Wrap Up

The two main exigences for the Clean Water Act of 1972 were 1) the Lake Erie pollution and 2) the Cuyahoga River fires. These events illustrated the epitome of water pollution, toxicity, and damages. They were an embarrassment to the local vicinities and the United States at large. Embarrassment leads to frustration. How could we have let it get that bad? How un-American and un-patriotic of us to not care about our country enough to keep our waters clean? Frustration leads to the explosiveness of anger. The aquatic life is being harmed and, because of the cyclical nature of nature, that harm can transfer onto us human beings. How about our children?! I don't know what I'd do if something happened to them, especially if I could stop it. Something must be done!

And this is how, I feel, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Water Action organization came about. In class Joel taught us that anger is what really drives us to do something to get change to happen. Before taking this course, I would've told you that anger isn't necessary. Just out of the goodness of our hearts, we will be able to bring about change. Boy, was I wrong. We have to connect with whatever issue it is. We need to more than connect with it. We need to build an emotional bond with it. We need to treat it as if it's a part of us, and we wouldn't let anything or anyone hurt it. We have to intertwine ourselves with it. It's something that deeply affects us so that when it is threatened, the pain is gut-wrenching. This paint turns into frustration and anger.

Anger is a necessary emotion that forces us to do something. When we're happy, we feel no need to fix anything because nothing is wrong. When something is, then that is the time that we need justice to be served.

I believe that embarrassment, frustration, and anger led to the creation of the Clean Water Act and Clean Water Action organization. But encouragement and positivity among its member-based (canvassers) is what sustains it and keeps it going. Anger ignites it, but positive energy keeps the movement alive and kicking.

Criticisms of CWA

Naturally, I need to find criticisms that people may have towards my social change group. I was searching on the internet and found this comment from somebody here in Austin.


Comment by John S. from Austin, TX on 12/19/2008 (yelp.com):

"You know, I know this guy got tricked into working a shitty job FIGHTING THE MAN and MAKING A DIFFERENCE that has him getting doors slammed in his face all day every day, but at dinnertime I don't need some douchebag in a jungle explorer hat trying a trick me into signing a petition (in lieu of a donation), then telling me I'd be billed next month when I CAN pay. Well trained, I'll give him that, and really bizarre. Avoid these guys like the plague (same with Grassroots Campaigns, Inc.) but, if you have to talk to them, try to convince the person knocking on your door to find a better job."


Interestingly, his ideas fit well with my stereotype of door-to-door civic advocates. Jaymie's account was very positive overall. John's is on the exact opposite end. He makes CWA canvassers seem evil. Are these people utilizing well learned and practiced persuasive tactics to get that one monetary thing from me?

So is their main positive also their main negative?

Positively, canvassing (as CWA has said) is meant to personally connect with the people. Canvassers want to create that strong bond with the homeowner. They are not underhanded about what they want from you. They just want you to listen to CWA's mission and to tell you how you can help further their goals legislatively and politically. Writing a letter to the local congressman is what my social change group focuses on, not the money.

Negatively, canvassers have been trained and practiced well on effective rhetorical persuasive tactics. They know which words and ideas to hit on in order to grab your attention. They visit you at the one place you can't escape. In public, you could easily walk away. But your home is where you live, you don't want to just get up and leave it because someone is invading your space. So, you are trapped. Also, violating social norms may be a mistake and slamming that door may feel good at the time but is easily regrettable. Ultimately, canvassers know exactly what they're doing and saying to get you to fess up that money. They could care less about the letters, even though they emphasize that the most.

So who is telling the truth? Or, are they both right?

Legislative policies

With the 81st Legislative Session well underway, this is one of the most important times for Clean Water Action. Another aspect to this social change group's mission is the request of active political participation. Now is the time that supporters of CWA should be writing their congressman and calling them about bills they want passed.

Observers are cautiously optimistic that our lawmakers will enact measures to expand Texas' commitment to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and increase protections of our air, water and natural areas. Texas continues to lead the nation in emissions of greenhouse gases and total toxins in the air and water. At the same time, no state has more potential for energy production from renewables than Texas, nor is any state in a better position to profit economically from the emerging clean energy economy. Especially with Austin being so environment friendly, it only seems natural that these issues would hold much weight among other bills.

