Author: digigod

Rogue Waves | DiscoverMagazine.com

digigod

https://discovermagazine.com/2004/jul/rogue-waves

Rogue Waves  7/25/2004

Courtesy of NOAA

HIGH WATER

Off the coast of North Carolina, a ship is nearly engulfed by storm-tossed seas. Physicists now know that unstable conditions often give rise to waves that are freakishly large yet surprisingly predictable.

Alfred Osborne’s style is not to do one thing at a time. At the moment he is trying to get a major wave experiment going at a huge tank in Trondheim, Norway. But his PC refuses to communicate with his Mac. And while he’s working on that, he’s trying to revise some formulas that will drive the waves in the tank. His young colleagues from Turin, Italy—Miguel Onorato and Carlo Brandini, both unshaven, uncombed, and turned out in travel-worn attire—make suggestions in Italian, then pass Osborne a pen and a paper full of equations. He answers in English, redoes the equations, and passes back the pen and paper. They respond in English. He answers in Italian with a Texas twang. It’s a bit as if they were in the middle of a Sergio Leone spaghetti western—only this film is called A Fistful of Formulas. The intense man with silvery hair and blue eyes has the Clint Eastwood role, and he doesn’t need dubbing.

Osborne is a long way from home—or homes. There is the one in Texas, where he was born and once worked for NASA; the one in Virginia, where he worked at the U.S. Office of Naval Research; and the one in Turin, where he teaches at the University of Torino and his wife and children live. He is in Trondheim to make waves. Big waves. The kind made famous in The Perfect Storm that sink ships and drown sailors, many of them in the cold North Sea that stretches southwest of the Trondheim waterfront. Called rogues or freaks, such waves are the stuff of mariners’ nightmares—towering, steep-faced walls of water that weigh millions of tons. Waves so unexpected they leave no time for escape, so powerful they can take out even supertankers and oil rigs.

Read more “Rogue Waves | DiscoverMagazine.com”

List of rogue waves

digigod

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rogue_waves

List of rogue waves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Draupner wave, a single giant wave measured on New Year’s Day 1995, finally confirmed the existence of freak waves, which had previously been considered near-mythical.

This list of rogue waves compiles incidents of known and likely rogue waves – also known as freak waves, monster waves, killer waves, and extreme waves. These are relatively large and spontaneous ocean surface waves that occur in deep water, usually far out at sea, and are a threat even to large ships and ocean liners.

Background[edit]

Anecdotal evidence from mariners’ testimonies and damages inflicted on ships have long suggested rogue waves occurred; however, their scientific measurement was only positively confirmed following measurements of the “Draupner wave“, a rogue wave at the Draupner platform, in the North Sea on 1 January 1995. During this event, minor damage was inflicted on the platform, confirming that the reading was valid.

In modern oceanography, rogue waves are defined not as the biggest possible waves at sea, but instead as extreme sized waves for a given sea state.

It should be noted that many of these encounters are only reported in the media, and are not examples of open ocean rogue waves. Often a huge wave is loosely denoted as a rogue wave, when it is not.[citation needed] Although extremely large waves offer an explanation for the sudden, inexplicable disappearance of many ocean-going vessels. However, although this is a credible explanation for unexplained losses, the claim is contradicted by information held by Lloyd’s Register.[1][2] One of the very few cases where evidence suggests a freak wave incident is the 1978 loss of the freighter München.

In 1991, the American fishing boat, Andrea Gail, was caught in a storm near the NE Atlantic coase of the USA. Junger reported that the storm created waves in excess of 100 ft (30 m) in height, but ocean buoy monitors recorded a peak wave height of 39 feet (12 m), and so waves of 100 ft (30 m) were deemed “unlikely” by Science Daily.[4] However, data from a series of weather buoys in the general vicinity of the vessel’s last known location recorded peak wave action exceeding 60 ft (18 m) in height from October 28 through 30, 1991.[2]

Known or suspected rogue wave incidents[edit]

Before 1950[edit]

