ELI Report
Author
Nick Collins - Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute
Current Issue
Issue
2

More than 150 women forge North American branch of global water diplomacy and governance collaboration

Recognizing the urgent need for inclusive water governance on the continent, leading female diplomats have established the North American Women in Water Diplomacy Network. With support from a variety of stakeholders, including Indigenous community leaders, WWDN will establish a regional structure anchored in the Colorado River basin. It will include Indigenous leadership in alignment with the network’s “Path Forward for Women, Water, Peace, and Security” global strategy.

ELI’s partnership with WWDN is a critical part of the Institute’s work to create good governance of water resources. For its part, the network represents a collaborative effort among female decisionmakers and other experts in transboundary water management. Originating in the Nile Basin in 2017, the coalition has partnerships in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas to help amplify women’s voices in water governance, especially addressing the significant underrepresentation of women in decisionmaking roles.

At the December launch event for the North American section, speakers included water commissioners, government officials, and tribal leaders. They underscored the value of collaborative efforts across the Colorado basin to elevate women’s knowledge and experiences in water governance. It marked a pivotal moment, bringing together approximately 150 water policy experts and decisionmakers to emphasize the importance of gender-inclusive approaches in water diplomacy.

The event facilitated networking opportunities, providing a platform for participants to exchange ideas and insights. Additionally, it showcased statements of support from contributing partners and sponsors, affirming the widespread commitment to advancing gender equality in water governance.

Looking ahead, the network is promoting advocacy and partnership through a series of activities, such as informational sessions, consultation workshops, and publication launches—all aimed at global collaboration among women water leaders.

Through these emerging initiatives, WWDN seeks to empower women, enhance their participation in decisionmaking processes, and promote sustainable water management practices worldwide.

ELI will continue to support the network with high-quality research, specifically looking to connect the dots between the Institute’s work on water tenure and gender-equitable water governance.

Wetlands Program’s multi-pronged approach to conservation

World Wetlands Day 2024

February 2 marked World Wetlands Day, always an opportunity to highlight the importance of these critical ecosystems across the globe, as well as the work being done to preserve and restore them. To celebrate, ELI released a new podcast episode with the director of the Institute’s Wetlands Program, Rebecca Kihslinger, along with Staff Attorney Therese Wilkerson and Research Associate Jesse Ferraioli.

The podcast discussed the program, which takes a three-pronged approach: research, stakeholder engagement, and educational outreach. The program analyzes laws and policies and provides tools for wetlands programs at various levels and locations.

The program emphasizes the importance of wetlands as critical ecosystems that provide many important benefits for people and wildlife and are integral to local communities’ cultures and economies. Wetlands benefits include flood protection, resilient infrastructure, carbon storage, and increased water quality.

To help spread the message, ELI hosts the annual National Wetlands Awards, a program that honors individuals who have done extraordinary work in wetland science, conservation, and community engagement.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision has made wetland protection more critical than ever before. Accordingly, recent ELI projects include a review of state wetland programs and evaluation of compensatory mitigation under the Clean Water Act. The emphasis on state and local work also includes stakeholder engagement, like a recent workshop that brought together professionals from resource agencies and federal, state, and local emergency managers to discuss methodologies for prioritizing wetlands restoration.

Building more effective local peacebuilding interventions

Climate change exacerbates global tensions and creates new challenges for policymakers, making it a significant factor in shaping domestic and international relations. An evolving field known as environmental peacebuilding provides pathways to address the intersection of environmental issues, conflict, and efforts toward peace. It is a challenging endeavor, combining different objectives and metrics to address possible interventions.

To assist progress in conflict zones, ELI has published the Toolkit on Monitoring and Evaluation of Environmental Peacebuilding. The toolkit offers guidance to practitioners on establishing and executing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems for interventions that intersect with environment, conflict, and peace.

M&E fosters accountability to intervention participants and beneficiaries, within organizations and to peers. Moreover, it supports learning, which is essential for improving future intervention designs and implementations, as well as providing early warning in the often dynamic and volatile contexts where environmental peacebuilding occurs.

Structured around the intervention cycle, the toolkit comprises chapters on design, monitoring, evaluation, and learning, offering guidance on framing outcomes, developing theories of change, designing M&E approaches, selecting indicators, and managing data collection and analysis.

The toolkit also addresses emerging issues such as big data and geospatial analysis, making it accessible to practitioners from diverse backgrounds.

150 North American Women Join Water Diplomacy

Not a Faultless Virtue: Viewing Water as a Social and Economic Asset
Author
G. Tracy Mehan III - Scalia Law School and American Water Works Association
Scalia Law School and American Water Works Association
Current Issue
Issue
2

Across all of the commodities or materials necessary for survival—food, housing, minerals, timber—water is a singular case, leading many analysts to ask, “Is it a public good, commodity, natural resource, or sacramental to be controlled by government or market forces?” It is a complex case—making it hard to integrate the benefits of private capital, markets, expertise, and economic efficiency with legitimate governmental stewardship, given that water provision is a natural monopoly tethered to specific watersheds and communities.

Recent emphases on the human right to water and the public trust doctrine raise additional expectations in the public mind. This is the challenge that Stanford law professor Barton H. Thompson Jr. takes up in Liquid Asset: How Business and Government Can Partner to Solve the Freshwater Crisis. He finesses the paradox by conceptualizing water as a “public commodity, a resource critical to both public and private needs,” and argues, eloquently, for giving both sectors their due.

“Looking at water as an asset is not a faultless virtue,” writes Thompson. “While it can generate new ideas and opportunities, it can also raise new risks and challenges. In a quest to maximize profit, private actors might pursue ideas that risk injury to human and ecological health, water sustainability, or other public interests. Government’s role is to ensure that does not happen.” He delineates the respective roles of governments and private actors, elucidating the strengths and weaknesses of both.

Take innovation, or the lack thereof, in the water sector, again, where natural monopolies and absence of competition is the norm. It is a fragmented sector with 152,000 drinking water systems and 15,000 wastewater systems, mostly publicly owned, compared to 1,600 electric utilities which, while also monopolies, are private, investor-owned and regulated economically as well as environmentally. The incentives for investment are much stronger in the latter than in the former. Thus, water rates are held down and “the price of water in the United States is lower than in most other societies and, more importantly, less than the water’s actual cost to society,” argues Thompson. Indeed, the water in America is free to customers, since “they pay only for costs of treating, conveying, and delivering water,” if that.

Professor Thompson describes the “innovation deficit” in the sector, which he characterizes as “low and stagnant,” using patent registrations as a key metric. Since 2008 “the proportion of all inventions represented by water-related patents has declined slightly from a high of 1.7 percent to something closer to 1.5 percent. “The number of new clean-energy patents in the United States, however, was roughly twice the number of new water-purification patents prior to around 2005.” Much of this has to do with the cascade of new renewable energy incentives, regulations, research and development, and generous funding. Water patents “flatlined” during this same period. Further, “By 2011, the United State Patent and Trademark Office was granting approximately six times as many energy patents as water patents.”

Globally and in the United States, “by several orders of magnitude,” investments in the renewable energy sector eclipse those made in the water field. “From 2001 through 2014, for example, public agencies provided about $8 billion [emphasis added] in funding for clean energy through grants, contracts, and loans, compared to only $28 million [emphasis added] for the water sector.”

Liquid Assets offers a succinct overview of what the author deems a worldwide water “crisis” in terms of both quantity and quality, with heavy emphasis on the former, given the author’s California roots. It assesses demographic shifts, climate variability, drought, under investment and below-cost water rates, affordability, and ecological impacts. It proceeds to describe a smorgasbord of private initiatives, say, in the brewery business and agriculture, as well as innovative technological and policy measures or reforms across the country and globe. Most of these are well-considered. Many face challenges of scale or critical mass in terms of outcomes. All are based on thorough research and are well-argued. Even well-known cases, such as Cape Town’s “Day Zero” or Coca-Cola’s move to “corporate water stewardship,” after its controversies in India, are in-depth and offer the reader new insights.

The bottom line is that both government (including municipal utilities) and business need each other to mitigate water risks and improve human health and the environment. Consultants, philanthropic foundations, impact funds, financial institutions and NGOs all play a critical role in a new paradigm of governance which is more than traditional government. “Private organizations can best contribute to more effective water management when working with public agencies.” In truth, the public and private sectors offer “complimentary competencies.”

