DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Water Policy: Trends and Future Directions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Water Policy: Trends and Future Directions U.S. Water Policy: Trends and Future Directions By Adam Reimer (National Agricultural and Rural Development Policy Center) About the Author Adam Reimer is a postdoctoral research fellow with the National Agricultural & Rural Development Policy Center. He received his Ph.D. in natural resource social science from Purdue, where his research included conservation policy and rural landowner environmental behavior. He is currently researching emerging rural policy issues for the Center. Funding This project was funded through a contract with the National Agricultural and Rural Development Policy Center. This is a publication of the National Agricultural & Rural Development Policy Center (NARDeP). NARDeP was formed by the Regional Rural Development Centers in response to the increasingly contentious and complex agricultural and rural development policy issues facing the U.S. NARDeP is funded by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under a competitive grant (Number 2012-70002-19385), and works with the land-grant college and university system and other national organizations, agencies, and experts to develop and deliver timely policy-relevant information. NARDeP is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. For information about NARDeP, visit the website: nardep.info. Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 History of U.S. Water Policy ............................................................................................................. 2 Major Federal Laws and Water Agencies .......................................................................................... 8 Water Supply and Infrastructure Policy .......................................................................................... 11 Water Quality and Ecosystem Policy .............................................................................................. 20 Analysis and Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 28 References ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Abstract Water resources in the U.S. are dynamic and diverse but national water policy is fragmented and continually evolving. Numerous federal laws and agencies oversee various aspects of water policy, including both water supply and water quality. The federal government maintains and operates many water supply and storage systems for public and private use, particularly in the western states. The federal government has implemented a number of laws and programs aimed at improving water quality nationally, often in cooperation with states. States and local governments also maintain control over various aspects of water policy, particularly allocation of water rights. Increasingly, water resources are managed for a wide range of purposes, including municipal drinking water supplies, irrigation, recreation, and water quality. Water agencies have increased focus on managing water resources collaboratively in cross-agency efforts that include involvement from nongovernmental organizations and private citizens. River basins and watersheds provide useful biophysical units of action, but challenges arise in coordinating efforts across political boundaries. Population growth and increased water use create concerns about sustainability, particularly in groundwater systems. There is increased attention to water efficiency, especially at the state and local level. For water resources to be managed effectively in the future, agencies will need to work more closely together and incorporate adaptive management principles to meet dynamic and difficult challenges, including climate change. Ecological principles and ecosystem restoration are potential tools for providing sustainable supplies of water while protecting ecosystem services, including flood control, water quality, and habitat. Introduction Water resources in the U.S. are dynamic and diverse. Water policy follows this biophysical trend; the U.S. lacks one cohesive national water policy but instead has a number of governance and policy structures at the federal, state, and local levels. The current array of water policies is the result of a history characterized by increasing interest in the range of benefits water provides, as well as increasing strain on the nation’s water resources. The fragmented nature of water governance is also deeply rooted in the U.S. system of federalism. The water policy realm is indicative in many ways of the evolution of federal power since the founding of the country and the complexity of environmental, economic, and social problems facing the nation in the coming decades. This paper outlines the current water policy system, with a focus primarily on federal policy. I discuss the history of governance in this area, describing the major federal laws governing water, and offer some analysis of the directions future policy might take. Two major umbrellas describe water policy: supply and quality. While these generic areas overlap with each other in many ways, and are increasingly interrelated, policy has traditionally dealt with each separately. History of U.S. Water Policy This section gives a brief overview of policy in this area rather than a comprehensive overview. From a national perspective, water policy has largely followed the development of policy and governance in other areas. In the 19th century, water policy was largely the dominion of states, with the federal government largely focused on territorial expansion and development (Gerlak, 2006; Getches, 2001). For much of the early history of the U.S., the federal government controlled large portions of the country, particularly in the West. The focus of federal resource policy was on encouraging settlement and development of these new portions of the county. As a critical resource for human settlement and many economic activities, including mining and agriculture, water allocation was the primary concern. During this phase of the nation’s history, the federal government largely deferred to state and territorial governments in determining water allocation (Getches, 2001). Federal policy was primarily reserved for ensuring flows of waterways and their usability for economic and domestic purposes (Holmes, 1972; Getches, 2001). 2 Much of the federal policy established in the 19th and early 20th centuries Guide to Water Acronyms focused on maintaining the navigability of major river systems and harbors BMP: Best Management Practice CALFED: California-Federal (Gerlak, 2006). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was established Bay-Delta Program early on as the primary federal agency responsible for water issues, primarily CWA: Clean Water Act due to their expertise in the types of large-scale projects required to maintain CWSRF: Clean Water State Revolving Fund working waterways, including canals (Hays, 1959; Holmes, 1972). The 19th DWSRF: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund century could be characterized as an era of federal construction projects, EPA: Environmental Protection including canals, improved natural waterways, and levees to facilitate Agency ESA: Endangered Species Act economic growth around major river systems, once called the “public NEP: National Estuary Program highways” of the country (Holmes, 1972). While the federal government NEPA: National Environmental focused on waterways, the allocation of water was left largely to states Policy Act NPDES: National Pollution (allocation policies will be discussed in more length later in this paper). Discharge Elimination System NPS: Non-point source SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture 3 The turn of the 20th century marked a dramatic shift in both the balance of federal-state power in water policy as well as the focus of federal attention. The Roosevelt administration ushered in a new Progressive era of federal policy and a renewed focus on development and conservation of natural resources (Hays, 1959). Federal authority over Figure 1. The Hoover Dam, on the border of waterways expanded through new legislation and the Arizona and Nevada. This Bureau of Reclamation project was built in the 1930s to provide flood creation or expansion of federal resource agencies control, hydroelectric power, and a source of irrigation water for the region. (Hays, 1959; Holmes, 1972). Developing waterways for multiple uses, including transportation, flood control, irrigation, and power generation became additional goals. While some of these areas had been the traditional purview of the federal government, planning and implementation capacity expanded dramatically (Holmes, 1972). The Reclamation Act of 1902, and creation of the federal Reclamation Service (which later became the Bureau of Reclamation), increased the national government’s responsibility to plan and construct irrigation works in the western U.S. (McCool, 2005). The expansion policies of the 19th century increased the population of the west, creating a pressing need to develop water infrastructure in the region (Holmes, 1972; McCool, 2005; Tarlock, 2001). While allocation of water was still
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land-Use, Land-Cover Changes and Biodiversity Loss - Helena Freitas
    LAND USE, LAND COVER AND SOIL SCIENCES – Vol. I - Land-Use, Land-Cover Changes and Biodiversity Loss - Helena Freitas LAND-USE, LAND-COVER CHANGES AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS Helena Freitas University of Coimbra, Portugal Keywords: land use; habitat fragmentation; biodiversity loss Contents 1. Introduction 2. Primary Causes of Biodiversity Loss 2.1. Habitat Degradation and Destruction 2.2. Habitat Fragmentation 2.3. Global Climate Change 3. Strategies for Biodiversity Conservation 3.1. General 3.2. The European Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 4. Conclusions Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary During Earth's history, species extinction has probably been caused by modifications of the physical environment after impacts such as meteorites or volcanic activity. On the contrary, the actual extinction of species is mainly a result of human activities, namely any form of land use that causes the conversion of vast areas to settlement, agriculture, and forestry, resulting in habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation, which are among the most important causes of species decline and extinction. The loss of biodiversity is unique among the major anthropogenic changes because it is irreversible. The importance of preserving biodiversity has increased in recent times. The global recognition of the alarming loss of biodiversity and the acceptance of its value resultedUNESCO in the Convention on Biologi – calEOLSS Diversity. In addition, in Europe, the challenge is also the implementation of the European strategy for biodiversity conservation and agricultural policies, though it is increasingly recognized that the strategy is limitedSAMPLE by a lack of basic ecological CHAPTERS information and indicators available to decision makers and end users. We have reached a point where we can save biodiversity only by saving the biosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Pathways
    Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Pathways Guidance for ATSDR’s Division of Community Health Investigations October 31, 2016 Contents Acronym List ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 What are the potential health risks from the vapor intrusion pathway? ............................................................................... 2 When should a vapor intrusion pathway be evaluated? ........................................................................................................ 3 Why is it so difficult to assess the public health hazard posed by the vapor intrusion pathway? .......................................... 3 What is the best approach for a public health evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway? ................................................. 5 Public health evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Vapor intrusion evaluation process outline ............................................................................................................................ 8 References… …......................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Stormwater Runoff from Development by Robert Pitt, P.E
    A River Network Publication Volume 14 | Number 3 - 2004 Effects of Stormwater Runoff from Development By Robert Pitt, P.E. Ph.D., University of Alabama ost people know that urban runoff is a problem, but very few realize just how harmful it can be for rivers, lakes and streams. In order to secure better control of urban runoff, we must make the public and its officials aware of the full extent of the problems that need to be prevented when new M development takes place. Urban runoff has been found to cause significant impacts on aquatic life. The effects are obviously most severe for waters draining heavily urbanized watersheds. However, some studies have shown important aquatic life impacts even for streams in watersheds that are less than ten percent urbanized. Most aquatic life impacts associated with urbanization are probably related to long- term problems caused by polluted sediments and food web disruption. Because ecological responses to watershed changes may take between 5 and 10 years to equilibrate, water monitoring conducted soon after disturbances or mitigation may not accurately reflect the long-term conditions that will eventually occur. The first changes due to urbanization will be to stream and groundwater hydrology, followed by fluvial morphology, then water quality, and finally the aquatic ecosystem. Effects of Stormwater Discharges on Aquatic Life Many studies have shown the severe detrimental effects of urban runoff on water Photo courtesy of Dr. Pitt organisms. These studies have generally examined receiving water conditions above and below a city, or by comparing two parallel streams, one urbanized and another nonurbanized.
