I am so excited to have found your newsletter! As you have highlighted in today’s post, US Water Law needs to be revised with an acceptance of the new reality: we have planet wide net potable water loss.
No current water law reflects the science.
Now that we understand that it is all one water underground, the law needs to be changed.
I would like to brainstorm ways to help non-science readers understand the survival importance of water, and the importance of changing the law.
I can think of several areas of water law that need amendment.
One, aquifers and wetlands need to be included in the protections of the Clean Water Act to reflect the reality that they are part of the same system. (
Reference the poor decision by the SCOTUS this summer.)
Two, water rights need to move away from the “right of the longest straw” to drain groundwater, and towards an understanding that we share a scarce resource that we hold in common.
Third, we desperately need a human right to water law to capture the individual’s right to water for living and drinking. Since SCOTUS decision against the Navajo Nation re rights to water from the Colorado River in 2023, it is clear that we individuals need law to protect our right to adequate drinking water.
I have been pleased to see more coverage of water in the NYT and on Substack, but I haven’t been able to find groups talking about changing water law.
I’m no expert, and I have no power- I’m an OBGyn in Texas of all places- but it sure seems to me that changing water laws to reflect new understanding is the way to proceed.
And I’d like to be part of the solution....so I will keep reading and sharing this newsletter. Thank you
So much to think about and respond to here I need to restrain myself. One thing is that it lifts my spirits a bit to hear that 40 people showed up to learn about their aquifer. Whenever I see people engaging with understanding how their local water works, it’s heartening. (That happened here twice: once when my town voted to raise the local tourism tax in order to purchase part of our watershed, conservation land offered to the community at a discount by a family-owned timber company. And again when a county-wide fight ensued over a water bottling plant that got permits even after it was proven that that they would drain the aquifer significantly enough that people’s wells would run dry. That was much messier. The courts recently revoked the permit but I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of it.)
Years ago I supported the work on the Lower Duwamish Superfund site with NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration.
I'm trying to find the paper, but your point about groundwater being tidally influenced reminded me about a problem the scientists had. In the Lower Duwamish, groundwater monitoring detected concentrations of contaminants. The scientists spent way too long trying to find the then unconfirmed aquifer that's supposed to be around Lower Duwamish Valley. As far as the instruments were concerned, they were just randomly picking up trace containments around once or twice a month at the lowest tides because that was when the groundwater was least saline (and had more Boeing affected river water).
Great post, John! Good — and important — info. Marrowstone had all kinds of trouble with saltwater intrusion, even though it doesn’t have a large population...wells were still pulling more water out than was going back in. It’s such a tiny island, and still in the rain shadow. By the time I got here, city water was already flowing from Hadlock, though I know a lot of the islanders were originally against the idea. Now, I believe most residents are on city water, but there are those who still choose to use their wells instead.
We have a slightly different problem in the Rust Belt. The aging water and sewer infrastructure is a multi-billion dollar problem. Home owners rebel when they see their water bills start to creep up to pay for clean drinking water, but there’s no way around it. You can try incentivizing eco-friendly alternatives, but that won’t be enough. It’s going to take economic investment.
I am so excited to have found your newsletter! As you have highlighted in today’s post, US Water Law needs to be revised with an acceptance of the new reality: we have planet wide net potable water loss.
No current water law reflects the science.
Now that we understand that it is all one water underground, the law needs to be changed.
I would like to brainstorm ways to help non-science readers understand the survival importance of water, and the importance of changing the law.
I can think of several areas of water law that need amendment.
One, aquifers and wetlands need to be included in the protections of the Clean Water Act to reflect the reality that they are part of the same system. (
Reference the poor decision by the SCOTUS this summer.)
Two, water rights need to move away from the “right of the longest straw” to drain groundwater, and towards an understanding that we share a scarce resource that we hold in common.
Third, we desperately need a human right to water law to capture the individual’s right to water for living and drinking. Since SCOTUS decision against the Navajo Nation re rights to water from the Colorado River in 2023, it is clear that we individuals need law to protect our right to adequate drinking water.
I have been pleased to see more coverage of water in the NYT and on Substack, but I haven’t been able to find groups talking about changing water law.
I’m no expert, and I have no power- I’m an OBGyn in Texas of all places- but it sure seems to me that changing water laws to reflect new understanding is the way to proceed.
And I’d like to be part of the solution....so I will keep reading and sharing this newsletter. Thank you
So much to think about and respond to here I need to restrain myself. One thing is that it lifts my spirits a bit to hear that 40 people showed up to learn about their aquifer. Whenever I see people engaging with understanding how their local water works, it’s heartening. (That happened here twice: once when my town voted to raise the local tourism tax in order to purchase part of our watershed, conservation land offered to the community at a discount by a family-owned timber company. And again when a county-wide fight ensued over a water bottling plant that got permits even after it was proven that that they would drain the aquifer significantly enough that people’s wells would run dry. That was much messier. The courts recently revoked the permit but I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of it.)
Lawns: 👎
I think I live near you!
Years ago I supported the work on the Lower Duwamish Superfund site with NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration.
I'm trying to find the paper, but your point about groundwater being tidally influenced reminded me about a problem the scientists had. In the Lower Duwamish, groundwater monitoring detected concentrations of contaminants. The scientists spent way too long trying to find the then unconfirmed aquifer that's supposed to be around Lower Duwamish Valley. As far as the instruments were concerned, they were just randomly picking up trace containments around once or twice a month at the lowest tides because that was when the groundwater was least saline (and had more Boeing affected river water).
Great post, John! Good — and important — info. Marrowstone had all kinds of trouble with saltwater intrusion, even though it doesn’t have a large population...wells were still pulling more water out than was going back in. It’s such a tiny island, and still in the rain shadow. By the time I got here, city water was already flowing from Hadlock, though I know a lot of the islanders were originally against the idea. Now, I believe most residents are on city water, but there are those who still choose to use their wells instead.
We have a slightly different problem in the Rust Belt. The aging water and sewer infrastructure is a multi-billion dollar problem. Home owners rebel when they see their water bills start to creep up to pay for clean drinking water, but there’s no way around it. You can try incentivizing eco-friendly alternatives, but that won’t be enough. It’s going to take economic investment.