Causes and Solutions for Groundwater Pollution in Australia - Essay Example

?Chapter Groundwater in Australia Unlike many countries, Australia has groundwater beneath in almost all of its provinces. Because of the growing drain on surface water resources since 1960, more and more of the general water supply for domestic consumption and agricultural production has come from the groundwater. The aquifers in Australia are generally either porous, which means that they consist of saturated gravel, silt, or sand, or are surrounded by fractured rock, such as granite, shale or basalt. Porous aquifers will, on average, yield more usable water than fractured rock aquifers and so they are more common (Ball). However, if salinity is too high as a result of existing salt in the materials around the aquifer, then, it is not usable for consumption. If too much water is extracted from aquifers, then, the viability of a variety of ecosystems is at risk. Groundwater provides hydration for areas such as wetlands, streams and even some lakes. Even though the two intermingle, in Australia, the government has managed surface water and groundwater resources as two separate categories. In the country, there are currently 442 groundwater management units, or GMU’s, designated to manage the groundwater inside their territories. Each of these units was selected because the groundwater goes to areas with environmental sensitivity, or because the groundwater was low in salinity. Each GMU has its own aquifer – typically only one, unless there is a series that is connected. GMU’s end at the state and provincial boundaries since the prevailing authority for groundwater comes at the state/provincial level (Ball). For example, four different GMU’s cover the Great Artesian Basin, because it lies under parts of four different states in Australia. When it comes to sustainable yield, the good news is that Australia’s current groundwater yield is more than adequate for the country’s current needs. While about half (43 percent) of the available- total yield, in the GMU’s is already licensed to users, only 27 percent, or a little over a quarter, of the sustainable yield is consumed annually. About three-quarters of the sustainable yield can be treated and added to the general water supply, while almost 90 percent can be used for irrigation. However, extraction is higher in some parts of the country than others. In Victoria and Queensland, for example, almost two-thirds of the sustainable yield is used on an annual basis. The Great Artesian Basin, with around 500 GL in annual sustainable yield, is the largest source of groundwater in the country, containing 11 different aquifers. However, because 570 GL is extracted each year, the current trend is not sustainable (Ball). At present, the most positive signs are the government's commitment to testing aquifers near the coast rigorously to monitor salinity invasion. Also, the testing of river water can indicate the safety of some groundwater sources. However, many rivers do not have any groundwater as a source, so this is an incomplete method of testing. Current Risks While current use of groundwater is within allowable parameters, given the annual available yield, the only reason that groundwater is necessary for extraction is that surface water is being used to excess. There are many ways to encourage reductions in water consumption, from rebates on low-flow shower heads to the declaration of different stages in water reduction protocols for municipalities. Water consumption is a by-product of social behaviors that are, by and large, out of the government's hands to control, without instituting layers of usage control. Education is an essential strategy; many people just do not know the number of gallons they let flow down the drain each day, during something as straightforward as a morning shower in addition to activities such as running loads of laundry that are not full but using a full load's worth of water, not fixing a leaky toilet or outdoor spigot as well as letting hot water run constantly while shaving. All these are behaviors that do not consume much water at the individual level, but by multiplying the water by the number of people living in the country, one may find that a lot of water is wasted on daily basis. Summary While the problem of water overconsumption is beyond the scope of this paper, eliminating other attacks on the water supply – specifically, the supply beneath the ground – should become an immediate priority for the Australian government. On one hand, the government is taking the laudable step of protecting the groundwater supply near Bundaberg, with 80 testing sites to ensure that salinity is not leaching further into the aquifer system. On the other hand, action is needed to control the introduction of more nitrates, and other point source pollution into the groundwater, with a focus on by-products from waste systems and refinement of gasoline and other fuel products. A policy initiative with incentives for clean operators and sanctions for violators will go a long way towards keeping Australia's groundwater safe for decades to come. Chapter 2 Specific Sources of Pollution As was mentioned earlier, there are numerous sources of pollution on groundwater, and they come in two types: diffuse source and point source. Diffuse source pollutants come primarily from practices that are associated with agriculture or land development. The vast majority of diffuse source groundwater pollution in Australia comes from nitrates, and the two primary activities that send