Transparent Water Management Policy

[James Marple <jesl@carolina.net>]

Increasing the transparency of decision-making    

As a part of encouraging public involvement in EPA decisions would it be appropriate for this agency to expose grotesque distortions of public perception such as those created by the California Water Atlas and its State Water Plan?  Would this shine light upon EPA regulatory decision-making that would help concerned citizens dispel myths manufactured by agents of profiteers to excite mindless critics into frenzied efforts to improperly characterize EPA regulatory actions? 

Although every public official accepts an obligation to identify misinformation and supply factual data, when this appears to require sacrificing ones career they may be forgiven for finding reasons to stay within guidelines set by agribusiness and energy/water supply profiteers.  It is obvious that applying BMPs that achieve pollution control ends will greatly diminish flooding while replenishing aquifers, but too easy to consider this sufficient justification for energetic activity by the EPA to fully inform Californians about atlernatives to present failed planning.  Such an effort is certain to bring retribution in the form of budget cuts and demotions arranged by California politicians whose welfare depends upon the generosity of its avaricious business community.    

If the EPA were to fully illustrate watershed management to participating citizens, in the course of performing its water quality protection function, the public would become aware that this planning would;

1. Intercept most pollution at or near its source before harmful accumulations could occur.

2. Recharge aquifers with more than adequate water to serve all needs.

3. Reduce streamflows to levels that eliminate flooding.

The multiple benefits of this planning are obvious:

- It would halt the expenditure of several billion dollars yearly to build 'flood control' and water importation systems.  

- It would store most rain where it falls on the highlands for gradual release to streams, creating opportunities to increase electricity generation capacity by many thousand megawatts yearly while eliminating the loss of several thousand megawatts of pumping used for water importation.  

- Upstream retention of most stormwater would create facilities with which to store the energy from local cogeneration (fuel cells, microturbines, windmills, solar systems) that every impartial expert predicts will become the primary source of electricity. 

It is true that advocacy of onsite retention of rainfall would be a form of 'bureaucratic suicide', leading to incremental reduction in pollution problems that would justify a reduced budget. We participating citizens can only hope that those who manage this agency consider themselves competent enough to find continued employment after their agency shrinks as a result of them doing their jobs well.