The Problem
Clean water is an essential ingredient for human survival, but it is one that is becoming increasingly scarce. With exploding human population and ever-expanding urban sprawl, basic non-anthropogenic watershed ecological services cannot be performed at a rate that can sustain the current demand for water. Recent droughts in much of the world have exacerbated this problem by limiting not only the cleanliness of water, but also the quantity of water available1. Without a sustainable potable water supply, water-borne diseases will run rampant, human health will suffer, and population will decline.
Fresh water scarcity may not seem like a problem in the United States, but soon it will be a defining issue in our survival. Globally averaged, each person has about 1000 cubic meters of water per year. While this number may sound high, 1700 cubic meters per year is considered water stress and in the middle of the 20th century, the per capita fresh water available was 4000 cubic meters per year2. In 2005, the US per capita water withdrawal rate, not including power generation, was 950 cubic meters per year3. If we ignore this problem and allow these trends to continue, there will be major conflicts in the very near future, and, only slightly farther down the road, mass human population decline will occur.
Our Position
One major contributing factor to fresh water quality and quantity decline is urban sprawl and poor city planning. By covering huge land areas with impervious surfaces, developers have prevented water from entering the soil, where most large scale water filtration occurs. In order to avoid the extreme fresh water scarcity dilemma, this trend must be reversed. The simplest first step is simply to change planning codes for suburbs (and to a lesser extent cities) to encourage more use of green space in order to maximize permeable ground surface area. New York was able to reverse the declining trend of their water quality by enacting responsible, non-invasive regulations such as cluster housing and vegetated, permeable islands in cul-de-sac turnarounds4. As population grows, however, more drastic measures will need to occur to support the growing demand for clean water.
One proven method for smart city planning is exemplified by the city of Portland, Oregon. By delineating a distinct boundary to the city, Portland preserved green space in outlying areas rather than creating the ever expanding urban sprawl seen in most US cities today. In addition to the city boundaries, there is also conserved green space for parks located inside the city. This abundance of nearby vegetation and the fact that the city is easily navigated on foot, have improved air quality as well. The wise utilization of ecological services has undoubtedly saved the municipality money as well as lowering air and water quality related health costs to its citizens5.
Another viable smart growth option is transit oriented development (TOD). By arranging a city into multiple walkable ‘nodes’ that are arranged around a central mass transit hub, the need for impermeable highways is eliminated, urban sprawl is unnecessary, and valuable ecological services can be performed by the enormous amounts of conserved green space. There are many similar benefits between TOD and Portland’s city boundaries, but TOD also eliminates the need for automotive transportation of any kind. Unfortunately, TOD cannot easily be retrofitted to existing cities, so its applicability is nearly exclusively limited to new urban growth.
Their Positions
To assume, as the techno-optimists would, that water needs can be satisfied through technological advancement alone is risky and hubristic. While water treatment technology is advancing, it is not keeping up with our current demand growth rate. Much of the world is already at water crisis level. Even in developed countries like Turkey, car washing and lawn watering have been prohibited in some cities, and reservoirs are only holding 5% of their capacity1. Without a huge technological breakthrough in the immediate future, technology cannot solve our clean water problems.
Just as unrealistic as the techno-optimists, some people believe that water conservation efforts can solve the problem. Simply using less water will not prevent future degradation of water supplies and will likely need to another water crisis in a few short years. Water conservation efforts should be mandatory, but more is needed to supply fresh water to the entire population.
Conclusion
Smart growth and radical city zoning to preserve green space are the only answer to the critical clean water issues we face today. Technological advances in water treatment are needed, and water conservation efforts are positively necessary, but the only sure bet to increasing water quality is green space conservation.
References
1. Engelhardt, Tom. (November 16, 2007) How Dry We Are? A Question No One Wants to Raise About Drought. TomDispatch.com
2. (April 22, 2008) Some scary water stats from an expert news.cnet.com
3. Barber, Nancy (October 22, 2009) Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2005 water.usgs.gov
4. Kendall, Barbara (Summer, 2007) Better Site Design: New Tools to Protect Water Resources www.pace.edu
5. State of Oregon (May 8, 2009) State Statutes www.oregon.gov
Group A states that the reason for water scarcity is urban sprawl and poor land management practices. The huge suburbs and cities comprised of impermeable surfaces do not allow for the absorption and filtration of water that we rely on to get clean drinking water. This group proposes that we start using different city planning methods like those in Portland, Oregon and New York. These cities use planning methods that maximize green space in parks and on city boundaries, as well as keeping people localized so that public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic are far more common than the use of personal vehicles. For larger cities, Transit Oriented Development can be used. TOD is basically the same city planning method as described before, except people are localized around several public transportation "nodes." Group A argues that using technology, as techno-optimists would, will not be able to meet all of the demands for clean water. Purely conserving water will also not solve the problem because it doesn't prevent further water supply degradation. Although I agree completely with this group's development plans for new cities, what do they plan to do to current cities to fix this problem? Because this is a problem now, we need a plan to deal with the current situation, not just the future.