A major focus of Thompson is the fostering of water markets as a means of cost-effectively re-allocating water uses (typically from agriculture to municipalities and industry) pursuant to current societal and economic priorities while avoiding damage to third parties, rural communities especially, from which the water is transferred. Generally, he is bullish on this approach although mindful of the hazards. “Building markets in new regions will often require revisions to water laws and institutions. Water rights must be clear and secure, oversight and approval processes must be streamlined, and conveyance facilities freed for use. As scarcity increases, however, the pressure for such reforms will grow and new markets are likely to arise.” On this subject Thompson demonstrates his expertise in Western water law—i.e., prior appropriation doctrine—in a way accessible to non-lawyers but with insights for practitioners and reformers seeking to optimize water allocations under, or in spite of, traditional “first-in-time, first-in-right” or “use-it-or-lose-it” rules. A beneficial use should include conservation and efficiency, not just consumptive uses.

Thompson cites economic research that indicates that “communities are unlikely to suffer material harm so long as water transfers are temporary, involve less than about 20 percent of a region’s water supply, or free up water through conservation rather than fallowing.” The spontaneous development of water markets seems to demonstrate their value, and reasonable government regulation will insulate them from political opposition driven by lack of transparency or neglect of third-party impacts.

Thompson also ventures into the much-debated issue of privatization of water services and does a yeoman’s job of outlining the case for and against private management contracts, long-term concessions and investor-owned utilities, or IOUs. The issue of insufficient water rates, or resistance to raising rates in public water systems, is at the heart of the controversy, since IOUs, like all private enterprises, regularly raise rates as a business, rather than a political, decision. IOUs are regulated by the public utility commissions, unlike public water or wastewater systems in most states. Thompson believes increased regulation of IOUs will diffuse opposition—which this reviewer doubts. This controversy implicates political or ideological issues rather than technical, regulatory ones. Still, some of Thompson’s recommendations merit consideration, such as ensuring transparency and open bidding for concessions.

IOUs provide a beneficial option for any community to consider for the long-term health of its water system and infrastructure, but Thompson overlooks promising alternatives. There is not necessarily a binary choice between purely public and purely private institutions in the water and wastewater utility sector. Many failed utilities are public utilities embedded in municipal government (e.g., Jackson, Flint, Allentown), but there are other governance models to consider that allow for public accountability while shielding the operations of the utility from the vagaries of the electoral cycle and political expediency. They may also be more acceptable to communities in political terms.

Independent authorities like Lehigh County Authority, Denver Water, and now Washington’s D.C. Water are run by appointed commissioners with set terms. So is the Boston Water and Sewer Commission. These are fine utilities, well-run and funded. Another option is typified by Louisville Water, a separate corporation owned by the city. There are also water cooperatives in Illinois. Indianapolis has done very well with a nonprofit model. Lehigh County Authority was able to negotiate a public-public partnership with Allentown, whose utility was in bad shape. It worked despite resistance to the inevitable rate increases that had to follow given the years of neglect. Massachusetts provides for the adoption by towns of an independent political subdivisions to operate water and sewer systems, modeled after Boston’s Enabling Act of 1977, a salutary example of wise state governance.

A 2019 study by Jennifer Biddle and Karen Baehler found that “autonomy matters” to effective utility management. This study focused on 22 U.S. managers from water utilities across the country. The researchers found that there was an overarching sentiment that utility performance improved with insulation from political interference, and utilities with organizational autonomy possess greater decisionmaking power and flexibility in spending. According to one mid-Atlantic participant, “The city was always very, very reluctant to spend money on infrastructure replacement, renewal upgrades, you name it. They didn’t want to raise the rate.”

Thompson has done a marvelous job surveying the many varied, transformational initiatives in the water sector in the United States and the world. There is much here to discuss and, hopefully, implement for the benefit of humanity and the environment. The water sector and the people who depend on it owe him a debt of gratitude.

G. Tracy Mehan III is executive director for government affairs at the American Water Works Association and adjunct professor at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. He may be contacted at tmehan@awwa.org.

On Water as a Social and Economic Asset

The Right-to-Water Dilemma
Author
Sam Li - Walsh School of Foreign Service & McDonough School of Business
Adam Carpenter - American Water Works Association
Walsh School of Foreign Service & McDonough School of Business
American Water Works Association
Current Issue
Issue
1
Right to Water Dilemma - Environmental Forum January-February 2024

Water is essential for life. It is used for individual needs such as drinking, cooking, cleaning, and sanitation, as well as in the human economy—sectors like agriculture, industry, and energy production. However, according to the World Health Organization, 2.2 billion people do not have access to water that meets basic standards of quality. This statistic has only grown since 2010, when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that “everyone has the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation.” The UN established that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all their citizens have access to this most basic necessity.

Per the resolution, the right to water is “inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.” It means that “all peoples, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantities and of a quality equal to their basic needs.” However, it is important to note that the UN does not mean that everyone has the right to an unlimited amount, or water free of charge; rather, people must have access. Because access is essential to public health, for economic development, and for poverty reduction.

In this article, we will focus on the United States along with the UN, because they are among the most prominent in attempting to implement the right-to-water concept. However, so far, for its part the UN has laid out incomplete policy goals on how to implement this lofty ambition. As a member state of the world body, the United States has also had trouble meeting the drinking water needs of all citizens—despite its wealth—50 years after passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In this article, we offer recommendations for actions that provide accessible and clean water to as many communities as possible. But we also need to address the potential risks to these strategies to increase their chance of success.

The UN is providing technical assistance to governments, helping raise awareness of the issue, and advocating for the rights of water users through a number of programs and initiatives that improve access to water. For instance, the Sustainable Development Goals are a set of 17 targets that were adopted by the United Nations in 2015. The SDGs are designed to be a blueprint for a better future for all, and they include a wide range of issues—poverty, hunger, climate change, and inequality. Goal 6 is to “ensure access to water and sanitation for all.” This includes not only targets to increase access to safe and affordable drinking water, but also to improve sanitation and hygiene, and to reduce water pollution. The subpoints of this goal include paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and others in vulnerable situations.

SDG 6 goes on to explain how reducing pollution and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, along with halving the proportion of untreated wastewater, could contribute to safe reuse of water, increasing the available supply. Further regarding water scarcity, the goal discusses increasing water use efficiency across all sectors and ensuring sustainable withdrawals and supply of fresh water. Finally, SDG 6 recommends implementing integrated water resources management at all levels, including transboundary cooperation as appropriate, while protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers, and lakes. Overall, the UN advocates for expanded international cooperation and capacity-building support for developing countries on the macro level, while strengthening the participation of communities at the local scale.

In 2016, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution titled International Decade (2018-2028) for Action–Water for Sustainable Development, which focuses on the “sustainable development and integrated management of water resources for the achievement of social, economic, and environmental objectives and on the implementation and promotion of related programs and projects.” To elaborate, the UN discusses how water runs through all three pillars of sustainable development, with such resources impacting environmental, social, and economic development. Citing the growing demands from manufacturing, thermal electricity generation (fossil fuel and nuclear power), and domestic use, the UN projects global water demand to increase 55 percent by 2050, making this initiative even more imperative.

The Global Water Partnership is a great example of an existing UN program that is attempting to address water issues through international agreements and related policies. It is a group of governments, businesses, and civil society organizations working to improve water management. GWP’s network of over 3,000 partners is broad and boasts a strong brand in convening sound dialogue, with 20 years of history. Its 13 regional water partnerships have taken on leadership roles in regional processes, South-to-South learning, and cross-boundary coordination.

The United Nations can improve its commitment to fulfilling the human right to water for its member countries by fostering new partnerships among governments, businesses, and civil society organizations. One new strategy would be for the international organization to increase collaboration with local authorities in host countries in order to ensure that the implementation and financing of water policies comes to fruition. Localities have a major role to play in “ensuring adequate financing of equitable access to water and sanitation,” according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. They do so by assessing the need for financial resources, allocating monies from municipal budgets, encouraging service providers to implement specific actions under their own budgets, and more. The UN can help provide resources such as funding and personnel to help local authorities perform financial assessments that contribute to funding for water. Especially for vulnerable and marginalized groups, it is important for the world body to have an on-the-ground understanding of water inequity.

Another way the UN can foster new partnerships is to create a global framework for addressing water stress. This structure would be similar to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, which had countries sign commitments to reducing their carbon footprints by proportional amounts in order to lower atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas. While there was a UN summit on water in March 2023, it only focused on region-specific actions and did not have the goal of seeking an overarching framework. But such a structure can lay out country-by-country commitments to improving water efficiency and accessibility—which could ensure that governments, businesses, and nonprofits concerned about this issue have a benchmark to work off of.

As its member countries face systemic water issues, it is important for the UN to address a number of difficulties as well as proposed mitigations. Overarching challenges include the fact that the amount of fresh water available on Earth is limited, and the demand is increasing due to population growth, economic development, and climate change. Additionally, some parts of the world are water-rich, while others are water-poor. This means that some people have easy access, while others must travel long distances to meet basic needs.

