Planning for sustainable water quality Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Planning for sustainable water quality - Essay Example In the past, majority of ecological and human crises originate from inadequate access to, and mismanagement of water resources. Aquatic ecosystems, land, and community goals may be destroyed in the process of harnessing water. The growing population may increase water-related problems, and the state has to plan for sustainable water projects. Sustainability guarantees access to basic amounts of water necessary for sustaining human health and to sustain the ecosystem. Sustainability of water resources provides room for renewal of these resources ensuring a constant supply of water. Environmental planning agencies have to assess water quality changes associated with land use activities. The main factors influencing water quality are vegetation, farming methods, and soil type. Rain water contains dissolved gases and minerals (150). These minerals react chemically with the soil constituents when rain water reaches the ground. Land use alters the composition and texture of the surface soi l. The initial interference involved dumping of human and animal wastes into water systems. Improved farming techniques such as the use of fertilizers and pesticides interfere with water quality. Fertilizer and pesticides runoff increase the nutrient levels present in water naturally. Most of these pesticides contain harmful chemicals that cause water poisoning and chemical reactions in the water. Some of the chemicals are volatile and deposited in the air due to exposure to the atmosphere. Chemicals dissolved in water affect natural minerals in the water and they affect marine and human lives. Deforestation is popular in forests, which are also the catchment areas of rivers. Some farmers practice poor farming methods that loosen the soil structure. Activities such as overstocking and overgrazing deprive the land vegetation cover that cements soil particles together. Runoff from these areas contains sediments that are washed into water sources. Sediment loading increases the amount of soil particles and minerals in water sources. In urban areas, industries produce chemical effluent and gases that contaminate water pathways and the atmosphere (157). These gases dissolve in rain water to form acidic rainfall or increase chemical components in the water. Industrial waste washed into watersheds contains poisonous metals and chemicals that cause health complication in animals and humans. Planners must consider the effect of different land uses on the water quality. Minimizing effluent from industries and agricultural can improve the quality of water distributed to homesteads. The federal government passed the Clean Water Act that regulates discharges of pollutants into water bodies and regulates the quality standards for surface water. In this act, EPA has implemented programs to control water pollution such as setting wastewater standards for industries. According to CWA, discharging pollutants from a point source into navigable waters is unlawful unless a permit is acquired. Point sources are conveyances such as man-made ditches and pipes that carry water. The act also provides assistance to public water treatment projects that improve wastewater treatment (160). These projects convert wastewater to safe water that can be utilized by ordinary citizens. Industries cannot discharge waste water directly into public water treatments areas without prior purification. The pretreatment aims at reducing toxic wastes discharged into these treatment works. EPA has also

The Miranda Rights Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

The Miranda Rights - Term Paper Example Information that has been sourced from a criminal suspect that was not read his/ her Miranda rights is considered as being unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to by all individuals. Most criminal suspects that confess to committing a crime are forced to do so while under police custody. Law enforcement officers who interview such suspects usually make them feel that confessing is the only option of getting out of their situation easily. However, if a suspect is made to feel as if they have to confess, and they actually confess without having had their Miranda rights read to them, the evidence from what they say to incriminate themselves is admissible in court. History and purpose of Miranda rights The Miranda court case was introduced in 1966 in the case of Miranda versus Arizona. In this particular case, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnap and rape. Miranda was not informed right to remain silent and avoid self -incrimination when arrested. Miranda was also subjected to the physical stress of having had to stand for the whole day in the room where he was also interrogated. Miranda was also not informed of his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to seek legal counsel from a lawyer. After being identified by the victim, Miranda was made to sign a confession of the crime. The evidence in form of writing that was agreed to by Miranda was used against him in a court of law leading to a conviction of a period of 20- 30 years. Miranda’s lawyer appealed against the court case decision on the basis that his client was not mirandized (Goldstein & Goldstein, 20). The Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the previous court decision to use the confession evidence. The court cited that a confession admitting to a crime cannot be dismissed on any grounds. However, the court acknowledged that Miranda was not allowed the opportunity to access a lawyer (Prentzas, 93). The lawyer would have offered Mirand a legal advice to remain silent and not give out information that would have been incriminating and led to his conviction. Miranda was absolutely denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Constitutional rights. The court conviction was overturned on the basis that the information that was used to prosecute Miranda was coerced and that he was not informed of his rights. If Miranda was aware of his right to provide evidence before a lawyer or remain silent, he would not have incriminated himself. This court decision made the judicial stand and intent clear on the important of reading individuals their rights before they are interrogated. If a suspect who is in custody decides to remain silent during the question, it is well within his/ her legal rights. If the individual asks for legal counsel to be present during the questioning, the individual is also within his/ her rights (Siegel, 29). The decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren led to the naming of the Miranda rights as they are so know n till to date. The decision was considered to being controversial since it was considered that Miranda was guilty since he had been identified by the victim and he had agreed to sign the document that he had kidnapped and raped the victim in question. However, Miranda was arrested again on the basis of the victim’s testimony. However, the confession that had been signed by