Nuclear Desalination

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

We’ve talked a lot about the connection between energy and water, but here’s another perspective courtesy of Telegraph UK. In a commentary posted in the Finance section, Commodities Editor Garry White discusses the possibility that switching to nuclear energy could help solve our water crisis. White points to the Middle East as an example of how countries like UAE (which will see it's electricity demand double by 2020) and Saudi Arabia (which is already planning to use nuclear power for 25% of its electricity needs) are looking to nuclear power as the best way to meet their future power demands. While it's true that nuclear energy will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, there is—as White points out—an added benefit: Nuclear reactors not only generate electricity, they can also desalinate water.
In fact, nuclear desalination is already being used successfully in Kazakhstan, where one nuclear reactor sits on the shore of the Caspian Sea. During that reactor's lifespan (1972–1999), it produced 135 MW of electricity and 80,000 cubic meters of potable water every day. And nuclear desalination is not confined to the middle east—Japan and India are both using nuclear reactors to desalinate water.
So what do you think? Desalination in general is energy intensive, so does pairing it up with nuclear power make it a more viable option? And although nuclear power reduces dependence on fossil fuels—and as a result contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—does that benefit outweigh the risks? And is this just a niche solution suitable for only certain hard-pressed environments (like the Middle East), or could nuclear desalination make sense for any coastal region?

What does a worst-case scenario look like?

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

We’re all aware that we are smack dab in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, and those in the know are constantly warning us that, without proper funding and implementation of large-scale repair and rehabilitation of our conveyance systems, we are all headed towards a water resource management Armageddon. There have been some high-profile examples of what can happen when water conveyance systems start to fail, including a series of water main breaks that peppered Los Angeles earlier this year.
But this week in Kalama, WA, I think we’ve finally found an example of exactly what a worst-case scenario looks like. The facts, as reported in The Seattle Times, are as follows: On December 14, 2009 a frozen water main ruptured, resulting in a 15-foot gash and a complete draining of the municipal reservoir—over 1 million gallons lost. Adding insult to injury, the city’s other reservoir—which normally holds about 2 million gallons—is undergoing a series of repairs and is also empty. As a result, Kalama found itself completely bereft of a local water supply for several hours. Thanks to emergency measures, water service was restored to Kalama by the end of the day, but with all the attendant safety notices and boil-water alerts. Nevertheless, the Emergency Management Director for Cowlitz County, Grover Laseke, says it could take days to refill the reservoirs using wells in the area.
There’s no indication that anything other than the weather undermined Kalama’s water main, but be it Mother Nature, structural failures, or even sabotage, the result is the same: a broken pipe, a dry faucet, and a community without water. So what can Kalama, WA—population 2,000—teach us about water resource management and aging conveyance systems? Was this situation avoidable? Is the weather (and other environmental factors) a significant threat to existing pipelines and water mains, or are only aging or poorly maintained conveyance systems vulnerable? And was the situation in Kalama, two drained reservoirs, just an example of bad timing, or the canary in the gold mine, warning us all that our local supplies are always in jeopardy?

All Bark and No Bite?