Many governments do not have adequate resources to make all the investments needed in water management. Water infrastructure is expensive to build and to maintain. As a result, in many developing countries such systems are often in poor condition. In some cases governments simply do not have the money to invest, while in others they choose to prioritize other spending, such as education or health care. A clear example is Greece, which is currently recovering from a deep recession. Over the past decade, the country has been facing twin problems of having insufficient water infrastructure such as treatment capacity as well as regular flooding, meaning that the government does not have enough financial resources to adequately control its water resources. In some cases, countries may also lack the political will to invest in water infrastructure. That can lead to various negative consequences, including shortages, pollution, and disease. While these problems affect most countries, the lack of funding for water infrastructure can acutely contribute to poverty and inequality in developing nations.

In order to address the lack of funding, the UN can encourage governments to raise taxes and tariffs as well as willingly receive foreign aid. The international organization discusses how “improved targeting, better utilization of existing resources including harnessing of synergies between different SDGs, and the mobilization of public and private financing” will help countries fund water, sanitation, and hygiene policies. In order to address cash-strapped local governments, the UN recommends that they first invest in retrofitting existing systems while improving “the collection of municipal taxes” that can generate a revenue stream to refinance loans. In addition, the UN can work with governments to raise awareness of the importance of water infrastructure and encourage citizens to support investment.

In some countries, political instability makes it difficult to implement water projects. Disruptions can make it challenging to plan and execute infrastructure. In addition, these situations can make it difficult for countries to secure funding, as donors may be reluctant to invest in regions where there is a risk their money may be wasted. Moreover, political violence can damage or destroy water infrastructure, making it difficult or impossible to provide this most basic of resources to people who need it.

For example, since the start of the 2011 Syrian civil war, access to safe drinking water has been a challenge affecting millions of people in the country, which now has “up to 40 percent less drinking water than a decade ago,” according to the Red Cross. Political instability can also lead to a lack of trust between different groups of people, which can make it difficult to cooperate on water projects. For example, in the Middle East there is a long history of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians over water resources. According to Amnesty International, this conflict has made it difficult to cooperate on water projects that would benefit both groups of people. In the war with Hamas that started in October, Israel briefly cut off drinking water supplies for residents of the Gaza Strip.

Despite these challenges, there are important actions the UN and governments can take. First, build trust between different groups of people. This can be done through dialogue, mediation, and conflict resolution. It is also important to involve communities in the planning and implementation of water projects. This will help ensure that the projects are responsive to the needs of the local people and that the investments are more likely to be successful.

In addition, there are a number of innovative technologies that can be used to improve water security in areas that are affected by political instability. The UN Conference on Trade and Development points to specific case studies in China, Kenya, and Senegal where NGOs have developed water cisterns, pipelines, and desalination systems as low-cost mechanisms to improve access to water. These technologies can help to make projects more resilient to disruptions and to improve the efficiency of water management.

The World Health Organization has documented that in some cultures, there is a taboo against using water for certain purposes, such as washing hands. In other places, it is considered inappropriate for women to wash their hands after using the toilet. Additionally, some cultures believe it wrong to bathe during menstruation. This can lead to women feeling unclean and uncomfortable, and it can also increase the risk of infection.

By understanding the cultural context, it is possible to design projects that are more likely to be successful. There are various actions that can mitigate the challenges posed by cultural prohibitions. For example, the UN can work with governments and NGOs to inform people about the risks of waterborne diseases. This education contributes to what is known as Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene—WASH—interventions, which occur through schools, community health centers, and other outreach programs across multiple countries.

Fifty years after passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act, there are still many areas in the United States where aging water infrastructure needs repair or replacement, a problem that could lead to shortages, pollution, and waterborne diseases. In the most recent “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated there is a water main break every two minutes in the United States, with about 6 billion gallons of treated water lost each day—enough to fill over 9,000 swimming pools. Such losses can go without notice at a national level. But when U.S. communities find their drinking water compromised, it can be big news—as was the case recently in Jackson, Mississippi.

These statistics and major news events signify that crucial parts of our water infrastructure are lacking attention. The United States requires investment from both the public sector and private interests. Regarding the former, there are the federal investments of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. However, with the American Water Works Association estimating that national water needs will total over $1 trillion by the end of the decade, current funding only accounts for just over 60 percent of that amount.

New measures from the federal government include the Biden administration setting aside $15.4 billion to enhance the American West’s resilience to drought through the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The focus on the western region is due to the consistent droughts and water issues it faces, with the federal government declaring a “tier 2” shortage of the Colorado River Basin and thus reducing Arizona’s water share by 21 percent, Nevada’s by 8 percent, and Mexico’s by 7 percent. Specifically, the administration plans to provide up to $233 million in water conservation funding for the Gila River Indian Community, up to $36 million for water conservation in the Coachella Valley. and $20 million for four small surface water storage and groundwater storage projects in California and Utah, including one near the Salton Sea. These investments are a critical step toward ensuring that everyone in the country has access to clean water.

There is still a long road ahead for the United States to provide efficient and accessible water systems to its entire population. There is a particular impetus for state governments that have declared their own “human right-to-water” policies. These states include: California, New York, Rhode Island, and Montana. Thus, ideas to actualize this right include coordinated zoning efforts by state and local governments as well as regionalization. Regarding the former, state governments should be allocating additional funding for water expenses. In 2020, the Urban Institute estimated that California spent $32 million on water utilities, matched with a total utility revenue of $910 million; that resulted in a ratio of 3.52 percent. New York spent $77.9 million on water utilities with a total revenue of $8 billion, leading to a ratio of 9.72 percent. States can increase these ratios by adopting model ordinance language targeted at natural resources, and writing zoning ordinance provisions that aim to improve environmental protection.

Concerning regionalization, American communities can partner with their neighbors to spread water costs over larger populations. By consolidating multiple water systems, communities can utilize adjacent systems’ excess capacity, set up mutual-aid agreements, work toward implementing similar rates, plan and build interties, and evaluate governance options. An example of this concept is the Lowcountry Regional Water System, which is a consortium of five small towns in South Carolina that have utilized regionalization to reduce overall water costs. The federal government should be encouraging state governments to explore regionalization efforts where appropriate.

The United States faces many risks trying to achieve these water policy goals, including cost, complexity, regulatory hurdles, and political opposition. The cost of these projects can be a major barrier to investment. In addition, these projects are often complex and can involve a number of different stakeholders, which can make it difficult to plan and execute. Water infrastructure projects are often subject to a number of rules, which can add to the cost and complexity. Specifically concerning regionalization, there are obstacles including competition among existing water utilities, legal issues concerning water rights, the technical feasibility of interconnecting the systems, and concerns over allocation of costs.

Streamlining regulations and building political support for water policies are ways that the U.S. government can mitigate these risks. Streamlining can help to reduce the cost and complexity of water infrastructure. An example is 33 U.S.C. 1344(f), an amendment in the Clean Water Act. It states that “the secretary may, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, issue general permits on a state, regional, or nationwide basis for any category of activities involving discharges of dredged or fill material.” A general permit is an authorization mechanism that allows construction to streamline certain activities—such as discharges and dredging up of materials.

Additionally, building support for water infrastructure can help to overcome political opposition to these projects. This past March, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced the bipartisan Healthy Drinking Water Affordability Act that aims to provide 43 million predominantly rural households with water testing kits to help protect from emerging contaminants like PFAS, the “forever chemicals” that are now turning up in drinking water systems nationwide, raising public health concerns.

The right to water is a fundamental human right, but for billions of people around the world, there has been insufficient action to make this right a reality. Every day, millions of people have no choice but to drink contaminated water, which can lead to deadly diseases like cholera and typhoid. Children are especially vulnerable to the detrimental effects of unsafe water—some 72,000 children under five die annually from these diseases.

The UN and United States have significant roles in helping the world achieve universal access to water. But we all have a role to play in ensuring that everyone has access. We can raise awareness of the issue, advocate for the rights of water users, and support organizations that are working to promote the right to water. By working together, we can make a difference and ensure that everyone has the water they need to live a healthy and productive life.

BRIEFING On the 50th anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. still faces huge implementation challenges. Meanwhile, other countries are struggling to establish their own systems at the most basic level.

Water Doesn’t Just Shape the Planet—It Shapes Us
Author
Jordan Diamond - Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute
Current Issue
Issue
2
drawing of Jordan Diamond, a woman with long dark hair in a blazer

In March, the United Nations is hosting a conference focused entirely on water. In the middle of the UN’s Water Action Decade, the event will bring together people from around the world to discuss water’s intersection with health, sustainable development, climate and resilience, and more.

