DOCSLIB.ORG

MIT-CSIS ENERGY-WATER-LAND NEXUS WORKSHOP May 6–7, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MIT-CSIS ENERGY-WATER-LAND NEXUS WORKSHOP May 6–7, 2013 An MIT Energy Initiative Workshop Report MIT-CSIS ENERGY-WATER-LAND NEXUS WORKSHOP May 6–7, 2013 An MIT Energy Initiative Workshop Report MIT-CSIS ENERGY-WATER-LAND NEXUS WORKSHOP MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 1 2 MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 PREFACE About the MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop The availability of water and land resources is increasingly recognized as one of the next big issues facing the energy industry. On May 6 and 7, 2013, the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) held an Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop at the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington, DC. The goal for the workshop was to develop a research agenda around the energy-water-land nexus, and to identify the important challenges to be addressed through university, industry, and government collaboration. The workshop was hosted by MITEI’s Director, Professor Robert Armstrong, and Dr. Francis O’Sullivan, MITEI Director for Research and Analysis. The workshop brought together the expertise and insights of nearly 200 researchers from many of the 13 universities that have been partners in BP’s Energy Sustainability Challenge (ESC) program, along with other leading experts with knowledge and understanding of the technology, economics, policy, and systems issues that accompany the energy-water-land nexus. This event grew out of the ESC program, a multi-year, multi-university research program, funded by MITEI Founding Member BP. About the ESC In 2010, BP initiated the ESC Program to study the linkages between energy production, energy use and natural resources — particularly water, land, and minerals. The central goal of ESC has been to address the question: How will natural resource constraints affect the way we produce and use energy in the future? This work was motivated by the realization that future commercial and policy decision making on issues concerning the energy-water-land nexus needed a very strong technical base of understanding. BP’s ESC Program, in collaboration with 13 university research partners, including MIT, Princeton, San Diego, Berkeley, Illinois, Texas, Tsinghua, Sao Paolo, and Cambridge University, has worked to develop this enhanced technical understanding of the issues pertaining to the energy-water-land nexus. Findings have been made available to practitioners through peer-reviewed journal publications and a series of BP-published handbooks, as well as through a range of tools and models. For more information about BP’s ESC Program, visit http://www.bp.com/energysustainabilitychallenge. About MITEI MITEI pairs MIT’s world-class research teams with key players across the innovation spectrum to help accomplish two important goals: improving today’s energy systems and transforming tomorrow’s global energy marketplace. MITEI is also a resource for industry, policy makers, and the public — providing unbiased analysis and service as an honest broker for industry and government. MITEI’s educational offerings combine depth with multidiscipline breadth, making MIT’s campus an energy-learning laboratory. Through research, analysis, and education, MITEI is working to fi nd answers that reinvent our energy world. For more information about MITEI, visit http://mitei.mit.edu. MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MITEI wishes to thank BP and the Center for Strategic International Studies for their generous support of the MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop. MITEI also thanks the moderators, panelists, and participants who fi lled this day-and-a-half program with spirited discussion, thought-provoking debate, and substantive information. 4 MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 CONTENTS –3 PREFACE REPORT ON MIT-CSIS ENERGY-WATER-LAND NEXUS WORKSHOP –7 INTRODUCTION KEY ISSUES AND THEMES –9 SESSION 1 The energy sustainability challenge Keynote Address: Dr. Ellen Williams, BP 12 SESSION 2 Climate change and what it means for regional water resources and land availability Session Keynote: Dr. John Reilly, MIT Joint Program 15 SESSION 3 Global change and the challenges of supporting a growing planet Session Keynote: Dr. Thomas Hertel, Purdue University 18 SESSION 4 The governance of water in resource-stressed regions – Case studies on the US Southwest, China, and the Middle East Session Keynote: Dr. Barton Thompson, Stanford University and Dr. David Victor, University of California San Diego 22 SESSION 5 Water and electricity Session Keynote: Dr. Bryan Hannegan, EPRI 24 SESSION 6 The future of biofuel and food production in the context of climate change and emerging resource stresses Session Keynote: Dr. Heather Youngs, Energy Biosciences Institute, UC Berkeley, CA 26 SESSION 7 Water and contemporary hydrocarbon production Session Keynote: Dr. Francis O’Sullivan, MIT 30 SESSION 8 Defi ning the research agenda for the energy-water-land nexus 32 WORKSHOP CONCLUSIONS 34 KEYNOTE SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES 38 APPENDICES: White papers by keynote speakers MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 5 6 MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop INTRODUCTION Francis O’Sullivan and Raanan Miller, MIT Energy Initiative Population growth and rising income levels will present a major challenge for mankind in meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades. The