ReplyDeleteWater shortage concerns must be met with zoning and smart growth in order to sustain watersheds and forests, even if it means decreased property values or taking away property rights. This group provided good statistics on water use per capita and the current decline in water available. The ideas of increasing permeable land, creating well-defined city limits that prevent urban sprawl, and transit oriented development are all great ideas to combat declining air and water quality in cities. However, where do you address concerns about property rights and values? It may be hard to implement these solutions when not everyone is on the same page. You also state that smart growth and zoning are “the only answer” but later concede that technological advancements may help to address future water concerns as well.
ReplyDeleteGroup A suggests that the collective need for water is greater than the personal freedom of any individual American. They advocate sweeping changes in planning practice for new development. This group suggests that we need to incorporate much more permeable green space into existing urban areas and, especially, new development. They essentially justify the forfeiture of property rights for the purpose of supplying drinking water to the masses. However, they do not even mention this critical issue in their position paper.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that the best way to solve our current water crisis is to use smart growth and Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Due to the fact that the majority of our water problems are caused by urban growth and the rapid development, I do believe that this would be a good way to approach the problem at hand. This solution will enable water to soak into soil again, by restraining the amount of impervious area, allowing our natural filters to do their work. In addition it will allow a less developed country side with more aesthetic pleasing features.
ReplyDeleteGroup A defined their problem well and included statistics that supported the decrease in water supply due to human demands and population growth. Group A suggests that we need invest in smart growth and improve our city planning to preserve green spaces. Since most of the large scale water filtration occurs in the soil, it is critical to change city planning codes to encourage the use of more green spaces. To illustrate this point, Portland, Oregon is preserving green spaces in outlying areas rather than expanding urban sprawl, as well as preserving green spaces for parks in the city. Not only does the preservation of green spaces impact water quality, it also improves air quality, which further improves with transit oriented development that will decrease the need for automotive transportation in new urban growth areas.
ReplyDeleteGood position, however, I am just wondering what about those people that enjoy their space away from other people? Will they conform easily to compaction? You say that our solution to improving water quality is greenspace conservation, but water quality is not just the issue. We are dealing with the amount of water that we have now and that we will have in the future. With such an increasing population we may not have enough fresh water for people to survive on. We need a place to get our water from or we need to conserve the water sources we have now.
ReplyDeleteThere definitely needs to be an increased amount of water conservation alongside SmartGrowth practices. I think these practices are essential, just as this position paper argued. Another aspect of land use planning that was not expounded upon in this paper is stormwater runoff management -especially in parking lots and gutter systems off of houses. By planting vegetation and creating areas like bioswales, there would be a lessened amount of water runoff pollution and therefore cleaner water. Another practice is water catchment systems that collect the water before it even hits these impervious surfaces. I agree with something cbrash (above) said,though. TOD will not prevent urban sprawl, because transportation is not the only cause. What about people's higher standards of living-people want space and solitude-they don't want to cram into a mixed-use management area. There are other problems that need to be addressed beyond the practices mentioned, but overall, I agree with this position.
ReplyDeleteGroup A-
ReplyDeleteYou have done a good job presenting a strong argument for zoning and smartgrowth. You mentioned that these approaches are more likely to be successful in new developments. Do you have any suggestions for existing cities and suburbs?
Not a very well written document, for the most part the statistics were confusing and vague.
ReplyDeleteGroup A is arguing that water concerns justify taking property rights through zoning and smart growth. It is evident that urban development has covered much of the earth with impervious surfaces that don’t allow water to reach the soil for filtration, but a reversal of this situation would require extensive time and regulation. Another option proposed by Group A is to follow the example set by Portland, Oregon and delineate distinct city boundaries. This is a plausible solution that would leave green space areas, but it could also lead to overcrowding. Development and population are going to increase regardless of boundaries, and more people in fixed area will likely create other unforeseen problems. Transit oriented development proposes arranging a city into multiple walkable ‘nodes’ that are arranged around a central mass transit hub. This system has obvious benefits, but it is entirely irrational. It would not be possible to retrofit cities to this “hub” design, and new developments will be leery of this unproven design. TOD also eliminates the need for automotive transportation which is a staple in contributing to the world economy. Group A present some logical ideas, but such efforts cannot be expected or relied upon to meet water needs.