nitrates into the groundwater are the use of fertilizers that contain nitrates, and the disturbance of soil by construction developers, who are putting up buildings or moving earth for other reasons. According to government standards in Australia, groundwater is considered to have nitrate contamination whenever there is a higher reading than 10 milligrams per liter. However, the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines have put in a threshold of 50 milligrams per liter before water can be considered as unsafe for consumption (Ball). The disturbance of soil as part of development is difficult to avoid. However, it is much easier to manage sending nutrients to the groundwater, which happens as a result of fertilizing or applying nutrients to the soil. In other parts of the world, governments have come up with regulations that dictate when farmers should apply "specific fertilizers" to their land so that the nitrates are consumed by the plants and therefore do not make it down into the groundwater. When developing this type of plan, farmers should consider the type and layout of the different soils on their land, results of nutrient testing, susceptibility to soil erosion and likelihood of the leaching of nutrients. The plan should also continue gathering information on the ways that cultivation is currently being practiced on the farms, and any current or suggested strategies to keep the groundwater from being polluted and soil from washing. If irrigation is a part of the plan, then information about specific strategies should be taken into consideration when calculating the balance between soil and water and calculating the possibility of nitrates leaching through to the groundwater. It is largely beneficial for farmers to know exactly how much fertilizer and other nutrients a crop needs, and the optimal time for applying those items. If farmers put down the right amount of fertilizer, and put it down when their crops need it, their plants will consume the nitrates, so the fertilizer will not end up in the groundwater. Also, it is necessary to know exactly which nutrients their crop needs. If they put down fertilizers that have nutrients other than what their crops will specifically consume, then, the result will be that extra nutrients will end up in the groundwater. While the specific nutrient formula will vary depending on the precise soil conditions, the crop in question, and accessibility to water, the sandier your soil is, the less the fertilizer used should be; if the soil is thicker because of higher clay content, then more fertilizer should be added. Specifically, if farmers could keep nitrogen concentration below 140 kilograms per hectare in sandy soils and below 200 for thicker soils, then there would be significantly less risk of nitrates leaching into the groundwater (Chave 570). In addition to monitoring concentration, though, there are other areas to consider, such as choosing the type of fertilizer that matches the crop in question, and making sure that only crops that are suited to local environmental and climatic conditions are planted. Other areas are, selecting the optimal fertilizer delivery method for a crop, such as top, foliar or row fertilizing and combining manure and fertilizers effectively to ensure maximal nutrient delivery (Yu et al.). If a farmer is planting in an area designated as an aquifer recharge zone, it may be optimal to lower the fertilizer nitrogen content below even recommended standards, as it could be worth losing some crop performance to keep nitrates out of the groundwater (Havelaar, et al.). Specific methods that the government could institute to help with nitrate pollution could include the institution of soil surveys in areas that are not at risk for salinity, but could still pollute the groundwater. The benefits of soil surveys include the identification of different types of soil on the same farm, the categorization of crop productivity at different spots throughout the land, and indication of places that could be particularly susceptible to groundwater leaching, based on the specific density of the soil involved. As part of a fertilizer management program, the government could mandate the use of fertilizers at the correct time i.e. application of fertilizers and manures when plant consumption of those nutrients is at its highest (during the growing season). After all, the more nutrients the plants consume, the fewer there are nutrients left to leak down into the water. Also, when possible, it is recommended that farmers avoid fertilizing during a time when there is excess precipitation, such after severe storms that brings a lot of flash flooding, which sends water down into places closer to the groundwater much more quickly than more gradual sources of rainfall (Chave 572). A sudden storm, pouring several inches of water down onto a particular plot of land, can send those nutrients way down deep into the earth, past the point where roots cannot absolve them. It's possible to minimize the risk of leaching further by applying smaller amounts of fertilizer throughout the cycle of expanded plant uptake and by using fertilizers that release their nutrients more slowly (MAFF). The practice of “fertigation” (adding nutrients to the water used in the irrigation process) is becoming more and more common in the society, as is the use of denitrifying inhibitors to keep nitrogen in several forms from draining out of the soil into the water below. It is vital that the Australian government does more to protect recharge zones above some of the