(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Scary story #1: Due to the collapse of the US housing market, mayors in many parts of Florida have been warned that their municipal tax base will likely shrink by $1.5 trillion this year.
Scary story #2: Last week, Buffalo, NY’s comptroller’s office confirmed that rising interest rates on the variable rate bonds used to finance improvements to the municipal water system have cost the city an additional $90,000 in borrowing costs.
We all know these examples are not isolated incidents.
It looks like the Wall Street meltdown is the gift that keeps on giving, including – it appears – the harsh reality that the cost of retrofitting, repairing, and rehabilitating our aging infrastructure just got a whole lot more expensive. If this isn’t a crisis, I don’t know what is. After all, in 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers released a study indicating that over the next five years the US would need to spend over $1.5 trillion to whip US infrastructure into “reasonably decent shape.” And the EPA has said that it’s going to cost upwards of $440 billion over the next 20 years to repair our water and wastewater systems.
Shrinking tax bases, rising interest rates, and a tightened credit market – not the ideal environment for promoting infrastructure investment. There’s been lots of talk by pundits, news anchors, and candidates about Wall Street versus Main Street, but is it really an either/or situation? As the examples above prove, the financial and institutional health of our communities is directly dependent upon the wellbeing of our financial markets. Nobody got into this mess alone, and it’s doubtful that one-sided solutions will be strong enough to pull us out of this economic nosedive.
We need innovative thinking, multi-layered propositions, and a commitment to continue to invest in our country – its people, its structures, and its foundation – even in the face of frightening statistics and skittish investors. Now is not the time to freeze cityworks, shelve construction plans, or curtail in any way the repairs that must be made, the retrofits that must be installed, and the rehabilitation that our water and wastewater systems desperately need.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
De-Centralizing
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of a water crisis. You can blame it on climate change or aging infrastructure or green-lawn addicts, but whichever devil you choose the outcome is still the same: a diminishing supply struggling to meet an ever-growing demand.
Decentralized water systems (both treatment and delivery) can attack the problem of a shrinking water supply in two ways. First, advances in water reuse now allow for pristine, potable-quality water to be discharged back into the water supply, thereby curtailing the amount of water “lost” to pollution. Secondly, when onsite water treatment is combined with water reuse, we can insure that valuable drinking water is not squandered on green lawns in the desert or urban carwashes.
While municipal water treatment and delivery systems are most often associated with centralized systems (like city sewers or water utilities), the refinement of treatment technologies, ever-grander land development, and the push to “green” public and private industry is sure to change all that: one day onsite water treatment will go beyond the backyard septic system and bleed into the municipal market where it can reach its full potential and vastly improve the management and conservation of our water resources.
In Europe, that day has already come…
The public sewer systems in Germany are over 100 years old and rapidly deteriorating. Experts warn it could take years and several billion dollars to rehabilitate the centralized systems currently in place. The high cost associated with maintaining the existing centralized systems has prompted the exploration of alternative treatment systems. “As with an old car,” explains Dr. Harald Hiesll of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI (Fraunhofer-ISI), “if the costs for repairs and renovations start to increase, you should think about whether to make further investments in the old system or whether a new system would be more sensible in the long term"
In April of 2003, the Fraunhofer-ISI initiated the AKWA 2100 project in order to “investigated alternative water infrastructure systems.” The study concluded that although rehabilitating the current centralized system was the least expensive option, abandoning a centralized system altogether in favor of a combination of decentralized water treatment and water reuse was the better option. According to Dr. Hiessl, the sustainable aspects of combining onsite water treatment with water recycling far outweighed the 5-15% increase in cost.
Although this study was conducted in Europe, it has international implications. The conclusion drawn by the study – that decentralized systems in an urban environment are “technologically and economically feasible”– should serve as a clarion call to municipalities around the world.
There are several reasons for a municipality to encourage onsite water treatment. A decentralized system allows for greater flexibility when it comes to growth and development. Onsite water treatment facilities also allow for the development of previously inaccessible areas, opening up development opportunities for communities bursting at the seams. Of course, as cities expand, the strain on water resources increases. What better way to mitigate increased water demand than to combine water treatment with water recycling?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of a water crisis. You can blame it on climate change or aging infrastructure or green-lawn addicts, but whichever devil you choose the outcome is still the same: a diminishing supply struggling to meet an ever-growing demand.
Decentralized water systems (both treatment and delivery) can attack the problem of a shrinking water supply in two ways. First, advances in water reuse now allow for pristine, potable-quality water to be discharged back into the water supply, thereby curtailing the amount of water “lost” to pollution. Secondly, when onsite water treatment is combined with water reuse, we can insure that valuable drinking water is not squandered on green lawns in the desert or urban carwashes.
While municipal water treatment and delivery systems are most often associated with centralized systems (like city sewers or water utilities), the refinement of treatment technologies, ever-grander land development, and the push to “green” public and private industry is sure to change all that: one day onsite water treatment will go beyond the backyard septic system and bleed into the municipal market where it can reach its full potential and vastly improve the management and conservation of our water resources.