  • On 11 March 1861 at midday the lighthouse on Eagle Island,[3] off the west coast of Ireland was struck by a large wave that smashed 23 panes, washing some of the lamps down the stairs and damaging beyond repair the reflectors with broken glass. In order to damage the uppermost portion of the lighthouse, water would have had to surmount a seaside cliff measuring 40 m (133 ft) and a further 26 m (87 ft) of lighthouse structure.
  • On 13 November 1865, the wooden cutter Aenid was in the Tasman Sea near Long Reef off New South Wales, Australia, when her helmsman sighted three huge waves approaching from her starboard quarter. Before he could turn the cutter to face them, they swamped Aenid and wrecked her with the loss of two lives. Four others on board survived. The wreck later was found washed up on Long Reef with part of its side stove in.[4]
  • On 15 December 1900, three lighthouse keepers mysteriously disappeared from the Flannan Isles Lighthouse in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland during a storm. Although there were no surviving witnesses, a rogue wave that hit the west side of the island has been hypothesized to be responsible.
  • On 10 October 1903, the British passenger liner RMS Etruria was only four hours out of New York City when, at 2:30 p.m., a freak wave struck her. The wave was reported to be at least 50 feet (15 m) high and struck the ship on the port side. The wave carried away part of the fore bridge and smashed the guardrail stanchions. There were a number of first-class passengers sitting in deck chairs close to the bridge and they caught the full force of the water. One passenger was fatally injured and several other passengers were hurt.
  • The Blue Anchor Line luxury steamer SS Waratah, an Australian ship of 16,000 gross tons, disappeared without trace south of Durban, South Africa, in July 1909 with 211 passengers and crew aboard. No survivors or wreckage were found. The most plausible theory for her disappearance is that she encountered a rogue wave which either caused her to capsize or flooded her cargo holds, sinking her almost instantly.
  • On 7 November 1915 at 2:27 a.m., the British battleship HMS Albemarle suffered severe damage during a storm in the Pentland Firth when two large waves struck her in rapid succession. Water rose as high as the bottom of her lower foretop, filling it with water, sweeping her forward deck clear, smashing her forebridge – much of which was found in pieces on her upper deck – wrecking her chart house, shifting the roof of her conning tower, and flooding her forward main gun turret, mess decks, and flats. Five of her crew died, and 17 others suffered serious injuries.[5][6][7]
  • At midnight on 5–6 May 1916 the British polar explorer Ernest Shackleton was at the tiller of the small sailboat James Caird in the Southern Ocean during a storm when he thought he saw the bad weather clearing in the west, astern. He then realized that what he thought was a line of white clouds above a clear dark sky was actually the crest of a single enormous wave that struck and nearly swamped the boat. Shackleton reported that the wave was larger than any he had ever seen before in his 26 years of seafaring.[8][2][9]
  • On 29 August 1916 at about 4:40 p.m., the United States Navy armored cruiser USS Memphis was wrecked in Santo Domingo harbor in the Dominican Republic when struck in rapid succession by three waves of up to 70 feet (21 meters) in height, causing 40 men to be killed and 204 to be injured. The waves also damaged and nearly capsized the U.S. Navy gunboat USS Castine, which also was in the harbor. Once described as a tsunami, the waves have more recently been assessed as exceptionally large, freak wind-driven waves generated by passing hurricanes.[10][11][12]
  • In February 1926 in the North Atlantic a massive wave hit the British passenger liner RMS Olympic, smashing four of the bridge’s nine glass windows and doing some other damage.[13]
  • In 1933 in the North Pacific, the U.S. Navy oiler USS Ramapo (AO-12) encountered a huge wave. The crew triangulated its height at 112 feet (34 m).[14]
  • In 1934 in the North Atlantic an enormous wave smashed over the bridge of the British passenger liner RMS Majestic, injuring the first officer and the White Star Line‘s final commodore, Edgar J. Trant, who was hospitalised for a month and never sailed again.[13][15]
  • In 1942 while operating as a troopship and carrying 16,082 United States Army troops, the British passenger liner RMS Queen Mary was broadsided during a gale by a 92-foot (28 m) wave 608 nautical miles (700 mi; 1,126 km) from Scotland and nearly capsized. Queen Mary listed briefly about 52 degrees before slowly righting herself.
  • In 1947, the crew of the raft Kon-Tiki reported encountering three gigantic waves in the Pacific Ocean on a calm day. Author Thor Heyerdahl, the leader of the Kon-Tiki voyage, said that they seemed to come out of nowhere.

Second half of the 20th century[edit]

  • On 5 February 1963, the French Navy light cruiser Jeanne d’Arc encountered a rogue wave while serving as the training ship of the French Naval Academy.[16]
  • In 1966, the Italian liner Michelangelo was steaming toward New York City when a giant wave tore a hole in its superstructure, smashed heavy glass 80 feet (24 m) above the waterline, and killed a crewman and two passengers.[14]
  • The Wilstar, a Norwegian tanker, suffered structural damage from a rogue wave in 1974.[14]
  • SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a lake freighter that sank suddenly during a gale storm on 10 November 1975, while on Lake Superior, on the Canada–United States border. The ship went down without a distress signal in Canadian waters about 15 nautical miles (17 mi; 28 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay (at 46°59.9′N 85°6.6′W / 46.9983°N 85.1100°W / 46.9983; -85.1100). At the location of the wreck the water is 530 feet (160 m) deep. All 29 members of the crew perished.
  • In October 1977, the tanker MS Stolt Surf ran into a rogue wave on a voyage across the Pacific from Singapore to Portland, and the engineer took photos of a wave higher than the 72-foot (22 m) bridge deck.[17]
  • The six-year-old, 37,134-ton barge carrier MS München was lost at sea in 1978. At 3 a.m. on 12 December 1978 she sent out a garbled mayday message from the mid-Atlantic, but rescuers found only “a few bits of wreckage.” This included an unlaunched lifeboat, stowed 66 feet (20 m) above the water line, which had one of its attachment pins “twisted as though hit by an extreme force.” The Maritime Court concluded that “bad weather had caused an unusual event.” It is thought that a large wave knocked out the ship’s controls (the bridge was sited forward), causing the ship to shift side-on to heavy seas, which eventually overwhelmed it. Although more than one wave was probably involved, this remains the most likely sinking due to a freak wave.[18]

21st century[edit]