scale of the challenge is espe- cially apparent when the expanding energy demand is viewed in the context of the fi nite, increas- ingly expensive, and carbon-polluting fossil resources that support the majority of today’s energy supply. The simple availability and cost of energy resources are just part of an even more com- plex story. Contemporary energy production is dependent on other natural resources, particularly water, land, and non-energy resource minerals. Serious questions arise regarding the ways that this expanding energy demand will impact these resources going forward. The energy system’s impact on water, particularly fresh water, and land is further complicated by climate change, which is affecting fresh water availability and land productivity across multiple spatial scales, and which is, of course, ultimately being driven by carbon emissions from the energy system. Although much of the contemporary discussion regarding the energy-water-land nexus is focused on future challenges, many parts of the world are seeing water and land resources that are already stressed, impacting our ability to produce energy. The 2014 US National Climate Assessment report highlights how climate change is negatively affecting both water availability and land productivity across the United States. It points out that, for the case of water particu- larly, droughts and increasing stress levels are already impacting our nation’s ability to produce energy. The report also highlights the risks to the energy infrastructure that are emerging as a result of climate change. Other regions of the world are also facing challenges today at the energy-water-land nexus. Dramatic economic growth coupled with China’s expanding and migrating population is placing an increasingly greater demand on its energy system and on the limited fresh water resources in the eastern regions of the country. Unconventional gas production has recently provided a tangible example of an energy-water confl ict in China. While much of China is arid, competing water demand from non-energy users might prompt the government to place limits on the amount of unconventional gas resource in the Szechwan Basin that can be exploited over the coming years. Given that in almost every conceivable future scenario global energy demand increases, it is likely that energy-related water demand also will grow. If current fossil-based energy pathways and tech nology paradigms continue to dominate supply as analysis suggests, then energy’s water needs will likely rise faster than demand for energy itself, given that future production will be forced to move to lower-quality, more water-intensive, “unconventional” resource types. In important energy-producing regions which are already — or projected to become — water stressed, it seems likely that, in the future, energy production’s water demands will come into greater confl ict with the water demands of other sectors, particularly those of agriculture and municipalities. As it was made clear during the workshop, history teaches that crises relating to natural resources are rarely addressed effectively in a proactive, forward-looking manner. A crisis typically needs to materialize before meaningful policy action is taken. It seems very likely that this scenario will play out in the case of water for energy, particularly in countries without central MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 7 control and overarching regulatory structures for water management, and where non-energy water users represent powerful regional political constituencies. As such, the energy sector must proactively focus on reducing its water intensity. This is espe- cially necessary given the likelihood of increased confl ict surrounding access to water resources; the likelihood that effective policy will not be implemented nor regulatory action taken prior to a crisis manifesting, see Session 4; and the energy sector’s (sometimes) limited political infl uence relative to other major water users. Fortunately, technology can provide an effective pathway to lower water intensity. These technologies must also be economically compelling for them to be adopted. Today, technologies exist that can dramatically reduce the water requirements of major energy pathways; however, in many instances, the relative economics of these solutions means that operators choose not to implement them. Take, for example, thermal-based electricity generation. Today’s thermal plants (particularly in the United States) use once-through or tower- cooled systems to shed heat as part of their thermodynamic cycles.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BIOSPHERE SMART AGRICULTURE in a TRUE COST ECONOMY TRUE COST of FOOD and AGRICULTURE INDEX L Amount of Soil Lost Worldwide, According to the U.N
    POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE WORLD BANK BIOSPHERE SMART AGRICULTURE IN A TRUE COST ECONOMY TRUE COST OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE INDEX l Amount of soil lost worldwide, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): 75 billion tons l Approximate annual economic cost of that lost soil: US $ 400 billion, or about US $ 70 per person, per year (FAO) l Approximate percentage of the world’s population that is now overweight or obese, according to the McKinsey Global Institute: 30 percent l Estimated global economic impact related to the health costs of that nutritional crisis: US$2 trillion annually, or 2.8 percent of global GDP l Percentage of the Earth’s freshwater resources now diverted for agriculture: 70 percent l Number of major underground water reservoirs designated as beyond “sustainability tipping points” according to researchers at the University of California at Irvine: 21 of 37 l Number of impacted marine and riverine ecosystems known as Dead Zones due to excess nutrients greatly affected by agriculutral production: 400 l Probability that the planet will warm by 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century according to the World Bank: at least 40 percent l Estimated amount that crop yields are projected to decrease if temperatures rise above 2 degress C: 15 to 20 percent (WB) l Percentage of people in low-income countries who work in agriculture: 60% (WB) l Estimated health costs of global pesticide applications, a problem barely studied: US$1.1 billion per year. (Pesticide Action Network) l Estimated amount of global food production classified as food waste: 30 to 40 percent l Estimated global costs of food waste when environmental and social impacts are included according to Food Wastage Footprint: US$2.6 trillion per year 2 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE WORLD BANK - zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx BIOSPHERE SMART AGRICULTURE IN A TRUE COST ECONOMY September 2015, Washington DC, Our findings and recommendations are relatively simple, yet profound.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 13 Groundwater Collective Management Systems: the United States Experience
    13-Smith.qxd 02-10-2002 19:59 Pagina 257 CHAPTER 13 Groundwater collective management systems: the United States experience Z.A. Smith Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA [email protected] ABSTRACT: Groundwater management in the USA is diverse and decentralized making generaliza- tions sometimes difficult. In many areas groundwater is managed well under permit systems that pre- vent wasteful overuse and allow planned development. In other areas individuals are free to pump water with few restrictions and sometimes with wasteful consequences. This chapter provides an overview of collective groundwater management systems used in the USA by summarizing the types of systems in place and the advantages and disadvantages of each system. It concludes with an exam- ination of what can be learned from the groundwater management experience in the USA and sug- gestions for the development of future groundwater management systems. 1 INTRODUCTION others very little groundwater is used (Table 1 gives a state-by-state breakdown of groundwater The rules governing groundwater use in much of use). the USA and the world bring to mind the state- ment in Plato’s Republic “I declare justice is 1.2 Role of the national government nothing but the advantage of the stronger”. Is this how things should be? In much of the USA To examine in a comprehensive manner the and the rest of the world this is how it is. In this experience of managing groundwater in the chapter we will examine the experience of the USA is a daunting task. The first thing that one USA in the collective cooperation and manage- must understand is that there is no national ment of groundwater resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Overdrafting Toward Disaster: a Call for Local Groundwater Management Reform in California’S Central Valley
    Comments Overdrafting Toward Disaster: A Call for Local Groundwater Management Reform in California’s Central Valley By PHILIP LAIRD* Introduction MY GRANDFATHER has been a farmer all of his life. He has grown raisins in Selma, California for over seventy years. Like most crops, raisins need good soil, sunshine, and a steady flow of water. Without any one of these elements, the vines will die, and the crop will be a loss. Water, as one can imagine, ends up being the most problematic resource. There are no rivers or canals that run by my grandfather’s property. Thus in order to nourish his vineyard and make the vines grow, he has to pump groundwater. My grandfather first began using his pump in the 1930s. At that time, the well he used only had to extend down eighteen feet to reach the water table and provide suffi- cient water to his ranch. As the years went by though, the water table dropped, and he had to spend more and more money digging deeper wells and pumping from greater depths. Today, in order to reach the water table, my grandfather’s well is ninety feet deep. This story is not unique to my grandfather. The water table throughout California is dropping at an alarming rate, and thus far, efforts to seriously curb this depletion are minimal at best. Currently, groundwater in California provides approximately 30% of the state’s * J.D. Candidate, University of San Francisco School of Law (2013); B.A. English Language Literature, University of California, Santa Cruz (2010). The author would like to thank Professor Richard Roos-Collins for his patience, wisdom, and guidance in overseeing the development of this Comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions About Texas Groundwater Conservation Districts