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Earlier this year, California’s Department of Water Resources released its Pre-Final Draft of California’s Water Plan Update 2009. While the California Water Plan itself has been around since 1957, this latest version is intended to be viewed as an all-encompassing framework designed to efficiently manage California’s water resources. The 2009 plan builds upon what was originally established in the 2005 version; the two major points of which were integrated regional water management and improved statewide water management systems. The former focused on enabling individual regions within the state to implement self-sufficient strategies, while the latter focused on infrastructure upgrades and improvements. The 2009 updates goes further, listing specific areas of action and focus, including:
* Acknowledgement that the Water Plan is a living document that needs to continue to evolve in future updates
* Improved data, analytical tools, and information management and exchange
* Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
* Integrates information and recommendations from many state agency planning documents, particularly those represented on the Water Plan Steering Committee
* Integrated flood management
* Updated resource management strategies and regional reports
* Updated regional water balances to include eight years
* Consideration of uncertainty, risks, and resource sustainability into planning for the future
According to the Department of Water Resources, the 2009 update has “13 objectives that will help us achieve the Water Plan goals. Meeting these objectives, and planning and investing in their 110 related actions, will help California deal with a changing climate and other uncertainties and risks, and provide more adaptive and resilient ecosystems and more sustainable water and flood systems.”
One of the most talked about portions of this state water plan is the mandate for urban water conservation—20% by 2020 to be exact. But the vagueness of that mandate is raising eyebrows—specifically, the fact that the reduction is not based on total water used, that the regulation for reduction lacks viable enforcement methods (water districts that fail to meet the 20% goal risk eligibility for government grants and loans, but do not face fines or penalties), and the focus on urban water management without also including agriculture—which uses almost 80% of all water consumed in California.
So what do you think? Is this water plan another broad mandate with no real teeth? As critics have pointed out, regions measure water use in many different ways, and with no real baseline for usage that 20% reduction becomes meaningless. And what about failing to address the elephant in the room: California’s large water buffalos and agricultural use

Subsidized Water

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Water and Energy—two forces forever bound together … it’s a relationship we’ve discussed many times. Because of the delicate balance between these two elements, conservation of one ultimately leads to conservation of the other (usually with the added bonus of reduced operational costs). But when there’s disturbance in this interplay, inefficiency takes hold, and we are left with a costly and wasteful delivery system. At other times, a surplus at one end of the spectrum can supplement a shortfall: But, does this kind of overcompensation really serve our ultimate goal of an efficient system that promotes conservation of all our precious resources?
Case in point: Arizona’s Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP—one of the state’s largest water suppliers—supplies water to farmers and 10 cities in and around the Phoenix area. But the SRP’s water delivery system has been operating with a financial deficit for years. According an article published this week in the Arizona Republic, the SRP ended the last fiscal year with a $33 million deficit. How does the SRP make up the difference? Electricity.
It costs the SRP $47 million deliver all of its water, and, while SRP customers pay $14 million of that bill in water assessments, electricity customers pick up the remaining $33 million. Using an energy surfeit to subsidize water delivery is nothing new for Arizona—for the past 100 years, power revenue has filled the gap between the cost to deliver water and the amount customers are charged on the receiving end. This quid-pro-quo started in 1909, when the Roosevelt Dam was paid for, in part, by the electricity revenue received from the energy generated by the dam. Once the SRP took over dam operations from the federal government, three more dams were built downstream using the same sort of energy-funding setup (with the added bonus of water storage). In fact, SRP officials have said that it’s this ability to store water and sell electricity that’s allowed for widespread development in Arizona.
So what do you think? Should electricity revenue subsidize water delivery? By artificially stabilizing water rates (and keeping those rates low despite increased demand or reduced supply), is the SRP encouraging water waste? According the SRP, only 1.4% of a customer’s energy bill goes funds water operations, but that figure does not take into account that all water users are not created equally—a single-family home, for example, uses less water than a even the smallest farm. It’s a complex issue, with many competing interests, but, in the end, as long as water customers are not paying the true cost for the resources they are con

Keeping It Local

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

A few weeks back, I asked, “What’s your standard?”. In exploring the vagaries of water use, water needs, and water waste, I discussed the challenges inherent in any attempt to standardize efficiency measurements. In particular, any attempt to create a cohesive measurement system (and we all know, “you can’t manage what you don’t measure”), must depend on verifiable data, clear benchmarks, and a set of agreed upon metrics. Additionally, if the point of measuring is to encourage conservation, then any system must also include incentives to encourage water efficiency.
One of the greatest challenges when it comes to measuring and monitoring water use involves accounting for regional differences. What might be effective in one community could be counterproductive in another. In fact, it could be that standards and measurements will ultimately have to be tailored to deal with the unique properties of each watershed.
An example of the looming showdown between national protocols and local controls is already taking shape in California. Last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the state of California is well within its rights to create its own set of water conservation standards for clothes washing machines. In its decision, the Court overturned a US DOE decision to bar California from establishing its own water efficiency. In Judge William Canby’s decision, the judge indicated that improving efficiency was essential given the state’s current water crisis.
So what do you think? Is the DOE fighting the wrong fight here? Are states better able to handle their own resources? And if so, how do we account for resources that cross state lines?
Click here for more on the 9th District’s decision.

