WaterWired

Water Alternatives - Vol. 14, Issue 1 (February 2021) Special Issue: 'Parsing the Politics of Singular and Multiple Waters' and More!

If you cannot access the papers here, click here.

Special issue: Parsing the politics of singular and multiple waters
Guest Editors: Lindsay Vogt and Casey Walsh

Parsing the politics of singular and multiple waters
Lindsay Vogt and Casey Walsh
Water Alternatives 14(1): 1-11                     Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Incarnating water in Central Asia: Hydro-relations along a transboundary river
Jeanne Féaux de la Croix
Water Alternatives 14(1): 12-31                   Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Jamaican river waters: Collapsing time and the politics of rural life-making
Anne M. Galvin
Water Alternatives 14(1): 32-46                   Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Waters, water and the hydrosocial politics of bathing in Mexico City, 1850-1920
Casey Walsh
Water Alternatives 14(1): 47-59                   Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Examining the cracks in universal water coverage: Women document the burdens of household water insecurity
Lucero Radonic and Cara Jacob
Water Alternatives 14(1): 60-78                   Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Implicit or illicit? Self-made infrastructure, household waters, and the materiality of belonging in Cape Town
Angela Storey
Water Alternatives 14(1): 79-96                   Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Water, modern and multiple: Enriching the idea of water through enumeration amidst a water crisis in Bengaluru
Lindsay Vogt
Water Alternatives 14(1): 97-116                  Abstract | Full Text - PDF
 

Articles

Public banks + Public water = SDG 6?
David A. McDonald, Thomas Marois and Susan Spronk
Water Alternatives 14(1): 117-134                Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Damming Rainy Lake and the ongoing production of hydro-colonialism in the US-Canadian boundary waters
Johann Strube and Kimberley Anh Thomas
Water Alternatives 14(1): 135-157                Abstract | Full Text - PDF

The impact of pro-poor reforms on consumers and the water utility in Maputo, Mozambique
Valentina Zuin and Maika Nicholson
Water Alternatives 14(1): 158-185                Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Cities with mosquitoes: A political ecology of Aedes aegypti’s habitats
Angela Bayona-Valderrama, Tatiana Acevedo-Guerrero and Cláudio Artur
Water Alternatives 14(1): 186-203                Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Modern and nonmodern waters: Sociotechnical controversies, successful anti-dam movements and water ontologies
Silvia Flaminio
Water Alternatives 14(1): 204-227                Abstract | Full Text - PDF

The landing of parachuted technology: Appropriation of centralised drip irrigation systems by irrigation communities in the region of Valencia (Spain)
Noemí Poblador, Carles Sanchis-Ibor and Marcel Kuper
Water Alternatives 14(1): 228-247                Abstract | Full Text - PDF

More sustainable systems through consolidation? The changing landscape of rural drinking water service delivery in Uganda
Angela Huston, Susan Gaskin, Patrick Moriarty and Martin Watsisi
Water Alternatives 14(1): 248-270                Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Municipal failure, unequal access and conflicts over water – A hydro-social perspective on water insecurity of rural households in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Karen Lebek, Michèle Twomey and Tobias Krueger
Water Alternatives 14(1): 271-292                Abstract | Full Text - PDF

Co-producing drinking water in rural Ethiopia: Governmentality in the name of community management
Linda Annala
Water Alternatives 14(1): 293-314                Abstract | Full Text - PDF
 

Responses

Why we need both the large and the small stories. Response to Under the historian’s radar: Local water supply practices in Nairobi by J.A. Akallah and M. Hård.
David Nilsson
Water Alternatives 14(1): 315-318                 Full Text - PDF

"Every human enterprise is the mixture of a little bit of humanity, a little bit of soil, and a little bit of water." - Jean Brunhes, French geographer, (1869 - 1930)

 

CRS InFocus Report: 'Role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Environmental Justice'

Great to see this important topic updated by CRS staffers David M. Bearden and Angela C. Jones (21 January 2021): 'Role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Environmental Justice'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Report_Role_EPA_Env_Justice_21Jan2021

Below I have pasted the entire first page of two pages.