In our profession, it’s hard to overstate the vital role of water—at every level, personal, community, regional, global. You need look no further than my home state of California, which in recent years has struggled with megadrought and devastating wildfires followed by floods, all while wrestling with ongoing issues related to fundamental access to water and water equity.

We know that water is essential to survival, and that it is an incredible natural force that shapes the planet itself. What sometimes slips under the radar, however, is how deeply it shapes our society, especially the role of Indigenous communities and women. Which is why I’m so grateful for the ELI staff leading efforts to elevate that understanding and ensure it is integrated into natural resource decisionmaking.

As I’m writing this, the Institute is hosting a three-day workshop focused on tribal wetland monitoring and assessment programs in EPA’s Region 5. It brings together tribal wetland managers to share and gain knowledge about the development of sustainable monitoring programs. The workshop also includes knowledge-sharing sessions discussing aspects such as integrating culture and tradition into monitoring and assessment, wild rice monitoring programs, and other important and emerging issues that move beyond the technical.

Last November, ELI co-convened with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization the Second Water Tenure Experts’ Meeting as part of ongoing efforts to support a Global Dialogue on the Responsible Governance of Water Tenure, which will be officially launched at the March UN Water Conference. The dialogue builds on the efforts of FAO, ELI, and partners to define, assess, and further raise the profile of the critical role of water tenure in achieving equitable allocation and sustainable use and management of fresh water, with a focus on the rights of Indigenous peoples, local communities, and women within those communities.

Also in March, ELI joins the UN Water Conference alongside a delegation of the Women in Water Diplomacy Network, hailing from Afghanistan to Ethiopia, to elevate the importance of gender-inclusive water decisionmaking. Since 2017, ELI has been a partner of the network supporting frontline women decisionmakers in conflict-sensitive and water-insecure basins. The network is grounded in a cooperative vision that recognizes the shared values of water, as well as the disconnect between the central role women play in the provision and management of water, the disproportionate impact of water insecurity on women, and women’s unequal representation in water decisionmaking.

There are few things more vital to our survival and well-being than water—and we know that climate change is already drastically impacting our relationship with it. While the hydrologic cycle is complex, understanding it depends on also understanding its impact on our relationships with one another.

On How Water Shapes Society.

ELI Report
Author
Akielly Hu - Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute
Current Issue
Issue
2

Women in Water Institute and partners champion gender-inclusive policymaking in transboundary basins around the world

Women, young people, and vulnerable communities often experience the brunt of water insecurity and stress—a growing challenge in many areas of the world. At the same time, women are on the frontline of efforts to address transboundary water issues. Despite a gap in meaningful participation of women in the water sector, research has shown that gender-inclusive policymaking results in more durable and resilient solutions.

Since 2017, ELI has supported empowering women in water decisionmaking as a partner of the Women in Water Diplomacy Network, a program initiated by the Stockholm International Water Institute. The Network is a community of both formal and informal decisionmakers and experts, including representatives from the ministries of foreign affairs and water, civil society members, academics, and youth organization representatives. Together, the network represents over 500 years of experience and expertise in some of the world’s most water-insecure regions.

The Women in Water Diplomacy Network originally began with a focus on the Nile Basin, convening water diplomats and leaders from 11 basin countries. In 2021, the program expanded to Central Asia and Afghanistan through a partnership with the Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Most recently, three new basin networks for the Orange-Senqu, Zambezi, and Okavango transboundary rivers in southern Africa have entered early development stages. Meanwhile, interest in the knowledge and strategies offered through the network continues to gain interest across the world, including in North America through the engagement of United States-Canada International Joint Commission.

In August 2022, Women in Water Diplomacy held its first Global Network Forum in advance of World Water Week, an annual conference held in Stockholm, Sweden. In lieu of the Network’s traditional focus on one basin at a time, the forum convened women water diplomats and experts from across Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America. The event also introduced the Network’s new global strategy, A Path Forward for Women, Water, Peace and Security. The strategy presents a five-year plan for the Network’s programming and reflects nine months of consultation across the Network’s growing constituency.

Elizabeth A. Koch, senior manager of ELI’s International Programs, led the planning, consultation, design, and drafting of the strategy in consultation with network leaders. They include Jessica Troell, director of ELI’s International Waters Program, who has supported the development of the network since its inception, including by contributing to research and trainings on topics related to water law and gender equality.

This March, the Network will continue to promote its efforts at the UN Water Conference in New York City—the first UN conference on water in almost 50 years. Events held by the initiative will include a one-day experience exchange hosted by ELI, Stockholm International Water Institute, International Joint Commission, Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, and University of Arizona. More than 50 water diplomats and water leaders from around the world are expected to join the event, with strong focus on elevating the voices of women, Indigenous, and young water leaders.

As accelerating climate change continues to exacerbate water challenges around the world, championing women’s leadership and participation is more important than ever before. To meet these challenges, the Women in Water Diplomacy Network is actively seeking partnerships and further funding to reach its global strategy objectives and support women leaders to achieve sustainable water resources for the future.

Institute analyzes policy framework for offshore wind energy

In December, ELI released the Louisiana Offshore Wind Energy Framework to support participation by Louisiana stakeholders in offshore wind energy decisionmaking. The report provides an overview of the most relevant state laws, regulations, and intergovernmental authorities affecting wind energy development off the coast of Louisiana.

Offshore wind energy production is expected to begin soon off the coast of Louisiana and elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Gulf has the potential to generate almost 510,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy per year—twice the current energy needs of all five Gulf states. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management—the federal agency overseeing offshore energy permitting—has announced the opening of the Gulf to wind lease sales by 2025. In October, the agency finalized the first two wind energy zones in the Gulf, which combined would have the potential to power more than 2.8 million homes.

ELI’s report was initially developed to support the work of the National Wildlife Federation’s Offshore Wind Power program and later compiled as a standalone research report. Authored by ELI Senior Attorney Amy Reed, the resource was also distributed at Tulane Law School’s inaugural Offshore Wind Conference in January. It represents a continuation of a series of offshore renewable energy framework analyses developed by ELI. The Institute previously collaborated with the states of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia to analyze their offshore energy laws and provide recommendations for strengthening existing frameworks. Reports for the three Mid-Atlantic states were released between 2008 and 2011. ELI also published a regional Mid-Atlantic guide to offshore wind management in 2013.

As interest grows in the offshore wind potential of the Gulf region, understanding the underlying policy and legal frameworks for supporting such development is essential. Recent tax credits through the Inflation Reduction Act further bolster development of offshore wind in the Gulf and elsewhere in U.S. waters. ELI is now beginning work on a similar policy framework for the state of Texas, in response to the enthusiastic reception of its Louisiana report.

Report highlights tips for making effective state coastal policies

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, a federal action that impacts a state’s coastal resources may be subject to a “federal consistency review.” The federal consistency provision gives participating state governments the authority to review federal activities to determine if a proposed use is consistent with the state’s own coastal management program. Federal consistency often is a state’s best tool for influencing federal and federally approved activities that affect its coast.

At the heart of the federal consistency authority are enforceable policies: state rules that define permitted uses in and affecting a state’s designated “coastal area.” Although there are some qualifiers and exceptions, in general federal actions cannot violate or contradict enforceable policies. In December, ELI published Strong Enforceable Policies—Examples and Tips. Authored by ELI Senior Attorneys Amy Reed and Adam Schempp, the report highlights good examples of enforceable policies in the states of California, Florida, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. The document builds on coastal program analyses ELI conducted for Pew Environment from 2020-2021.

Senior Attorney Amy Reed presented and distributed the report at the 2022 Coastal & Estuarine Summit hosted by Restore America’s Estuaries in New Orleans, LA. The event brought together coastal restoration and management communities to explore common issues, solutions, and lessons learned. Office hours held following the presentation provided an opportunity for state coastal management programs and their partners to ask further questions about enforceable policies.

The report notes that while enforceable policies vary significantly across coastal states and territories, most programs can identify a number of ways to strengthen their rules. Given the new influx of money to coastal management programs through the Inflation Reduction Act, now is an opportune time for states to take inventory of their existing enforceable policies and consider opportunities to make them more effective.

In coming years, states will need to balance environmental and economic interests as new offshore industries emerge, shorelines erode, and sea levels rise. The federal consistency authority offers states a powerful mechanism for influencing federal coastal activities and a platform to foster productive negotiations between federal agencies and their state counterparts.

ELI Advances Gender-Inclusive Water Policymaking.