  • The Bahamian-registered cruise ships MS Bremen and MS Caledonian Star encountered 30-meter (98 ft) freak waves in the South Atlantic in 2001. Bridge windows on both ships were smashed, and all power and instrumentation lost.
  • Naval Research Laboratory ocean-floor pressure sensors detected a freak wave caused by Hurricane Ivan in the Gulf of Mexico in 2004. The wave was around 27.7 meters (91 ft) high from peak to trough, and around 200 meters (660 ft) long.[26]
  • Norwegian Dawn, (three waves in succession, off the coast of Georgia, 16 April 2005)
    “The sea had actually calmed down when the 21-metre (69 ft) wave seemed to come out of thin air… Our captain, who has 20 years on the job, said he never saw anything like it.”[27]
    “The water exerted enough force to shear off the welds for the aluminum rail supports on the [ninth and tenth level] balconies of two cabins, allowing the teak balcony rails to break loose and crash into the cabin windows. The broken glass filling the drains compounded the water damage by allowing a large amount of water to enter the two cabins and damage the carpets in 61 other cabins. The ship’s operating at reduced speed when the waves hit probably limited the damage.”[28]
  • Aleutian Ballad, (Bering Sea, 2005)
    Footage of a rogue wave appears in an episode of Deadliest Catch from Season 2, Episode 4 “Finish Line” (Original airdate: 28 April 2006). While sailing through rough seas during a night time storm, a “freak wave”, believed to be around 60 feet (18 meters) high, violently hits the fishing vessel’s starboard side. The wave cripples the vessel, causing the boat to tip onto its side at a 30-degree angle. The boat manages to right itself; some of the crew suffer minor injuries. One of the few video recordings of (what might be) a rogue wave.[29]
  • 38 miles off Merritt Island, Bahamas, June 2005 – two participants in a fishing competition, struck by pair of rogue waves which capsized their 34 ft boat. Described in print: “One second everything is going great. The next second we’re upside down in the Atlantic Ocean, 30 miles out … We weren’t going fast, but the speed of the wave – the back wave pushed us into the front one”,[30] and on radio: “The sea had essentially dropped out … It was just like we were just tumbling straight down and picking up speed at a wave that was triple the size of what we were just dealing with”.[31] Rescued by Coast Guard 30 hours later, after an extended search.
  • Norwegian Spirit, (off the coast of Tortola, January 2006)
  • Brittany Ferries‘ MV Pont-Aven was struck by a wave estimated at between 40 feet (12 m) and 50 feet (15 m) in height during a Force 9 gale in the Bay of Biscay on 21 May 2006.
  • On 1 February 2007, Holland America‘s cruise ship MS Prinsendam was hit by two 12-meter (39 ft) tall rogue waves near Cape Horn. There were around 40 injuries, with some requiring hospitalization.[32]
  • 5 February 2008 The ferry Riverdance was struck and disabled by a rogue wave in the Irish Sea on its journey from Northern Ireland to Heysham in Lancashire.[33]
  • 14 April 2008, half a nautical mile off Kleinbaai, near Gansbaai, South Africa – freak wave hit tourists diving to see sharks. The shark diving boat capsized. Three tourists died, two were seriously injured and a number treated for shock. Multiple other shark boats witnessed the wave.[34][35][36][37][38][39]
  • On 3 March 2010, in the Mediterranean Sea off Marseille, France, a 26-foot (8-meter) wave hit the Cypriot liner Louis Majesty, killing two people on board. The height of the wave was reported to be abnormally high with respect to the sea state at the time of the incident.[40]
  • On 4 February 2013, a 19-metre (62-foot) wave was recorded by an automated buoy between Great Britain and Iceland.[citation needed]
  • It has also been suggested that these types of waves may be responsible for the loss of several low-flying aircraft, namely United States Coast Guard helicopters on search and rescue missions.[41]

Rogue wave theorem

digigod

Rogue wave theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The rogue wave theorem [1] suggests that a rogue wave in the ocean can be formed whenever:

a) there is a momentaneous surplus of energy perturbed on the momentum or in the kinetic term of a wave train, induced either by a sudden change in the atmosphere leading to strong winds appearing suddenly over large volumes of water.

b) there is a collision of large volumes of water with highly different temperatures and densities.

c) there is a constructive overlap of waves, in opposite directions, in traverse directions or running in the same direction, and the duration of the rogue wave is determined, when occurring in the same direction, by the slight deviations in the momenta of the overlapping waves.

The World Bank – Regulatory Frameworks for WATER Resources Management – (Document) Public Disclosure Authorized

digigod
The World Bank – Regulatory Frameworks for WATER Resources Management – (Document) Public Disclosure Authorized

  1. Regulatory Frameworks for Water Resources … – World Bank Group

    web.worldbank.org/archive/website01021/WEB/IMAGES/…Proxy  Highlight

    regulatory framework for water resources management and identifies …. With regard to water legislation, the Action Plan recommendations are still highly.
EXCERPTS BELOW from above Document – recommended reading entire water regulations and global water management scheme – above link:

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) has addressed the concept, stating that

the holistic management of freshwater as a finite and vulnerable resource, and the integration of sectoral water plans and programs within the framework of national economic and social policy, are of paramount importance. . . . Integrated water resources management is based on the perception of water as an integral part of the ecosystem, a natural resource and social and economic good.293

IWRM aims to ensure the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources by maximizing economic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of vital environmental systems.294

Sustainable and efficient water management requires good planning. This suggests that each jurisdiction needs to develop plans for how it will manage and regulate its water resources. Consequently, water legislation could stipulate the types of plans—national, regional, basin plans—the authorities are required to develop, and the issues that they should address. The legislation could also stip- ulate how the information needed to develop these plans should be collected.

4.4 RegulationofWaterUses

As a public trustee of the nation’s water, the State is entrusted with responsibil- ity for ensuring that water is allocated equitably and beneficially, as well as with authority for regulating the use, flow, and control of all types of water in the State. A general rule in most statutes relates to the requirement for a permit or license to be issued by the government in accordance with clear and transparent criteria and procedures before a person can use water or construct water infra- structure. In essence, the permit grants a water right to this person.

Such a permit would describe the types of water uses allowed, the quantity of water that can be used, the water standards with which the permit holder must comply, the duration of the permit,297 the process for its renewal, and the water permit fees. In relation to groundwater, well spacing and the current amount of water being drawn from the aquifer in question can be other factors to be con- sidered in deciding whether to award a permit. However, in some countries per- mits are not required if the depth of the well does not exceed a specified limit. In addition, most legislation exempts domestic uses, up to a specified amount per day, from the requirement for a permit.298 Other issues to be addressed include procedures for challenging unfavorable decisions on water rights.