Executive Order 12898
The role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in environmental justice is rooted in Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994. E.O. 12898 directs each executive department, EPA, and certain other agencies to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission.”

The consideration of environmental justice across federal programs and activities is not mandated in statute. E.O. 12898 more generally directs executive departments and agencies to integrate environmental justice into their respective missions to “the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.” Some departments and agencies have incorporated the consideration of environmental justice into their respective regulations to carry out E.O. 12898.

E.O. 12898 itself does not establish federal law but is a presidential directive for the management of executive departments and agencies that instructs the implementation of existing law. (See CRS Report RS20846, Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation, by Todd Garvey.) E.O. 12898 is not judicially enforceable and explicitly precludes “any right of judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance of the United States, its agencies, officers, or any other person with this order.” E.O. 12898 also states that it is intended to supplement E.O. 12250 for implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that generally prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs or activities. Although amended by E.O. 12948 in 1995 to alter time frames for certain actions, E.O. 12898 has not been revoked and has continued to apply to executive departments and agencies.

Under E.O. 12898, executive departments and agencies are responsible for interpreting the statutes that authorize their respective programs and activities to determine the extent to which environmental justice may be incorporated as a facet of their mission. Some agency programs or activities may not incorporate environmental justice or may incorporate it in a more limited capacity. Although the authorizing statutes do not explicitly preclude consideration of environmental justice, some implementation criteria may be inconsistent with such considerations. For example, federal environmental laws that authorize the permitting of industrial facilities do not allow the denial of a permit solely because of proximity to a particular community based on its demographics, although, during permitting actions, certain communities may cite proximity as an environmental justice concern. From a scientific standpoint, potential health risks in such situations would depend on exposure to pollutants, not proximity alone.

What Is Environmental Justice?
What constitutes environmental justice has been an ongoing issue for many years. There is no definition of environmental justice in federal law. Some have interpreted the terms “environmental justice (or injustice)” and “environmental equity (or inequity)” broadly to describe the perceived disproportionate impacts of pollution across populations that possess different demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race, national origin, occupation, income, or language). Some have also raised concerns about environmental justice in terms of access to natural resources and recreational opportunities as part of a broader focus on the environment than just pollution from anthropogenic sources.

Stakeholder concerns about the consideration of environmental justice in the implementation of EPA programs and activities have generally focused on the protection of certain populations that may be disproportionately exposed to potentially hazardous or toxic substances. Economic impacts may also be cited as an environmental justice concern, such as perceived effects of the presence of pollution sources on property values.

E.O. 12898 refers to environmental justice in terms of disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts specifically on minority and low- income populations. In its role under E.O. 12898, EPA has generally defined environmental justice as the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Other federal departments and agencies may tailor their definition of environmental justice to their respective missions.

EPA Implementation
EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), administered within the Office of the Administrator, coordinates the implementation of E.O. 12898 within the agency to integrate environmental justice into policies and programs across the agency’s headquarters and regional offices. OEJ also administers EPA environmental justice grants and may provide information and technical assistance to other federal departments and agencies in their implementation of E.O. 12898. Prior to early 2018, OEJ was managed within EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Established prior to E.O. 12898 on September 30, 1993, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) has also served as a federal independent advisory committee to EPA and has continued to consult with the agency in its implementation of E.O. 12898. 

Doesn't seem like a lot of money.

Enjoy!

"Sooner or later, wittingly or unwittingly, we must pay for every intrusion on the natural environment." - Barry Commoner

Radioactive Racism? Nuclear Waste as an Agent of Oppression

I'm a big fan of serendipity. These days I'm inclined to find it more often on the Internet than other places. Today's post is an example.

A Tweet from Audrey Sawyer of Ohio State University started it off: 

Teaching a new module on environmental justice in a grad-level seminar this semester. Have lecture content you're proud of or an EJ topic/pub you'd like me to bring up in my class? Please let me know! I'm especially interested in EJ topics beyond water.