Now As Then, Rivers Are Crucial to Our Prosperity
Author
Stephen R. Dujack - Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute
Current Issue
Issue
1

One of the first civilizations to arise after humankind left Africa was in a nearby region that is in present-day Iraq and parts of neighboring countries stretching to the Mediterranean Sea. It has been dubbed by chroniclers Mesopotamia, Greek for “the land between two rivers.” The Tigris and Euphrates valley was the setting for the biblical Garden of Eden and is aptly named the Fertile Crescent in history books today.

Rivers have been a tremendous boon and resource for humanity, offering drinking water, food, waste disposal, irrigation, fertilizer, and a medium for personal transportation, commerce, and recreation. Even in ancient times, many of these uses ended up in conflict and often required coordination to fully exploit, fostering the beginnings of government and its role in preserving the public trust. Later in history, the public trust attributes of rivers were adopted by Roman law and English law before coming to us.

Many of the world’s early civilizations were founded on the banks of great rivers—the Yellow River in present-day China, the Indus in India, the Nile in Africa, and the Mesopotamian culture that began about six thousand years ago and lasted for millennia. These cultures’ trajectories overlapped, there was intercourse even among distant lands, and many of the same inventions emerged in more than one of these and the other great civilizations that eventually arose on all the habitable continents.

The ancient Mesopotamians took full advantage of the two large streams flowing through their settlements. According to Amanda H. Podany, professor of ancient history at California State Polytechnic University, it was a region that was kind to human advancement, with predecessors of today’s goats, sheep, pigs, dogs, and cattle and wild seed crops like barley and wheat that were easy to harvest and, eventually, domesticate.

Over centuries, the hunter-gatherers who subsisted on these leavings developed agriculture, built one of the world’s first cities, Uruk, and created the first written language we know how to read, which is when we can really begin to know them and see in their problems, and opportunities for advancement, some of our key drivers today.

Known as Akkadian, this writing was inscribed on clay tablets—mud being the only abundant resource in the river valleys—and is a form of cuneiform. It was primarily used to keep track of business and governmental records, documenting the rise of bureaucracy and the administrative state. Included in these clay tablets are some of the first contracts and accounts of court decisions, and numerous property records, deeds, and other legal instruments. They knew the importance of these documents—they fired key tablets to ensure they would endure, and indeed a quarter million have been unearthed by archeologists.

Even more durable is stone. The Babylonian King Hammurabi, who created the first large-scale Mesopotamian empire in the 18th century BCE, had his famed legal code engraved on rock monoliths placed in vassal states, thus creating the predecessor to the Federal Register. According to the site worldhistory.org, Hammurabi is also the father of government’s role in what we today call “promoting the general welfare,” through public works such as irrigation canals to help farmers by tapping water from the two rivers.

The Babylonians also used the abundant mud to perfect pottery, a huge advance that facilitated the storing and use of food and other substances. According to W. Bernard Carlson, professor of engineering at the University of Virginia, potters copied Akkadian scribes who fired their cuneiform tablets, devising in turn high-temperature kilns based on a new invention, charcoal made from trees, to melt glazes and make their wares more waterproof.

The advent of mass-produced pots by Mesopotamian artisans spawned an industrial revolution. Charcoal-fired kilns proved useful to smelt copper from ore, creating the first pure metal not found in nature. Copper was used as currency, for tools, for armor and weapons, and for jewelry. Ancient smiths eventually added arsenic to the smelting recipe to launch the Bronze Age and another leap forward in technology, enabling better tools for agriculture and weapons for warfare.

According to Cal State Poly’s Podany, evidence exists that arsenic was abandoned and replaced with tin in bronze-making because it had proved toxic in production—thus, in our view, becoming the first industrial process change as the result of an OSHA violation. Charcoal became critical to ancient societies for making not only pottery and bronze but eventually lead, iron, gold, and silver. The University of Wisconsin’s Gregory S. Aldrete says this need for high-temperature ovens accounts for much of the deforestation in the Mediterranean basin evident today.

But that’s not the end of the story. Mesopotamian artisans also developed the pottery wheel, which stores and releases rotational energy in a uniform manner, simplifying the manufacture of storage vessels and foodware. Engineers then used the potters’ invention of controlled motion around an axle to make the first chariots for warfare and carts for produce and raw materials.

Wheeled vehicles required real roads, creating another obligation of government in providing for defense and the general welfare. According to John. W. I. Lee of University of California, these incentives spawned the road system of the Persian Empire that supplanted Babylonia. These roads projected central control and facilitated tax collection, in addition to fostering commerce. The network was run on a cooperative federalism model not unlike the U.S. Interstate System, and with the same defense and economic justifications. In the end, the advent of wheeled vehicles and roads in ancient societies meant that people and goods could readily travel away from rivers, allowing humanity to expand into new lands.

And all these technological advancements occurred because a riparian society was rich in just one resource—mud.

This is all leading up to the fact that today we are as dependent on rivers as ever. Last fall, the Mississippi became unnavigable in certain areas due to a persistent drought in the Midwest. Thousands of barges carrying food and raw materials were stranded—at one point equivalent to 210,000 container trucks—putting pressure on markets when inflation is high and global grain markets are in stress due to the war in Ukraine. Some 60 percent of U.S. corn and soy exports begins its journey on the Mississippi.

In the West, the Colorado River, which serves one American in ten, is failing to meet the needs of cities and agriculture. The region is experiencing a 22-year-long drought—the worst in 12 centuries, New Scientist calculates—lowering dam-formed Lake Mead and Lake Powell to unprecedented levels and endangering hydropower generation. Meanwhile, downstream users are experiencing water shortfalls.

In Europe, what another alarming article in New Scientist terms a once-in-500-year drought is affecting riparian commerce. Water levels in the Rhine River, which transports 80 percent of Germany’s ship-borne goods, are dangerously low. At one point hydropower generation was down 20 percent across Europe, where electricity production is already stressed due to cutbacks on Russian gas.

According to Brown University environmental scientist Laurence C. Smith, writing in the New York Times, “Economic powerhouse rivers . . . are being sucked dry not only by climate change but by fast-growing cities and farming operations that need more water. Agriculture is the single largest consumer of fresh water, and global food demand is still rising.” Yet another water-shortage report in New Scientist says that England—a land with few major rivers or lakes—will need four billion liters of drinking water per day in additional capacity at the same time as it experiences the effects of climate change. Or as Brown’s Smith puts it, “There are no new rivers left to tap. We must learn to do more with less.”

It is not surprising that humanity’s engagement with rivers is today fertile ground for advancing environmental justice. Rivers offer the same amenities they always have, if they are clean and are accessible to local communities. In cities, riverside parks are great places to spend an afternoon picnicking, boating, playing sports, and fishing. This is especially so in rental neighborhoods, where parks offer valued living space. Sadly, EJ communities along riverfronts often don’t have this standard suite of recreation lands and, in fact, have large industrial plants, warehouses, and refineries. People need to be connected to the streams flowing through their communities, as they were in ancient times. Humans have always thrived on the offerings of local waterways.

“Throughout history, societies have grown and prospered along rivers,” as Smith puts it. “Today, nearly two-thirds of us live alongside them. The ways in which societies use rivers have changed drastically over time, giving rise to cities, powering the Industrial Revolution, and populating the world’s arid lands through massive dams and water diversion schemes, among other transitions. It’s time now to reimagine our relationship with rivers once again.”

—Stephen R. Dujack

Notice & Comment is the editors’ column and represents the signatory’s views.

In a World First, New Zealand Plans to Tax Bovine Burps

Farmers across New Zealand took to the streets on their tractors [October 20] to protest government plans to tax cow burps and other greenhouse gas emissions, although the rallies were smaller than many had expected.

Lobby group Groundswell New Zealand helped organize more than 50 protests in towns and cities across the country, the biggest involving a few dozen vehicles.

Last week, the government proposed a new farm levy as part of a plan to tackle climate change. The government said it would be a world first, and that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.

Because farming is so big in New Zealand—there are 10 million beef and dairy cattle and 26 million sheep, compared to just 5 million people—about half of all greenhouse gas emissions come from farms. Methane from burping cattle makes a particularly big contribution.

But some farmers argue the proposed tax would actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions by shifting farming to countries less efficient at making food.

—Associated Press

Some of the dirtiest cars in America are owned by less affluent Americans. The reason? They can’t afford newer, cleaner, more fuel-efficient ones. Consequently, if using EVs to lower emissions is the name of the game, adoption should be encouraged where it would matter most.

—Boston Globe

Now As Then, Rivers Are Crucial to Our Prosperity

ELI Report
Author
Akielly Hu - Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute
Current Issue
Issue
6

ELI at the UN Institute advances rule of law, peacebuilding, and ocean conservation at key international conferences last summer

Fifty years after the United Nations’ first global Conference on the Human Environment, world leaders convened in Sweden this past June to take stock of environmental governance achievements and work toward the next era of sustainable development. At this year’s Stockholm+50 conference, ELI played a key role in two official side events and engaged in several other panels to promote environmental peacebuilding and environmental rule of law.