    Questions about Texas Groundwater Conservation Districts Bruce Lesikar Associate Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineering Specialist Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering Ronald Kaiser Professor, Institute of Renewable Natural Resources and Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Science Valeen Silvy Program Coordinator, Texas Water Resources Institute All of The Texas A&M University System Contributing editors Kelly Mills, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Harvey Everheart, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts Trey Powers, Texas Department of Agriculture Cindy Loeffler, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Richard Preston, Texas Water Development Board Disclaimer The purpose of this publication is to present useful information about Texas groundwater law and groundwater conservation dis- tricts. It is not intended to furnish specific legal advice, or to ren- der a legal opinion. If you are seeking specific legal advice, please consult with an attorney. Contents 1 Introduction 1 Water use in Texas 2 Groundwater 2 Surface water 5 Movement of groundwater in aquifers 5 Are all Texas aquifers alike? 5 How much water do Texas aquifers provide each year? 6 How does water get into an aquifer? How is an aquifer replenished? 7 Does water discharge from an aquifer naturally? 7 If aquifers recharge, why is there a problem with pumping? 7 What is a cone of depression? 7 What is well interference? 8 What is aquifer overdrafting or mining? 9 Texas water law 9 What rights do landowners have to use groundwater? 9
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1
    CK-12 FOUNDATION Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 Akre CK-12 Foundation is a non-profit organization with a mission to reduce the cost of textbook materials for the K-12 market both in the U.S. and worldwide. Using an open-content, web-based collaborative model termed the “FlexBook,” CK-12 intends to pioneer the generation and distribution of high-quality educational content that will serve both as core text as well as provide an adaptive environment for learning. Copyright © 2010 CK-12 Foundation, www.ck12.org Except as otherwise noted, all CK-12 Content (including CK-12 Curriculum Material) is made available to Users in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution/Non-Commercial/Share Alike 3.0 Un- ported (CC-by-NC-SA) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/), as amended and updated by Creative Commons from time to time (the “CC License”), which is incorporated herein by this reference. Specific details can be found at http://about.ck12.org/terms. Printed: October 11, 2010 Author Barbara Akre Contributor Jean Battinieri i www.ck12.org Contents 1 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 1 1.1 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis ............................... 1 1.2 Lesson 18.2: Natural Resources .................................. 32 2 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part I 49 2.1 Chapter 18: Ecology and Human Actions ............................ 49 2.2 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis ............................... 49 2.3 Lesson 18.2: Natural Resources .................................. 53 www.ck12.org ii Chapter 1 Ecology: Biodiversity and Natural Resources Part 1 1.1 Lesson 18.1: The Biodiversity Crisis Lesson Objectives • Compare humans to other species in terms of resource needs and use, and ecosystem service benefits and effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Landcare Degradation
    Land degradation WHAT IS LAND DEGRADATION? Land degradation is a broad term that can be applied differently across a wide range of scenarios. It is a process in which the value of the biophysical environment is affected by a combination of human-induced processes acting upon the land. It is the reduction in the capacity of the land to provide ecosystem goods and services and assure its functions over a period of time for the beneficiaries of this. Increased population pressures and excessive human expansion into drylands during long wet periods leave an increasing number of people stranded there during dry periods. CAUSES OF LAND DEGRADATION: Land degradation is a global problem, largely related to agricultural use. The major causes include: Land clearance, such as clearcut- ting and deforestation; Agricultural depletion of soil nutrients through poor farming practices; Livestock farming that includes over- grazing and overdrafting; Inappropriate irrigation and overdrafting; Monoculture that destabilises the local ecosystem; and Urban sprawl and commercial development. IMPACT: There are four main ways of looking at land degradation and its impact on the environment around it: A temporary or permanent decline in the productive capacity of the land: This can be seen through a loss of biomass, a loss of actual or potential productivity, or a loss or change in vegetative cover and soil nutrients; Action in the land’s capacity to provide resources for human livelihoods: This can be measured from a baseline of previous land use; Loss of biodiversity: A loss of range of species or ecosystem complexity as a decline in the environmental quality; and Shifting ecological risk: Increased vulnerability of the environment or people to destruction or crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Glennon Morris K. Udall Professor of Law and Public Policy the University of Arizona James E