    [Show full text]
  • National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Potential health effects MCL or TT1 Common sources of contaminant in Public Health Contaminant from long-term3 exposure (mg/L)2 drinking water Goal (mg/L)2 above the MCL Nervous system or blood Added to water during sewage/ Acrylamide TT4 problems; increased risk of cancer wastewater treatment zero Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen Runoff from herbicide used on row Alachlor 0.002 problems; anemia; increased risk crops zero of cancer Erosion of natural deposits of certain 15 picocuries Alpha/photon minerals that are radioactive and per Liter Increased risk of cancer emitters may emit a form of radiation known zero (pCi/L) as alpha radiation Discharge from petroleum refineries; Increase in blood cholesterol; Antimony 0.006 fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; decrease in blood sugar 0.006 solder Skin damage or problems with Erosion of natural deposits; runoff Arsenic 0.010 circulatory systems, and may have from orchards; runoff from glass & 0 increased risk of getting cancer electronics production wastes Asbestos 7 million Increased risk of developing Decay of asbestos cement in water (fibers >10 fibers per Liter benign intestinal polyps mains; erosion of natural deposits 7 MFL micrometers) (MFL) Cardiovascular system or Runoff from herbicide used on row Atrazine 0.003 reproductive problems crops 0.003 Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge Barium 2 Increase in blood pressure from metal refineries; erosion 2 of natural deposits Anemia; decrease in blood Discharge from factories; leaching Benzene
    [Show full text]
  • “Mining” Water Ice on Mars an Assessment of ISRU Options in Support of Future Human Missions
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration “Mining” Water Ice on Mars An Assessment of ISRU Options in Support of Future Human Missions Stephen Hoffman, Alida Andrews, Kevin Watts July 2016 Agenda • Introduction • What kind of water ice are we talking about • Options for accessing the water ice • Drilling Options • “Mining” Options • EMC scenario and requirements • Recommendations and future work Acknowledgement • The authors of this report learned much during the process of researching the technologies and operations associated with drilling into icy deposits and extract water from those deposits. We would like to acknowledge the support and advice provided by the following individuals and their organizations: – Brian Glass, PhD, NASA Ames Research Center – Robert Haehnel, PhD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory – Patrick Haggerty, National Science Foundation/Geosciences/Polar Programs – Jennifer Mercer, PhD, National Science Foundation/Geosciences/Polar Programs – Frank Rack, PhD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln – Jason Weale, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Mining Water Ice on Mars INTRODUCTION Background • Addendum to M-WIP study, addressing one of the areas not fully covered in this report: accessing and mining water ice if it is present in certain glacier-like forms – The M-WIP report is available at http://mepag.nasa.gov/reports.cfm • The First Landing Site/Exploration Zone Workshop for Human Missions to Mars (October 2015) set the target
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Overdraft, Electricity, and Wrong Incentives : Evidence from Mexico
    Groundwater Overdraft, Electricity, and Wrong Incentives : Evidence from Mexico Vincente Ruiz WP 2016.05 Suggested citation: V. Ruiz (2016). Groundwater Overdraft, Electricity, and Wrong Incentives : Evidence from Mexico. FAERE Working Paper, 2016.05. ISSN number: 2274-5556 www.faere.fr Groundwater Overdraft, Electricity, and Wrong Incentives: Evidence from Mexico by Vicente Ruiz⇤ Last version: January 2016 Abstract Groundwater overdraft is threatening the sustainability of an increasing number of aquifers in Mexico. The excessive amount of groundwater ex- tracted by irrigation farming has significantly contributed to this problem. The objective of this paper is to analyse the effect of changes in ground- water price over the allocation of different production inputs. I model the technology of producers facing groundwater overdraft through a Translog cost function and using a combination of multiple micro-data sources. My results show that groundwater demand is inelastic, -0.54. Moreover, these results also show that both labour and fertiliser can act as substitutes for groundwater, further reacting to changes in groundwater price. JEL codes:Q12,Q25 Key words: Groundwater, Electricity, Subsidies, Mexico, Translog Cost ⇤Université Paris 1 - Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris School of Economics (PSE). Centre d’Économie de la Sorbonne, 106-112 Boulevard de l’Hopital, 75647, Paris Cedex 13, France. Email: [email protected] Introduction The high rate of groundwater extraction in Mexico is threatening the sustainability of an increasing number of aquifers in the country. Today in Mexico 1 out of 6aquifersisconsideredtobeoverexploited(CONAGUA, 2010). Groundwater overdraft is not only an important cause of major environmental problems, but it also has a direct impact on economic activities and the wellbeing of a high share of the population.
