T-Protection
Resolution
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of
water resources in the United States.
Interpretation-
Protection---Broad Definitions
Protect and achieve sustainable use.
Haonan Liu 20, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Theory and Technology for Environmental Pollution
Control, the University of Technology in Guilin, “Indicator System for Environmental Impact
Assessment Of Water Resources Protection And Utilization Planning,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth
Environ. Sci. 514 032049
2.1. Water protection Water
resources protection refers to legal, administrative, technical and
economic measures adopted to protect the resource attributes of surface water and
groundwater and to achieve sustainable use of water resources. Water connects the upstream, downstream, and
the left and right banks in the basin through mobility, and links the socio-economic system with the eco-environment system through its support for
the economic, social, and eco-environment systems [1]. Water quality, quantity and its ecosystem are the basic conditions for the sustainable function
of water resources. Water quality, water quantity, and aquatic ecology are the organic whole of interaction and influence. Water
resources
protection should consider goals and needs of water quality, water quantity, and aquatic
ecological protection.
Sustainable use, stop degradation, rehabilitate
WRC 19, Water Research Commission, 8-23-2019, “Legal considerations when using
greywater,” https://plumbingafrica.co.za/index.php/features/sanitation-for-health/771-legalconsiderations-when-usinggreywater#:~:text=Protection%20of%20water%20resources%20is,rehabilitation%20of%20the%
20water%20resource%E2%80%9D.
Relevant definitions in this context include the definition of conservation, pollution, protection of water resources, waste and waterwork, as follows:
Conservation is defined in the Act as “the efficient use and saving of water, achieved through measures such as water-saving devices, water-efficient
processes, water demand management, and water rationing”. Pollution is defined in the Act as meaning the “direct or indirect alteration of the
physical, chemical, or biological properties of a water resource so as to make it (a) less fit for any beneficial purpose for which it may reasonably be
expected to be used; (b) harmful or potentially harmful (aa) to the welfare, health or safety of human beings; (bb) to any aquatic or nonaquatic
organisms; (cc) to the resource quality; or (dd) to property”. Protection
of water resources is defined in the Act as
meaning the “(a) maintenance of the quality of the water resource to the extent that the
water resource may be used in an ecologically sustainable way; (b) prevention of the
degradation of the water resource; and (c) the rehabilitation of the water resource”. Waste is
defined in the Act as including “any solid material or material that is suspended, dissolved or transported in water (including sediment) and which is
spilled or deposited on land or into a water resource in such volume, composition or manner as to cause, or to be reasonably likely to cause, the water
resource to be polluted”. Waterwork is defined as including “any borehole, structure, earthwork or equipment installed or used”.
Sustainable ecosystem management
John H. Matthews 19, Coordinator and co-founder of the Alliance for Global Water
Adaptation (AGWA), “Wellspring: Source Water Resilience and Climate Adaptation,”
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Wellspring_FULL_Report_201
9.pdf
“Source Water Protection” (SWP) is now a widely used term to describe efforts to achieve
human water security through sustainable ecosystem management (Abell et al., 2017). Although the
terminology is relatively new, many
of the strategies of SWP for maintaining or enhancing ecosystem
services have been practiced for millennia (see examples in tables referenced in Appendix 2). Likewise, the
preservation of environmental flow regimes, the restoration of hydrological functions, and the
integration of ecosystems within water management infrastructure are well known approaches
for securing freshwater.
Broad
SVS 14, Shared Value Solutions, 5-21-2014, “Five Ideas for Engaging Watershed Stewards in
Source Water Protection Planning,” https://info.sharedvaluesolutions.com/blog/engagingwatershed-stewards-in-source-water-protection-planning-five-ideas
Municipal planners, elected officials, conservation authority staff and water treatment officials now take responsibility for Source Water Protection
Plans under Ontario’s Clean Water Act, 2006. As
a result of the Clean Water Act, communities in Ontario are
required to develop source water protection plans in order to protect their municipal sources of
drinking water. These plans identify risks to local drinking water sources and develop strategies to
reduce or eliminate these risks. Each drinking water source protection plan will develop
understanding of water quantity, quality, processes, threats and possible solutions for the
watersheds in the region using an interdisciplinary approach involving multiple watershed
actors, interested parties and watershed stewards.