    WATER FOLLIES Robert Glennon Morris K. Udall Professor of Law and Public Policy The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law Groundwater Use Has Skyrocketed • for domestic purposes alone: • from 8 billion gallons per day (bgd) in 1965 to 19.7 bgd in 2000 • or, 69 gallons for every man, woman, and child in the country • in 2000, mining industry pumped 740 billion gallons • farmers use 2/3 of all groundwater pumped • total groundwater use in 2000: 30 trillion gallons • groundwater constitutes more than 25% of nation’s water supply • over 1/2 of U.S. population relies on groundwater for drinking water supply Estimated percentage of each state’s population that used groundwater for drinking water in 1995 Water Law ¾ Surface Water • Riparianism • in eastern United States • owners of land abutting lakes and rivers • “correlative” rights – reasonable share • Prior Appropriation • in western United States • “first-in-time” is “first-in-right” • specific quantity with specific priority date ¾ Groundwater • right of capture (a few states) • reasonable use (most states) • prior appropriation (protection against subsequent pumpers) ¾ Problems with groundwater law 1. Capture and reasonable use allow overdrafting or “mining” the resource. 2. Consequences of mining groundwater • eventually exhaust supply Groundwater level declines beneath the High Plains portion of the Ogallala Aquifer, as of 1997 • increased energy costs • decreased water quality • salt water intrusion • subsidence Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Subsidence fissure in Pinal County, Arizona. Road sign in Pinal County, Arizona The upper Santa Cruz River basin in southern Arizona The Santa Cruz River The Santa Cruz River The Hydrologic Cycle InIn a a gaining gaining streamstream (A), (A), water water discharges discharges from from the the surroundingsurrounding soilsoil intointo the the stream, stream, but but in ain losing a losing stream stream (B), (B), waterwater infiltratesinfiltrates thethe ground.
    [Show full text]
  • Overextraction of Groundwater Resources: What Are the Solutions?
    24 A QUESTION APRIL 2015 OF DEVELOPMENT SYNTHESES OF AFD STUDIES AND RESEARCH Overextraction of Groundwater Resources: What Are The Solutions? OVERCOMING THE “TRAGEDY Underground Aquifers: A Classic Case of the “Tragedy of the Commons” OF THE COMMONS” In certain parts of the world, the strong pressure on water resources leads to an increasing overexploitation of aquifers. Sustainable extraction means withdrawing less water than the amount the aquifers need to replenish. If the withdrawal rate exceeds the natural recharge rate, the water table will gradually The amount of water drop, as is the case in Mediterranean countries, where overexploitation of the extracted from aquifers water resource occurs either at a national level (Algeria, Jordan, Libya), or at worldwide has increased more localized scales (France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Tunisia). threefold in the past fifty years, leading to an Within the classification of economic goods, and with a water withdrawal regime aggravated overdraft of that often amounts to de facto open access, groundwater resources belong to these common resources. the category of common goods: they are non-excludable (i.e., users can not This “pumping race” be prevented access to the good), unlike private goods, and they are usually brings about major adverse rivalrous goods (i.e., the use of the good by one user can lower the quantity economic, environmental available for the other users), unlike public goods. and social impacts. However, economic analysis The process of overexploitation of a common resource with open access has and evidence-based been described as the “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968). In a situation of knowledge teach us that it rivalry, so-called congestion externalities occur: water withdrawal in an aquifer is possible to overcome this by a given user causes the water table to fall, resulting in increased pumping “tragedy of the commons”.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater: the New Frontier Balanced Approach Considers Needs of Farmers, Landowners, Businesses
    WATER Groundwater: The New Frontier Balanced Approach Considers Needs of Farmers, Landowners, Businesses Changing demands on water supplies, such MAIN GROUNDWATER BASINS as new environmental restrictions, the effects Critically overdrafted basins of cyclical droughts, and increased urban and agricultural usage, have resulted in more Other basins subject to SGMA groundwater pumping and subsequently Formally managed areas chronic overdrafting of groundwater basins. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley has been going on for years, but in 2014 the emergency drought proclamation by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. triggered the development of a subsidence monitoring report. That year, California also passed major groundwater legislation. The report included data from a 2017 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory paper indicating that land in the San Joaquin Valley has subsided 28 feet since the 1920s. Subsid- ence is the permanent loss of below-ground water storage capacity. Water is stored in the cracks of soil, sand and rocks under- Source: Public Policy Institute of California, Priorities for ground called aquifers. Prolonged pumping depletes water in soil, California’s Water (October 2019), p. 7. causing the soil to sink, collapsing underground water aquifers. Once that happens, it is not possible to recharge the aquifer. Unlike most Western states, California never has had a state •New technologies should be explored to use water more comprehensive system for regulating groundwater until recently. efficiently. • The California Chamber of Commerce continues to reach out and inform businesses of the importance to engage in the process. KEY POINTS • California adopted legislation for stabilizing overdrafted groundwater basins in 2014. BACKGROUND • The law allows for groundwater pumping restrictions and the Unlike other states, California did not have a system for regulat- imposition of fees but does not mandate either one.
