I would like to know your perspective on corporate water privatization.   — Lois Levin, Waban, Mass.

Sandra Postel, of Global Water Policy Project.

I believe water is a public trust and needs to be managed as such. As custodians of the public trust, governments need to assume responsibility for ensuring that all people — and I would add all life — have access to sufficient water to meet their basic needs. Once governments do that, then I think it’s okay to allow markets and other economic incentives to allocate water among competing uses. But human health and ecosystems both must be safeguarded and provided with the water they need first. Corporations have a different set of priorities, which is why I don’t think they should own water. They may be given permits to use water according to specified criteria — but not to own it. When it comes to water services, the antidote to corrupt governmental institutions is not profit-motivated, non-transparent corporations, but rather good governance. Citizens need to demand this wherever possible.

How can we best put your ideas into action at the state and local levels?   — Mary Elfner, Water Conservation Coordinator, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Savannah, Ga.

You have asked the million-dollar question! You are clearly working on the front lines and I’m sure have as good an answer to this question as I could give. Indeed, I was impressed to see an article in my email inbox this week indicating that Georgia is now considering restricting outdoor residential water use even in non-drought periods. Bravo! I believe this is the kind of action we need — laws, regulations, pricing structures, and other incentives to encourage higher water productivity. Will people’s satisfaction decrease if they look out upon a backyard landscape of native plants and ground covers that don’t require irrigation, pesticides, or weekly mowing? I don’t think so! Satisfaction will increase, and water use will go down. People need to understand that their water choices have consequences — and to feel empowered to make better choices. Citizen activism and enlightened water managers can encourage utilities, state and local water agencies, and others to choose conservation-oriented policies over the old approach of expanding supply. It’s been done: In my state, Boston reduced its water use by 25 percent — enough to cancel construction of a new dam on the Connecticut River, and saving water at half the cost of expanding the supply. Citizens inspired this effort and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority followed through. I commend to anyone interested in knowing about all the measures that can help us save water and use it more wisely Amy Vickers’ wonderful book, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation.

To protect freshwater resources, is it better to promote changes at the local municipal government level, or is it more effective to work at the international level, since water knows no borders?   — Connie Kretz, Taipei, Taiwan

Great question. I think we need to work at all levels, so work at whatever level you best can. In general, we need to think more like a river and manage water from a holistic ecosystem perspective. Locally, let’s be sure we don’t pave over our key groundwater recharge zones — that’s a bad place for a new shopping mall. At the state level, let’s get strong ordinances that protect the quality, quantity, and timing of flows that our rivers and streams need for good health. Internationally, we need cooperation to ensure that rivers flowing across borders are shared equitably among people and also with nature itself.

What are the schools teaching about groundwater these days — or are we still tracing underground streams with forked sticks? Here in Chesapeake drainage many of us are concerned about the declining health of the bay.   — Richard H. Howe, Camp Hill, Penn.

I think it was Luna Leopold, former chief hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey and son of the great conservationist Aldo Leopold, who said “the health of our waters is the principal measure of how we live on the land.” Our failure to use and manage watershed lands wisely has resulted in serious pollution and degradation of our rivers, aquifers, lakes, and coastal bays and estuaries — including Chesapeake Bay, a national treasure. The huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is also attributable in part to the enormous load of nitrogen-laden runoff coming off the land within the Mississippi watershed. One thing countries haven’t adequately done is recognize that farming and forestry activities in watersheds have enormous consequences downstream — and that we need to encourage sounder practices if we want to reduce those damaging effects. This means giving landowners — whether farmers, timber companies, homeowners — incentives to manage their lands in ways that reduce erosion, pollution, and other harmful effects downstream. I’m currently working on a project with some colleagues at Stanford University that looks at precisely this question — how we can better harness and protect the natural ecosystem services of watersheds. There are some promising programs and projects out there, so stay tuned.

Do you sometimes use the digital audio capabilities of your computer to produce audio segments?    — Philippe Boucher, Bainbridge Island, Wash.

Thank you for this suggestion. I haven’t used my own computer in this way. But a number of my recent talks and lectures have been web-streamed and are available via the Internet.

Is it true that there is now on earth all the water there ever was and ever will be? What percent of the total water supply is actually usable for human needs?   — George Harrar, Wayland, Mass.