SWP--broad
Robert J. Patrick 18, Guelph PhD, July, “Adapting to Climate Change Through Source Water
Protection: Case Studies from Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada,”
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol9/iss3/1/
The principle of source water protection is prevention of contamination at the source of a
drinking water supply, either groundwater or surface water. Source water protection is
operationalized through a planning process that first identifies land use activities, human
practices, and natural processes that pose some level of risk to a drinking water source. Next, specific
management actions are assigned to each identified risk with the intent of reducing, or
eliminating, each risk. Implementation of the management actions and periodic review of the
full source water protection plan complete the plan-making process. This article undertakes an assessment of
management actions to determine the utility of source water protection planning as a form of community adaptation to climate change. Data for this
article has emerged from a cross-sectional analysis of six recently completed First Nations source water protection plans in the Canadian Prairie region.
The case study communities are all located in Alberta and Saskatchewan across Treaty 4, 5, 6, and 7 territories (see Figure 1). The names of the
individual communities will not be identified in this article for privacy reasons.
Broad list
UNCED 92, “PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY AND SUPPLY OF FRESHWATER RESOURCES:
APPLICATION OF INTEGRATED APPROACHES TO THE DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT AND USE
OF WATER RESOURCES,” 8-13-1992, https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/a21/a21-18freshwater.html
(a) Protection of water resources from depletion, pollution and degradation:
(i) Introduction of sanitary waste disposal facilities based on
cost and upgradable technologies;
environmentally sound low-
(ii) Implementation of urban storm-water run-off and drainage programmes;
(iii) Promotion of recycling and reuse of waste water and solid wastes;
(iv) Control of industrial pollution sources to protect water resources;
(v) Protection of watersheds with respect to depletion and
cover and from harmful upstream
activities;
degradation of their forest
(vi) Promotion of research into the contribution of forests to sustainable water resources
development;
(vii) Encouragement of the best management practices for the use of agrochemicals with a
view to minimizing their impact on water resources;
Protection---Narrow Definitions
Excludes stuff
Robert J. Patrick 18, Guelph PhD, July, “Adapting to Climate Change Through Source Water
Protection: Case Studies from Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada,”
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol9/iss3/1/
The multi-barrier approach (MBA) to safe drinking water gained attention in the water resources literature in the aftermath of the water contamination
events in Walkerton and North Battleford (Laing, 2004; O’Connor, 2002). Within the water industry, the MBA is an effective means of safeguarding
potable water delivery (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment [CCME], 2004). The MBA is a series of operational redundancies, or barriers,
that protects against full system failure should a single barrier fail. Source
water protection, often referred to as the first
barrier in the MBA, is vital to the protection of a water supply. The other key barriers include
drinking water treatment such as chlorination and filtration, maintenance of the water distribution system,
testing and monitoring, as well as emergency planning (CCME, 2004). However, there are two limitations to the multibarrier approach. First, the MBA concept is designed around municipal water service systems with a central water treatment plant, piped distribution
system, and coordinated monitoring oversight. The water distribution system in most First Nation communities is unlike municipal water service
systems, and instead features a mix of piped water, trucked water, private wells, or no household water service. Second, the impacts of climate change
on a drinking water system were never envisioned within the MBA concept. This omission enables communities to develop source water protection
plans without due consideration of climate change impacts on their water system. Arguably,
the most appropriate place for
climate change consideration is within the first barrier of the multi-barrier approach, source
water protection. This article will identify climate change adaptation measures that may be
applied at the time of source water protection planning.