In Europe, that day has already come…
The public sewer systems in Germany are over 100 years old and rapidly deteriorating. Experts warn it could take years and several billion dollars to rehabilitate the centralized systems currently in place. The high cost associated with maintaining the existing centralized systems has prompted the exploration of alternative treatment systems. “As with an old car,” explains Dr. Harald Hiesll of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI (Fraunhofer-ISI), “if the costs for repairs and renovations start to increase, you should think about whether to make further investments in the old system or whether a new system would be more sensible in the long term"
In April of 2003, the Fraunhofer-ISI initiated the AKWA 2100 project in order to “investigated alternative water infrastructure systems.” The study concluded that although rehabilitating the current centralized system was the least expensive option, abandoning a centralized system altogether in favor of a combination of decentralized water treatment and water reuse was the better option. According to Dr. Hiessl, the sustainable aspects of combining onsite water treatment with water recycling far outweighed the 5-15% increase in cost.
Although this study was conducted in Europe, it has international implications. The conclusion drawn by the study – that decentralized systems in an urban environment are “technologically and economically feasible”– should serve as a clarion call to municipalities around the world.
There are several reasons for a municipality to encourage onsite water treatment. A decentralized system allows for greater flexibility when it comes to growth and development. Onsite water treatment facilities also allow for the development of previously inaccessible areas, opening up development opportunities for communities bursting at the seams. Of course, as cities expand, the strain on water resources increases. What better way to mitigate increased water demand than to combine water treatment with water recycling?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Personal Responsibility Versus Government Action
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an age-old argument: How much should we be held accountable for as individuals, and at what point should the government step in to help? When it comes to water conservation and efficiency, the question becomes even more complex: Can public outreach and a call to action be enough to inspire change, or will real results happen only after rules and regulations are enacted and enforced?
We’ve highlighted several successful public outreach programs in the magazine. Communities like Denver, Co and Seattle, Wa are just two examples—both cities have made great strides in encouraging involvement and stirring enthusiasm for water conservation and efficiency amongst its citizens. In Seattle, the Saving Water Partnership program—which is sponsored by a group of local utilities that fund water conservation programs in Seattle and King County, and includes workshops and a Web site—promotes the 1% Water Conservation Initiative, a plan to reduce personal and business water consumption 1% every year for 10 years. (For more information, go to www.savingwater.org) In the meantime, Denver’s citywide billboard program, with slogans like “Be Responsible” and “Use Only What You Need,” serve as a constant reminder to residents to stay aware and vigilant about their water usage. (For more information on Denver’s program, go to http://useonlywhatyouneed.org).
These programs work, but are they enough?
At one point, will we have to take a serious look at local, state, and federal conservation, and efficiency statutes and regulations? Some cities and states have already begun to make and enforce water conservation laws. In Georgia for example, the Georgia EPD regulates the withdrawal and use of Georgia’s ground and surface water resources and has the authority to prohibit residential outdoor water use. And in Texas, several water conservation house bills have been enacted, including rules imposing new conservation prerequisites and easing the way for greater use of “graywater” for landscape purposes. In fact, in most drought-stricken areas you can find some type of rule or law that dictates at least some facet of water usage and conservation.
Local control appears to be somewhat effective, but can we leave it up to the Cities and States, or is it time for the Federal Government to step in?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an age-old argument: How much should we be held accountable for as individuals, and at what point should the government step in to help? When it comes to water conservation and efficiency, the question becomes even more complex: Can public outreach and a call to action be enough to inspire change, or will real results happen only after rules and regulations are enacted and enforced?
We’ve highlighted several successful public outreach programs in the magazine. Communities like Denver, Co and Seattle, Wa are just two examples—both cities have made great strides in encouraging involvement and stirring enthusiasm for water conservation and efficiency amongst its citizens. In Seattle, the Saving Water Partnership program—which is sponsored by a group of local utilities that fund water conservation programs in Seattle and King County, and includes workshops and a Web site—promotes the 1% Water Conservation Initiative, a plan to reduce personal and business water consumption 1% every year for 10 years. (For more information, go to www.savingwater.org) In the meantime, Denver’s citywide billboard program, with slogans like “Be Responsible” and “Use Only What You Need,” serve as a constant reminder to residents to stay aware and vigilant about their water usage. (For more information on Denver’s program, go to http://useonlywhatyouneed.org).
These programs work, but are they enough?
At one point, will we have to take a serious look at local, state, and federal conservation, and efficiency statutes and regulations? Some cities and states have already begun to make and enforce water conservation laws. In Georgia for example, the Georgia EPD regulates the withdrawal and use of Georgia’s ground and surface water resources and has the authority to prohibit residential outdoor water use. And in Texas, several water conservation house bills have been enacted, including rules imposing new conservation prerequisites and easing the way for greater use of “graywater” for landscape purposes. In fact, in most drought-stricken areas you can find some type of rule or law that dictates at least some facet of water usage and conservation.
Local control appears to be somewhat effective, but can we leave it up to the Cities and States, or is it time for the Federal Government to step in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