Audrey's post was followed by a response from Lara Fowler of Penn State, which identified a "radioactive racism" NPR article about (from 2005) a Utah tribe, the Skull Valley Goshutes, whose reservation has been divided over the possibility of the storage of around 4,000 nuclear waste canisters. As someone who used to dabble (one really doesn't 'dabble' here) in the nuclear industry when I worked in Nevada I was curious if this storage was realized.    

That led me to a Google search, which turned up the paper, Environmental Racism: Nuclear Waste as an Agent of Oppression? by Andrea Boeckers of Merrimack College.  

Download Environmental Racism

Abstract
This research seeks to analyze the decision-making processes of managing nuclear waste for countries dealing with this problem, as well as the interplay between national and local governments, private companies, the populace, and native nations. The long-term storage of nuclear waste is a serious global problem, and despite the millions of people enjoying the benefits of nuclear power, most refuse to accept the burdens associated with its waste. The driving question for this research largely ties to how governments attempt to designate who will bear the burden of these wastes. When a problem needs to be solved, yet there are no clear, easy solutions, the weight is often placed on those who are either politically, economically, socially, or geographically disadvantaged. Through a deeper investigation into the global community, Australia, the United States, and the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe, we can see how these issues unfold and how affected communities attempt to fight back.

This is a useful paper. It covers not just the Skull Valley Goshutes but an Australian site as well.

And here is a 2012 article from the Salt Lake Tribune stating that the Skull Valley site plan will not be implemented. 

I'm unsure the Skull Valley Goshute Tribe really had sovereignty over its land. I doubt such a facility would have been allowed so close to Salt Lake City.

Enjoy!

"Certain privileges make liars of all men." - Unknown

CRS InFocus Report: 'Overview of the Global Humanitarian and Displacement Crisis'

Talk about displacement behavior! I was grading an exam question on hydrophilanthropy when the need for some (benign) displacement behavior hit me like a ton of frozen popsicles! So I decided to post this CRS 2-pager (11 December 2020) by Rhoda Margesson: 'Overview of the Global Humanitarian and Displacement Crisis'.

Seriously - this is important stuff!

Click on the graphics if you wish to display or enlarge them. 

Download CRS_InFocus_Global_Humanitarian_Displace_Crisis_11Dec2020

Introduction
Even before the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the global humanitarian and displacement crisis was unprecedented. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) anticipated that in 2020 more than 168 million people worldwide would require humanitarian assistance and protection due to conflict and disaster. For 2021, UNOCHA’s estimate has reached 235 million people. The United States is the single largest donor, consistently providing nearly one-third (more than $9.5 billion in FY2020) of total humanitarian and emergency food assistance through global accounts.

Types of Crises and Affected Populations
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that at the end of 2019 (latest global data available, before the pandemic), more than 79.5 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide due to armed conflict, widespread or indiscriminate violence, or human rights violations. Those displaced included 26 million refugees, 4.2 million asylum seekers, 45.7 million Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), and 3.6 million Venezuelans displaced abroad. UNHCR estimated that a further 10 million people remained stateless. Natural and weather- related disasters affect millions of people a year who often require urgent and prolonged assistance due to sudden events (such as earthquakes or storms) or protracted ones (like drought conditions). On average, disasters displace 26 million people annually. In 2019, more than two-thirds (68%) of all refugees and Venezuelans displaced abroad came from five countries: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Burma.

Some populations moved voluntarily, while others had to flee. Economic migrants, who often leave poverty and unemployment to seek better livelihood opportunities or family reunification numbered approximately 272 million in 2019 (roughly 3.5% of the world’s population). Refugees and others forcibly displaced, including vulnerable migrants, often faced a different set of circumstances. Instead of choosing to leave their place of origin, they were forced to do so for reasons such as ethnic strife, violence, human rights violations, or natural disasters.

U.S. Policy
The United States is a major contributor to international humanitarian relief efforts. In the past five fiscal years (FY2015–FY2019), the United States provided $44.0 billion in global humanitarian assistance with funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture. Congress has given the President broad authority on humanitarian issues and flexibility to respond to disasters with a wide range of assistance. On a bipartisan basis, it has consistently supported humanitarian efforts as a means of responding to natural disasters and conflict-induced crises in the short term, mitigating humanitarian impacts, and promoting a U.S. presence.

