http://earthfix.opb.org/water/article/rancher-brings-pollution-battle-to-wa-supreme-cour/
1. What future environmental/societal problems could arise if livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams?
2. Do you think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights or the other way around and why?
1. If livestock continues to pollute rivers and streams, then there will be downstream contamination.
ReplyDelete2. I feel like both should be made a priority, compromise in some way so that the farmers won't be affected and so that the water supply won't be affected. If we put the farmers first, then more people suffer because water supplies will be unclean and water is necessary for life. If we put the water supplies first, then the farmers will be put in a vulnerable situation which their land can't be used to their full potential, affecting them economically.
1.If livestock continues to pollute rivers and streams, a future environmental problem would be the the re-occurrence of contamination from the downstream of rivers and streams.
ReplyDelete2. I think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights and property rights should be prioritized over population because they both affect water supply and farmers. They affect both by having the need for us to clean the unclean supplies.
The runoff could continue to go into the rivers and streams and kill the species within the water, as well as endanger those downstream and the ranchers could become ever more vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteProperty rights should be prioritized because that would put the farmers at risk, also because there's no knowing how sewage is dealt with based.on the article and other solutions could be found to cleansing the water, other than reducing a ranchers land.
1. What future environmental/societal problems could arise if livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams?
ReplyDeleteIf livestock continue leaving their feces in rivers and streams, health problems may start to occur downstream. In the New Green History of the World, we learned about how ingesting excrement can lead to parasites growing inside of you. Also, leaving waste in the water would harm creatures living in it and have consequences for whole ecosystems.
2. Do you think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights or the other way around and why?
I think that environmental activists and ranchers ought to work together to find a solution. Maybe the manure could be disposed of in other ways, like turning it into biogas or using it as fertilizer. While these solutions are expensive and not as convenient as letting the cattle relieve themselves in rivers, the farmers should recognize that the issue of pollution is a prevalent one that affects everyone. Setting up biogas plants would, I think, be one of the most effective solutions.
1)I think that if livestock continued to pollute the rivers it would create both a social and environmental problems. It would create social problems because if the polluted water got to homes people, it would make the people sick. Also with polluted rivers it can kill the ecosystem in the river and hurt the environment overall.
ReplyDelete2)I think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights, because pollution can have a long term effect on the environment and eventually on the ranchers so after resolving the problems with the pollution then it would be easier to solve the problems with property rights.
1. well we can see that if livestock continue to pollute the rivers and streams, it is evident that soon this pollution would continue down and basically kill the ecosystem in or around the stream or rivers, causing a dis-balance in the environment.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that it should go towards prioritizing pollution because pollution, in the long run will have really negative effects on the environment and ecosystem. because now as humans stand, pollution is slowly overpowering us and everyone acts as they don't see this effect of pollution on the environment.
1. If livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams it will be more challenging to keep rivers clean and free of disease. In addition, there is potential for the waste to kill the ecosystem of the river.
ReplyDelete2. Pollution should be prioritize because in the long run it will have a more significant negative effect. Rancher will find an alternative to get around these new regulations and adapt but unfortunately the water and river will not be able to.
1. What future environmental/societal problems could arise if livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams?
ReplyDeleteIn the future, the environmental problems that could arise with livestock continuing to pollute the rivers and streams is that the downstream would become contaminated by runoff. This leads to the social issue that the homes that get the water from the contaminated water would become sick.
2. Do you think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights or the other way around and why? I believe that prioritizing the pollution over property rights is the main concern because the pollution will affect the property, so focusing on the pollution will then help the property. Once we get the pollution of the property under control, the we can focus on the property rights. But the effects the pollution has on the environment outweighs the property rights.
1. If livestock continues to pollute rivers and streams through their feces, there could be many health problems or concerns. If the contaminated water goes goes stream to the point in which humans are at risk and begin effected, this becomes a huge problem. Also, polluting the water with animal waste, it could harm creatures living in it and have consequences for whole ecosystems.
ReplyDelete2. We should prioritize pollution over property rights and what not because in the long run it will yield a much more significant negative effect. Rancher will eventually find a way to get around these regulations and assimilate but the contaminated rive and stream water will not be able to.
1. There are health concerns linked with the pollution caused by live stock. Rivers and streams can easily be polluted by live stock. Moreover, not only are humans in danger. But the ecosystems as a whole are at risk.
ReplyDelete2. Stopping pollution should be valued over property rights, because in this instance the exercised right of property violates the rights of others through its negative effect on health.
1. What future environmental/societal problems could arise if livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams?
ReplyDeleteIf livestock continues to pollute rivers and streams, there could be extreme health risks to people downstream. Bacteria and viruses in cows could stay in the water and risk harming people downstream. Also, manure, as a fertilizer, could add unnecessary or extra polltarts to the water that could change chemical make-up, which would affect animals and plants downstream that are not meant to have so much a certain substance.
2. Do you think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights or the other way around and why?
In this case, if the ranchers do not find a way to stop pollution of their own accord, the pollution should be placed over individual property rights, as harm to the environment will harm more people than harm to an individual's property. If farmers are allowed to continue to harm the environment, more people are likely to be affected in a negative way than should be allowed to occur. Overall, one persons health is not worth an entire environment's/people's, which is why pollution should be prioritized over property rights.
1. The pollution from the cattle could lead to diseases in the water from the river, and it could destroy the river's ecosystem.
ReplyDelete2. Stopping pollution should be valued over property rights since in the long run, this pollution could have a large negative impact on the environment and the people that live in that environment.