Protection---Just Contaminaton/Pollution
Just pollution
SSWM 19, Sustainable Sanitation and Water Management Toolbox, 6-13-2019, “Water Source
Protection” https://sswm.info/arctic-wash/module-4-technology/further-resources-watersources/water-source-protection
Water source protection involves the protection of surface water sources (e.g. lakes, rivers, man
made reservoirs) and groundwater sources (e.g. spring protection, dug well protection, and
drilled well protection) to avoid water pollution (see also pathogens and contaminants). While
surface water sources and springs are directly exposed to human activities, groundwater sources are often protected through overlaying soil layers. However, accessing
groundwater sources through dug or drilled wells allows contaminants to enter aquifers, polluting the well itself and the water in nearby lakes, rivers, or neighbouring wells,
In the past, the need for water source protection
has often been neglected. As a consequence, many drinking water sources have become
contaminated making water purification measures indispensible. The very slow flow of groundwater makes rehabilitation
which consequently threatens both public health and the environment (MANCE n.y.).
of contaminated aquifers both costly and time-intensive. While removal of pathogenic contamination through disinfection is more likely to be successful, some metals and
Recently, establishing adequate water source protection has
been recognised as the most suitable and cost-effective method to keep contaminants out of
drinking water and making costly water purification measures and construction of new wells unnecessary (GCC 2011; CONSERVATION ONTARIO 2009). This holds
both for industrialised and developing countries. Implementing water source protection requires a legal framework.
This usually involves a protection plan, which formulates responsibilities, specific protection measures and basic rules that apply to all community
members and water source users. Surface Water Source Protection Measures As many surface water sources are used for drinking
water purposes, protection is vital. Generally, three basic strategies exist for protection (UNEP
2010). Prevention: No discharge of waste, pollutants or untreated water from domestic,
industrial or agricultural use; optimised water use and practices in agriculture in order to stop
nutrients from entering aquatic systems (e.g. establishing buffer zones). Treatment: treatment of polluted
water prior to discharge; stormwater management: ensuring that run-off cannot transport
pollutants into water bodies. Restore ecosystems: Enable or support natural rehabilitation
processes.
chemical substances will permanently remain in the soil.
Pollution
Ryan Plummer 11, Director, ESRC, Brock University, September, “Probing the integration of
land use and watershed planning in a shifting governance regime,”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010WR010213
[14] Experiences with source protection around the world vary widely, with legislation emerging in the 1970s in both Europe and the United States. The
United States has been a legislative frontrunner through the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 [Canadian Environmental Law Association, 2003].
Amendments to the SDWA in 1996 broadened the scope from monitoring and treatment of
contaminated water to the prevention of contamination. Under the framework of the SDWA,
source water protection refers to prevention of the pollution of surface and groundwater that
serves as sources of drinking water [Harrigan-Farrelly, 2002]. States are required to develop source water assessment plans, which
must be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Kundell and DeMeo, 2000]. Approved plans must delineate catchment areas for public
water systems, inventory potential sources of contamination, and determine the susceptibility of vulnerable areas to contamination. States have
considerable flexibility under the SDWA to determine how best to implement the plans. Local governments and water supply system operators typically
play major roles in plan implementation. Tools used in implementing plans include land use tools (e.g., zoning and building codes), runoff management
tools (e.g., storm water controls and erosion and sedimentation ordinances), public health tools (e.g., contaminant-specific health measures), and
nonregulatory tools (e.g., land acquisition and/or public education) [Kundell and DeMeo, 2000].