largest aquifers. Instead of allowing a large-scale commercial farm to set up shop in zones like these, planning commissions can dedicate those sorts of land to indigenous vegetation preserves, woods, or parks. Crop sequencing is another behavior that the government could encourage through the creation of incentives, so that farmers can sequence crops that take excess sources of nitrogen out of the soil. Crops that are particularly well known for absorbing nitrates include mustard, several grasses and sunflowers. These crops can do the most for your land if farmers plant them fairly close to the harvest time of the main crops. The thicker the vegetation cover is the more effectively this process will work (Feldwisch and Schultheiss, 126). In addition to nitrates, pesticides are another widespread menace that can send diffuse source pollution down into the groundwater. Currently, there is little testing done to check on pesticide presence in the groundwater (Boyd, et al.). However, the testing, which has been done suggests that various pesticides were found in more than 20 percent of the tested samples from the soil, and some regions had as high as a 50 percent total of contaminated samples (Ball). While pesticides are an important element in pest control, and a key factor in crop management, they can be easy to control; farmers who are willing to try more soil-friendly chemicals in developing their crops can be encouraged by government tax breaks and other incentives for trying chemicals that won't fill the soil with toxins such as atrazine and simazine, which aretwo of the most menacing chemicals in pesticides (Ball). Pesticides can also enter the groundwater through point source contamination; the most common sources of this pollution include manufacturing plants, dips for cattle and sheep, and the manufacturing of a variety of agrochemical compounds. Again, farmers who are willing to try different products instead of sticking with the same pesticides that will pollute the groundwater are deserving of incentives, whether that be income tax rebates, coupons or other methods of support. There are several ways that individual and commercial farmers can manage the use of pesticides to minimize their effects on the groundwater. The first way is to analyze actual pest behavior on the land in question. It does not make any sense to put down chemicals that fight creatures that will not appear on the land at all. Before beginning a pest control regimen, farmers should analyze the specific weeds and other pests that will appear in a particular field before choosing the pesticide for that field (Chave 579). Making an accurate list of the pests involved will help farmers spend less money, by ensuring that they only buy pesticides that will eliminate the pests they actually face on that land. Another way for farmers to minimize their effect on the groundwater is to take a good look at the soil before they put fertilizer– and plan their placement carefully. If farmers put down pesticides near a pond, a well or other surface features on a map, without government permission, the likelihood of those pesticides running quickly down into the soil will increase significantly. Adding fertilizer to a thicker soil along a steep incline also puts the groundwater at risk, because the chemicals can be washed downhill by running rain water thereby enhancing the production of contaminated groundwater (Glaser p. 18). Sandy soil doesn't have to be sandy forever as it is possible to add thickening agents to the soil. Organics such as manures or compost can make a soil sample thicker, causing the other components of the soil to bind together more tightly consequently producing a more cohesive substance. It may be observed that thicker soils have an advantage in that they hold fertilizers much longer than loose soils. Maintaining the area where farmers mix and prepare their pesticides for spraying or otherwise applying in the field is crucial. The area should have a concrete floor treated to repel all chemicals that might try to leach through other flooring surfaces, as well as special tanks to hold any runoff from the mixing process. It may also be important to state that areas where vehicles are treated to remove residue from pesticides are vulnerable to soil contermination if proper care is not taken for example using buckets and tanks to trap the by-products and store them safely (Chave p. 580). Other sources of groundwater pollution are as numerous as the activities that humans carry out on a daily basis. In cities and towns, emissions from cars, incinerators and smokestacks can get into the groundwater system. These emissions contain hydrocarbons, heavy metals and compounds containing nitrogen and sulfur (DEP). Also, the various fluids that may leak from a car, such as oil, gasoline and other chemicals, can find their way into the groundwater, not to mention other pollutants such as untreated waste from other human activities such as animal rearing. The leaks that can happen when chemicals are transported are also a risk for leaching into the groundwater. Injection bores, which are designed to send liquid waste into parts of the earth below the water table, are also risk factors as far as ground water is concerned. These chemicals include items most noxious, such as hazardous waste, sewage from different cities, the return water from heaters and air conditioning as well as the liquids that oil exploration companies use to maximize the recovery of crude from the field. Chapter 3 Plan and Policy Considerations Regulations