The new administration in Washington makes it more likely that much-needed action to protect our water and chart a clean energy future will move forward at the federal level. However, federal law delegates much authority over environmental protection to the states. Concerned Texans can take nothing for granted and need to make their voices heard with their state legislators.

Clean Water Action will be prioritizing the following issues during the session:

• Conserve Water to Protect the Environment and Our Pocketbooks. Drought, population growth and climate change are straining our state's aquatic resources. Conserving water now helps protect the environment, control utility bills, and reduce the need for expensive water treatment plants. It also saves the energy needed to distribute drinking water. Clean Water Action is calling on legislators to fund a statewide education program to teach the public and policy makers why and how to conserve water. We are also calling our lawmakers to require municipalities to implement water conservation plans that achieve a per capita daily rate of consumption of no more than 140 gallons per capita, as recommended by the Texas Water Development Board. Read more and take action.
• Boost Energy Efficiency Requirements. Numerous reports have proven that efficiency is the most cost-effective method of meeting future energy needs. Efficiency also helps reduce polluting discharges into the air and water, avoids the need to build additional power plants, and creates 'green jobs' locally. Clean Water Action is calling on lawmakers to require all utilities to reduce peak electric consumption by 1% each year through 2015 by measures such as rebate programs for ratepayers who insulate their homes and install energy efficient air conditioning. We also support requirements to make new buildings more energy-efficient. Read more and take action.
• Build a Solar Economy in Texas. Thanks to goals established by the legislature in 1997, Texas leads the nation in total energy produced from wind power. But our sun-drenched state has done little to take advantage of its enormous solar energy potential. Clean Water Action is calling on our lawmakers to require utilities to produce at least 4,000 megawatts of electricity from solar by 2020, and to produce at least 2,000 of these megawatts by means of roof-top solar installations. This will reduce our dependence of fossil fuels and help create a green economy in Texas.
• Increase the Ability of Counties to Manage Growth. Texas loses an average of 160 acres each day to urban sprawl, most of it in incorporated areas near major cities. Giving the counties the option of managing growth through zoning, limits on impervious cover and setback requirements from creeks will help protect our drinking water and natural areas and help reduce traffic congestion.
• Increase Funding for State Parks. Texas ranks near the bottom in spending on public lands. Clean Water Action is urging lawmakers to increase funding for state parks so that we can create new parks near our growing cities. Read more and take action.

Additional Opportunities. Clean Water Action will also be alert to opportunity to pass legislation to reduce emissions of toxic mercury from power plants; require Texas to inventory its greenhouse gas emissions and create a plan to reduce them; prevent the construction of new coal-burning power plants; and slow the rush to build new nuclear plants.

Clean Water Act: History

History

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States. (The Act does not deal directly with ground water nor with water quantity issues.) The statute employs a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters so that they can support "the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water."

For many years following the passage of CWA in 1972, EPA, states, and Indian tribes focused mainly on the chemical aspects of the "integrity" goal. During the last decade, however, more attention has been given to physical and biological integrity. Also, in the early decades of the Act's implementation, efforts focused on regulating discharges from traditional "point source" facilities, such as municipal sewage plants and industrial facilities, with little attention paid to runoff from streets, construction sites, farms, and other "wet-weather" sources.

Starting in the late 1980s, efforts to address polluted runoff have increased significantly. For "nonpoint" runoff, voluntary programs, including cost-sharing with landowners are the key tool. For "wet weather point sources" like urban storm sewer systems and construction sites, a regulatory approach is being employed.

Evolution of CWA programs over the last decade has also included something of a shift from a program-by-program, source-by-source, pollutant-by-pollutant approach to more holistic watershed-based strategies. Under the watershed approach equal emphasis is placed on protecting healthy waters and restoring impaired ones. A full array of issues are addressed, not just those subject to CWA regulatory authority. Involvement of stakeholder groups in the development and implementation of strategies for achieving and maintaining state water quality and other environmental goals is another hallmark of this approach.

