As stated in the case study of New York City drinking water issues, upstate stakeholders are against development of filtering facilities in watershed communities. According to an article from EPA Journal by Keith Porter in 1994, the watershed residents believe that installing filters would incur “unknown economic and social costs” to protect water that are mainly used by people outside of the watershed communities.
Not only does filters facilities affect the economic and social aspects of watershed communities, some alternative plans would also do damages as well. According to James Kavanaugh in an academic journal from Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, watershed protection plan as an alternative would do similar harms to watershed communities. The Watershed Memorandum of Agreement was adopted in May, 1997. This watershed protection plan has three phrases. The first phrase is land acquisition of undeveloped land around the watersheds, which may devalue properties and restrict economic development of properties in the communities. The second stage is the launch of protection and partnership programs. However, most of the negative effects of these programs will incur on upstate stakeholders instead of the primary user of the clean water. Since the watersheds are 120 miles away from NYC, NYC do not need to suffer the restrictions and limitations under the watershed protection plan. NYC will also enjoy benefits from the result of the program without having to bear any substantial cost of filtration. Those restrictions would be imposed on the watershed communities in the form of “landuse restrictions, such as restrictions on development, increased property taxes, decreased property values, and delays in the issuance of building permits”. In my opinion, those effects on watersheds community will be similar if filtration facilities are in placed.
Also, as Kavanaugh stated, filtration facilities may create a false sense of security that can promote water contamination. It encourages a misconception that no mater how bad quality of water is before filtration, the final products would be clean and safe water because of filtration. Such misconception would reduce protection of the watersheds and affect the natural beauty of the watershed communities.
As a result, another alternative would represent both parties. According to Porter, the Whole Farm Planning program can help reduce pollutions to watersheds to ensure high quality drinking water. The program is to reduce the release of contaminants from source of pollutions like “barnyard areas, silage systems, stored manure, and sheds containing chemicals”. Besides managing the sources of pollution, the plan also desire to minimize farm field’s runoff by reducing amount realeased, and managing soil and crops. If contaminants are only released without runoff, drinking water source would be less polluted. Lastly, the program wants farms to keep a buffer zone with the water to prevent contaminants from reaching the water.
Besides that plan, the Whole Community Planning Program (WCP) would also be a feasible alternative. According to Kavanaugh, the WCP program allows residents of watershed communities to design and to implement their own protection plans instead of being subjected to NYC regulations and restrictions. The plan has to be submitted by municipal government and is approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation under the guidelines including zoning, local landuse planning, site plan review, comprehensive planning, critical environmental area designation, land conservancies, housing density guidelines, and provisions to transfer and purchase development rights. As a result, WCP would help ensure drinking water quality in NYC under the government’s guidelines without the negative effects that filtration and watershed protection plans would cause to watershed communities.
SOURCES:
Porter, Keith S. “New York City: Case Of A Threatened Watershed.” EPA Journal20.1/2 (1994): 24. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.
Kavanaugh, James. “To Filter Or Not To Filter: A Discussion And Analysis Of The Massachusetts Filtration Conflict In T.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 26.4 (1999): 809. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.