Pollution
J.L. Ivey 6, Guelph Water Management Group, Department of Geography, University of Guelph,
“An institutional perspective on local capacity for source water protection,” Geoforum 37 (2006)
944–957
Source water protection refers to the development and implementation of policies, plans and
activities to prevent or minimize direct or indirect release of pollutants into surface or
groundwater resources currently used or intended to be used in the future as sources of
drinking water (O’Connor, 2002; Krewski et al., 2004). It typically involves assessing water resources,
identifying vulnerable areas, surveying all contaminant sources, and selecting, implementing
and monitoring a set of policy tools and actions to prevent or minimize contamination, by means
of planning processes that emphasize stakeholder involvement and education (Witten et al., 1995; National Research Council, 2000;
FWR, 2005). In
the context of surface water (e.g., lakes, reservoirs, rivers), source water protection
typically takes the form of watershed or catchment management, while for groundwater resources efforts
may focus on private wells, municipal water Welds, groundwater recharge areas, or whole aquifers (USEPA, 1999; National Research
Council, 2000; Macler and Merkle, 2000).
Pwr
Lichel Technologies 17, “Climate Change Responsive Integrated River Basin Management
and Development Master Plan for the Central Cebu River Basins,” prepared for the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources Regional Office, November,
https://riverbasin.denr.gov.ph/masterplans/1-CCRBMP-EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY-FINALAPR2018.pdf
The development framework incorporates the water resource protection goal, including the sub-goal of improving the protection of water resources
for designated human uses (including public health, water supply, fish and shellfish consumption, and recreation) as well as aquatic life uses.
Improved protection of water resources includes pollution prevention and maintenance of high
quality water resources, as well as restoration of impaired water resources. The province-wide
watershed management framework provides for the improved protection of water resources for
designated uses through the coordination and integration of water resources protection
programs on a watershed basis, and through the targeting of watershed management activities to priority watershed issues like use
impairment.
Protection of water resources
Nkwelle Nkede Flabert 10, “Investigating The Pollution Of Ndongo River As A Result Of Solid
Waste Dumping,” June,
https://www.academia.edu/12921945/INVESTIGATING_THE_POLLUTION_OF_NDONGO_RIVER_
AS_A_RESULT_OF_SOLID_WASTE_DUMPING?auto=download
The water legislation would need to specify the party or parties at each level of the government (national, regional, and local) that are responsible for
ensuring protection of water quality, for instance in Cameroon, the ministry of Energy and Water is responsible for examining the installations
established for these purposes and for analyzing the quality of the water (Law 79-10, article; 10). The
protection of water resources
includes: a) Prevention and abatement of both point source pollution and diffuse pollution. b)
Regulation of the discharge of wastewater and other wastes. c) Regulation of land use,
particularly land cultivation practices. d) Adoption of detailed procedures for enforcement of
water quality standards, particularly of water for domestic uses
Protection---No Climate Mitigation
You can mitigate climate change via water protection, but that doesn’t make
climate mitigation equivalent to water protection
Robin Abell 19, Conservation International's Freshwater Lead, “Freshwater biodiversity
conservation through source water protection: Quantifying the potential and addressing the
challenges,” 6-3-2019, Aquatic Conservation, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3091
In fact, many existing source water protection programmes have developed, or are developing,
objectives that go beyond water security for people, encompassing biodiversity conservation,
climate change adaptation and mitigation, and human health and well-being (Bennett & Ruef, 2016). Such
an integrated approach is consistent with achieving a broad range of Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), adopted by world leaders in 2015, including those related to water security,
ecosystem conservation, sanitation, economic development, and climate change mitigation and
adaptation (United Nations, 2015). In a world looking for multiple ‘wins’, where land-based threats to freshwater ecosystems and species are
growing, it is worth considering the extent to which source water protection can deliver freshwater biodiversity benefits, and how those benefits might
be realized.