How the Clean Water Act Was Weakened

Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, we have made great progress in cleaning up our nation's waters. But these protections have been rolled back in recent years, and he Clean Water Act, long considered one of the country's most successful environmental laws, is now failing to protect all of America's waters.

The Act safeguards all of the "waters of the United States," with several basic protections built into the law. They include the Act's prohibition on unpermitted point source discharges, an oil spill prevention program, and the impaired waters cleanup program, to name a few. The federal Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers regulations implementing the law have for decades reflected the intent of Congress to protect all of America's waters. They cover, among other things, tributaries of various waters, adjacent wetlands, and intrastate waters with linkages to interstate commerce. These rules had been upheld by the vast majority of courts. But in 2001, a bare majority of the Supreme Court-in a case called Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-held that non-navigable, intrastate waters are not protected by the Clean Water Act solely because they could serve as habitat for migratory birds.

This gave polluters an opening to ramp up a decades-long effort to pressure the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to weaken their rules. The agencies rejected overwhelming support for keeping the rules intact and directed their field staff to stop applying Clean Water Act protections to many waters unless given the go-ahead from headquarters in Washington, DC.

Result: Courts and Agencies Put America's Waters At Risk

A March 2008 memorandum from the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance revealed that the nation's waters are being left without full protections under Clean Water Act - and that alleged polluters are being let off the hook.

Hundreds of Clean Water Act enforcement cases have either been dropped completely or made lower priorities due to concerns over the recent Supreme Court decisions questioning whether certain rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters remain protected from pollution by the Clean Water Act. This legal uncertainty has been made worse by the EPA and Army Corps policy "guidance" to field staff that has further undermined clear enforcement of the law.

According to the agency memo: "a significant portion of the Clean Water Act enforcement docket has been adversely affected." Between July 2006 and December 2007, the agency made a conscious decision not to pursue enforcement of more than 300 Clean Water Act violations because of the jurisdictional uncertainty created by the Rapanos decision and the guidance. In another 147 cases, the priority of an enforcement action was lowered due to uncertainty about whether the waters remained within the scope of the Clean Water Act. On top of that, polluters in enforcement actions raised the lack of Clean Water Act jurisdiction as an affirmative defense in 61 other cases. In sum, over 500 enforcement cases were affected during this time period.

In a letter to then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, Chairmen James Oberstar (D-WI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) said that "This represents a sizable proportion of EPA's approximately 1,000 civil administrative and judicial enforcement cases under sections 311 , 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act undertaken in FY 2007."

EPA "Guidance" went into effect in 2003, immediately impacting regional EPA and Army Corps of Engineers permitting decisions. The 2004 report, Reckless Abandon: How the Bush Administration is Exposing America's Waters to Harm, documented how entire water basins, streams, wetlands, rivers and lakes across America have been put at risk. Waters losing Clean Water Act protections include headwater, intermittent, and ephemeral streams that supply public drinking water systems that serve more than 110 million Americans - 5,646 public water supply systems.

More than 40% of facilities (14,800) with Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits discharge into small or intermittent streams, and several are arguing that because of the Supreme Court decisions they no longer require permits which impose limits on their pollution levels. Dredging or filling streams, and draining and filling wetlands, can cause or exacerbate flooding downstream with significant public safety and economic implications. A single acre of wetland can store 1 to 1.5 million gallons of flood water. Wetlands in the continental United States save an estimated $30 plus billion in annual flood damage repair costs. EPA reports that it cost $1.5 million annually to replace the natural flood control functions of a 5,000 acre tract of drained Minnesota wetlands.

Today: Confusion, Delay and Disarray

Federal courts are struggling to determine how to implement the Supreme Court's decisions, resulting in conflicting decisions and uncertain standards in different parts of the country. The Court's opinions - especially an irreconcilably split decision in Rapanos - are opaque and full of unnecessary attacks on the scope of the law that go beyond the facts of the particular cases. Consequently, the lower courts have reached widely varying decisions about how to determine whether water bodies are protected.

