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
First of all, I love your handle. Secondly, thank you for continuing to practice your profession under what must be significant duress.
Yes to everything else. All our environmental laws - SDWA, CWA, CERCLA, ESA - are around the same vintage, under threat, and not fit for the challenges of the 21st century, from PFAS to climate change. They're all in need of an update.
A good friend at EPA tells me that agency was caught flatfooted in 2016. They thought they would have more time to finish what they were working on. Right now, they're trying to gt open project completed by April to put them beyond the reach of congressional reachback.
Let's home the next session is an opportunity to tackle some of these structural problems.
Thank you for saying that about my handle. My real name is Nancy Binford, and I live in Austin. I was catching some flack from commenters regarding women’s health, and my family convinced me to change my moniker to avoid swatting and doxxing! I still feel wierd about not using my name, though, when others put their names out there.
Not so much a list, but here are some suggestions.
There are a number of really good publications on water issues. A favorite is Circle of Blue https://www.circleofblue.org/
The classic book for water in the west, much of which would apply to Texas too, is Cadillac Desert by Marc Reissner. For near-future dystopian water fiction, The Water Knife by Paulo Bacigalupi.
Apart from that I have a network of friends at EPA, State and County agencies. I can write what they can't!
You seem to be doing a good job of keeping up speed. The Navajos are the only tribe to get primacy over their water, although it doesn't seem to do them much good.
Be careful of putting your actual moniker in a comment, tho’ I imagine Mostly Water (so far) flies under the radar. I suspect the bots are able to sieve comments even if actual humans would lose interest.
Water laws definitely need to change. From the clean water act to how many states deal with water rights...like Texas!
Texas water law has a complex history, and the state has run into a lot of trouble over the years because of their water use laws and because they’ve not updated them to account for drought seasons (at least they hadn’t when I was down there).
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).
I tell people the reason Georgetown beer is so good is the Duwamish River water. Most don't get it.
The Duwamish is a mess in so many ways, still. To dredge or not dredge the PCBs. Horrendous contamination still there from WWII and cold war aircraft building. Tribe still without recognition. First stop for new immigrants. Unhoused population.
It's the poster child in the Seattle area for environmental injustice, to the extent it's hard sometimes to get attention for some of the other problem areas.
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
First of all, I love your handle. Secondly, thank you for continuing to practice your profession under what must be significant duress.
Yes to everything else. All our environmental laws - SDWA, CWA, CERCLA, ESA - are around the same vintage, under threat, and not fit for the challenges of the 21st century, from PFAS to climate change. They're all in need of an update.
A good friend at EPA tells me that agency was caught flatfooted in 2016. They thought they would have more time to finish what they were working on. Right now, they're trying to gt open project completed by April to put them beyond the reach of congressional reachback.
Let's home the next session is an opportunity to tackle some of these structural problems.
And thank you for reading and sharing!
Thank you for saying that about my handle. My real name is Nancy Binford, and I live in Austin. I was catching some flack from commenters regarding women’s health, and my family convinced me to change my moniker to avoid swatting and doxxing! I still feel wierd about not using my name, though, when others put their names out there.
Do you have a reading list for these topics?
Lovely to meet you, Nancy, and I understand.
Not so much a list, but here are some suggestions.
There are a number of really good publications on water issues. A favorite is Circle of Blue https://www.circleofblue.org/
The classic book for water in the west, much of which would apply to Texas too, is Cadillac Desert by Marc Reissner. For near-future dystopian water fiction, The Water Knife by Paulo Bacigalupi.
Apart from that I have a network of friends at EPA, State and County agencies. I can write what they can't!
You seem to be doing a good job of keeping up speed. The Navajos are the only tribe to get primacy over their water, although it doesn't seem to do them much good.
Be careful of putting your actual moniker in a comment, tho’ I imagine Mostly Water (so far) flies under the radar. I suspect the bots are able to sieve comments even if actual humans would lose interest.
Water laws definitely need to change. From the clean water act to how many states deal with water rights...like Texas!
Texas water law has a complex history, and the state has run into a lot of trouble over the years because of their water use laws and because they’ve not updated them to account for drought seasons (at least they hadn’t when I was down there).
Thanks Desserae, yes, Texas is in denial.
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: 👎
Oh, no need to restrain yourself!
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).
I tell people the reason Georgetown beer is so good is the Duwamish River water. Most don't get it.
The Duwamish is a mess in so many ways, still. To dredge or not dredge the PCBs. Horrendous contamination still there from WWII and cold war aircraft building. Tribe still without recognition. First stop for new immigrants. Unhoused population.
It's the poster child in the Seattle area for environmental injustice, to the extent it's hard sometimes to get attention for some of the other problem areas.
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.
Forgot to say thank you!
Yes, a neighbor's son lives on Marrowstone and was one of the holdouts. Glad you're on city water.
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.
Yes indeed. Almost everywhere has some issue with drinking water.