What’s an award-winning fiction writer like you doing asking such a scientific question? Trying to stump me, I’m sure. The amount of water on earth now has been more or less constant for several billion years. I say more or less because there’s some indication that tiny amounts of water may be brought in by “cosmic snowballs” — small water-containing comets that smash into the Earth. But for all practical purposes we have a finite supply. The arithmetic of planetary water looks like this: More than 97 percent of the planet’s water is undrinkably salty. Of the remainder, more than two-thirds is locked up in glaciers and ice caps. Less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of all the water on earth is both fresh and renewed by the solar-powered hydrological cycle. And only a fraction of that is actually accessible to meet our demands for irrigation, industrial, and urban water uses. Gloomy arithmetic, maybe, but enough water to meet our needs if we use it efficiently, equitably, and wisely. [Disclosure: George Harrar is a friend, acclaimed author (check out The Spinning Man), and husband of award-winning film producer Linda Harrar, who produced and directed the PBS film Last Oasis, based on my book of the same name. Linda is also the executive producer of World in the Balance, which premiered on PBS last week.]

Where and how do you think we need to make the most effort to move toward a more ecological and just society? In your opinion, where do we need good people to be working?   — Cynthia Lin, Emmaus, Penn.

When it comes to water, I think the world most needs an ethic of sharing — with one another and with our companion species on this earth. We need people to work on each of the four big E’s: efficiency, equity, ecological integrity, and ethics. There are plenty of niches for us each to find one that matches our talents and passions.

I remember the days of a cool, clear Ocklawaha River. What advice/help can you give us in our effort to restore it?   — David Zeigler, Salt Springs, Fla.

Brian Richter and I discuss many such issues in our new book, Rivers for Life. I can’t offer any concrete advice without knowing the situation in more detail. But I would offer the idea of attending the River Rally organized by River Network to be held in Wintergreen, Va., May 21-25. Representatives from lots of river and watershed organizations will be there to share ideas and experiences, and to celebrate rivers. Perhaps some new ideas will come out of exchanges there. It’s a great way to educate and energize the public.

I’m getting a Ph.D. in geology and looking for ways to translate my scientific knowledge into applied work to protect rivers. Should I volunteer for enviro groups? Write articles for non-technical audiences? (I’m currently reading Rivers for Life and it’s very good.)   — Andrew Wilcox, Fort Collins, Colo.

Rivers need good scientists! One of the big challenges is figuring out the quantity, quality, and timing of flows that rivers need to be healthy and to sustain the diversity of life within them. If we policy folks do our job well, your scientific skills will be in high demand. In the meantime, I have a feeling your passion for protecting rivers will help you create opportunities to be of service. I’m glad you’re enjoying Rivers for Life.

Incrementalism is a legitimate approach to making policy, but seems inappropriate for problems that become more intransigent with time — like global water shortages. Do you see hope for anything more proactive?   — Jim Dees, Olympia, Wash.

I agree that a little conservation here, a little more efficiency there will not solve our water problems. We do need a fundamental change in how we use, value, manage, and even think about water. We talk about this new mindset at some length in Rivers for Life.

These questions were compiled from Master of Environmental Studies students at The Evergreen State College in Washington state. This quarter we are enrolled in a class focusing on case studies of water and water policy.   — Steven Abercrombie, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Wash.

1. What are the most critical questions we should be asking as students of water and water policy?

Here’s one I think about a lot: How can we update/alter water laws and systems of water rights that were crafted in an earlier time and are not serving us well today — systems that rarely considered ecological values, for example?

2. Are there examples of countries with water allocation laws that promote wise water use?

Have a look at South Africa’s 1998 water law. It’s the most progressive water law I know of.

3. What is your opinion on the potential of private companies to provide water to populations in need, especially in areas with limited water and growing populations?

I think the private sector can help mobilize capital and do infrastructure work, but ownership and control over water should remain, in my view, in the public sector.

4. What combination of public and private water management can achieve efficient and equitable outcomes?

No set answer here — this will vary from case to case.

5. What long-term ecological impacts do you see arising from the exploitation of new sources of fresh water, particularly desalinization and harvesting of polar ice or icebergs?

Desalination is touted now as an important solution. But it seems to me that burning climate-altering fossil fuels to desalt ocean water, dumping briny waste into our sensitive coastal ecosystems, and dotting our beautiful coastlines with water factories may not be the most elegant or sustainable way to solve our water problems. Conservation before new supply!

6. Should water resource allocation be more prominent in the reconstruction of Iraq?

Yes, a water-sharing agreement between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq is needed to more equitably allocate the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Iraq is last in line of the three. Turkey is building big dams upstream that will affect the flow into Syria and Iraq.

7. What progress has been made as a direct result of recent international water forums?

These forums don’t generally produce much progress themselves. There may be statements (or declarations) of intent signed by governments, but what really matters is action and implementation.

8. What percentage of fresh water are we currently losing to contamination?

Good question! I don’t think anyone knows the answer, in part because water quality isn’t monitored all that well in much of the world.