Only two federal courts of appeal have definitively resolved how to assess the legal status of a given water body after Rapanos. In the First Circuit (after a case called U.S. v. Johnson), the government and citizens may establish that a water body is protected by relying on either test described in the two principal opinions in Rapanos. By contrast, the Eleventh Circuit (in a case called U.S. v. Robison) held that only a "significant nexus" test applies. The government, in a brief that attempted to convince the Supreme Court to reverse the Eleventh Circuit, argued that exclusive dependence on the "significant nexus" approach would raise enormous practical problems. Specifically, the government argued, "its application is likely to vary more widely from judge to judge, and from jury to jury." Moreover, it said that "within the Eleventh Circuit alone, approximately 28,215 additional hours of agency time would have been expended if the Corps of Engineers had been required . . . to make all formal jurisdictional determinations under the ‘significant nexus' standard."

In other regions, the precise legal standard is elusive. In the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the courts have held that waters qualifying for protection under the "significant nexus" test are covered, but it is unsettled whether the other test may be used. Even worse, a judge of the federal district court in D.C. suggested that waters could be excluded based purely on the "relatively permanent" test (in a case called NRDC v. Kempthorne).

Likewise, some cases have denied protections for a variety of water bodies based on misreadings of Rapanos. These include a wetland exceedingly close to a major interstate navigable river, the Farmington River in Connecticut (evaluated in a case called Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society, LLC v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc.), a roughly nine-acre lake in New York that has been used by boats, (examined in a case called Pine Tree Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Ashmar Development Co., LLC); and tributary streams in Texas and Hawaii that happened not to flow constantly (addressed in cases called U.S. v. Chevron Pipe Line Co. and Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter v. Honolulu).

Unfortunately, the public is likely stuck with this indeterminate status until Congress acts to pass legislation to restore the clear legal scope of the Act. The Supreme Court recently ducked the government's request to clarify the applicable standards, notwithstanding one district court judge's assessment of the Rapanos decision: "I will not compare the ‘decision' to making sausage because it would excessively demean sausage makers."

Confusion over Clean Water Act jurisdiction has led to delays in permitting decisions. Under new rules put into place by government regulators, permit applicants must complete a 12-page form. To figure out that form, applicants have to study an 86-page instruction booklet. The Corps of Engineers says that this increases the time it takes to get a permit by up to three months

Solution: The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009

Passing the Clean Water Restoration Act in 2009 will restore longstanding safeguards for America's water resources and put us back on the path toward protecting all of our drinking water, lakes, rivers and streams.

The Clean Water Restoration Act should adopt a definition of "waters of the United States" based on longstanding EPA and Army Corps of Engineers regulations. The new law should delete the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act to clarify that the purpose of the law was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, and no just maintain navigability. Congress should also make findings that the law includes so-called "isolated" waters, headwater streams, small rivers, ponds, lakes and wetlands.

The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009, introduced by U.S. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-WI, would accomplish these important goals and has been endorsed by Clean Water Action.

Visual Images in Social Change - The Ethics of Representation

When my classmates presented on The Animal Rights Movement, it was interesting to learn about three prominent animal rights groups: 1) PETA, 2) SPCA, and 3) ALF.

All three of the organization incorporate images in order to get attention, spread their message, and gain support for their goals. They use vivid illustrations in order to his their audience's hearts with emotions of compassion, guilt, anger, and intrigue.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

PETA is an animal rights organization founded in 1980, focusing on animal welfare and protection issues. It rejects the idea of animals as property, and opposes all forms of speciesim, animal testing, eating animals or using animal byproducts, factory farming, and hunting, as well as the use of animals in entertainment or as clothing, furniture, or decoration.

PETA's slogan is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."

The organization has been critiziced for some of its campaigns.


PETA seems to focus on the images that will turn people's heads. Alot of the current advertisements that they've used have been very racy, including naked women. They have been critized for being inappropriate in their visuals.

This group seems to have access to a large amount of funds to be able to make so many print ads, television commercials, etc.

Also, a prominent PETA protest tactic has been to throw red paint on individuals they see wearing fur jackets.

