation establish-

ment, protection, and management, all of which are needed

to achieve long-term healing of the landscape.

Most fundamental to watershed management is the

prevention of land and water resource degradation in the

first place. To achieve this goal, land use must adhere to

conservation

practices that avoid land degradation. The

greatest potential for degradation arises from road construc-

tion, mining, crop cultivation,

logging

, and

overgrazing

by livestock in steep terrain. When management guidelines

are not followed, soils erode and land productivity is dimin-

ished. The loss of soil and vegetative cover reduces the

effectiveness of watersheds in moderating the flow of water,

sediment

, and other waterborne substances. As a result,

damage to aquatic ecosystems and human communities can

occur in areas that are positioned downslope or downstream.

To achieve sustainable land use, the development of and

adherence to land use guidelines and conservation practices

must become commonplace.

Preventing degradation of

wetlands

and

riparian

land

is of particular environmental concern. These soil-vege-

tation communities require special management and protec-

tion because the wet soils are susceptible to excessive

erosion

Furthermore, riparian vegetation provides valuable wildlife

habitat and plays a critical role in protecting

water quality

In some parts of the world, watershed management

can be aimed at enhancing water resources. In some instances

vegetative cover can be altered to increase water yield or to

change the pattern of water flow for beneficial purposes. No

matter what the specific objectives, watershed management

recognizes that human use of land is usually aimed at produc-

ing a variety of goods and services, of which water is one

product. By following the principles of soil and

water con-

servation

, land and

natural resources

can be managed for

sustainable production with environmental protection. See

also Sustainable agriculture; Sustainable development

[Kenneth N. Brooks]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Black, P. E. Watershed Hydrology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1991.

1494

Brooks, K. N., et al. “Watershed Management: A Key to Sustainability.”

In Managing the World’s Forests, edited by N. P. Sharma. Dubuque, IA:

Kendall/Hunt, 1992.

Satterlund, D. R. and P. W. Adams. Wildland Watershed Management. 2nd

ed. New York: Wiley, 1992.

ERIODICALS

Brooks, K. N., et al. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Ames,

IA: Iowa State University Press, 1991.

James G. Watt (1938 – )

American former Secretary of the Interior

James Gaius Watt was born in Lusk, Wyoming, and raised

in nearby Wheatland, a town one of his critics described

as “a place frozen in amber decades ago—the 1890s plus

electricity and TV.” As President Ronald Reagan’s first Sec-

retary of the Interior, Watt was heavily criticized for his

position on

conservation

. He remains an icon of what

environmentalists oppose. His memory was recalled during

George W. Bush’s administration, when his former staffer,

Gale Norton, became Secretary of the Interior.

Watt came to the

U.S. Department of the Interior

from a position as founding president of the Mountain States

Legal Foundation (MSLF) in Denver, a conservative group

that acted on the behalf of oil, timber, development, and

mineral corporations. Started with money from Joseph

Coors, of Coors Brewery, the MSLF took donations from

some 175 corporations. MSLF was closely identified with an

anti-environmental movement called Wise Use. The group

promoted so-called “takings” legislation, which asked that

private and corporate landholders be compensated by the

government for having to comply with environmental laws,

such as

habitat

protection. Watt initiated aggressive legal

tactics at MSLF, filing lawsuits and pursuing pro-business

legislation on the

environment

in a way that hadn’t been

done before. MSLF enraged environmentalists and attracted

Ronald Reagan, who plucked its president to head his Inte-

rior Department. Within months of Watt’s appointment,

environmentalists began to criticize his conservative policies.

Watt maintained his actions were for the good of the people

and the free enterprise system.

During his tenure as Secretary of the Interior, Watt cut

funds for environmental programs, such as those protecting

endangered species

, and reorganized the department to

put less regulatory power on the federal level. He favored

the elimination of the Land and

Water Conservation

Fund,

which increased the land holdings of national forests, na-

tional

wildlife

refuges, and national parks and made match-

ing grants to state governments to do the same. Watt also

favored opening extensive shorelands and

wilderness

areas

for oil and gas leases, speeding the sale of public lands to

private interests and doing so at bargain prices. Watt also

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Wave power

loosened regulations on oil and mineral resource extraction

companies.