Protection---No Floodplain
Not floods
Robin Abell 19, Conservation International's Freshwater Lead, “Freshwater biodiversity
conservation through source water protection: Quantifying the potential and addressing the
challenges,” 6-3-2019, Aquatic Conservation, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3091
In addition to source water protection and management, there are various other water security
approaches, tools, programmes, and partnerships that can provide measurable benefits for
freshwater biodiversity. For example, floodplain restoration is an effective tool for reducing
flood risks under present and future climate conditions, especially when used in conjunction
with source water protection activities that promote infiltration. Floodplain restoration, which
includes setting back or removing levees or other barriers to allow river water to return to the
floodplain, and restoring degraded floodplains to a more natural state, can also help meet an
array of freshwater biodiversity objectives (Ward, Tockner, & Schiemer, 1999). Integrated
source water protection and floodplain restoration can thus reduce water-related risks and
produce freshwater ecosystem benefits, but key participants in the areas of source water
protection (often city water utilities), flood risk reduction (e.g. city disaster risk reduction
managers or insurance companies), and biodiversity conservation (e.g. conservation nongovernmental organizations) have only recently begun to collaborate towards achieving these
multiple benefits (European Climate Adaptation Platform, 2014; The Nature Conservancy, 2013).
Protection---No Ice
Unpredictable
Jorge Daniel Taillant 13, founder of the Center for Human Rights and Environment (CEDHA),
“ARTICLE: The Human Right … to Glaciers?” 28 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 59, lexis
The right-to-water debate, and even laws or regulations attempting to protect water, has
no focus on glaciers or periglacial zones. The right to water debate has not addressed the need to protect ice, or more
specifically, glaciers. Nor do most people working on "the right to water," either from a policy, legal, or
civil-society angle, focus at all on glaciers or permafrost. None of the risks listed above come up
in debates about water protection. As mentioned above, science has not even come up with a
term that is functional to the public policy debate to understand the glaciosystem, the natural
area surrounding a glacier and all of its natural characteristics, (mountain ridges, positioning, wind patterns, etc.)
that are necessary for the glacier to form in the first place. Glaciers are simply not on the radar screen of the "right
to water" debate, nor are they included in systemic measures, policy, or laws to protect
natural resources.
[*74]
Protection---No Treatment
Excludes treatment
Don Muir 13, Sourcewater Protection Specialist
Pennsylvania Rural Water Association, 1-29-2013, “Sourcewater Protection Program,”
https://www.prwa.com/pages/programs/sourcewater-protection/sourcewater-protection
Sourcewater protection safeguards water used to supply public drinking water and private wells and
springs for human consumption. Examples include water from underground aquifers, springs, lakes,
rivers, or streams. Before traveling to the tap, water typically needs some level of treatment.
This can become costly to water suppliers and their communities. Source water protection goes
beyond treatment to ensure safe drinking water begins at the water source itself. It considers
a preventative and comprehensive approach, taking into account quality and quantity of untreated water and thus
ensuring the protection of environmental and community resources in addition to public health and safety.
Protection and treatment are different
Oregon DEQ 17, 2-1-2017, “An introduction to drinking water in Oregon,”
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/programs/Pages/dwp.aspx
Assuring safe drinking water depends on public water suppliers implementing multiple
successful practices: Protect the drinking water source Practice effective water treatment
Conduct regular monitoring for contaminants to assure safety Protect the distribution system piping and finished
water storage from recontamination Practice competent water system operation, maintenance, and construction These
practices are collectively called “multiple barrier public health protection”. Source water
protection is an important first step because starting with the best possible quality source
water helps assure that water treatment can be effective at all times. Source water protection
is accomplished by effective state public health programs, environmental protection, land use
policies, pro-active land stewardship, and by implementation of local drinking water protection
efforts by communities and public water suppliers. The susceptibility of the public drinking water system source depends
on both the natural conditions in the watershed as well as the anthropogenic activities in the watershed.
No treatment
James I. Price 18, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher, “Economic Support for Decisions on Source
Water Protection,” J Am Water Works Assoc. 2018 Sep; 110(9): 56–61.