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)

The SPCA includes a number of animal welfare organizations whose opertations include protecting and providing shelter to animals in danger. The SPCAs are non-profit organizations that campaign for animal welfare and take in abused or abandoned animals, and help them to get adopted. The SPCA is a group that helps proetect sick and injured stray animals and animals in danger.



The images in their ads are not as scandalous as PETA's. Instead, their approach is softer and cuter, even. In one of the television ads, Sarah McClachlan, a famous musician, is one their spokespersons. In the commercial, one of her soothing songs is playing in the background and she is sitting on a couch with an adorable puppy. As the commericial plays, semi-sad images of animals are shown but they are not vivid or scary.

For the most person, they use persuasive tactics of a testimonial by taking the credentials from the singer and associating that with the organization. That way, supporters of this singer may be more inclined to support SPCA's cause. Also, the sweet images are meant to persuade people by think, "Aww! Look at that cute puppy! Of course I want to help them because they look so sad" but nothing more intense as that.

Animal Liberation Front (ALF)

The ALF is a name used internationally by animal liberation activists who engage in direct action on behalf of animals. This includes removing animals from laboratories and fur farms, and sabotaging facicilities involved in animal testing and other animal-based industries. According to ALF statements, any act that furthers the cause of animal liberation, where all reasonable precautions were taken not to harm human or non-human life, may be claimed as an ALF action.

The ALF is not a group with a member-base, nor does it have designated leaders.

They claim to be non-violent, but several of their actions seem to be pretty violent to me.

ALF is definitely on the opposite end of SPCA. Their approach is very aggressive and, I think, violent. Volunteers come together to cause destruction on animal testing facilities. Actual videos of their operations can be watched on-line.



Clean Water Actions Visual Images


When trying to find visuals for Clean Water Action, there was nothing to be found. I couldn't find photos of their actual activity or even ads that they make to promote their organization. The only thing I did find was there logo. Clean Water Action seems to be completely out of the press and media. Why is that? It seems like, especially with the soaring increase in technology, CWA would involve itself more with this medium. They would be able to gain so much more support nationally and maybe even internationally. Yet, it seems like they don't choose to do this. WHY?

The logo, in itself, seems to be very simple just like the organization. It is very neutral, and includes glittering generalities like, "our water, our health, our future." Even on their website, I couldn't find any negative stances they may have on the wrongs of the world or human beings. On the other hand, I don't see them overwelmingly bolstering their own organization. Maybe this is their biggest strength in disguise and I'm just not seeing it. I guess because I'm used to organizations glorifying themselves or hating on other groups, CWA's approach seems out of the ordinary. But just maybe people find this technique appealing. This may show that CWA is sincere in their cause and goals. The simplicity and neutrality in their logo tells alot about the social change group and their mission.

CWA's Main Campaign Strategies

1. Making Texas Mercury Free

• Mercury from coal-burning power plants threatens our water, fish, and health

• Coal-burning power plants are the largest industrial source of mercury emissions in the United States, and ten percent of these emissions come from plants in Texas - more than any other state. Five of the nation's top ten emitters of mercury are in the Lone Star State.

  When mercury is released into the air, it settles in rivers, lakes, and streams. Bacteria in the water convert it to methyl mercury, a very toxic form of mercury. The toxic mercury bioaccumulates in the bodies of animals. Eating contaminated fish is the main way people are exposed to unsafe levels of mercury. Unlike with some other toxins, there is no way to clean or cook mercury out of fish.

  The Texas Department of Health has issued fish consumption advisories for over 329,000 acres of lakes and rivers, including the entire Gulf of Mexico.

• Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that causes learning and developmental disabilities in children. A mother can pass mercury on to her baby during pregnancy and later during breastfeeding. One out of every six U.S. women of childbearing age have mercury in their bodies at levels that may adversely affect their unborn child.

Several studies have shown that children exposed to mercury emissions have a higher risk
of brain damage.

A recent study from the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio links
industrial mercury emissions with increased rates of autism. The study found
that for every 1000 pounds of mercury released by Texas power plants in 1998, there was
a corresponding 3.7 percent increase in autism rates in Texas school districts in 2002. The
researchers also noted that the prevalence of autism went down by as much as 2 percent
for every ten miles from the source of the mercury pollution.