Private or Public?

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


In my first blog, “Titans of Industry — Should Big Business Control the Tap?”, I discussed the privatization of water delivery systems around the world. About 75% of water utilities in the US are public, and although their customers certainly can find themselves on the wrong end of a rate hike, as I stated in that first-ever blog, the not-for-profit utilities have “the luxury of using water rates to promote conservation.” But when profit is a motive, what happens?
In discussing the possibility of privatizing Chicago’s water delivery system in an article entitled, “Leasing water system could be a risky move for Chicago”, the Chicago Tribune’s Michael Hawthorne first points to the experiences of other municipalities who have made that choice, including Atlanta and, even, the Chicago suburb of Bolingbrook which, as the Tribune points out, is “one of dozens of suburbs and downstate communities furious about steep rate increases imposed by a private water operator.” Privatization is a contentious issue, and Chicago should perhaps pay heed to its neighbors—as Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar puts it, “We should control our own destiny, not turn it over to some private operation.”
In the past, I’ve focused primarily on international communities (like rural China and South America) that have suffered under the yoke of privatized water systems, but as Hawthorne’s article makes clear, many US towns and cities have been equally burdened by privatization. There’s Fort Wayne, IN, for example, which is attempting to buy back the remaining portion of its water system (after already successfully reclaiming one part) because of conflicts between shareholder interest and customer concerns. And as mentioned, Atlanta is also suffering under a 20-year deal with a corporate operator, which has so far resulted in “cost overruns, service problems, and breakdowns.”
Why would a community contemplate privatization? Because private water companies offer tantalizing promises to fix leaky pipes, rehabilitate aging infrastructure, and improve operations, while simultaneously offering pure and plentiful tap water to its customers. And the rate hikes? Well, that money is needed to fund future system improvements and promote water conservation.
There’s no point in making private water companies into the bogeyman, but it’s certainly worth taking a closer look at the panacea they offer. First of all, punitive incentives like water rate increases can go a long way towards reducing water waste. But, can’t positive reinforcement—like conservation education and government-sponsored tools (like rebate programs and free water audits)—be equally effective?