One issue facing most countries preparing water legislation is how to verify and regularize water uses that existed before the legislation is adopted.

Groundwater needs stricter and more detailed rules for its protection because it is more vulnerable than surface water to pollution and other forms of contam- ination. This is due to the fact that groundwater “flows at much slower rates than surface water, which causes contamination and other problems to manifest at slower rates and reduces aquifers’ natural reclamation abilities.”306 Moreover, pollution of groundwater is usually irreversible.307 It is further argued that non- replenishable groundwater (fossil aquifers) requires more stringent protection rules.308 Some legislation addresses the environmental sustainability of the water source, requiring that part of the water be left as a “reserve” to maintain the ecosystem of the river.309 These developments indicate clearly that the stan- dards for protecting water resources are evolving; therefore the legislation should be flexible enough to accommodate such evolving standards.

Two concepts that have been evolving and are now receiving increasing atten- tion in water legislation are the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle. The precautionary principle has been given wide recognition by the Rio Declaration, where it is included as principle 15. That principle states: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of seri- ous or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degra- dation.”310 The main rationale for the precautionary principle is the often irre- versible character of damage to the environment and the limitations inherent in the very mechanisms for reparation of this type of damage.

306 See Gabriel Eckstein, Protecting a Hidden Treasure: The U.N. International Law Com- mission and the International Law of Transboundary Ground Water Resources, 5 Sust. Dev. L. & Policy 5 (2004).

307 See Stephen Foster, Essential Concepts for Groundwater Regulators, in Salman (ed.), supra n. 163, at 15. See also Stephen Foster, Adrian Lawrence & Brian Morris, Ground- water in Urban Development—Assessing Management Needs and Formulating Policy Strategies, World Bank Technical Paper No. 390, 11 (World Bank 1998); and Stephen Foster, John Chilton, Marcus Moench, Franklin Cardy & Manuel Schiffler, Groundwater in Rural Development—Facing the Challenges of Supply and Resources Sustainability, World Bank Technical Paper No. 463 (World Bank 2000).

308 See Guidelines for Development and Management of Groundwater Resources in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions, 8 Intl. J. Water Resources Dev. 145 (1992).

309 See supra, section 2.14.3.1, on the concept of the Reserve in South Africa.

310 For the Rio Declaration see supra n. 277. The precautionary principle is now recog- nized as a general principle of international environmental law;see The Precautionary Principle in International Law—The Challenge of Implementation (David Freestone & Ellen Hey, eds., Kluwer Law Intl. 1996).See, for example, Preamble to the Convention on Biodiversity, 31 ILM 818 (1992) (entered into force December 29, 1993); article 3.3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 31 ILM 818 (1992) (entered into force December 29, 1993); and the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, supra n. 122.

4.6 RegulationofWaterInfrastructure

Regulation of the works that are needed to provide adequate water services is not purely an issue of water law. The construction and operation of such works raises legal issues related to construction, land acquisition, environmental, and zoning law, and, in the case of public works, government procurement law. The water statute needs to address this because these works affect the quality, quantity, and flow of water. Consequently, it is important that water legislation stipulate who can operate such works and the procedures for getting permission to undertake them. This issue may be addressed, inter alia, through a requirement for a per- mit from the relevant government authority if the works are to be carried out by a private party. Both public and private entities would need to adhere to laws and regulations in this regard.

The legislation would endow the government with responsibility for the use, protection, capital investment, and safety of all state-owned water infrastruc- tures, while making private owners responsible for their infrastructure. Private owners include water users’ associations, which are allowed in some countries to build and operate their own water infrastructure. Some statutes require that water infrastructures that have special strategic importance be owned only by the state. The government has the authority to inspect privately owned water infra- structure and ensure its compliance with standards, permits, and registration requirements, including any requirements for an environmental impact assess- ment, as well as its proper functioning and safety.317

It is worth noting that the issues related to water infrastructure are quite com- plex and are usually covered in a large number of legal instruments. The World Bank Policy Paper on Water Resources Management refers to the World Bank policies that are related to water resources. They include the policies on envi- ronmental assessment, environmental action plans, involuntary resettlement, projects on international waterways, indigenous peoples, physical and cultural resources, safety of dams, how to involve nongovernmental organizations, poverty reduction, and disclosure of information.318

4.7 Institutional Arrangements

Institutional arrangements for dealing with water resources are covered widely in water legislation. Such arrangements designate one or more government agencies with ultimate responsibility over water resources, including allocation and supervision of water rights and the preparation of plans, programs, and poli- cies, as well as enforcement provisions. The previous part of this study noted the variety of those agencies: ministries, national councils, agencies, and commis- sions. Whatever choice is made, the line of responsibility should be made clear to avoid duplication and overlapping of responsibilities, and the entity should be provided with financial and administrative autonomy. As noted in the World Bank Water Policy: “The lessons of experience suggest that an important prin- ciple in restructuring public service agencies is their conversion into financially autonomous entities, with effective authority to charge and collect fees, and with freedom to manage without political interference.”

The institutional arrangements should also reflect decentralization of deci- sion making and public participation. Decentralization is based on the principle that “nothing should be done at a higher level of government that can be done satisfactorily at a lower level.”320 This is reflected in the establishment of basin management authorities that are responsible for developing water management plans for a specific basin.321 The legislation should clearly define the watershed limits, composition, and responsibilities of the basin authority. Public represent tation in such agencies would strengthen their role and provide a base for sup- port of their decisions. The responsibilities of such entities could extend to both management and protection of the basin. This approach of decentralization and public participation in water management would incorporate two of the Dublin Principles.