• Mercury is associated with heart attacks in older men.

2. Texas' Energy Future

• Fossil Fuels Are Polluting the Air, Warming the Planet and Soaring in Price

• Texas' dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power is an economic burden on its citizens and a threat to public health. As our population increases, we must prioritize clean energy and energy efficiency to protect public health and the environment, keep electricity affordable and bring jobs to Texas.

The Problem

• Over ninety percent of Texas' electricity comes from dirty sources of power that put public health at risk. Texas leads the nation in emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic mercury from coal plants, and much of Texas' smog problem is due to coal. Two-thirds of Texans live in cities that are in violation of federal, health-based clean air standards.

• Business-as-usual policies are forcing Texans to pay higher utility bills. The cost of natural gas has tripled since 2003. The cost of coal is rising with increases in the cost of diesel fuel needed to transport it by rail from Wyoming. The price of coal will rise even faster if Congress passes legislation regulating carbon-based fuels. These costs are passed on to consumers in their utility bills.

• Nuclear power is no solution. The South Texas Nuclear Project in Bay City alone has already produced over 1,000 tons of long-lasting radioactive waste since 1989. Nuclear plants cost billions of dollars, take several years to bring on line and are only possible with lavish subsidies guaranteed by the federal government.

The Solution

• Increase investments in energy efficiency. Energy efficiency refers to physical improvements such as insulating an attic or installing more efficient lighting or air conditioning. Rebates to business and residential customers for energy efficiency investments can prevent the need to build new power plants at a fraction of the cost. They also lower individual utility bills and create local jobs. Texas requires that only 10% of new energy demand be met by energy efficiency programs, well below the 50% level recommended by the EPA's National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.

• Expand wind energy production and transmission capacity. Texas leads the nation in wind energy production with over 5000 megawatts installed, and the Public Utility Commission is increasing transmission capacity to bring an additional 12,000 megawatts of wind energy to urban areas. However, the PUC rejected a more ambitious plan to add 18,000 MW of new wind generation. Texas needs more wind power to replace the demand for fossil fuels.

• Set specific goals for solar energy production. New transmission lines from West Texas can carry energy produced by concentrated solar farms as well as wind farms. Several solar farms are under development in the western states, and California has set ambitious goals for solar. Solar is already cost-competitive with new nuclear capacity, and dropping in price as technology improves.

3. Nuclear Power

• With the threat of global warming and fossil fuel supplies running low, nuclear power is one again being considered as an option to meet future energy needs. In September 2007, NRG Energy filed for a construction and operation license for two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project near Bay City - the first application for a new nuclear in the U.S. in thirty years. Austin's city council has voted unanimously not to invest in the proposed reactors, but the City of San Antonio has indicated a willingness to participate.

• Gov. Rick Perry is calling for doubling the number of nuclear reactors in Texas. Luminant, formerly TXU Corp., in proposing two new reactors at its Comanche Peak nuclear plant southwest of Dallas. Exelon Corp. wants to add two reactors in Victoria County in Southeast Texas.

• Both the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) say a surge toward nuclear to meet the country's energy needs and curb global warming is unwise. Clean Water Action agrees.

• In 2007, the UCS and the IAEA released reports explaining why nuclear power is not the answer to global warming. UCS cautions that "a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide, under existing conditions, would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events – a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been quick to permit nuclear power facilities and is not doing a good job providing regulation of safety issues for such a risky industry, according to the UCS.

• Even if there were no safety concerns with nuclear energy, UCS says that new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U. S. global warming emissions for at least two decades. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an organization dedicated to spreading the peaceful use of the atom, agrees that nuclear power, even under the most favorable circumstances, could not grow fast enough to slow climate change.

• Nuclear power plants also use large quantities of water for cooling. New reactors on the drawing board would need to withdraw more than 1,140,000 gallons of water per minute from nearby lakes, rivers or oceans. Nuclear power plants in Alabama and Tennessee have been shut down because of drought, and others may be shut down if drought continues.