On June 2, ELI partnered with the Environmental Peacebuilding Association, Geneva Peacebuilding Platform, and PeaceNexus to convene an official side event on Improving Sustainable Development by Integrating Peace. The panel was moderated by ELI Senior Attorney Carl Bruch and featured Research Associate Shehla Chowdhury. Speaking to a full house, panelists discussed the connections among peacebuilding, sustainable development, and conservation by highlighting illustrative case studies and initiatives.

On the same day, ELI also co-sponsored an official side event on Judges, the Environmental Rule of Law, and a Healthy Planet Since the 1972 Stockholm Declaration. Participating judges included several long-time partners of ELI, including Justice Antonio Benjamin of Brazil, head of the Global Judicial Institute on the Environment, Justice Brian Preston of New South Wales, Australia, Justice Mansoor Ali-Shah of Pakistan, and Justice Michael Wilson of Hawaii—all leading champions of climate action.

Prior to the official Stockholm+50 conference, the Institute also co-sponsored a two-day Symposium on Judges and the Environment: The Impact of the Stockholm Declaration in Shaping Global Environmental Law and Jurisprudence. At the event, President Emeritus and International Envoy Scott Fulton presented ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project. The program is the only one in the world working to equip judges with the basic climate science education needed to administer justice in climate-related cases. Fulton shared that the project is now looking to pivot internationally, with the goal of sharing the same knowledge base with justices around the world.

Later in the summer, ELI Oceans Program Director Xiao Recio-Blanco and Visiting Attorney Patience Whitten joined the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, from June 27 to July 1. As part of the summit’s events, ELI hosted the Future of Food Is Blue panel, in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, Rare, the Government of Iceland, and others. The event formally launched the Aquatic Blue Food Coalition, which promotes fish, shellfish, plants, and other aquatic foods to address food security and climate.

Recio-Blanco spoke at a reception immediately following to share ELI’s research on sustainable fisheries, highlighting the Law and Governance Toolkit for Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, published in 2020. The toolkit helps legal drafters develop effective policy mechanisms to sustainably manage small-scale fisheries.

Advancing migration with dignity through innovative research

Climate change, war, economic insecurity, and a myriad of other global issues have accelerated internal displacement and global migration. Yet migrants typically suffer many indignities during their transition to a new place, and existing institutions often fail to recognize their basic human rights. In response to this challenge, ELI and its partners have undertaken groundbreaking work on Migration With Dignity, a framework that offers legal and policy options for governments, policymakers, and nonprofits to uphold the dignity of migrants. The concept builds upon the policies of former President of Kiribati Anote Tong, who asserted the need for the people of Kiribati to maintain their autonomy and standard of living throughout the migration experience.

A recent special issue of the Journal of Disaster Research reflects a collaboration between ELI and the Dignity Rights Initiative, the Delaware Law School, the UN International Organization for Migration, and the Ocean Policy Research Institute. ELI Senior Attorney Carl Bruch co-authored two articles, Migration With Dignity: A Legal and Policy Framework, and The Methodology and Application of a Migration With Dignity Framework, along with Shanna N. McClain, NASA disasters program manager and former ELI visiting scientist.

Migration With Dignity: A Legal and Policy Framework considers a variety of migration contexts and identifies policies that work and gaps that exist for considering the dignity of migrants. Meanwhile, The Methodology and Application of a Migration With Dignity Framework provides a methodology for considering the social and legal dimensions of the Migration With Dignity framework. The issue also discusses the intergenerationality of immigrants in adapting or assimilating into their new environment, and how mass media affects perceptions of migrants in host countries.

ELI is continuing its work on Migration With Dignity through a new grant from the United Institute of Peace, which explores the potential of the framework to prevent and mitigate conflicts. Through research, dialogue, technical assistance, and capacity-building, the Institute seeks to strengthen legal protections for people displaced across national borders through its Environmental Displacement and Migration program.

Report on mining in Amazon identifies major corruption risks

In July, ELI and its partners contributed to Corruption in Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining in the Peruvian Amazon, a study prepared for USAID as part of the agency’s Prevenir Amazonías project. The Prevenir project aims to prevent and reduce the three greatest threats to the Peruvian Amazon: wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal mining. According to USAID, the project “works with the Government of Peru and civil society to improve the enabling conditions to prevent and combat environmental crimes.”

The guide represents the third in a series of reports developed by ELI for the project. The first, published in 2021, discussed the incorporation of wildlife trafficking into Peru’s organized crime law. Another, released in 2022, detailed best practices for prosecuting and sanctioning wildlife trafficking crimes.

The new report identifies corruption risks in the value chain of the gold derived from artisanal and small-scale mining in the Peruvian Amazon. In doing so, the report addresses the complex reality of mining in an analytical and evidence-based manner. Collaborating with local experts and professors, ELI analyzed interviews and conducted surveys of stakeholders involved in the gold mining value chain, including government officials, specialized prosecutors in environmental matters, and the chiefs of Amazonian Natural Reserves in which illegal mining often takes place.

The report then proposes regulations and governance mechanisms to mitigate these risks.

Sandra Nichols Thiam, ELI associate vice president of research and policy, served as project manager, and Elissa Torres-Soto, staff attorney, served as principal researcher and writer. Research Associate Georgia Ray, Staff Attorney Kristine Perry, and Visiting Attorney Vera Morveli also contributed to the research.

Geared toward policymakers, the study pinpoints the incidents where corruption is more likely to occur, and the factors that make corruption more likely. The Prevenir project is now focused on conducting outreach to spur dialogue and action on the report’s recommendations, especially to members of the Peruvian Congress who are beginning to address these issues.

ELI’s work on the Prevenir project situates within the Institute’s longstanding Inter-American Program. Since 1989, the program has worked in more than 20 countries in the region, with an extensive network of local partners to promote strategies of sustainable development and the conservation of natural resources.

In coming years, ELI plans to release another report under the Prevenir project on the use of amicus curiae in environmental crime cases in Peru, aimed at law students and members of NGOs.

 

ELI in Action Dialogue on the right to a healthy environment

In July, ELI partnered with Delaware Law’s Global Environmental Rights Institute, Barry University’s Center for Earth Jurisprudence, the American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, the ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice, and the ABA Center for Human Rights to produce a series of webinars about the right to a healthy environment.

Last year, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva formally recognized the right to a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” and recommended that the UN General Assembly do the same. In the first webinar of the series, a panel of international leaders from the United Nations and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University discussed what it might mean for the UN General Assembly to adopt such a resolution. In the second installment, human rights practitioners reviewed the United States’ position on the issue, which continues to evolve. And finally, the third webinar, featuring experts in environmental rights and justice, examined the extent to which states in the United States have recognized or might recognize a right to a healthy environment.

ELI’s Food Waste Initiative is publishing a series of research briefs to present takeaways from the Initiative’s research, spanning a range of topics important to food waste prevention, recovery, and recycling. In May, the Initiative released Social Science Literature Review on Value of Measuring and Reporting Food Waste, authored by Research Associate Margaret Badding and Senior Attorney Linda Breggin. The brief provides an overview of relevant social science literature on the behavioral implications of measuring waste or emissions. Research indicates that simply measuring these components can motivate behavior change, due to increased awareness as well as reputational and financial concerns of measuring entities.

In June, the Initiative also published An Overview of Multilingual Outreach, Translation, and Language Justice Resources. Implementing environmental initiatives requires clear communication with affected communities—including those that speak languages other than English. Written by Research Associate Jordan Perry and Senior Attorney Linda Breggin, the brief highlights best practices for effective and inclusive multilingual outreach and document translation. To be most helpful to organizations with limited time and funds, these best practices are pulled from ready-to-use resources such as checklists and toolkits.

Under the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and tribes restore water quality in part by implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), which set a maximum level of a pollutant allowed in a given body of water. Evaluating the effectiveness of TMDLs is challenging, yet vital for revealing whether a TMDL and implementation actions are working or should be revised.

In June, ELI published Evaluating the Water Quality Effects of TMDL Implementation: How States Have Done It and the Lessons Learned, a report highlighting the diversity of approaches to evaluating the water quality effects of TMDL implementation. The document explains some of those methods and conveys lessons learned. It also details terminology challenges and identifies relevant resource materials. By facilitating communication among water quality programs, the document aims to generate new ideas and ensure that future TMDL restoration efforts are more effective and efficient.