and legislation concerning an area as wide-ranging as agriculture and industrial waste handling are going to be difficult to implement. There will be lobbyists weighing in with individual legislators every step of the way, because while lobbyists' time is expensive, it's not nearly as costly as implementing system wide reforms that reduce emissions or liquid pollutants. For this sort of change to take place, six steps will need to occur: Review existing regulations and legislation at all levels of government. The difference between standard practice and what is actually on the books when it comes to the law can be significant. Before any level of government can make a request for change, it is important to know what the laws and regulations are; it may be that the issue is enforcement of existing law, instead of the creation of new laws. In this case, bringing about change will be significantly easier. Develop a system to put the laws into place and to enforce them. Once you come up with an overarching conceptual system that will contain all of the changes that you need, the next step is to devise a way to make your rules enforceable. If you're going to require that farmers submit a pesticide use plan each year, or a fertilizing plan each year, so that you can estimate incoming atrazine or incoming nitrates, then how are you going to enforce that requirement? Who will read the plans and ensure that they will be good for the environment? What will happen to farmers who do not comply with the required plans? Identify all of the major participants in the process and find ways to consult with them before implementing change. You may not like the idea that a major chemical manufacturing plant is dumping waste near an area that may leach into the groundwater. However, that plant is the property of a company that has made a significant investment in operations at that site. Because of this investment, the company will demand (and may deserve) a place at the table when the time comes to discuss changes. Including them in the process will make change easier over the long haul; while this change may not take the precise forms that the most environmentally minded stakeholders would like, the change will be more significant and will face fewer hurdles in the form of litigation and intransigence than it would have been if the owners of the plant had not been consulted (OECD). Apply precepts of strategic planning to make concepts actionable. It's one thing to want a groundwater system that is completely safe from all pollutants. Unfortunately, that's not possible, given the way humans live. However, it is possible to minimize pollutants. This requires creating a series of steps based on these guiding principles so that ideas can become accomplishments. Create enough capacity to support actionable concepts. If the government is going to require all farmers to use fertilizers that release nitrates into the soil more slowly, is there enough fertilizer on the market to accommodate that requirement? Is there a system in place to monitor the use of the correct fertilizers, or will there be a sort of “honor system” in place that farmers will be expected to follow? Create incentives and penalties to keep the system in place. Some companies and some individual farmers will work well with incentives, or “carrots,” to spur them to change to newer, less environmentally harmful ways of production. Some organizations will take the tax cuts that come with installing systems that allow fewer pollutants to drain out of their systems and into soil that could come into contact with groundwater. However, there are other individuals and organizations that will drag their feet every step of the way until they are forced to change. The policies that the Australian government develops needs to plan for and work with the two categories of people. With groundwater pollution, these steps can become somewhat more specific. First, you'll need to identify the way that the groundwater is used in human activity (Chave 539). Is it an important element in the drinking water of the surrounding communities, or do they get their drinking water from surface sources only? In the case of Australian groundwater, by and large, we have a situation where groundwater has a variety of functions, ranging from industrial applications to treatment of drinking water, depending on the area in question (Pedley and Howard). Then, you would need to move on to a discussion of current problems. These problems would lead to a set of goals and objectives, which would then be ranked according to immediate need and priority. A checklist of specific action steps would thereby be necessary. Chapter 4 Solving the Specific Problems of Groundwater The most important part of the creation of change is the movement from concept to action steps – from generalization to specificity. When it comes to solving the problems that go with pollution in Australia's groundwater, there are several specific items under consideration. Creating synergy among institutions. Who are the key players that would need to be involved in planning change for the way Australians perceive their groundwater? Within national and regional government levels, one would want representation from such departments as Public Health, Environment, and Agriculture. As was mentioned before, representation from the major industrial and commercial players in the area would also be necessary for a universal solution to be reached (Horan 82). Depending on the size and scope of the project that you have in mind for groundwater