What’s Your Standard

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

It’s an oft-repeated phrase: You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the realm of water efficiency—how can you know if you’re effectively allocating your resources if you don’t have an accurate assessment of what those resources are? But there’s another side to this equation that’s a little more problematic: How do you determine the methodology behind your measurements and—perhaps more importantly—how do you develop the baseline that those measurements are compared against?
In other words: What’s your standard? More importantly, how do you develop that standard? The initial steps are pretty straightforward: Define what you will measure, decide how you will measure it, and then determine how those measurements will be used. Seems simple enough—collect some data based on a metric you’ve devised, then compare that data to the benchmark you’ve established, and voilà!
As is often the case, actually implementing those steps is a bit more complicated. Deciding what will be measured means prioritizing based on the goals you want to achieve and the activities you deem most important. And those judgment calls will be different for each community and organization.
For the water efficiency professional, water use is the top priority, but which use is the most important? Residential? Commercial? Indoors or outdoors? What about imbedded energy or source protection? If you’re a residential community, how much water use per household is a reasonable amount? Is it 59 gallons per day average determined by the AWWARF Residential End Uses of Water study? Is that total acceptable when combined with widespread low-flow fixture installation? Should outdoor water use be added to the mix?
Measurement methodology comes with its own set of challenges, because how you measure is just as important as what you measure. Do you measure based on past performance? Do you use a percentage reduction, or rely strictly on gallons per day? Do you base your metrics on regional demands (landscaping in the desert versus green lawns in the Pacific Northwest), or do you develop a national standard based on weather forecasting and interstate water rights? And if you decide on a percentage-based calculation, are you penalizing early adopters who have already reduced their water use to a point where any further progress will be incremental?
And if the first step of any water conservation initiative is to establish what is being measured and how it’s being measured, then the next step is to add meaning to that data in the form of easily identifiable benchmarks. Those benchmarks can be based on a set of predetermined goals (a desire to reduce overall water use by “X” amount for example) or specific needs (protecting groundwater resources). But how do you choose?
There are, of course, national and regional programs that attempt to set water use standards, but those organizations have undoubtedly fallen into the same pitfalls mentioned above: regional variations, nebulous baseline calculations, inadvertent penalization of early adopters. Community concerns should certainly be considered, but there’s risk that real needs could be obscured by special interests, and the competing requests of Balkanized entities focused on their own requirements.
If all this sounds overwhelming, you’re not alone. Stepping into the water efficiency standards debate is akin to peeling the skin off of that proverbial onion—every step you take triggers a whole set of considerations.
So what do you think? Does developing some sort of repository of verifiable data make sense? And if so, what should this repository include? And is it possible to create a set of regional and case-specific standards designed to promote water efficiency that include understandable metrics, easily accessible benchmarks, and incentives to encourage continued improveme

WE Professionals Take a Bow

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


The numbers are in, and the news is good: American’s are using less water. According to a report released by USGS, water use in the US is the lowest it’s been since the 1950s. In fact, in the last 30 or so years, the change in water use in the US has been nothing short of amazing: Today our nation consumes less water than it did 30 years ago, and per capita use is down nearly 30% from what it was in 1975. This is what all of us in the industry have been working towards, and it’s heartening to see numbers that illustrate without a doubt that the US has finally and firmly moved away from water waste and inefficiency, and set a course towards thoughtful, studied, and efficient water use.
Every five years, the USGS releases an assessment of water use in the US, but the numbers that appear in this most recent report have generated a lot of excitement. Some of the USGS report statistics for 2005 include:
* A reduction of total water use from 410 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d)—for residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling—down from 413 Bgal/day in 2005 (and 5% less than the peak numbers reported in 1980)
* Fresh groundwater withdrawals of 79.6 Bgal/day in 2005 (about 5% less than in 2000)
* 128 Bgal/d for irrigation withdrawals (about 8% less than in 2000 and approximately equal to estimates of irrigation water use in 1970)
* And although there was a 2% increase in public supply withdrawals (44.2 Bgal/d in 2005), population increased by more than 5% during the same period.
While the conservation numbers are exciting, it’s also interesting to see exactly where all our water goes:
* Nearly 30% of all fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005 occurred in five states: California, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois.
* Irrigation accounts for more than half of all groundwater withdrawals in California, Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Idaho.
* Almost 67% of fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005 were for irrigation.
* Another 18% of groundwater withdrawals were for the country’s public supply.
* In Florida, 52% of all fresh groundwater withdrawals were for public supply, and 34% were for irrigation.
All of us involved in water efficiency and conservation should feel proud. The USGS report specifically credits water-saving technologies and public outreach for the drop in usage throughout the country. As Susan Hutson, one of authors of the report, points out, “Even during a time of population growth and economic growth, we are all using less water. It’s exciting to see we have responded to these crises by really seeking solutions.”