    [Show full text]
  • An Agricultural Law Research Article Groundwater Management in Texas
    University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture [email protected] | (479) 575-7646 An Agricultural Law Research Article Groundwater Management in Texas: Evolution or Intelligent Design? by Ronald Kaiser Originally published in KANSAS JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 15 KAN. J. L. & PUB. POL’Y 467 (2006) www.NationalAgLawCenter.org GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT IN TEXAS: EVOLUTION OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN? Ronald Kaiser" I. INTRODUCTION Groundwater management in Texas is a work in progress. It is evolving from a patchwork of judicial decisions dealing with landowner conflicts over well interference to incremental regulatory changes by legislatively established local groundwater management districts. Except for the Edwards Aquifer Authority, which arguably has elements of intelligent statutory design, the remaining groundwater districts have evolved from planning and education activities to varying degrees of aquifer regulation. The state's burgeoning population growth, recurrent droughts, groundwater mining, restrictions on surface water transfers, increased water demand by cities, rural fears associated with groundwater transfers, and endangered species are the driving factors in this regulatory transfonnation. I Although it is especially important for irrigated agriculture, groundwater also provides drinking water for a number of Texas cities. 2 The Texas Water • Professor, Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.. 1. Tx. WATER DEV. BD., WATER FOR TEXAS: 2002, 25-39 (2002) (discussing the state's population growth by 15 percent between 1990 and 2000, and its predicted growth to over 40 million by 2050 and documenting water supply conditions, demands and limitations); J. E. Buster Brown, Senate Bill]: W?\,e never Changed Texas Water Law This Way Before, 28 ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Costs of Conservation Exceed Those Borne by the Global Majority
    This is a repository copy of Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/129794/ Version: Published Version Article: Green, Jonathan Michael Halsey orcid.org/0000-0002-5003-0203, Fisher, Brendan, Green, Rhys E. et al. (6 more authors) (2018) Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority. Global Ecology and Conservation. e00385. pp. 1-10. ISSN 2351-9894 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00385 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Global Ecology and Conservation 14 (2018) e00385 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Ecology and Conservation journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco Original Research Article Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority Jonathan M.H. Green a, b, *, Brendan Fisher c, Rhys E. Green a, d, Joseph Makero e, Philip J.
    [Show full text]
  • Science for Defra: Excellence in the Application of Evidence
    ©grafxart8888 Science for Defra: excellence in the application of evidence 29 – 30 March 2017 Held at the Royal Society This two-day conference will bring together academics, government scientists and policymakers for an open and collaborative discussion about how science and technology can best inform environmental, food and rural policy. Defra and the Royal Society aim to showcase the best in both academic and government science, identify evidence gaps and research priorities, and enrich the dialogue between academic and policy communities. The conference will cover a range of Defra’s areas of interest, including food and farming, animal health, environmental quality, and the provision of services from the natural environment. Science for Defra: excellence in the application of evidence 29–30 March 2017 The Royal Society, 6–9 Carlton House Terrace, London. Contents 1. Summary and General Introduction 1 2. Conference Agenda 4 3. Session Summaries and Speaker Biographies 12 4. Defra Science Showcase Abstracts 31 5. Attendee List 57 6. Defra Organogram 65 7. Defra’s Areas of Research Interest 66 8. Defra Evidence Plans 70 Conference Summary This two-day conference will bring together academics, government scientists and policymakers for an open and collaborative discussion about how science and technology can best inform environmental, food and rural policy. Defra and the Royal Society aim to showcase the best in both academic and government science, identify evidence gaps and research priorities, and enrich the dialogue between academic and policy communities. The conference will cover a range of Defra’s areas of interest, including food and farming, animal health, environmental quality, and the provision of services from the natural environment.
    [Show full text]