Let’s talk about the American Power Act. It has come to my attention, via a blog post by the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Jon Devine, that this latest attempt at federal climate change legislation abandons water provisions included in previous bills. Devine hopes that the omission is an oversight and not an indication of a new mindset in the capital. Unfortunately, those of us concerned with water efficiency and conservation are familiar with the sidelining of water issues—whenever the discussion turns going “green” or increasing sustainability, or, as in this case, developing a comprehensive energy plan that acknowledges the environmental impact of a fossil fuel-dependent society, water rarely rises beyond a footnote and a nodding acknowledgement of its importance in the “big picture” of national natural resource management.
Thankfully, water is not always ignored. As Devin points out, previous climate bill legislation has addressed water efficiency, including a bill passed by the house earlier this year that “contained a trio of provisions that would formally authorize EPA’s WaterSense program, require the federal government to be a model consumer and buy efficient items when possible, and help jump-start state water efficiency financial incentive programs.”
With 69 references to water throughout the act (most referring to Deepwater Horizon, the platform involved in the current Gulf Oil spill) some relevant passages include:
• A definition of clean technologies that includes tech that “enhances water security through improved water management, conservation, distribution, or end use applications”
• An acknowledgement that climate change can adversely impact water supplies and lead to “a scarcity of water and the decreased abundance of other natural resources” impact “freshwater systems, including water resources for human consumption and agriculture and natural and managed ecosystems, flood and drought risks, and relative humidity”
• Calls for a summary of “significant socioeconomic impacts” of climate change on “human infrastructure, including coastal infrastructure vulnerability to extreme events and sea level rise, river floodplain infra- structure, and sewer and water management systems” and “water resources for human consumption, agriculture and natural and managed ecosystems, flood and drought risks, and relative humidity
• A mandate that six years after enactment of the American Power 5 Act (and every five years thereafter), a report to Congress be submitted that explains the current and future impacts on “water quality, acreage and function of waters, [and] landscape-level water quality”
• A portion of the 28% of Clean Air Act Funding to be set aside for “Federal water managed by the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service”
The Act also acknowledges the current crisis in the Gulf, stating “the Deepwater Horizon spill has placed local 20 economies, wildlife, and the invaluable coastal ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico at great risk, and illustrates that the coastal and marine resources of the 23 United States are sensitive ecological areas of critical importance to the economy and environment of the United States.”
So what do you think? Does this act go far enough or should more be done? Is saving water the key to for climate change management, helping us adapt to the present situation as well as mitigate future issues? Does the exclusion of water efficiency in the American Power Act seem like an oversight, or should we take it as a signal that the administration and congress have shifted gears, favoring a balkanized energy policy over a solution that encompasses all of the elements that contribute to our energy supply and demand matrix? And is the situation in the Gulf making a difference?
Click here to download a PDF of the entire bill.