This past year, ELI hosted a workshop series on Communicating Complex Science: The Challenge of Sea-Level Rise. Funded by the National Science Foundation’s Paleoclimate Program and co-hosted with George Washington University Law School, these discussions brought together scientists, lawyers, and policy professionals to examine opportunities in communicating the science of sea-level rise.

The initial session, focused on explaining the science and attributing the impacts of sea-level rise, was held in November. The panel featured presentations by scientists Andrea Dutton from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ben Strauss from Climate Central. Robin Craig from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law facilitated a conversation to set the stage for subsequent sessions on the implications for law and policy.

In May, a follow-up session focused on the legal and policy landscape of sea-level rise included presentations from Astrid Caldas from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Jeffrey Peterson, author of A New Coast, Thomas Ruppert from Florida Sea Grant, and Robin Craig.

ELI Advances Peacebuilding, Ocean Conservation at UN.

Water Officer of the United States
Author
Akielly Hu - Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute
Current Issue
Issue
3
 Radhika Fox smiling at the camera and wearing a white blazer and black shirt

In a political climate marked by polarization and division, sometimes you need a tangible reminder of how interconnected we are. For Radhika Fox, this uniter comes in the shape of one of our most important, yet underappreciated resources: water. Even when we are unable to come to terms with our interdependence, the evidence is plain to see. “If there’s somebody upstream, there’s always somebody else downstream. That’s the nature of the water cycle,” says the country’s most senior water policy official.

A day-one appointee in the Biden administration, Fox was officially sworn in as assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on June 16, 2021. She is the first woman of color and the first person of Asian American heritage to ever hold the position—a historic moment for the water office.

It’s also “a historic moment for water,” as Fox says. Half a year after her confirmation, the bipartisan infrastructure law injected into the economy more than $50 billion for clean water—the greatest single federal investment in water in the nation’s history. As new infrastructure funds flow through the country, all eyes are on EPA and its Office of Water to tackle some of the most complex and important issues facing this vital resource.

On the most basic level, Fox and her team’s job is to keep the nation’s surface waters clean and its drinking water safe. These Herculean tasks require implementing an alphabet soup of regulations and statutes, most importantly the federal Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Policymakers at the water office draw out rules to regulate the filling of wetlands and the discharge of pollutants, among other duties.

The water team is also taking on many of the nation’s most pernicious environmental injustices, including lead, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and other toxics in drinking water. Fox has named these issues as top priorities for her tenure. “There’s nothing more fundamental and more essential than equity in the context of water management,” she says.

“I mean, just think about your day, right? You can’t get through your day without access to clean, safe water, whether that’s having that cup of coffee or a glass of water, or being able to provide safe water for your children. Unfortunately, millions of people in this country and all around the world don’t have that fundamental, basic security,” Fox says.

Crises like the lead poisoning in Flint and Benton Harbor, Michigan, have made clear the urgent need for improved, equitable water management. Exposure to lead, particularly in drinking water, disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color. The contaminant impairs neural development in children and causes greater risk of kidney failure and stroke, among other health conditions. According to the White House, lead pipes run through an estimated 6 to 10 million homes, plus another 400,000 schools and child care centers.

Early on in his presidency, President Biden announced a goal to replace all lead service lines in the United States. The directive relies heavily on the Office of Water’s regulatory muscles, particularly when it comes to tightening protections under the Lead and Copper Rule, a Safe Drinking Water Act-related regulation published by EPA to limit these substances.

LCR has spun through a turnstile of revisions over the years. In December 2021, EPA announced the office would develop new revisions to the rule, to make the regulation more protective than its current version. “We had a huge, robust public engagement process last year with communities who are on the front lines of the lead crisis, tribal nations, co-regulators, and national associations,” Fox says of the upcoming rule.

In an earlier E&E News interview, Fox clarified that these roundtables would help close a crucial gap in understanding. “We know historically that we haven’t really considered enough the way in which the Lead and Copper Rule impacts people of color,” she said. EPA expects to finalize the new revisions by October 2024.

Concurrently, the water office is moving forward on policies to limit PFAS. These so-called “forever chemicals” are found in the bodies of virtually all Americans, and are associated with cancer, immune disorders, and developmental issues, among a host of other health harms. Fox co-chairs the EPA Council on PFAS, along with the agency’s Region 1 Deputy Regional Administrator Deborah Szaro. The group coordinates agency-wide efforts on PFAS according to a timeline in the council’s strategic roadmap. Targeted actions include regulating PFAS under the SDWA and minimizing chemical discharges in wastewater.

Although many of these rulemakings are still in progress, Fox says she is already “incredibly honored to be in this role as assistant administrator for water to continue the journey toward water equity and justice.” Growing up, her understanding of the disparities between communities and countries developed on an intuitive level, rather than as a conscious awakening.

“My commitment to equity and justice and opportunity for all comes from my upbringing, first and foremost. I am the child of immigrants who came to this country searching for economic opportunity, and I very much stand on their shoulders,” she says.

Fox’s parents grew up in rural India, and her grandparents worked as small farmers, growing rice, lemons, and bananas. Water was essential to her family’s agricultural livelihood. At the same time, their village lacked tap water or flush toilets; the family relied on drinking wells and pit latrines.

Her family regularly traveled back to her grandparents’ village during the summers of her childhood, an experience that allowed her to “see how infrastructure, especially water systems that we didn’t have at my grandmother’s village, can create these communities of opportunity.”

“I think equity is deeply ingrained in who I am because of my background, and from recognizing that the opportunities afforded to you are often random—like from whom and where you were born. I have always felt a desire to give back because I have been given so much opportunity by my family,” she says.

As an undergraduate student at Columbia University, Fox volunteered in Harlem and “saw firsthand how there are so many systems and structures that afford opportunity to some, but not to others.” The experience affirmed a lifelong commitment to equity and justice. Even in her earlier work on infrastructure, housing, and transportation, environmental justice served as “a thread through all of those experiences.”

Fox describes her career trajectory as “grounded in infrastructure.” After more than a decade as the federal policy director at PolicyLink, a research institute dedicated to racial and economic equity, she joined the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission as director of policy and government affairs, helping to provide water and wastewater services to more than 2.6 million Bay Area residents.

“What drew me to the SFPUC was their infrastructure work. The biggest tributary to infrastructure investment in San Francisco is actually the water department. People don’t realize that, so although I went there for infrastructure, I fell in love with working on all kinds of water issues,” Fox says.

She continued to make her mark on the water world as CEO of the national nonprofit U.S. Water Alliance. There her stature began to be generally acknowledged. “Radhika Fox is a significant figure in the water sector—a woman with tremendous respect and standing in the community,” says Tracy Mehan, former assistant administrator for water under the George W. Bush administration. At the Water Alliance, Fox worked to find common ground between water utilities, businesses, nonprofits, and other water sector stakeholders for more than five years before joining EPA.

What sets Fox apart from other bureaucrats is a grounding of policies in the lived, on-the-ground experience of everyday people. Fox has frequently mentioned in public statements that her team’s policymaking will be guided by a principle of “listening to all sides to find enduring solutions.” The philosophy has been a “through line” in her career, and will be put to the ultimate test for reaching consensus on one of water’s most contentious policy issues—the Waters of the United States rule.

Under written law, Clean Water Act jurisdiction extends to any area designated as “Waters of the United States.” What exactly these include is something policymakers have failed to achieve consensus on since the 1980s. A confusing definition of WOTUS jeopardizes the ability of governments at every level to protect the nation’s waters, for a simple reason—whatever doesn’t count, doesn’t get regulated under the federal law.

One sticking point is whether ephemeral or intermittent streams should be covered. The issue has significant implications for the arid Southwest, where water levels tend to fluctuate much more than other areas of the United States. Relentless back-and-forth between administrations, and court decisions over the decades that have introduced even more confusion, has left a patchwork of jurisdictional definitions operating in the country.

Fox describes the last decade of the WOTUS debacle as a “constant ping-pong.” In 2015, the Obama administration issued a Clean Water Rule to define WOTUS. That definition was later rescinded by the Trump administration and replaced with the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in 2020, a regulation that High Country News said would potentially “exclude as many as 94 percent of Arizona’s and 66 percent of California’s streams and rivers from federal oversight, depending on how regulators interpret it.” The rule was eventually vacated by a federal district court in Arizona in 2021.

Overhauling WOTUS is a focal point for Fox’s tenure in the Office of Water. In her Senate confirmation hearing, Fox affirmed, “Administrator [Michael] Regan and I want an enduring definition of Waters of the U.S., one that can withstand administration changes.” So far, the agency has initiated a two-part rulemaking process that first restores a version of the pre-2015 WOTUS definition. Next, the office will establish a brand new definition, potentially settling the matter once and for all.