1. What future environmental/societal problems could arise if livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams?
ReplyDeleteIf livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams, it could lead to extreme health risks to people downstream. This is because bacteria and viruses from the cattle could stay in the water, and the manure fertilizer could add even more pollutants to the water. This would change the chemical makeup of the water and harm the people, animals, plants, and systems downstream that are not meant to have those pollutants.
2. Do you think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights or the other way around and why?
I think that stopping pollution should be prioritized over property rights because pollution has an effect on the entire system of the earth, and so if you pollute and think its ok because its on your own property, that pollution will still be a problem once you are gone and it affects everybody else.
1) Essentially, if this continues it could lead to water pollution and also destroying the ecosytem of the river. The pollution caused by the livestock could end up being very hazardous.
ReplyDelete2) Pollution should be prioritized because in the grand scheme of things it will cause more damage. The negative effects of polution are much more harmful than property rights. The river cannot adapt to the pollution, but people can find ways to adapt to the property issues.
1. What future environmental/societal problems could arise if livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams?
ReplyDelete- Environmental problems that could arise is water pollution, and river species/ecosystem loss.
2. Do you think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights or the other way around and why?
- I personally believe that property rights should be held over pollution in this matter because having a river is an essential part that the ranch needs to work, and the pollution isn't chemical, but can be biodegraded.
1. If livestock contijuebto pollute rivers and streams, it could lead to health risks of people downstream from the pollution point as well as destroying ecosystems within the river.
ReplyDelete2. I think that pollution should be a priority because pollution affects the earth as a. W hole while one property only affects a small area of land.
1.) If livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams it will be more challenging to keep rivers clean and free of disease. In addition, there is potential for the waste to kill the ecosystem of the river.
ReplyDelete2.) believe that prioritizing the pollution over property rights is the main concern because the pollution will affect the property, so focusing on the pollution will then help the property. Once we get the pollution of the property under control, the we can focus on the property rights. But the effects the pollution has on the environment outweighs the property rights.
1.) The future environmental/societal problems that could arise if livestock continue to pollute rivers and streams are that it will be harder to keep rivers clean and free from pollution of animal feces, and waste. This would cause the ecosystem of the river to be destroyed, and for other animals to have a harder time living.
ReplyDelete2.) I believe that pollution should be prioritized over property rights because in the long run the pollution has the ability to destroy the rivers life and the surrounding ecosystems. If they help control the pollution than the property rights can then be addressed afterwards since they will feed off of each other.
1. If livestock continues to pollute rivers and streams , there could be many health problems or concerns.The problem comes when the pollution starts to affect humans and harm their health.
ReplyDelete2. Stopping pollution should be valued over property rights since it affects more than just one person. Personal right should be weighed but if ones personal rights infringe on another there is an issue.
1. If livestock continues to pollute rivers and streams the pollutants could disrupt the local ecosystems and contamination would spread with the flow of the river so eventually all the water will be contaminated and many ecosystems will be disrupted then the situation will escalate until the point where we all die.
ReplyDelete2. I do think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights because it affects everybody and is for the benefit of the greater good.
1. The pollutants could effect the health of other people living downstream by putting foreign bacteria into their water that could spread illness. In addition, cow poop is a type of manure and therefore promotes growth in these rivers. By changing the levels of nutrients in the water, foreign plant or algae may grow in the rivers, changing the ecosystem.
ReplyDelete2. Pollution affects more people than an individuals property rights and should therefore take priority. Individual rights are very important and should not be abused, but the impact these regulations would have on individual ranchers is small in comparison to the damage that could be done without these rules.
1. The pollutants could effect the health of other people living downstream by putting foreign bacteria into their water that could spread illness. In addition, cow poop is a type of manure and therefore promotes growth in these rivers. By changing the levels of nutrients in the water, foreign plant or algae may grow in the rivers, changing the ecosystem.
ReplyDelete2. Pollution affects more people than an individuals property rights and should therefore take priority. Individual rights are very important and should not be abused, but the impact these regulations would have on individual ranchers is small in comparison to the damage that could be done without these rules.
1. Pollutants could effect the health of the entirety of the river system downstream of where they were introduced. This would be done through the introduction of foreign diseases,spreading illness.
ReplyDelete2.The complete contamination of a river system is much more important than one rancher's lazyness. Individual rights are important, but in consideration of the overall consequences possible in this situation, the health of the ecosystem takes precedence.
1. If livestock continues to pollute the water in rivers and streams they could endanger and even cause the extinction of species in these waters. The pollution could potentially destroy the ecosystem and in addition the pollution could spread to other rivers or streams that the first polluted come into contact with
ReplyDelete2. I do think that pollution should be prioritized over property rights because the pollution has the potential to spread and harm more than just that specific area. The owners of these properties can find other ways to deal with their issues as well instead of causing harm to the environment
1) The continued pollution could endanger the livestock that it helps. the cows, for examples, who's waste drains into the water supply, drink that same water and become sick.
ReplyDelete2) Contamination is of higher importance, if we want a sustainable development curve to continue
1. Fecal pollution causes eutrophication of water resources becasue it is nutrient rich. If the water is consumed, it can cause infection of e coli, coliform, etc.
ReplyDelete2. Water rights are different than other property rights because in water rights, one can damage the property of others downstream. To this extent, water resources are especially important to maintain and regulate. In this case, I think that the rancher should have to act, though not only on his own dime. Also, a crossing can be built that does not risk contamination, so his argument is weak.