    [Show full text]
  • Usgs Water Data
    USGS WATER RESOURCES ONLINE PLACES TO START USGS Water home page http://water.usgs.gov/ USGS Water data page http://water.usgs.gov/data/ USGS Publications Warehouse http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ USGS National Real-Time Water Quality http://nrtwq.usgs.gov/ USGS Water Science Centers http://xx.water.usgs.gov/ (where “xx” is two-letter State code) USGS WATER DATA NWIS-Web http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ NWIS-Web is the general online interface to the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS). Discrete water-sample and time-series data from 1.5 million sites in all 50 States. Results from 5 million water samples with 90 million water-quality results are available from a wide variety of retrieval methods including standard and customized map interfaces. Time-series retrievals include instantaneous measurements back to October 2007, soon to include the longer historical record. BioData http://aquatic.biodata.usgs.gov/ Access to results from more than 15,000 macroinvertebrate, algae, and fish community samples from more than 2,000 sites nationwide. StreamStats http://streamstats.usgs.gov/ssonline.html A map-based tool that allows users to easily obtain streamflow statistics, drainage-basin characteristics, and other information for user-selected sites on streams. Water Quality Portal http://www.waterqualitydata.us/ A cooperative service sponsored by USGS, EPA, and NWQMC that integrates publicly available water-quality data from the USGS NWIS database and the EPA STORET data warehouse. NAWQA Data Warehouse http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.html A collection of chemical, biological, and physical water quality data used in the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, drawn partly from NWIS and BioData.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of Virginia's Water Resource Planning and Management
    Commonwealth of Virginia House Document 8 (2017) October 2016 Report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia Effectiveness of Virginia’s Water Resource Planning and Management 2016 JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Chair Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr. Vice-Chair Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. Delegate David B. Albo Delegate M. Kirkland Cox Senator Emmett W. Hanger, Jr. Senator Janet D. Howell Delegate S. Chris Jones Delegate R. Steven Landes Delegate James P. Massie III Senator Ryan T. McDougle Delegate John M. O’Bannon III Delegate Kenneth R. Plum Senator Frank M. Ruff, Jr. Delegate Lionell Spruill, Sr. Martha S. Mavredes, Auditor of Public Accounts Director Hal E. Greer JLARC staff for this report Justin Brown, Senior Associate Director Jamie Bitz, Project Leader Susan Bond Joe McMahon Christine Wolfe Information graphics: Nathan Skreslet JLARC Report 486 ©2016 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission http://jlarc.virginia.gov February 8, 2017 The Honorable Robert D. Orrock Sr., Chair Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission General Assembly Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Delegate Orrock: In 2015, the General Assembly directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to study water resource planning and management in Virginia (HJR 623 and SJR 272). As part of this study, the report, Effectiveness of Virginia’s Water Resource Planning and Management, was briefed to the Commission and authorized for printing on October 11, 2016. On behalf of Commission staff, I would like to express appreciation for the cooperation and assistance of the staff of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Water Resource Research Center at Virginia Tech.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management Regulations
    City of Waco Stormwater Management Regulations 1.0 Applicability: These regulations apply to all development within the limits of the City of Waco as well as to any subdivisions within the extra territorial jurisdiction of the City of Waco. Any request for a variance from these regulations must be justified by sound Engineering practice. Other than those variances identified in these regulations as being at the discretion of the City Engineer, variances may only be granted as provided in the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Waco or Chapter 28 – Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Waco, as applicable. 