Establishing a lasting rule won’t be easy. In a podcast interview with Fox, David Ross, the former assistant administrator for water under the Trump administration, delivers brief advice that sounds more like an inside joke: “I’m just going to say: ‘Good luck.’”

Fox and her team have committed to a system of robust public engagement to guide the office’s decisionmaking. The process involves a series of stakeholder meetings and 10 regional roundtables to be held over the coming spring and summer. Roundtable discussions will include representatives from water and wastewater service providers, agriculture, environmental justice communities, tribal nations, and state and local governments, among other groups.

“It’s an issue where there is so much division. What we have been focused on is: how do we get to a durable definition of waters of the United States, one that tries to balance the very diverse perspectives that have a stake in this definition? I believe that we’re not going to be able to do that unless we listen to all sides,” she says.

Believing that different sides can reach consensus feels radical nowadays, especially in a country with as entrenched social and political chasms as the United States. But Fox believes in the power of hearing from someone you may have never otherwise crossed paths with—and she’s seen it in practice.

In her first year as CEO of the U.S. Water Alliance, Fox helped create the Water Equity Network, a program that guides utilities in building equitable water systems. The idea was borne from a desire to act on the severe human health issues faced in the Flint water crisis and beyond, as well as lessons learned at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

“My experience at the SFPUC proved that water agencies can be community anchor institutions. We were the first utility in the nation to adopt a community benefits and environmental justice policy, and I saw how water agencies are fundamental to the solution,” she says. The organization invited cities like Atlanta, Buffalo, Cleveland, Camden, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh, among others to participate. It gathered water agencies, local officials, and frontline community organizations most impacted by water-related challenges—including lead, contaminated water, PFAS, and flooding—and forced everybody to listen to all sides.

“The water managers—these technical leaders—heard firsthand from people whose water had been shut off. They learned what that meant for them, and what that meant for their children. These were people who had their basements flooded, and were just living in conditions that no one should have to live in,” she recounts. “The water managers heard directly from those communities, and in turn, the communities heard about the constraints that water managers face. There were so many breakthrough solutions that happened because we created a space for a deliberate, thoughtful airing of all of the issues.”

To Fox, public engagement is not just a box to be checked off. She believes that centering these lived experiences strengthens decisionmaking in a substantial way. “When we listen to all sides—when we embrace the complexity of the issues that we’re tackling in the water sector—we can actually reach better outcomes because of that listening. It leads to a different set of solutions,” she says. “That’s why this principle is so foundational to how I think about the work that I do every day."

Fox's leadership, woven with a philosophy that aligns with the Biden administration’s investments in environmental justice, comes at an opportune time. Yet the choice is deliberate: diversity within the country’s top political officials is a minimum requirement for more representative, people-first policies. As Fox puts it in a Politico interview, “I think selecting somebody like me—frankly, as a woman of color in this leadership role—is also part of the Biden-Harris commitment to building a federal team that reflects the diversity of this nation.”

In the coming years, the Office of Water’s responsibilities will only grow, particularly when it comes to ensuring that new funds under the bipartisan infrastructure law go to those who need it most. About 85 percent of those funds will flow through State Revolving Funds, or SRFs, the main channel for distributing money for water infrastructure and projects. The infrastructure law mandates that 49 percent of this money must go to disadvantaged communities as grants and forgivable loans. But what exactly constitutes a disadvantaged community is under the discretion of states.

On March 8, the water office released a 56-page memo to state SRF program managers and EPA regional water division directors to provide guidance on stewarding these funds and clarify responsibilities states have to disadvantaged communities. “The memo encourages states to look at their definition of disadvantaged communities to make sure it’s consistent with statutes, and provides guidance on preferred factors that should be considered when making the investments in disadvantaged communities,” Fox says.

“The water sector can and must do better to steer all kinds of investments, whether it’s the bipartisan infrastructure law money or other infrastructure funding programs, to these communities,” she says. “With so much money on the table, and so many challenges that we see around the country, I think this is the moment to meet the needs of all communities.”

She emphasizes that the memo is only the first step in EPA’s work to ensure that the historic investments in water don’t leave anyone behind. “One exciting thing that is coming later this year is a very robust technical assistance strategy to help disadvantaged communities build their technical, financial, and managerial capacity to receive these funds. We’re quite excited to work with states, tribes, and territories in that next phase.”

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, a law passed during a time when rivers caught on fire from unchecked pollution. Fox says there is still much work to be done. Today, many of the most insidious water issues are invisible, even though their effects may not be. Millions of Americans depend on the work of the Office of Water and its ongoing rulemakings. The stakes are high, and so is the pressure on Fox’s team.

Nonetheless, Fox’s optimism remains grounded in the importance of this work, and the power of water to connect us.

“I think that one of our foundational principles as a nation should be to recognize that water is essential to everyone—to every business, to every community, to every person, and to use that as our north star as we develop future policies.” TEF

PROFILE EPA Assistant Administrator Radhika Fox speaks on her journey to water, the historic infrastructure law investments, and her team’s approach to managing the country’s most essential resource.

Last Term’s High Court Decisions Hint at an Incremental Strategy
Author
Bethany A. Davis Noll - NYU Law’s State Energy & Environmental Impact Center
NYU Law’s State Energy & Environmental Impact Center
Current Issue
Issue
5
Bethany A. Davis Noll

As the new Supreme Court terms begins, environmental professionals are waiting to see if the justices, one third of them recent appointments, will take more aggressive steps in this area than they did last term. Reading the tea leaves, there could be monumental changes, but it is not obvious that the right case has been brought — yet.

At press time, there is only one dispute on the Court’s docket that is squarely environmental. It concerns the use of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer. Mississippi has challenged Tennessee’s use of the water, arguing that the former should receive an injunction and damages. Tennessee argues that the aquifer flows between the states and is subject to equitable apportionment, the doctrine governing interstate waters. That would require a federal court to divide the output in a way that is fair, in light of factors such as established use and the benefits of use.

The United States and a coalition of states filed amicus briefs in the case, agreeing with Tennessee that Mississippi cannot receive damages or an injunction without a compact or a decision on equitable apportionment. They argue that a damages claim that skips equitable apportionment for shared waters such as the aquifer would be a vast departure from established law.

There are two other categories of cases from this past term that might provide more hints of the Court’s direction. The justices decided multiple standing cases. That doctrine requires a plaintiff to show an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and seek a remedy that is likely to redress the injury.

The doctrine can have a huge impact on the types of environmental cases that can be brought. The need to avoid threatened harm is crucial to many environmental cases. Traditionally, standing doctrine allowed claims of imminent threatened injury, rather than requiring a plaintiff to have already suffered injury. Two decisions could be a sign that the Court is chipping away at that doctrine.

In Trump v. New York, the Court issued a per curiam decision holding that a coalition including states and individuals challenging the Trump administration’s plan to “exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base” of the census, had not shown standing because the claimed harm was too conjectural. The challenge had rested on the president’s words, but it was unclear whether in practice he would be able to actually exclude aliens and, if so, how many.

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the credit reporting company had offered a service to third parties to compare the person’s name against a list maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of terrorists, drug traffickers, and other serious criminals. Because TransUnion did not pull in any information other than the names when flagging those people, the list of individuals that “matched” the OFAC list was vastly misleading. In a 5-4 decision, the Court found that any plaintiffs whose records had not actually been requested during the specified class period could not show a concrete risk of injury.

If the injury already happened, on the other hand, another case helps to solidify the right to bring a claim. In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, the Court allowed plaintiffs to bring a First Amendment claim, even though the challenged policy no longer exists. With eight justices in the majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, the Court found that plaintiffs could show redressability even though the Court could do nothing about the policy, because plaintiffs had requested “nominal damages” (which they did not specify any further in the complaint).

General administrative law doctrines were also at play last term. On the reasoned explanation requirement, in Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, the Court upheld the agency’s decision to eliminate rules which were meant to boost minority and female ownership levels in the media. The Court deferred to the agency’s prediction that the rollback would not harm those levels, finding that the agency’s decision to dismiss studies showing harm was simply a decision to interpret the studies differently.

Another administrative law principle that can affect agency decision-making is the amount of deference a court should give an agency when interpreting a statute under the Chevron doctrine. The Court has granted certiorari in American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a case where petitioners challenge the agency’s decision on reimbursement rates and argue that the court of appeals improperly failed to find statutory ambiguity before applying Chevron deference.

With the Biden administration’s determination to tackle the climate crisis through an all-of-government approach, it will be crucial to keep an eye on the doctrines governing who can sue and how agencies make decisions.

Last Term’s High Court Decisions Hint at an Incremental Strategy.