Water users’ associations are established under most legislation as legal enti- ties with responsibility over the operation and maintenance of the irrigation facilities in their district and for collection of water charges.322 Furthermore the authority of those associations is extended in some countries to water supply as well. It is widely argued that participation of users “increases the likelihood that the system under their responsibility will be well maintained and contributes to community cohesion and empowerment in ways that can spread to other development activities.”323 Moreover, because association-managed systems have a consumer orientation, they are likely to provide better service and improve willingness to pay for such service.324 (See page 154 of this document)

*****Some legislation provides for the establishment of “advisory boards”, where all the entities and organizations concerned with water would be represented, including civil society organizations and academic institutions. Such advisory bodies would assist the government in preparing water policies, programs, and plans, and in coordinating their implementation. Indeed, public participation in the design and implementation of water policy and legislation is now considered an important element in ensuring the success of the policies and the legislation.329  **********

Page 155

4.8 Financial Arrangements

One of the complex issues, and a major challenge in water resources manage- ment, is water charges.330 Charging fees is intended to recognize water as an eco- nomic good,331 manage demand, encourage rationalization of water use, and raise revenues for operation and maintenance of the system.332 Most of the statutes state that charges for water must be set at a level that is adequate to cover the costs associated with operation and maintenance of the water infrastruc- ture.333 Because some cultures perceive water as a God-given gift for which no charges should be imposed, such charges can be presented as fees for delivery of the service, not necessarily for the water itself.334

One of the elements taken into account in setting charges for water is the vol- ume of water used, sometimes with progressive increases in prices for water usage exceeding certain amounts. This approach is being applied for domestic, industrial, and irrigation uses, though for irrigation uses approaches other than volume of water delivered have been used. Such approaches include the size of the area irrigated, the kind of crop irrigated, and the season for irrigation (the wet or the dry season, with higher charges during the dry season).335 Some laws use the source of water as a factor, charging more for groundwater than for surface water. Other laws include location of the area of delivery, the furthest points pay- ing the highest fees. In many countries water charges are set out in a separate regulation rather than in the water law itself, since updating a regulation is less cumbersome than amending a law.

Water pricing has been one of the most difficult issues faced in the water sec- tor, particularly charges for irrigation.336 Irrigation is the largest single user of water, accounting for about 73 percent of global water use, with the figure exceeding 80 percent for developing countries.337 Irrigation water in most countries is heavily subsidized,338 with no more than 10 percent of operating costs being paid by the users.339 This is notwithstanding water law in many of those countries that would call for full cost recovery for water services.340 The vicious cycle of farmers not paying because water is not being delivered, and water not being delivered because the system is in disrepair and cannot be fixed because of lack of funds, is often quoted as one reason for this state of affairs.

Partly because of this reasoning, some countries have followed the approach of charging a flat rate for water, whether for irrigation or domestic use, with all users or consumers paying the same rate regardless of the amount used. This approach does not create any incentives for managing demand or using water efficiently. Indeed, it creates perverse incentives for exactly the opposite, thus exacerbating an already difficult situation. The vicious cycle applies more vividly to water utilities where supply, demand, and pricing keep hopelessly chasing each other because of the flat rate approach. The problem of unac- counted-for water exacerbates this situation.341One reason for promoting the use of water users’ associations in both irrigation and rural water supply is the expectation that they can play a major role in water management, including operation and maintenance and collection of water charges.342

Page 159

In the cited case, the applicant had failed to pay for water in excess of the free six kilo- litres per month provided by the Durban Transitional Metropolitan Council (DTMC). The DTMC, invoking its bylaws, gave the applicant written notice and allowed for represen- tations to be made before disconnecting her water supply. The applicant argued that the bylaws were inconsistent with the Water Services Act because the disconnection resulted in her being denied access to basic water services while she was unable to pay for basic provisions in its water law.357 Chile has implemented a water stamps system for the needy in its population who live below a certain level of income.358 Con- sequently, there is increasing pressure on governments from international and civil society organizations to guarantee such a right to the poor and vulnerable segments of society through incorporation of this right into water statutes, as well as through specific action and procedures to implement the provisions of the statutes.

4.11 EnforcementoftheRegulations

The credibility of any legislation, including water legislation, depends on its enforcement provisions and how to get the different parties to comply with them. Such provisions need to enumerate acts that are considered violations of the law and specify sanctions. The tools that authorities can use in enforc- ing the requirements of the statute and identifying violations are limited to monitoring and inspections. To facilitate enforcement, most water law statutes give employees of the water agency the authority necessary to monitor com- pliance with the law, and some even create a special category of employees for that purpose.

Violations would include diverting or using water for any purpose without having been awarded the right to use water for that purpose; in contravention of the permit, actions that alter the flow rate, quality, or quantity of water without prior authorization; construction of unauthorized works; or committing fraud in measuring the volume of water used. Such violations can result in sanctions that include temporary or permanent revocations of the permit, fines, or even jail sentences for acts that involve criminal activity,359 though such sanctions are subject to appeal. Violators may even be liable to pay damages to any person harmed by their acts, as prescribed by the statutes of Armenia and South Africa. On the other hand, the statutes of China and Vietnam, as discussed earlier, provide incentives for compliance.

4.12 Dispute Settlement

Given the increasing scarcity of water resources and the rising quality problems, disputes between different users, or between a user and the government, are bound to arise. Water legislation therefore needs to address the issue of how to deal with those disputes. Furthermore, the legislation may also need to address situations where the dispute is between two government agencies.