ReplyDeleteGroup A focuses on improving water quality through smart growth and if we do not change our ways even the United States will be facing water scarcity issues. Large cities have many surfaces that cause runoff and inhibit natural filtration; to fix this problem, there needs to be more green space in cities. Some cities have already utilized some newer development strategies. Portland is one example of a city that has utilized some new development techniques and air and water quality have increased, but is there anything we could do about current cities? By allowing more green space in cities, would this cause an increase in costs? Some people have a hard enough time affording their apartments now. How can a transit oriented development (TOD) even be feasible for future cities? The impression I am getting from this is that all transportation would take place underground (besides walking of course) but this would cause a significant cost for development and to the individual because to use it they would have to pay handsomely to use it.
ReplyDeleteThe statistics for this paper were very confusing and not very informative. I feel like some of the proposals for building development already include water quality to some extent, but that was not mentioned. Also, it is unclear who "their position" actually belongs to.
ReplyDeleteThis position was very well argued and the paper was incredibly well written. I completely agree that city zoning, reduction of urban sprawl, and a new look at the design of population centers is incredibly critical to addressing urban sprawl. I also agree with Group A’s criticism of the other groups arguments. I do believe that there are other problems that need to be considered when looking at water issues, however, that cannot be addressed simply by looking at city design. This definitely does a lot in the United States, but there are a myriad of issues in developing countries that cannot be solved simply by removing sprawl . . . there are people dying in droves from extremely preventable water borne diseases, there are people having to pay for clean water from American owned companies, etc. These issues may very well be beyond the scope of this discussion, but they may result in global water wars in the future, therefore I think that it is important that Group A does not try to argue that its solution will avert all catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteTheir solution is to change policy and code to provide a ‘smarter’ city. A city designed so that motorized vehicle traffic can be held to a minimum. A city where green space is maximized and impermeable surfaces are kept to a minimum. If we design our cities smarter and allow for a higher surface area for water filtration then the rate of filtration will increase and with the faster filtration there will be a larger supply of water. This is a sound and reasonable argument, but what is the solution for areas in developing countries where water scarcity is not caused by a lack of filtration but by a lack of rain or simply a lack of funds. Many areas have water flowing in the ground beneath them but cannot mine it because they can’t afford to. Other areas just simply do not have the rain to provide enough fresh water to sustain them. Also what of already established cities how can they be made to increase permeable surfaces?
ReplyDeleteGroup A is presenting the argument that the problem with development and modernization of suburbia has had a dramatic negative impact on the fresh water supply. They present ideas in order to reverse the problem, by planning for plots of land that would allow for more permeable ground surface area. Allotting for these areas in the original plans for development would be the most efficient way of implementing this. They also state that methods of travel also have a large impact on the water supply, when lying down roadways. The solution presented for this is to make a more efficient way of transportation that is located in a central area, easily accessible by walk ways thereby eliminating an excess of roadways. There seem to be some interesting theories in regards to solving these problems, and I’m curious to learn more about ways of putting them into effect.
ReplyDeleteGroup A is debating that the declining amount and quality of water is mainly due to poor planning and urban sprawl. They give us examples of smart city planning and zoning in New York City and Portland. They believe water problems justifies taking property rights through zoning and smart growth. They say that we should not depend upon techno-optimists beliefs because it is not certain that such a technology will be invented. Similarly, they argue that many people will not reduce the amount of water currently being used in attempts to conserve. Group A has some good points, but I don’t see how they would take current cities that have not undergone smart growth and tell land owners to do things differently.
ReplyDeleteThis problem is not new. Currently these processes are dependent on technology. In order to protect the integrity of the water supply we must develop methods in case urban spawl causes all these problems.
ReplyDeleteGroup A position is that the water concerns are so high that it justifies taking property rights through zoning and smart growth. They provided strong facts proving the water supply crisis, and I liked the facts about amount of water available. They made strong arguments and used Portland, Oregon as a example and how they preserved a lot of green space. Also ideas on creating well defined city limits to prevent future urban sprawl. Another great idea that talked about to fix the crisis is to develop city for transit purposes. I would have liked to see some ideas on fixing current big cities and not focus as much on future development plans. Group A also didn’t talk about the negatives associated with taking property rights away from people. Overall Group A did a good job supporting their position.