• Nuclear plants also imperil fish larvae and other forms of aquatic life, which are strained from the water as it travels through thousands of metal tubes to become steam that turns the turbines to make electricity. A 2005 study found that one coastal power plant in Southern California destroyed nearly 3-and-a-half million fish in just one year.

• Perhaps the biggest single problem with nuclear power is the disposal of its radioactive waste. Once created, this highly toxic waste persists for hundreds of thousands of years - longer than any human civilization has existed. Yucca Mountain, the only site seriously being considered for long-term storage of nuclear waste in this country, is opposed by all five Nevada members of Congress.

• Nor is nuclear energy inexpensive, as its defenders claim. Without guarantees of lavish federal subsidies underwritten by our tax dollars, no new nuclear plant could be built. With both wind and solar continuing to drop in price, nuclear plants are likely to be obsolete and uncompetitive as soon as they are operational.

UCS Cites Frightening Risks Associated With Nuclear Energy:

• Massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack
• The death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a nuclear power plant
• Serious hazard posed by the increase in nuclear waste with the expansion of nuclear power without facilities for long-term disposal.
• Poor oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Clean Water Action agrees with the Union of Concerned Scientists recommendation that the government adopt policies that maximize energy efficiency and conservation, increase the use of renewable energy resources and eliminate barriers to existing technologies that can reduce global warming emissions without the risks associated with nuclear power.

4. Water Conservation

Population Growth, Drought and Climate Change are Straining Texas' Water Resources

• Texas is fortunate to have a rich aquatic heritage, with nine major aquifers, fifteen major rivers, over 200 reservoirs, and some 3700 streams. In addition, more than 300 miles of coastal waters provide habitat for countless species, offer recreational opportunities for Texans and visitors alike, and provide a multi-billion dollar commercial and recreational fishing industry.

• However, these resources cannot be taken for granted. Texas' population is projected in double by 2060, with most newcomers settling in urban areas in eastern portions of the state. Thirsty cities are drawing more water from rivers and returning less, threatening the viability of downstream users, wildlife habitat and coastal estuaries. Sprawl development in urban areas is polluting groundwater, above all in Central Texas. Unchecked growth in coastal areas is leading to the loss of crucial wetlands, a trend worsened by the Bush administration's refusal to protect these sensitive water bodies as the federal Clean Water Act requires. Texas counties currently lack the authority to manage growth outside the jurisdiction of cities.

State planning refuses to consider the impacts of climate change on future water supply

• The Water for Texas 2007 Plan, approved by the state Water Development Board, states point-blank: "When considering the uncertainties of population and water demand projections, the effect of climate change on the state's water resources over the next 50 years is probably small enough that it is unnecessary to plan for it specifically." The denial of the effects of global warming by Texas' top water planners mirrors the views of the state's current political leadership. Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and Speaker of the House Tom Craddick have all publicly expressed doubt about climate change.

• This perspective flies in the face of what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes. In early 2007, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change released a report that leaves no doubt that global warming is real and largely attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. A number of Texas climate scientists, such as Eric Barron, dean of Jackson School of Geosciences at UT Austin, insist that global warming presents the greatest threat to the state's water resources.

• Increasing temperatures are likely to lead to decreases in rainfall for most of the state and certain to lead to more loss of surface water to evaporation. Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University geoscientist, estimates that Texas can expect the state's winters to warm between 2 and 5 degrees Fahrenheit, and summers between 4 and 11 degrees, by 2050. As temperatures continue rising throughout the century, rainfall will have to increase 25 percent to 40 percent by 2060 to maintain current water volumes in the state's rivers and lakes, according to Gerald North, professor of geosciences at Texas A&M University. Such increases in rainfall are not likely.

Water conservation is necessary and achievable

• State water planning does recognize the need to conserve water and has set a goal of lowering overall per capita water consumption to 140 gallons per person per day by 2060. However, this is only a goal and not a requirement, and few cities are putting plans in place to reach it. Most cities in Texas are projecting modest decreases at best, and some even project increases in per-capita water use. Few cities in Texas offer incentives such as price structures that reward conservation, and rebates for drought-resistant landscaping or the installation of water-saving devises such as low-flush toilets, rainwater collection barrels, and low-flow shower heads.

