NITRATE CONTAMINATION IN OREGON WELL WATER: GEOLOGIC VARIABILITY AND THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION1

ABSTRACT: Approximately 4.5 million people in the United States who rely on well water are exposed to nitrate‐N concentrations exceeding the 10 mg/l standard. In this study in the Southern Willamette Valley in Oregon we reassessed nitrate‐N in rural wells sampled in 2000–2001, compared nitrate‐N concentrations among geological units, and surveyed residents about their perceptions of well water quality. Nitrate‐N concentrations were again sampled in 2002 and found to have increased significantly from the previous period. With rapid population growth in the area, the potential health risk in drinking well water that exceeds 10 mg/l nitrate‐N warrants continued public education. Nitrate‐N concentrations were found to be higher in the Holocene alluvium of the Willamette River and the Pleistocene sand and gravel post‐Missoula Flood deposits. Researchers conducting future studies may choose to stratify and monitor wells by geologic unit and by other parameters that estimate input of nutrients to the environment. Opinions differed between agricultural landowners and nonagricultural landowners with regard to the impact that agricultural fertilizers may have on water quality. Participants were supportive of a range of regulatory actions that might be used by homeowners or landowners to address ground water contamination. Given that the area is now designated a Groundwater Management Area, understanding local stakeholders’perceptions is critical and strategic and has the potential to help public agencies manage potential conflicts of opinion among stakeholders, build consensus, and help guide the approach to restoring ground water quality.     

Linking rights and standards: the process of developing "rights-based" minimum standards on food security, nutrition and food aid

This article examines the recent revision of the Sphere Minimum Standards in disaster response relating to food security, nutrition and food aid. It describes how the revision attempted to incorporate the principles of the Humanitarian Charter, as well as relevant human rights principles and values into the Sphere Minimum Standards. The initial aim of the revision was to ensure that the Sphere Minimum Standards better reflected the principles embodied in the Humanitarian Charter. This was later broadened to ensure that key legal standards and principles from human rights and humanitarian law were considered and also incorporated, in part to fill the "protection gap" within the existing standards. In relation to the food security, nutrition and food aid standards, it was agreed by participants in the process that the human right to adequate food and freedom from hunger should be incorporated. In relation to more general principles underlying the Humanitarian Charter, itself drawn largely from human rights and humanitarian law, it was agreed that there was a need to strengthen "protection" elements within the standards and a need to incorporate the basic principles of the right to life with dignity, non-discrimination, impartiality and participation, as well as to explore the relevance of the concept of the progressive realisation of the right to food. The questions raised in linking rights to operational standards required thought, on the one hand, about whether the technical standards reflected a deep understanding of the values expressed within the legal instruments, and whether the existing standards were adequate in relation to those legal rights. On the other hand, it also required reflection on how operational standards like Sphere could give concrete content to human rights, such as the right to food and the right to be free from hunger. However, there remain challenges in examining what a rights-based approach will mean in terms of the role of humanitarian agencies as duty-bearers of rights, given that the primary responsibility rests with state governments. It will also require reflection on the modes and mechanisms of accountability that are brought to bear in ensuring the implementation of the Minimum Standards.     

River systems as providers of goods and services: a basis for comparing desired and undesired effects of large dam projects

In developing countries, large dam projects continue to be launched, primarily to secure a time-stable freshwater supply and to generate hydropower. Meanwhile, calls for environmentally sustainable development put pressure on the dam-building industry to integrate ecological concerns in project planning and decision-making. Such integration requires environmental impact statements (EISs) that can communicate the societal implications of the ecological effects in terms that are understandable and useful to planners and decision-makers. The purpose of this study is to develop a basic framework for assessing the societal implications of the river ecological effects expected of a proposed large dam project. The aim is to facilitate a comparison of desired and potential undesired effects on-site and downstream. The study involves two main tasks: to identify key river goods and services that a river system may provide, and to analyze how the implementation of a large dam project may alter the on-site capacity and downstream potentials to derive river goods and services from the river system. Three river goods and six river services are identified. River goods are defined as extractable partly man-made products and river services as naturally sustained processes. By four main types of flow manipulations, a large dam project improves the on-site capacity to derive desired river goods, but simultaneously threatens the provision of desirable river goods and services downstream. However, by adjusting the site, design, and operational schedule of the proposed dam project, undesirable effects on river goods and services can be minimized.     

Environmental and economic assessment methods for waste management decision-support: possibilities and limitations.

A large number of methods and approaches that can be used for supporting waste management decisions at different levels in society have been developed. In this paper an overview of methods is provided and preliminary guidelines for the choice of methods are presented. The methods introduced include: Environmental Impact Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Life Cycle Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cost-effectiveness Analysis, Life-cycle Costing, Risk Assessment, Material Flow Accounting, Substance Flow Analysis, Energy Analysis, Exergy Analysis, Entropy Analysis, Environmental Management Systems, and Environmental Auditing. The characteristics used are the types of impacts included, the objects under study and whether the method is procedural or analytical. The different methods can be described as systems analysis methods. Waste management systems thinking is receiving increasing attention. This is, for example, evidenced by the suggested thematic strategy on waste by the European Commission where life-cycle analysis and life-cycle thinking get prominent positions. Indeed, life-cycle analyses have been shown to provide policy-relevant and consistent results. However, it is also clear that the studies will always be open to criticism since they are simplifications of reality and include uncertainties. This is something all systems analysis methods have in common. Assumptions can be challenged and it may be difficult to generalize from case studies to policies. This suggests that if decisions are going to be made, they are likely to be made on a less than perfect basis.