BIOCENTRIC ETHICS

Biocentric Ethics and the Susquehanna River Watershed

Biocentric Ethics and the Susquehanna River Watershed

Introduction

In watershed management, no matter what the area of concern, we are working in a dynamic system that changes naturally and in response to anthropogenic activities. Whether the issue is nonpoint-source pollution emanating from agricultural activities or flooding that generates calls for modification of streams and rivers, the role of science in providing the foundation for sound public policy cannot be ignored.

However, the relationship is not a smooth one because of different temporal and spatial scales at which the two work. With regard to the former, scientific knowledge is ever-changing. Policies and management plans require reliable scientific information and they take time to craft and more time to implement. Similarly, scientific studies address locations and scales that reflect the problem studied (Meinzer 2002), whether that is agriculturally-generated nitrogen inputs to rivers and streams, the impacts of land use changes on water quality and runoff, or losses to floods, whether within individual watersheds, a series of nested watersheds, or entire river systems at a local, regional, or national scale as in Susquehanna River (Carson 2001).

Discussion

Susquehanna is one of the most flood-prone watersheds in the country, averaging some $150 million per year in flood losses (Susquehanna River Basin Commission 2007), and that a flood of record affected the Upper Susquehanna Basin in June, 2006, the topic of flood damages and flood hydrology is an important on

A tool that has been critical to watershed science and management at a number of scales is Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Looking at a watershed downstream from the Upper Susquehanna Basin, Bruns and Fetcher use one GIS-based application, CITYgreen, to evaluate economic and ecological values and benefits in an area currently under pressure from urban sprawl. The results of their analysis demonstrate the benefits of maintaining forest cover in terms of reduced air pollution and storm water control(Meinzer 2002). Such a study has direct application to land use management and provides strong impetus for managing sprawl at various political and watershed scales.

Given that the Susquehanna is one of the most flood-prone watersheds in the country, averaging some $150 million per year in flood losses (Susquehanna River Basin Commission 2007), and that a flood of record affected the Upper Susquehanna Basin in June, 2006, the topic of flood damages and flood hydrology is an important one. In the first paper on floods, Changnon presents an overview of the magnitude of flood losses, while controlling for the sources of flooding. Understanding the nature of the problem, again, both economically and hydrologically at the national level is important to putting the June, 2006 experience in context. In fact, as Changnon points out, New York is second in the country in terms of flood losses from all causes. The 2006 floods were significant contributors to that.

Resurgence of Watershed Proposals

Recently, there has been a resurgence of watershed proposals from a diversity of sources, and from equally diverse ...