• El Paso and San Antonio have demonstrated that comprehensive planning to reduce water use can succeed. San Antonio lowered per-capita consumption from 160 gallons per day in 1993 to 135 gpd in 2006. Austin has recently embraced a more modest plan. On the other extreme, Dallas residents consume an average of 240 gpd, and so far that city has not embraced water conservation.

Conserving Water Also Conserves Energy: the Water-Energy Nexus.

• While renewable energy sources such as wind and solar consume little or no water, conventional sources of energy use vast amounts. Coal-fired, natural-gas and nuclear power plants all heat water to turn turbines that produce electricity. According the federal Sandia National Laboratories, each kilowatt-hour generated from coal requires 25 gallons of water. According to the Lower Colorado River Authority, about a fifth of water drawn from the Colorado from Austin to Matagorda is used by power plants. Not only does renewable energy use far less water; coal-burning power plants are the leading contributor to climate change which in turn leads to diminished rainfall and greater loss of surface water to evaporation.

• A tremendous amount of energy is also required to treat and pump water for drinking and irrigation. According to the U.S. Department of Energy about 4 percent of the nation's electricity is used for this purpose.

Towards sustainable water policies

• Texas CWA is working in local communities and at the state level on behalf of sustainable water policies that protect drinking water at its source, preserve wetlands and aquifer recharge zones, and conserve water for the future. We are working to persuade policy makers to prioritize conservation above expensive new reservoirs and treatment plants—a policy that would also save the energy needed to treat and distribute this water. We are advocating a revision to the state's ‘right of capture' doctrine that allows most landowners to pump and sell as much groundwater that lies beneath their property as they wish. We are working with our coalition partners to persuade the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to enforce existing laws and punish polluters with fines high enough to discourage future toxic discharges into our water and air. Not least, we are working to persuade state policy makers to take global warming into account when projecting future water needs and availability.

Attending a CWA Canvassing Meeting

I had the opportunity to actually attend a canvassers meeting. These meetings are held for many reasons: to train new canvassers, to garner support within the group before going out to do the canvassing, to update everyone on how everyone is doing out in the field, etc. For this meeting, the CWA canvassers gathered together before separating into small groups to go canvassing in different areas near Austin.

They talked about so many different things.

While sitting in the room with them, I remember seeing posters and signs on the wall. One board had the names of all the canvassers and their ranks. Next to their names was a tally of their total points.

On the very top of the wall it had signs that said: keep it short and simple, clip board control, confident language, targeting, and eye contact. These were their exact tactics/tips for canvassing door to door. Daily reminders of their techniques of persuasion were obviously positioned for them to see.

So at the very beginning of the meeting, they pointed out the top canvassers and gave applause for each person. The large amount of support that they had for one another was amazing! They all seemed to be so genuinely happy and proud for one another on a job well done. Encouragement is an important factor to emphasize in social change groups. Sure, people need to feel mad and passionate enough to make change happen. But what makes social change groups continue and last? Anger can help fuel a cause, but I feel like the positive is what keeps it going. People need to know and feel like what they are doing is good and successful. By pointing out individual successes and supporting one another, this brings about more fervor for the cause and greater connection within the organization. It always feels nice to be recognized for our accomplishments. We feel appreciated and this can be a powerful means to encourage us to do more.

They even talked about socials and mixers they would be having in the future. These people really hung out with each other. They had relationships with one another. They were friends. They were like a family, even. Once formed, I feel like these bonds are the hardest to break. At this point, people are emotionally intertwined with one another. It's hard to go back to a state of neutrality like the acquaintance state.

Even before the meeting started they were talking to each other about what they did over the weekend, concerts they went to, movies they wanted to see. I was so impressed by the depth of their relationships. When I think of other social change groups, I think that a lot of them are so large that most of the members are unrecognizable. It was different at change water.

Their group was just the right size so that everyone knew each other. They called each other by their own names. The importance of calling others by their names is very effective. It puts us down when someone forgets our names after just meeting them, or if they don't even try to know our names and get our attention by saying "Hey!" The dynamics were so deep rooted, and this was something I definitely admired in CWA.