Watt’s stay was marked by heavy and repeated criti-

cisms of his policies, even by fellow Republicans. In April

of 1981, the

Sierra Club

and others began a “Dump Watt”

petition drive and in October of that year presented Congress

with 1.1 million signatures supporting his dismissal. Even

the relatively conservative

National Wildlife Federation

called for Watt’s removal within six months of his taking

office, stating that Watt “places a much higher priority on

development and exploitation than on conservation.” Watt’s

actions and derogatory remarks about Senate members

earned him a number of enemies, which hampered his ability

to carry out his policies. He resigned his post on October

9, 1983, after he made remarks about a Senate advisory panel

consisting of “a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.”

Outrage at his bigotry led the Senate to draft a resolution

calling for his dismissal, but Watt stepped down before he

was forced out. In 1996 Watt pleaded guilty to a minor

charge of attempting to sway a grand jury investigation in

the 1980s, and he was fined and given five years probation.

Watt’s legacy was revived in the early 2000s when George W.

Bush nominated Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior.

Norton had worked under Watt at the Mountain States

Legal Foundation and was seen as having similar stances

and goals as her predecessor. A spokesperson for the environ-

mental group National Resource Defense Council called

Norton’s nomination “...de

vu all over again...” implying

environmentalists would have to fight the battles Watt had

ignited in the 1980s a second time. Watt himself was de-

lighted with the nomination of Norton, and seemed to feel

the president’s choice showed that Watt’s ideas of 20 years

earlier were still current.

[Gerald L. Young Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

Bratton, S. P. “The Ecotheology of James Watt.” Environmental Ethics 5

(Fall 1983): 225–236.

Coggins, G. C., and Nagel, D.K. “Nothing Beside Remains: The Legal

Legacy of James G. Watt’s Tenure as Secretary of the Interior on Federal

Land Law and Policy.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review

17 (Spring 1990): 473-550.

Hissom, Doug. “No Flash with Norton.” Shepherd Express Metro 22, no.

3 (January 18, 2001).

Soraghan, Mike. “Watt Applauds Bush Energy Strategy.” Denver Post (May

16, 2001): A1.

RGANIZATIONS

Mountain States Legal Foundation, 707 17th Street, Suite 3030, Denver,

CO USA 80202 (303) 292-2021, Fax: (303) 292-1980, <http://

www.mountainstateslegal.com>.

1495

Wave power

The oceans are an enormous

reservoir

of energy. One form

in which that energy appears is waves. The energy in waves

is derived from the

wind energy

that generates them. Since

wind currents are produced by

solar energy

, wave energy

is a renewable source of energy.

Humans have invented devices for capturing the power

of waves at least as far back as the time of Leonardo da

Vinci. The first modern device for generating electricity from

wave power was patented by two French scientists in 1799.

In the United States, more than 150 patents for wave power

machines have been granted.

Harnessing the energy of wave motion presents many

practical problems. For example, while the total amount of

wave energy in the oceans is very great, the quantity available

at any one specific point is usually quite small. For purposes

of comparison, an wave that is 8 ft (2.4 m) tall contains the

same potential energy as a hydroelectric dam 8 ft high.

One technical problem inventors face, therefore, is to

find a way to magnify the energy of waves in an area. A

second problem is to design a machine that will work effi-

ciently with waves of different sizes. Over a period of days,

weeks, or months, a region of the sea may be still, it may

experience waves of moderate size, or it may be hit by a

huge storm. A wave power machine has to be able to survive

and to function under all these conditions.

Wave power has been seriously studied as an alterna-

tive energy source in the United States since the early 1970s.

An experimental device constructed at the Scripps Institute

of Oceanography, for example, consisted of a buoy to which

was attached a long pipe with a trap near its top. As the

buoy moved up and down in the waves, water entered the

pipe and was captured in the trap. After a certain number

of waves had occurred, enough water had been captured to

drive a small turbine and electrical generator. One of the

first Scripps devices consisted of a pipe 8 in (20 cm) in

diameter and 320 ft (98 m) long. It was able to generate 50

watts of electricity. Scripps researchers hoped eventually to

construct a machine with a pipe 15 ft (4.5 m) in diameter

and 300 ft (91.5 m) long. They expected such a machine to

produce 300 kilowatts of energy in 8-ft (2.4 m) waves.

Research on wave power in the United States essen-

tially died out in the early 1980s, as did research on most

other forms of

alternative energy sources

. That research

has continued in other countries, however, especially in Ja-

pan, Great Britain, and Norway. The Norwegians have had

the greatest success. By 1989, they had constructed two

prototype wave machines on the coast west of Bergen. The

machines were located on the shore and operated by using

air pumped into a large tower by the rise and fall of waves.