Water disputes can be dealt with in widely varying ways. Initial authority to resolve disputes between users may be granted to the water agency established and operating under the water law. Special commissions are established in some jurisdictions to mediate or arbitrate water disputes between users that do not involve the government. Water users’ associations are also given powers in some countries to resolve disputes among members. A special water tribunal is estab- lished in some jurisdictions to deal with water disputes.360 The rationale for those less formal mechanisms is to avoid cost and delays. However, in most cases, appeals are allowed to the court system. Cases against the government, in most jurisdictions, can only be dealt with by the court system.

Disputes between different government agencies or basin authorities may be referred to the regulatory authority. Disputes between different water users’ associations are referred, as mentioned earlier, to the federation of water users’ associations, if such a federation exists.361

Clearly, a wide array of key and emerging issues has to be addressed in water legislation. Those issues include ownership of the water resources, underlying principles and priorities, regulation of water uses and water infrastructure, pro- tection of water resources, institutional and financial arrangements, enforce- ment of regulations, and dispute settlement. Some of the components of those issues are still evolving. Decentralization and participation, including broad par- ticipation in the preparation of water legislation, are gaining wide recognition and are becoming overarching principles for the regulatory framework for water resources management.362

Page 163

CHAPTER 5 Conclusion

Water resources globally are facing tremendous and ever-increasing pressures. The population of the world has more than tripled in the last century, presenting a major challenge, particularly in the water sector, to governments around the world. Environmental degradation and hydrological variability, urbanization and industrialization, have compounded the challenges. Disputes resulting from com- peting demands between different uses and users at the local, district, provincial, national, and international levels keep multiplying. Issues related to international waters are now becoming increasingly apparent, and indeed are intertwined with domestic uses. Utilization of shared waters by one country is, more than ever before, having direct effects on other countries sharing the same watercourse.

All those challenges have pushed the need to rethink water resources manage- ment to the top of national as well as regional and global agendas.363 The search for solutions has extended across various paths, including the managerial, tech- nological, financial, social, economic, political, institutional, and legal, confirm- ing the multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary, nature of water. The Marrakech Declaration recognized the urgent need for a better understanding of all those complex issues, including the legal ones, as a prerequisite for shaping a water policy for this millennium.

The relevance and importance of water legislation to the proper management and protection of water resources was recognized a long time ago. This recogni- tion has been underscored by more recent international conferences on water, starting with the Mar del Plata United Nations Water Conference in 1977. Indeed, that conference went beyond urging States to adopt water legislation and issued a detailed road map highlighting the basic elements to be included in water leg- islation, as well as in the national water plan, policy, or strategy. The road map also included the process for preparing water legislation.

That road map is still valid and relevant, almost thirty years after its adoption. Moreover, the road map undoubtedly paved the way for the Dublin which we termed the magna carta for water resources management and develop- ment. The four Dublin Principles continue to guide policies, strategies, and leg- islation around the globe and without a doubt have had major influence on our thinking about how water should be used, managed, and developed. Chapter 18 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on Fresh- water Resources and the declarations of the three world water forums, as well as other international water conferences, have incorporated and emphasized those principles and underscored the importance of water legislation. Indeed, the only effective way for recognizing and giving effect to the Dublin Principles is through their incorporation in water legislation.

Some thirty years after Mar del Plata, the overall picture around the world with regard to water legislation is quite mixed. While a number of countries have adopted comprehensive water statutes, others are still struggling to agree on one. Countries in a third group have addressed water issues in scattered provisions in a number of laws and regulations. Some of the countries with a federal system of government have assigned authority over water to their states or provinces, with little responsibility left for the central government.

As stated earlier, the purpose of this study is to provide policy makers and technical experts with a toolkit of issues to be considered in water legislation. Based on the survey and analysis of the regulatory frameworks for water resources management in sixteen jurisdictions, the study has identified key elements that for the most part have been addressed, in varying ways, by the coun- tries surveyed. The study has also identified what we have referred to as emerg- ing trends in water legislation.

However, as the previous chapters indicate, the jurisdictions whose regula- tory frameworks for water resources management are examined in this study have addressed the various basic issues in ways that are influenced largely by their legal history and their socioeconomic, political, and cultural milieu. State ownership or custodianship of water resources is gradually emerging as the rule. Yet exceptions are allowed in some countries for some form of private ownership; and traditional and customary rights are still gaining recognition. Private ownership of rainwater harvested in private lands for domestic use is explicitly allowed in a number of countries. Groundwater continues to present special challenges because a number of countries still allow the ownership of land to carry with it ownership of the water beneath it. Moreover, even in coun- tries that have claimed custodianship over such groundwater, effective meas- ures for exercising such custodianship responsibilities are still lacking. The fact that groundwater is highly susceptible to externalities364poses additional

page182image23312

364 For discussion of such externalities, see World Bank, supra n. 4, at 83.

problems, particularly when the aquifer in question is a fossil, nonreplenish- able one.365

Variations in the incorporation of the four Dublin Principles in water legisla- tion are quite evident. Financial arrangements are given wide coverage in some legal frameworks, underscoring the belief that treating water as a socioeconomic good will assist in demand management as well as in rationalizing water use. Yet a few countries have missed or ignored this principle, thereby compounding the challenges to the sustainability of their water resources. However, even in some countries that have adopted provisions for cost recovery, enforcement of those provisions has proven quite difficult.

Decentralization of decision making at the basin level and participation of users in the planning and management of water resources are the rule in some countries, the exception in a second group, and absent in others. Indeed, some countries have gone a long way towards incorporating public participation, not just users’ participation, into decision making over water resources management issues. As discussed in the previous chapters, such participation includes public notice of water use permits, inviting public comments on proposed regulations to be issued by the executive authority, the establishing or disestablishing of a water institution, and water pricing strategies. As the discussion in the previous chap- ters indicates, decentralization and users’ participation are the pillars of any water legislation.