ReplyDeleteThey believe that radical city planning is the only way to achieve the necessary amount of water filtration to provide people with clean water. They argue that water demand is increasing while water availability is decreasing. While there are technological and conseration options smart growth is one thing that has been proven to work on as large a scale as what is necessary. Also, any technological or conservation option is not enough; they are too limited. I agree with Group A. Ithink that urban sprawl is a huge problem and something that is necessary for sustainable growth and urban living. However, the major flaw in their argument is the inability to effectively retrofit any of these ideas to pre-existing urban infrastructure. With urban populations increasing I think this is a major oversight.
ReplyDeleteGroup A contends that urban construction is at the root of contemporary water management problems. Heavy application of relatively impermeable materials has had a dramatic effect on the water cycle, trapping water in some areas and generally restricting flow. They argue that the solution is in thoughtful urban planning. Today’s cities are built for cars and not pedestrians, so roads and parking lots are major considerations. To be sure, building cities for foot traffic and with green spaces would result in a fundamental change to life in them. Even if the changes would be positive, I can’t help but think there would be lots of trouble in speedy revision to zoning laws, given some historically backwards rules(A woman in Toronto sold her car and replaced her driveway with permeable pavers, only to find she’d violated zoning requirements for concrete/asphalt/brick driveways. She did go to court and was fortunately able to keep the change).
ReplyDeleteMandatory restrictions on land use and personal/business property are the main solutions for Group A's argument towards better zoning and smart growth in an urban environment. This stance really shows that the government must take some drastic steps in order for people to follow along with the conservation of existing water supplies. However, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence showing an initiative that a current city such as Chicago or DC could take utilizing zoning, and how it would effect water usage.
ReplyDeleteGroup A did a very effective job in explaining their main points through background information, the providing of examples, and the argument of the alternatives. The group believes that the negative effects caused by a shortage of the earth’s water supply can only be solved through smart growth and zoning. They make the argument that the technology that can possibly be the solution to these problems is unable to keep up with the growth of the global population. They also argue that simply using less water, or water conservation techniques, will not be enough in itself to prevent loss in the future.
ReplyDeleteGroup A feels that in order to reverse the declining quality and quantity of fresh water we need to stop urban sprawl and improve impermeable surfaces with permeable surfaces whenever possible in and around our cities. I definitely agree that these practices can be part of the solution. I would have liked to of read more about the many benefits of stopping urban sprawl i.e. the effect of greater population densities in out stagnant downtown cities and the positive effects it would have on our public life and downtown economies. Overall, I found it to be an informative paper with good solutions. Great Job!
ReplyDeleteGroup A feels that in order to reverse the declining quality and quantity of fresh water we need to stop urban sprawl and improve impermeable surfaces with permeable surfaces whenever possible in and around our cities. I definitely agree that these practices can be part of the solution. I would have liked to of read more about the many benefits of stopping urban sprawl i.e. the effect of greater population densities in out stagnant downtown cities and the positive effects it would have on our public life and downtown economies. Overall, I found it to be an informative paper with good solutions. Great Job!
ReplyDeleteUrbanization, suburban development, and forest fragmentation are causing a tragedy of the commons by degrading ecosystem processes that restore, continue flow, and filter water. This group believes that the severity of the water situation justifies taking property rights through zoning and smart growth (increasing permeable land, creating well-defined city limits that prevent urban sprawl, and transit oriented development). These are great methods; however, they would be more effective if implemented in unison with technological advancements and conservation. It confuses me near the end of the position paper when Group A states that technological advancements are needed and conservation is necessary, then bam- the only sure bet is green space conservation. It may be the best, but not the only. This group presented good data concerning water usage and conveyed sense of urgency to the issue. The biggest problem I see is how to justify the taking of property rights to the owners. Without compensation they would not be satisfied.
ReplyDeleteSmart Growth isn't just about water quality; it's about sensible development and stewardship of our resources. Water is one of the most precious resources and a good indicator of how sustainably we are managing our land and resources. They have the strongest argument because their stance is the most tenable. There is risk of government-intervention running amuck, as usual, so government shouldn't be given a blank check to regulate, but it may be safer to go in the direction of compromising private property rights in order to maintain enough safe water to drink.
ReplyDeleteGroup A makes some good points. I like the point they made about how water conservation will probably not be enough. This is a very interesting point since water conservation is promoted so heavily.
ReplyDeleteGroup A provides a good argument for zoning regulations. Urban sprawl is compromising the integrity of our water supply. The development of more tolerant zoning policies and smart growth will involve the development and pursuit of technological solutions. The human race is always focused on improvement and this will require a solution somewhere in the middle of our two positions
ReplyDelete