protection, you may need representation from the national level as well as the municipal level. One department, or agency, would be tapped to lead the process and come up with a proposal for change after the entire member organizations have been identified (Chave 541). Altering lines of responsibility to streamline the system. Within bureaucratic circles, once a particular arm of an organization is given power and oversight over some or all parts of a project, getting that power and oversight away from that arm can be just as difficult, if not more so, than completing the entire project turns out to be. Whether you're talking about public or private enterprise, individuals and organizations hate losing influence or power just as virulently. When it becomes clear, for example, that the Department of Public Health no longer needs to monitor skin tone changes in children near an area with significant groundwater pollution, it can be extremely difficult to get that department dislodged from the situation. The politics of the situation may require that the department stay longer, so that panic does not ensue when they finally pull out. The director of the Department of Public Health may be particularly adept at manipulating the media, insinuating in stories and interviews that his department is not receiving enough consultation regarding the danger to the public. As a result, you may end up having to give his department more resources than it needs, leading to long-term waste in the project. Training individuals and organizations about the changes needed. While your task force may include some ardent supporters of clean groundwater, it is likely that many of those supporters will not understand the complexities of oil refining for the purpose of producing gasoline, or the exact nutritional requirements of the crops for farmers whose land is right over an important aquifer. Without this understanding, they may not be able to accept the leeway that the government gives to those farmers to ensure that those crops are harvested on time. Similarly, the CEO of a chemical plant may not understand the effects that the effluent flowing into the waste water system will have on the groundwater in several months – or even years. Training needs to take place, in both directions, for all stakeholders to find consensus in the process of change. The precise nature of the change will likely take on several different forms before all of the involved parties are satisfied. One of these forms would be legislation focused on making environmental changes. Over time, laws have been successful in changing industrial, agricultural and commercial practices so that environmental change can take place (Patrick). For example, laws can establish licensing processes that must take place before different chemical processes can occur. Restricting activities that contribute to pollution, both in terms of volume as well as location can make significant improvements in groundwater protection (O'Connor). Adding requirements such as groundwater chemical monitoring to the provision of those licenses can take the burden of monitoring off the government's hands, although it would not be wise to leave all of the monitoring in the hands of the potential polluters (Chave 546). Another form of change has to do with reforming existing laws. Instead of saying that oil refineries cannot dump any wastes into the treatment system, changing existing laws to give an allowable percentage or amount of wastes dumped can be significantly easier than passing new laws. If a law is already in the books, that incumbency will carry a great deal of weight with a lot of voters. If you can tweak that law slightly so that it meets your aims more effectively, that would be an easier feat of social engineering than passing the entire law again from scratch. For any change to have meaning, members of the general public must be consulted as well. A particular case from Bangladesh involved a study of fertilizer and pulp plants, and the damage that they were wreaking on the environment, seeking to find out how members of different socioeconomic strata contributed to the change process. The findings showed that “even very poor people...can negotiate pollution reduction and compensation when the damage is evident and they have economic alternatives,” (Huq and Wheeler). These economic alternatives consisted of access to other jobs besides working in those plants. When the people had choices, they were willing to fight the environmental damage that their former employer was causing. The end result was significant change in the form of regulations placed on the paper industry, which, historically, has been one of the filthiest, in terms of by-products. This is of some significance with regard to the Australian groundwater situation, because of some cultural beliefs held by aborigines in Western Australia. Many of the sites that are culturally important to these aborigines, for being places where important rituals have been held for centuries, are near marshlands, waterways and springs – which are also very important for those interested in groundwater (MacIntyre and Dobson). Because of this, leaders in any project that has to do with finding groundwater sites usually have to negotiate with an aboriginal leader to find ways to carry out the project without disturbing the religious sensibilities of the natives (Chave 550). No matter what the potential outcome will be, though, finding and negotiating with all of the major stakeholders is a requirement for success. Read More