Postel and Barton’s study outlines the risks that development poses to New York City’s water supply if its watershed is not protected. In addition, the study also compares the cost of implementing filtration plants against the natural protection provided by our watershed. Finally, they propose several programs that will help New York preserve the watershed and prevent it from further development and destruction.
According to the study, the continued loss of watershed services poses harm to human health by affecting the quality of water, the cost of supplying that water, and crop productivity. Studies have shown that vegetation and soils of forests have a great ability to filter contaminants and trap sediments that often end up in our water source. With this in mind, Postel and Barton analyzed 27 US water suppliers to understand the filtration cost that is abated through the watershed. Their data predicts that the treatment costs of drinking water will increase significantly as forest cover decreases. Hence, forest cover is a natural filter that reduces expenditure. To avoid future spending, Postel suggests a partnership program between landowners, loggers, and timber companies to better manage forests and keep the watershed intact. These goals go hand in hand with the environmental cause because they limit development to areas that are less likely to affect our water quality and supply.
In addition, deforestation, road construction, and poor farming techniques have all contributed to the contamination of drinking water. Without the forest, there will be an increase of sedimentation from hillside erosion. This will cause sediment to runoff into streams and continually reduce reservoir storage each year. Hence, the need for a new supply of water will soon arise. Likewise, fertilizers and pesticides used on crops also reduce water supply. They enter groundwater, pollute a source of clean water and also disrupt aquatic habitats. As advocate against the deterioration of our environment, such practices should be penalized because they directly correlated to the reduction of clean water sources and the loss of habitats that rely on them.
As a result, this study supports the environmental cause because it shows that further development will hurt New York City’s water quality and supply. Furthermore, destruction of the watershed is also an economical problem because nature provides a free resource to help filter sediment, pollutants, and some toxins out of the water before it reaches our streams, lakes, and rivers. Consequently, aquatic habitats are also preserved in the process. Altogether, the environmental group his highly opposed to any plans that intend to alter the watershed for construction and development because the risks induce massive costs both to human health and to the City’s budget.
Source:
Postel, Sandra L., and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. “Watershed Protection: Capturing the Benefits of Nature’s Water Supply Services.” Natural Resources Forum 29 (2005): 98-108. Web.