In practice, the provision of U.S. humanitarian assistance is typically case- and time-specific and may include assistance through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms and humanitarian partners; protection activities for vulnerable populations; support for countries and communities hosting the displaced; encouraging donor contributions; and building response capacity. The plethora of humanitarian emergencies, including food security challenges, and human displacement worldwide will likely continue to receive the attention of the Administration and Congress. The Administration’s FY2021 budget request for global humanitarian assistance was nearly $6.27 billion, a decrease of 35% from the FY2020 appropriated amount of $9.5 billion. Congress has continued to support humanitarian assistance through appropriations legislation. FY2021 appropriations bills, as passed in the House (H.R. 7608), total $9.6 billion for global humanitarian accounts and specify additional funding for the COVID-19 humanitarian- related response.

Read on...more to absorb.

“The next time you see an ad for a water charity featuring a cute, dark-skinned child and a deep-voiced announcer who says, ‘Last year, we drilled 50 wells in Terra Buena and one was in Rosa’s village,’ you need to ask, ‘How many of those wells are still working?’” - @WaterWired

CRS Report: 'Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer'

Marcy E. Gallo is the author of this CRS report (20 November 2020): 'Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer'.

Download CRS_Report_Fed_Sci_Integrity-Policies_20Nov2020

Click on th graphic to enlarge it.

Summary
The results of research and development (R&D) help inform the decisions that policymakers and the public reach on a wide range of issues, including human health and safety, the environment, agriculture, energy, and transportation. For example, scientific information is essential to the review and approval of drugs and medical devices and the setting of air quality standards. There is broad agreement among policymakers and the scientific and engineering community about ensuring the integrity of the conduct, communication, and management of R&D, and its use in policy development and decisionmaking. However, recently, some policymakers and others have alleged that presidential administrations of both parties have violated the principles of scientific integrity. Assertions of such violations include weighting the membership of federal advisory committees toward a particular viewpoint or constituency, targeting individual scientists for harassment or adverse actions, appointing agency officials with significant conflicts of interest or antagonistic views toward an agency’s mission or neutrality to science, improperly editing scientific documents, and using the budget process to impede the implementation or formulation of science-based policies.

Following the guidance of a 2010 memorandum issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, more than 20 federal departments and agencies have developed and implemented scientific integrity policies. The memorandum detailed principles in four broad areas: foundations of scientific integrity, public communications, use of federal advisory committees, and professional development of government scientists and engineers. The memorandum provided federal agencies with flexibility developing their scientific integrity policies stating, “the scope of an agency’s scientific work and its relationship to the mission of each department or agency may necessitate distinct mechanisms be used by each to implement thisguidance.”

There is, however, no uniform definition of scientific integrity across the federal government. Some experts have expressed concern over the variation in scope and specificity of federal agency scientific integrity policies and recommended that Congress enact scientific integrity legislation that would create a clear set of standards and mechanisms for enforcement. Some have alleged violations of scientific integrity against the current and previous administrations. For example, several media articles reported that Trump Administration officials delayed timely information to the public from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to the COVID-19 pandemic that was inconsistent with political objectives, or altered scientific findings or recommendations in ways that were misleading or incomplete.

Congress may remain interested in the objectivity, timeliness, and availability of scientific information to the public and policymakers in the 116th Congress and beyond. This report provides an overview of scientific integrity and selected issues for congressional consideration. For example, the Government Accountability Office found that the majority of agencies reviewed had not taken steps to evaluate and monitor implementation of their scientific integrity policies. Additionally, Congress may consider how agencies report and address alleged violations, interagency coordination of scientific integrity policies, and the designation of scientific integrity officers. The report also summarizes scientific integrity-related legislation introduced in the 116th Congress.

Interesting! 

Enjoy!

"It's always a buyer's market when it comes to souls." - Jo Nesbo