Pipe Bursts, News at 11

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Every day lately, it seems like news comes out of Los Angeles about yet another sinkhole appearance or water main failure. In fact, on just one Tuesday in October, the city experienced the following calamities (source: Los Angeles Times)
* The rupture of a 12-inch steel water main on Mulholland Drive, that sent water gushing onto surrounding streets and homes
* A break in a 6-inch cast-iron water main, that caused a sinkhole and spit mud and debris out onto surrounding streets
* A pipe break at a major intersection, that lifted up asphalt and forced the closure of said intersection for extensive repairs
Three in one day may not seem unusual for a large metropolitan area, but 18 similar incidents in October, combined with an additional 44 in September, brought the tally to an eye-popping 62 significant leaks since September 1. Residents were concerned, and city officials were quick to point out that despite the unusual rash of water main bursts this fall, the situation in Los Angeles is about par for the course for the city (and most urban locations throughout the country). According to the Los Angeles Times, “The city’s 7,200 miles of pipe are not actually leaking more than usual—in fact, the number of leaks, about 1,400 a year, is down from the past.” But the leaks are still significant—having caused more destruction and wasted more water than is normally expected from leaks and main breaks of this magnitude.
So what can cities like Los Angeles do to mitigate these losses and protect against future occurrences?
One solution is to follow the International Water Association’s (IWA) water loss guidelines, as set out by the Water Loss Task Force, created by the IWA in 1996.
Under these guidelines, the first step involves the creation of standard water balance using international terminology. In other words, a water audit should be performed to determine “the major components of water consumption and water loss.” The next step is to develop performance indicators for water utilities. One of these indicators involves the measurement of “non-revenue water.” Non-revenue water is the difference between the amount of water released into the distribution systems and the amount customers are billed for using. Finally, a community or municipality should develop strategies to reduce water loss through leak management, including improving the speed and quality of repairs, pressure management, and active leak control.
So what do you think? Are these guidelines “doable?” Is there a better way? And can the promised ARRA funding for infrastructure improvements make these daily pipe-bursts a thing of the past?

Drought, Demand, and the GW Bogeyman

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Last year, in my editorial entitled “The Perfect Storm”, I discussed the Southeast’s “killer” drought and the role water waste played in the current supply crisis in Georgia and its neighbors. Specifically, I postulated “while water shortages like those faced in Georgia are the result of a variety of factors, water inefficiency can be placed squarely near the top of the list.” In fact, a report by World Water Vision had made the same point, “There is a water crisis today, but the crisis is not about having too little water to satisfy our needs,” it states. “It is a crisis of managing water so badly that billions of people—and the environment—suffer.” Now a study by Columbia University has come to the same conclusion.
Last month, researchers from the university’s Lamont-Doherty Earty Observatory concluded that the current Southeast drought is actually mild, compared to other historical shortages, and that, in fact, the severity of the current drought has less to do with climate change and more to do with population growth and ineffective infrastructure planning. Researchers compared instrumental weather records from the last century with tree-growth ring studies and discovered that over the last 500 years the region has seen droughts that are more severe, longer lasting, and with even more severe consequences. Of particular historic note: A series of droughts from the late 1500s through the 1600s has been linked (in other studies) with the destruction of several Spanish and English new world colonies—including Jamestown, VA. In comparison, the Southeast of the 20th century has benefited from abundant precipitation, and even the current dry spell is nothing compared to the periods between 1998–2002.
In fact, the real issue is not so much diminished supply as inefficiency. By not accounting for its rising population (an increase of almost 50% over the last 17 years and still rising) or working to reduce user demand, the state is now stuck: Increasing usage, increasing waste, and a collection and storage system are in desperate need of overhauls and upgrades. And the news only gets worse for the region—explaining that climate change has yet to really impact precipitation patterns, the report’s authors warn that when the effects really kick in, the state’s water woes are likely to get worse.
So what do think? Are the results of this study predictable, or should they serve as a wake-up call? By focusing on the climate change bogeyman, have we gone too far afield? And, won’t dealing with the current state of our supply and infrastructure put us in a better position to battle whatever future plans Mother Nature may have in store for us?