1.1 Definitions: 100 year Floodplain Area inundated by the flood having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any one year (Base Flood). (Also known as Regulatory Flood Plain) Adverse Impact: Any impact which causes any of the following: Any increased inundation, of any building structure, roadway, or improvement. Any increase in erosion and/or sedimentation. Any increase in the upstream or downstream floodplane level. Any increase in the upstream or downstream floodplain boundaries. Floodplane The calculated elevation of floodwaters caused by the flood Elevation of a particular frequency. Drainage System System made up of pipes, ditches, streets and other structures designed to contain and transport surface water generated by a storm event. Treatment Removal/partial removal of pollutants from stormwater. Watercourse a natural or manmade channel, ditch, or swale where water flows either continuously or during rainfall events 1.2 Adverse Impact No preliminary or final plat or development plan or permit shall be approved that will cause an adverse drainage impact on any other property, based on the 2 yr, 10 1 yr, 25 yr and 100 yr floods.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservation and Sustainable Use of Freshwater Resources in West Asia, Central Asia and North Africa
    IUCN-WESCANA Water Publication The Conservation and Sustainable Use of Freshwater Resources in West Asia, Central Asia and North Africa The 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress Bangkok, Kingdom of Thailand, November 17-25, 2004 IUCN Regional Office for West/Central Asia and North Africa Kuwait Foundation For The Advancement of Sciences The World Conservation Union 1 2 3 The Conservation and Sustainable Use of Freshwater Resources in West Asia, Central Asia and North Africa The 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress Bangkok, Kingdom of Thailand, November 17-25, 2004 IUCN Regional Office for West/Central Asia and North Africa Kuwait Foundation 2 For The Advancement of Sciences The World Conservation Union 3 4 5 Table of Contents The demand for freshwater resources and the role of indigenous people in the conservation of wetland biodiversity Mehran Niazi.................................................................................. 8 Managing water ecosystems for sustainability and productivity in North Africa Chedly Rais................................................................................... 17 Market role in the conservation of freshwater biodiversity in West Asia Abdul Majeed..................................................................... 20 Water-ecological problems of the Syrdarya river delta V.A. Dukhovny, N.K. Kipshakbaev,I.B. Ruziev, T.I. Budnikova, and V.G. Prikhodko............................................... 26 Fresh water biodiversity conservation: The case of the Aral Sea E. Kreuzberg-Mukhina, N. Gorelkin, A. Kreuzberg V. Talskykh, E. Bykova, V. Aparin, I. Mirabdullaev, and R. Toryannikova............................................. 32 Water scarcity in the WESCANA Region: Threat or prospect for peace? Odeh Al-Jayyousi ......................................................................... 48 4 5 6 7 Summary The IUCN-WESCANA Water Publication – The Conservation and Sustainable Use Of Freshwater Resources in West Asia, Central Asia and North Africa - is the first publication of the IUCN-WESCANA Office, Amman-Jordan.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Water Conservation and Management Strategies
    Long‐Term Water Conservation and Management Strategies April 2016 As the state’s focus begins to transition from the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2015 emergency regulation to a long‐term water management vision for California’s future, the Squaw Valley Public Service District strongly believes that any long‐term policy should recognize investments in drought‐resilience, emphasize ongoing water‐use efficiency, and leave local management discretion to local water agencies. With the public’s support, local water agencies have invested nearly $20 billion in the past 20 years to build and prudently manage diverse water supply portfolios to meet their customers’ needs and provide reliable supplies during times of drought. Local water supply investments since the 1990s include everything from water recycling to local and regional water storage to desalination of brackish groundwater and ocean water. These types of investments have added nearly 5 million acre‐feet of local and regional water supply across the state. Local water supply investments are widely credited with keeping California’s economy intact throughout the current multiyear drought. The emergency drought regulation adopted in May 2015 and extended in February 2016 by the State Water Resources Control Board largely overlooked local water supply investments and required local urban water suppliers to impose mandatory water use restrictions even where local water supply conditions did not warrant such stringent restrictions. As the state’s focus transitions from the emergency regulation to a potential long‐term policy on conservation, the state’s policy should emphasize local investments in drought resiliency and ongoing water use efficiency and leave discretion with local water agencies to choose appropriate management strategies.
    [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]