Similarly, variations in institutional arrangements for the water resources sec- tor in the countries surveyed are quite apparent. They include oversight by one or more ministries, councils, commissions, or simply administrative agencies or water utilities. However, it is the authority and independence of such entities that should actually matter, not whether they are ministries with multiple responsibil- ities or separate water agencies. Legal and financial autonomy is particularly important for public water utilities.366 Where there are multiple entities, the need for coordination and avoidance of overlapping responsibilities is necessary. But in a number of countries this need may not be that clear, in theory, in practice, or in both.

With the challenges to the quality of water resources multiplying by the day, compounded by environmental degradation and industrialization, the need for an elaborate protective framework is evident. Yet a number of countries still fail this test. Decisions on water rights—how to allocate them, using what criteria, and how to verify existing ones—and how to administer them will only be accepted as legitimate when they are made in a transparent, equitable, and fair manner, accompanied by mechanisms to redress grievances. Some legislation does pro- vide for public participation in such decisions. Yet those elements, and the details elaborating them, are missed in a number of water laws.

As the previous chapters indicate, water resources management is clearly a dynamic and evolving concept and should be dealt with accordingly.367 Our understanding of the elements that need to be addressed in water legislation is constantly evolving. It is also noteworthy that “water legislation is rapidly evolv- ing towards integrated water planning to satisfy environmental objectives, eco- nomic requirements and social concerns.”368 This fact is further buttressed by some emerging trends in water legislation. The underlying purposes for legisla- tion now include new elements, such as the sustainable utilization of water resources to protect future generations. Such sustainable utilization is also needed to enable states to meet their international obligations with regard to shared water resources.

Integrated water resources management is increasingly finding a place in water legislation and policies. As discussed earlier, IWRM aims to ensure the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources by maximizing economic and social welfare without compromising the sustain- ability of vital environmental systems.

Closely related to the concept of IWRM is the need for protection of the water source ecosystem, which is broad and includes the flora, fauna, and land con- tiguous to the water source.369 Similarly, the notion of the “reserve” is becoming increasingly relevant for water legislation. Furthermore, concepts that have been reserved to international environmental law, such as the precautionary and polluter-pays principles, are gradually being incorporated as rules in domestic water legislation.

The human right to water for the needy and vulnerable groups of the society is being debated, and as discussed earlier, it is widely agued that such a right does indeed exist under international law, buttressing the emerging calls to recognize this right.

 

Disaster Preparedness Information from Red Cross Trainer . . . Be prepared – Be Safe Everyone!

digigod

We are not just living in wildfire country, but also in earthquake country.

Every person in your family should have an emergency bag packed with:

1) a change of clothes, including sweatshirt or sweater; 2)

2) 3 changes of underwear; 3)

3) power bars (change out every 3 months); 4)

4) emergency water (change out every 3 months); 5)

5) identification including name, address, phone & email numbers; 6)

6) emergency numbers for next of kin AND OUT OF STATE family or friend, in case your sister or your kid lives in the same area and is also hurt or evacuated; 7)

7) emergency cash;

8) copies of important papers (bank numbers, credit card numbers); 9)

9) emergency health info (if you have major allergies or are diabetic);

10) a list of medications; 2 weeks worth of emergency meds, including inhalers (change out every 3 months);

11) small note pad;

12) flashlight; extra battery pack; extra charger; hand crank power source;

13) N95 (or better) emergency mask;

14) soap, toilet paper;

15) perhaps a tiny foldout foil blanket;

16) toothbrush;

17) old eyeglasses;

18) matches in waterproof safe pack;

19) plastic gloves,

20) a small knife;

21) salt;

22) alcohol,

23) a WHISTLE, in case you are buried under rubble.

24) Evacuation Plan

Following a major earthquake (which IS COMING), we can expect MORE FIRES. Every family should have an evacuation plan. Families with evacuation plans for emergencies have higher survival rates.

Keep your auto gas tanks fairly full. Remember during the wildfires when gas stations were closed, or electricity was out and pumps didn’t work?

We all need to learn basic first aid. The RED CROSS has simple classes. This post is to remind everyone that disasters DO happen, and that we are more at risk here than in some other parts of the country. Prepare yourself & your family. Talk about it.

Most earthquakes last about 45 seconds. Teach your kids..& yourselves…..to start counting …yelling… out loud…One-one hundred, two-on hundred, three-one hundred,…etc., up to 45 one hundred, to measure the time the earthquake lasts. The exercise will calm frightened children…and will help us know when to expect an end to the shaking. Some earthquakes last longer. Also teach yourselves and your children what to do when an earthquake starts. DROP! COVER! HOLD ON!

In making your plan, assess where in each room of your home is the safest place, and teach everyone to get THERE when the shaking starts.

Teach everyone NOT to try to run across the house to each other. TOO DANGEROUS!. As you are all yelling out the time (One-one hundred, two-one hundred…) you will hear each other and be comforted. Teach kids how to exit a room if the door is blocked. What to do if a parent is hurt. You can save your own lives, and the lives of people you love. But you have to be really prepared.

Not just batteries & a few jugs of water. An emergency TO GO bag is just a start. Please, start!

DYING YOUNGER: The bad news is we’re dying early in Britain – and it’s all down to ‘shit-life syndrome’ | Will Hutton | Opinion | The Guardian

digigod
DYING YOUNGER:  The bad news is we’re dying early in Britain – and it’s all down to ‘shit-life syndrome’ | Will Hutton | Opinion | The Guardian
 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/19/bad-news-is-were-dying-earlier-in-britain-down-to-shit-life-syndrome

The bad news is we’re dying early in Britain – and it’s all down to ‘shit-life syndrome’ | Will Hutton | Opinion | The Guardian  8/19/2018

Britain and America are in the midst of a barely reported public health crisis. They are experiencing not merely a slowdown in life expectancy, which in many other rich countries is continuing to lengthen, but the start of an alarming increase in death rates across all our populations, men and women alike. We are needlessly allowing our people to die early.