Smart Water Use

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

(Dispatch from WaterSmart Innovations 2009)
Dan Bena, Director of Sustainability, Health, Safety and Environment for PepsiCo delivered the opening keynote at WaterSmart Innovations 2009. The EPA recently named PepsiCo one their 2008 Water Efficiency Leaders, and in the May/June issue of Water Efficiency, we highlighted PepsiCo’s water conservation and sustainability efforts. (“Conservation Corp,”)
In his keynote address, Bena discusses the differences between water supply and use in industrialized nations versus the third-world, in order to illustrate how competing perspectives can influence behavior. In one startling example, Bena juxtaposed images of the world’s largest swimming pools in Algarrobo, Chile (250,000 cubic meters of water), with images of drought in Sub-Saharan Africa.
“To do nothing is not an option,” says Bena. “The cost of inaction is enormous.”
And no one can accuse PepsiCo of inaction. For starters, the company has challenged all of its facilities to meet the company’s own target goal of water consumption: reducing water use per unit of production by 20% by 2015. While working towards that goal, the company has already saved 800 million gallons of water domestically and two billion internationally.
Some of the conservation and demand reduction methods used by PepsiCo include:
• Treating and reusing wastewater produces
• Implementing dry lube technology in its manufacturing process
• Modifying maintenance tasks to create water efficiencies
• Continued monitoring of opportunities for reducing water loss and water usage
• Extending tank wash intervals
As the the second largest soft drink business in the world, PepsiCo’s actions are not insignificant, something the company is well aware of considering that many of its operations are based in nations facing severe water shortages. As part of its “performance with purpose” commitment, PepsiCo announced in March of this year that it had adopted a “human right-to-water” policy for all of its domestic and overseas operations.
In a statement posted on oneworld.net, Julie Goodridge, CEO of NorthStar Asset Management—the company that aided PepsiCo in developing its new water resolution—states, “This agreement moves beyond the vague promises of water conservation that many corporations claim to support. It fully commits the company to respecting the right to sufficient clean water, as well as individuals’ rights to be involved in the development of processes that extract water from their communities.”

Delta Update

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

There’s been another twist and turn in the saga surrounding water allocations in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. In case you are unfamiliar with the situation in California’s central valley, last year the state courts delivered the infamous “Delta-smelt decision” that restricted pumping in the Delta and resulted in a drastic reduction in the amount of water delivered from the delta to the rest of California—including the every-thirsty urban enclaves in the south and agricultural interests in the heart of the state. At the beginning of this year, the California Department of Water Resources attempted to readdress the issue by proposing the construction of a 35-mile tunnel, designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south at a cost that some some estimate could be as high as $15 billion.
In response to concerns over costs and the environmental impact of such a large infrastructure project, and vociferous complaints from farmers who seen their water supplies disappear, the Obama administration stepped into the fray this week in an attempt to rectify the situation. According to the Los Angeles Times, the administration plans to dispatch experts from the National Academy of Sciences to the California to review the pumping restrictions. Additionally, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that six federal agencies had signed a memorandum of understanding to work together on delta issues.
The situation in California may seem unique, but the complex connection between drought, unchecked urban development, inefficient conveyance systems, and water-intensive agricultural interests can be found in areas throughout the US. When you add the difficulties inherent to the transfer of water over long distances (and often across city, county, or state borders), it’s clear that whether it’s California, Georgia, or the Mississippi Delta, the problem is the same: how to get water where its needed and while protecting the source.
So what do you think? Can water rights be designated and enforced? If so, should those rights be based on need or prior claim? And where do conservation and efficiency efforts fit in? Finally, is this a problem that can be solved locally or do we need to bring in the big (federal) guns?

