Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to spare.

It's always frustrating to be told that we are not allowed to do something that we would like to do. However, personal sacrifices must sometimes be made for the sake of the environment and others who live in it. In the case of water usage, some Arlington citizens are not ready to make that sacrifice yet. Last Tuesday, at an Arlington City Council public hearing, the council planned to implement a permanent water restriction for the area. This would limit people to watering their yard using a sprinkler system to twice a week. During the meeting, though, there were several objections to this plan from Arlington citizens, leading the City Council to eventually reject the plan. I firmly believe that the City of Arlington should reconsider. Yes, people may feel that it is their right to manage their property, but this matter impacts more than the dissenters.

Due to Texas droughts, Arlington and most other Tarrant County cities had implemented Stage 1 water restrictions last August. During these restrictions, it was reported that the amount of daily water used went down by 8%. While this may not seem like much as a percentile, it equates to saving 35 million to 45 million gallons of water per day. This spring, some cities considered adopting permanent restrictions in order to prevent waste build-up as well as to protect water supplies. This plan would be expected to conserve 5% of daily water use. Penalties for violations of this plan would have been fines up to $500. The restriction plan failed due to lack of a second.

Prior to the City Council meeting to discuss the adoption of this plan, citizens had been sending emails and making phone calls in opposition to the restrictions. Once the meeting began, several upset Arlington residents shared their feeling on the matter. There were claims regarding the restrictions as "anti-American" and "outrageous." One particularly passionate citizen, Kelly Canon, made this remark:

"This is America. Why are we being forced and strong-armed into doing something that should be voluntary? I don't like being told what to do and what we can do in our homes and on our own property. It's insane."

I personally think the reaction of resistance is a bit overdone. Firstly, when I think of a American qualities, I think bravery, courage, perseverance, etc. None of which involves watering lawns. Unlimited access to a sprinkler system is not an amendment in the Bill of Rights. Being an American gives you absolutely no right to control one of Earth's natural resources. Somewhere along the way, people came to believe that being able to manipulate elements to our advantage meant that we should have all power over it. We forget that we are the ones dependent on the Earth. Deciding not to take the opportunity to conserve water could be a serious problem if future droughts occur.
Secondly, there are many rules that citizens must abide by that should be voluntary. People should voluntarily not commit crimes, voluntarily drive at a safe speed, voluntarily not litter. However, as we all well know, people don't always do what they should. There's a widespread shared responsibility among people. This causes us to ignore consequences of our actions because they don't make significant differences by themselves. However, if everyone takes up this self-serving mindset, negative effects accumulate quickly. This plan, similar to the situations mentioned above, was formed to benefit the environment and those who live in it in the long run, although it may not be ideal for an individual.
Lastly, this issue is not asking people to sacrifice much. While a potentially dry yard may not be desirable to homeowners, it is not an overly burdensome request.

As a group, citizens need to put aside their own preferences and seriously think about the impact of over using a limited resource. The council will later have opportunities to reconsider the topic, and hopefully, for the benefit of the community and the environment, a more constructive decision will be made.

Keeping it clean.

In her commentary on drilling for oil and gas, Avery takes the position that Texans should not enter into the practice of fracking. Fracking is a process used to obtain oil from deep in the earth. It is done by injecting a highly pressurized mixture of water, sand, and other chemicals down into the ground in order to release the oil and natural gas. Avery cites damage to the wellbeing of the environment as her reasoning against fracking. Before reading this post, I was unaware of the process so I had no firmly held beliefs on the issue. However, afterwards, I came to agree with Avery’s attitude.

I appreciate that her argument isn’t biased in order to persuade readers. By addressing both the positive and negative outcomes of fracking, readers can get facts and then make their own informed decisions rather than taking a position and only listening to facts that reinforce it. This is an issue that requires careful consideration because benefits would be almost immediate while consequences would be delayed. It calls for people to weigh present economic security with environmental damage in the future.  

I think the combination of poor economic times, high unemployment rates and the availability of a quick and easy solution are likely to persuade people to support fracking – especially citizens in the oil business. This would create thousands of jobs and bring business to surrounding companies. The consequences addressed include the possibility of polluted drinking water taken from the ground as well as general damage that this process inflicts. While the pollution of ground water has yet to be officially proven or disproven, the fact is that with fracking, it’s possible, and without fracking, it’s not.  

As Avery recognized, the benefits from this process would be large, but only temporarily so. This process would likely only survive for 15 to 20 years. It’s true that for the time being, many people would gain jobs but when the area no longer produced work, those people would be back in a job finding situation, along with many others in the growing population.

I acknowledge that it is not an easy situation to face, but people tend to look at immediate matters with less regard for long-term effects. Cases such as these (economic vs. environmental) are especially difficult. Financial matters directly affect people. They are more personal. People know immediately when they do not have enough money for their needs. Changes can also be sudden. People who lose their jobs feel the change right away and lifestyle changes usually take place quickly. The environment on the other hand has changed slowly over time. We don’t face devastating changes on a day-to-day basis. Maybe not even year-to-year. Negative changes in the environment steadily accumulate and rarely cause immediate negative affects, so people are less likely to pay close attention. There is also the problem of dispersed responsibility. People may not feel bad about leaving the water running an extra five minutes, not recycling, or not using renewable energy sources because they feel a single person doesn’t make that big of a difference. And this is true. One person is not likely to have a big impact but many people sharing this view do.

For all these reasons, I understand why this fracking opportunity would be appealing; however, as Avery said perfectly, “All of the money in the world can't repair certain aspects of the environment.” It's past the time that we start thinking about taking care of the Earth. It's time to start being proactive and making the right choices for the future.