In Britain, life expectancy, which increased steadily for a century, slowed dramatically between 2010 and 2016. The rate of increase dropped by 90% for women and 76% for men, to 82.8 years and 79.1 years respectively. Now, death rates among older people have so much increased over the last two years – with expectations that this will continue – that two major insurance companies, Aviva and Legal and General, are releasing hundreds of millions of pounds they had been holding as reserves to pay annuities to pay to shareholders instead. Society, once again, affecting the citadels of high finance.

Trends in the US are more serious and foretell what is likely to happen in Britain without an urgent change in course. Death rates of people in midlife (between 25 and 64) are increasing across the racial and ethnic divide. It has long been known that the mortality rates of midlife American black and Hispanic people have been worse than the non-Hispanic white population, but last week the British Medical Journal published an important study re-examining the trends for all racial groups between 1999 and 2016 .

The malaises that have plagued the black population are extending to the non-Hispanic, midlife white population. As the report states: “All cause mortality increased… among non-Hispanic whites.” Why? “Drug overdoses were the leading cause of increased mortality in midlife, but mortality also increased for alcohol-related conditions, suicides and organ diseases involving multiple body systems” (notably liver, heart diseases and cancers).

US doctors coined a phrase for this condition: “shit-life syndrome”. Poor working-age Americans of all races are locked in a cycle of poverty and neglect, amid wider affluence. They are ill educated and ill trained. The jobs available are drudge work paying the minimum wage, with minimal or no job security. They are trapped in poor neighbourhoods where the prospect of owning a home is a distant dream. There is little social housing, scant income support and contingent access to healthcare. Finding meaning in life is close to impossible; the struggle to survive commands all intellectual and emotional resources. Yet turn on the TV or visit a middle-class shopping mall and a very different and unattainable world presents itself. Knowing that you are valueless, you resort to drugs, antidepressants and booze. You eat junk food and watch your ill-treated body balloon. It is not just poverty, but growing relative poverty in an era of rising inequality, with all its psychological side-effects, that is the killer.

Shit-life syndrome captures the truth that the bald medical statistics have economic and social roots. Patients so depressed they are prescribed or seek opioids – or resort to alcohol – are suffering not so much from their demons but from the circumstances of their lives. They have a lot to be depressed about. They, and tens of millions like them teetering on the edge of the same condition, constitute Donald Trump’s electoral base, easily tempted by rhetoric that pins the blame on dark foreigners, while castigating countries such as Finland or Denmark, where the trends are so much better, as communist. In Britain, they were heavily represented among the swing voters who delivered Brexit.

Shit-life syndrome is not just a feature of a US city such as Baltimore, where the difference in life expectancy between the richer and poorer districts is as much as 20 years, it’s a feature of our cities, too. Within the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the difference in life expectancy between richest and poorest is 16 years. And the trends are deteriorating. Public Health England has published a hair-raising map of the English health experience from 2014 to 2016. The East and West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside, the north-west and north-east experienced declines in life expectancy. Nobody should have been surprised they voted against the status quo in the Brexit referendum.

What our citizens are experiencing is criminal, even if it has nothing to do with the EU, the great lie so brilliantly told by Brexiters and the malevolent political genius that is Nigel Farage. Instead of blaming Brussels and impoverishing ourselves with Brexit, Britain should be launching a multipronged assault on shit-life syndrome and the conditions that cause so many to die prematurely. Acknowledging the crisis, together with measures to address it, will be crucial to winning any second people’s vote on Brexit.

We need (as Andrew Adonis and I argue in Saving Britain) an industrial policy not just for the City, but for the country, a repurposing of enterprise, a re-enfranchisement of workforces and a remaking of our threadbare social contract, in particular the dysfunctional care system. Too many of England’s towns, even some in the south-east, are becoming crucibles of shit-life syndrome. They have become inward-looking, urban islands in which despair and despondency are too prevalent; their high streets in decline while hi-tech, knowledge-intensive jobs pass them by. Train and bus fares are so high that travelling within them has become prohibitively expensive. Stripped of power by the most centralised system in Europe, they are disempowered and sullen about the present and apprehensive of the future. All this can and must change.

Above all, it is an agenda for an effective parliamentary opposition – combining a campaign to stay in the EU with a campaign to change Britain. The life expectancy numbers tell a dramatic story. It is time to act on their message.

• Will Hutton is an Observer columnist

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our Editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important because it enables us to give a voice to the voiceless, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

 

FEMA agrees to cut Newport flood zone by more than half, saving property owners millions in insurance costs

digigod

FEMA agrees to cut Newport flood zone by more than half, saving property owners millions in insurance costs

By [/tn-dpt-me-hillary-davis-20170309-staff.html#nt=byline]Hillary Davis
Aug 17, 2018 | 6:25 PM

FEMA agrees to cut Newport flood zone by more than half, saving property owners millions in insurance costs
The Balboa Island flood zone according to FEMA, as tentatively mapped in 2016, left, and 2018. Properties needing flood insurance are tinted blue. (Courtesy of city of Newport Beach)

Newport Beach persuaded the Federal Emergency Management Agency to exclude about 2,700 properties in the coastal part of the city from updated flood maps.

That means owners in parts of the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island and West Newport won’t need pricey flood insurance, saving up to about $3,700 each, or $10 million combined, each year in premiums, the city estimates.