Alternative Sources

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

In my April editorial “Divining Rods”, I stated, “With a finite amount of water available, it’s important that we use what we have wisely, but it’s equally important to find untapped sources that can supplement our current supplies and allow us to efficiently meet growing demand.” In Philadelphia, PA, that search for new sources has hit pay dirt in the form of stormwater control. According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer the city plans to spend $1.6 billion to switch away from traditional stormwater management (essentially ushering rainwater downstream) and towards a reimagined urban landscape of green roofs, porous pavements, and rain gardens.
The plan success rests, in part, on participation by all members of the community. To that end, every time a city street is dug up for standard municipal repairs and projects, it will be repaved with porous asphalt (at a slightly higher cost). And under a city ordinance, large-scale commercial structures (15,000 square feet or more) must install rainwater catchment systems. Additionally, commercial water rates are now based not on how much water is used the facility, but by how much land is covered by impervious surface materials.
The plan sounds like a “win-win:” reduced demand on the city’s sewer system, reduced energy usage, even reduced deaths (from excess heat). Jon Capacasa, regional director of water protection for the EPA, is quoted in the article, saying, “This is the most significant use of green infrastructure I’ve seen in the country, the largest scale I’ve seen.”
So what do you think? Are large-scale plans like this feasible? And are the implementation costs justified by the results?

Water Saved Is Water Earned?

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

This week, the online edition of the Desert Sun ran a news item on a surprise announcement by the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District—two of California’s biggest users of Colorado River water allotments. Turns out, both districts estimate that they will be need a significantly smaller amount of water this year than originally projected—the smallest amount, in fact, since they were required to track their use by the 2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement (QSA).
The news couldn’t have come at a better time for Los Angeles. Under the QSA, customers in the Los Angeles area (about 19 million) are entitled to any water left over from unused agricultural supplies in the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. In Los Angeles, this water windfall will not only help ease mandatory water restrictions, it will also go a long way towards replenishing the area’s water storage supply.
As is always the case in California, the announcement spurred controversy— specifically over how the water savings were achieved. Agricultural interests in Imperial and Coachella claimed that successful conservation and efficiency programs had created the surplus. But skeptics point to the weakened economy and its effect on California’s ag industry (smaller crop yields, diminished demand) as the real culprit. These warring claims have a significance—under the QSA farmers are supposed to receive funds to aid in the implementation of water conservation efforts, funds that could help farmers sustain themselves during these lean times. Without that funding, some farmers claim there is little incentive to conserve water.
In California the push-pull relationship between rural and urban water users seems never ending—one group always feels any conservation on their part leaves them at a disadvantage while unfairly benefiting the other side. What do you think? Should conservation efforts be incentive-based? Do the farmers in California’s central valley have a point? Or is the solution to look beyond the water-as-commodity paradi

Mile-High Metering

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

This week (Sept. 14, 2009) I’m in Denver, CO, attending the Utilimetrics Smart Metering Conference and Exposition, aka Autovation. The conference covers metering primarily in the electric utility industry, but there’s plenty of discussion on the role AMR and AMI play in the quest for efficient water resource management.
As you know, automatic meter reading (AMR) involves the automatic collection of data from meters (water, gas, and electric). Once the data is collected, it is transferred to a central database for analysis and metering. Of greatest benefit to a water utility is the possibility of measuring actual consumption, thereby enabling accurate billing and a more in depth and demand-sensitive resource management.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), on the other hand, pushes data management to another level by including the measurement, collection, and analysis of meter-acquired data. AMI includes not only hardware, but the master data management (MDM) software and customer interface that makes use of all the statistics and information collected, including water usage and billing. Another AMI benefit is the ability to craft sophisticated demand-response solutions.
I’m excited to see the newest and most innovative AMR/AMI technology that’ll be on display here in Denver, and you can rest assured that I’ll be passing along everything I’ve to learned to you.
In the meantime, check out some of our past AMR/AMI articles. They run the gamut from project profiles on one particular success story, to technologically focused pieces that will give you the basics, to grander articles that fix AMR/AMI within the bigger picture of water efficiency and resource management.