The compressed air was then used to drive a turbine and

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Weather modification

generator. Unfortunately, one of the towers was destroyed by

a series of severe storms in December 1989. The Norwegians

appear to be convinced about the potential value of wave

power, however, and their research on wave machines con-

tinues.

Great Britain has had a more checkered interest in

wave power. One of the most ambitious wave machines,

known as Salter’s Duck, was first proposed in the early 1970s.

In this device, the riding motion of waves is used to force

water through small pipes. The high-pressure water is then

used to drive a turbine and generator.

The British government was so impressed with the

potential of wave power that it outlined plans in April 1976

for a 2,000-

megawatt

station. Only six years later, the

government changed its mind, however, and abandoned all

plans to use wave power.

Fossil fuels

and

nuclear power

had, meanwhile, regained their position as the major—and

perhaps only—energy sources in the nation’s future.

Then, in 1989, the British government changed its

mind yet again. It announced a new review of the potential

of wave power with the possibility of constructing plants off

the British coast. One of the designs to be tested was a

modification of a Norwegian device, the Tapchan (for “ta-

pered channel"). The Tapchan is designed to be installed

on a shoreline where waves can flow into a large chamber

filled with air. As waves enter the chamber, they compress

the air, which then flows though a valve and into a turbine.

The compressed air rotates the turbine and drives a genera-

tor. The prototype for this machine was installed at Islay,

Scotland, in the early 1990s.

Wave power has many obvious advantages. The raw

materials (water and wind) are free and abundant, no harmful

pollutants are released to the

environment

, and land is not

taken out of use. However, the technology for using wave

power is still not well-developed. It can be used only along

coasts, and is still not economically competitive with tradi-

tional energy sources. See also Alternative energy sources;

Hydrogeology; Land use; Renewable resources

[David E. Newton]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Charlier, R. H. Tidal Energy. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982.

ERIODICALS

Fisher, A. “Wave Power.” Popular Science (May 1975): 68–73+.

“Norway Waves Goodbye to Wave Power Machine.” New Scientist (January

14, 1989): 31.

Ross, D. “On the Crest of a Wave.” New Scientist (May 19, 1990): 50–52.

Hersh, S. L. “Waves of Power.” Sea Frontiers (February 1991): 7.

1496

Weather

see

Climate; Meteorology; Milankovitch

weather cycles; Weather modification

Weather modification

When Mark Twain said that everybody talks about the

weather, but nobody does anything about it, he was wrong.

In fact, the rain falling on his California roof at that moment

might have been generated by secret

chemicals

being dif-

fused into clouds by a hired rainmaker named Charles Hat-

field. Hatfield got rich selling rain to farmers in the San

Joaquin Valley until he was run out of the state of California

by angry San Diegoans who accused him of triggering a

flood.

Experiments in rainmaking flourished in the early

1900s in American farmlands where

drought

meant not

only hunger but poverty. A little like snake-oil salesmen,

early rainmakers sold their ability to make it rain, but it was

always ambiguous: when it worked, they were paid. More

often, it was hard to tell if they had performed their promised

service. Lawsuits were abundant when rain intended for an

arid

area fell across the statelines or caused floods, or when

barley growers, pressured by beer companies, paid for rain

that coincidentally wiped out other crops of neighboring

farmers.

Controlling weather raises myriad questions. Is there

an accurate scientific way of measuring human intervention

in weather? Who is legally responsible if it rains in the wrong

place? Does the community feel that augmenting rainfall is

good for everyone? If it rains too much, can the rainmaker

be sued? How much does local intervention affect global

climate

? Should regulations be in the hands of the state,

the federal government, or a world organization?

For better or worse, people can modify weather both

intentionally and inadvertently. Weather responds sensi-

tively to any changes in the global

atmosphere

because it

is a complex collection of energy systems powered by the

sun. Modest rises in sea surface temperature in the Atlantic

Ocean, for example, brought about by ocean circulation shifts

or global warming, suppresses rainfall in the African

Sahel

and contributes to drought.

Sensitive climate changes are also caused by such hu-

man activities as cutting down forests or failing to let farm-

fields lie fallow, which, with

overgrazing

by cattle, sheep,

and goats, cause

desertification

, a condition that results

when

topsoil

blows away and exposes bare, unplantable land.

This increases

albedo

, the reflective quality of the surface

of the earth, sends back solar radiation into space, and lowers

temperature. With less heat rising, fewer clouds are formed,

and rainfall is reduced.