Source water quantity, quality, and reliability are central to the design and operation of public water systems (PWSs). PWSs regularly modify in-plant
operations and upgrade capital equipment following changes in source water conditions to optimize performance and maintain compliance with
regulatory standards. PWSs
may also adopt upstream source water protection (SWP) strategies to
safeguard source waters from adverse impacts before treatment, such as agricultural runoff
control and watershed restoration to reduce wildfire risks (Carpenter 2017, Gartner et al. 2017). Around the
world there is growing interest in SWP as a means to reduce certain health risks and avoid
treatment expenditures; in the U.S., for example, federal and state laws recognize the benefits
of watershed services and establish funding for SWP activities (40 C.F.R. §141.2 2016, California Water Code §108.5
2016). In addition, there are numerous on-going and emergent watershed management programs whose stated motivations include securing drinking
water supplies (Bennett et al. 2014, Carpe Diem West 2011, Herbert 2007).
Violation-
Standards-
Expert Opinion Standards Generic: -------- is an expert in this field,
therefore we should trust what they have to say about the matter. It’s
important to look at people who are skilled in certain topics or have studied
certain topics because they can provide a level of insight that the average
person doesn’t have. Using an expert to define protection allows us to trust
where this information came from. We know that someone who has a clear
understanding of what we’re talking about defines protection as ---------.
We should take this definition above a common person’s because we are
discussing things that the average person can likely provide little insight to.
Common Person Standards Generic: Using a common person definition can
be much more useful than using an expert opinion. A large majority of
people are not experts in the areas of discussion in this round, therefore we
should use a definition that can reach more people. Using a definition of
protection that’s in the vernacular of most is going to allow for a more
diverse group of people to get a better understanding of what we’re
actually debating about today.
Brightline: It’s important, in debate, to create a brightline. We need to set
up a clear visual of what cases are topical and what cases aren’t topical.
When we don’t have a clear definition laid out for what is topical, it
becomes easy for the affirmative cases to blur the line. It becomes very
easy for cases to slip around that line. Which is why we need to set down
an objective definition that shows us clearly what is topical and what isn’t
topical. Having this bright line, this objective interpretation, allows us to
keep debate fair. When the line is blurred, it allows for the introduction of
an endless proliferation of affirmative cases that destroy the negative
ground. In order to ensure that both teams have a fair experience in the
round, the affirmative case must be predictable to a certain extent. When
cases are introduced that are way outside of the circle of topicality, there’s
no education in it for the negative team.
Framers’ Intent:
https://www.speechanddebate.org/topics/
NSDA 21
Policy Debate – 2021-2022 Topic
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
protection of water resources in the United States.
Novice Case Limits for the 2021-2022 Policy Debate Topic
•
Substantially strengthen federal surveillance and standards for lead in drinking
water.
•
Substantially limit the use of hydraulic fracturing by energy companies in the
United States.
•
Substantially strengthen federal standards for agriculture-related runoff into
lakes and streams.
•
Substantially increase the protection of wetlands in the United States.
The National Speech and Debate Association laid out a clear definition of
this year’s resolution, to substantially increase protection of water
resources in the United States. There are many different ways to go about
increasing protection of water resources, but the affirmative plan is not one
of them.
The people who crafted this year’s resolution knew what they wanted to be
considered topical. The people who make the resolutions understand
debate and know that we need to ensure fairness for both teams in rounds.
They showed what is topical. They made the definition of what is
considered topical. Because the aff case doesn’t do any of these things, we
cannot consider the case topical.
VotersGeneric Voters: The resolution is in place for a reason. This ensures a level
of fairness and predictability in a round. As the negative team, we need to
be able to prepare. If we aren’t able to predict to a certain extent what the
affirmative entails, there is no preparation that can be done. The
affirmative has created a round that unfairly skews the ballot in their favor.
If we can’t prepare any evidence or arguments, we are forced to come into
the round and be completely unaware of the topic we are negating. If we
are unable to prepare, there is almost certainty that we will lose. When the
affirmative is not topical and does not fall under the resolution, it creates a
round in which we as the negative team are unable to showcase our skills
as debaters. We are not able to accurately represent the techniques and
arguments we have learned and practiced this debate season. An untopical
aff completely undermines the educational aspect of debate. I will say it
again-the resolution is in place for a reason.