Smart Water Grid

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

As editor of Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I’ve heard a lot about the “smart grid” and its potential to shift our energy infrastructure into a modern—and more efficient—incarnation. No wonder then, that an article posted this week on CNET news caught my eye. Entitled “IBM Dives into ‘smart grid for water,’” Martin LaMonica’s piece lays out IBM’s ambitions and details exactly what we can expect from a “smart water grid.”
As part of a $20-billion IT-related water portfolio, IBM is teaming up with Intel to form “a working group to study how information technology can be used to improve water management.” Here at Water Efficiency, we’ve always focused on the relationship between technology, data integration, and resource management. It looks like the folks at IBM are on the right track—and following in our footsteps—by focusing on aging infrastructure, water quality, and metering.
After launching Big Green Innovations in 2007, IBM has recently begun to focus primarily on “advanced water management,” which the company describes as encompassing “a broad agenda from availability and quality to distribution and consumption.” By upgrading water conveyance systems, IBM sees an opportunity to mimic the path of smart grid implementation for electric utilities. Part of this implementation of a smart water grid would involve the collection of information related to water delivery, water quality, and non-revenue water.
Why the push into water efficiency? According to the CNET article, IBM recognizes that the connection between energy use and water delivery presents an opportunity to promote smart water use and increased water conservation, while reducing operating expenses. Additionally, several water-intense industries—like agriculture, beverage manufacturers, and semiconductor companies—are keen on controlling costs by managing their water resources wisely.
So what do you think? Is there anything new in what IBM is proposing, or is the “smart grid for water” just a new label for the water efficiency protocols we’ve been discussing for years?

Seeing Into the Future

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


This week, Los Angeles, CA, mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced that, due to concerted efforts on the part of private homeowners and government agencies, the city of Los Angeles had managed to reduce its water consumption by 17%, in July of this year. While multi-family residences measured the smallest reduction (8%), private homes achieved a 20% reduction, as government buildings dropped down a whopping 34%. Though no details were given regarding how these reductions were achieved, it’s probably safe to assume that it involved a combination of low-flow fixtures and smart irrigation techniques: basically the low-hanging fruit of water conservation. But are these small fixes enough?
For a glimpse into Los Angeles’ potential future, one need look no further than Mexico City. As a recent article in the Houston Chronicle points out, the same drought that has crippled much of Texas this year is also wreaking havoc south of the border, “killing crops and livestock and threatening to dehydrate major cities.” Mexico City in particular is struggling to keep it’s 22 million residents hydrated, and officials warn that without extreme weather intervention in the next few weeks, the city will be forced to deal with “extreme scarcity” when the dry season begins in October.
Unlike Los Angeles, which was built upon a desert, Mexico City was sits on a large lake bed that originally held more than enough water to fulfill the city’s needs. But 500 years of water waste and faulty planning have drained the lake almost entirely. And while exponential population growth is part of the problem, rampant construction—both of tunnels that flush rainfall out of the city and widespread paving of once-open land—has led to a disruption of the normal water cycle and depleted, or “over-exploited,” aquifers. And so, even though the last three months have included a fair share of rain, the area’s water basin still hold only a fraction of its normal volume—drying up while rainwater races down paved sidewalks and storm drains that empty out miles from the city center.
So, as cities like Los Angeles and Houston attempt to control and reduce water use, it will be important to look beyond showerheads and drought-resistant plants towards large-scale water resource management that includes mitigating the impact of our traditional urban landscapes on overtaxed aquifers and parched watersheds.

Thinking Big, Going Small?

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

A few weeks back, a friend of mine asked my opinion on desalination, specifically a proposed desalination plant in his hometown of San Diego, CA. As he said in his message, “I am not sold on this being the answer or even one of the answers to solving southern California’s water problems.”
I responded that, at the moment, the “cons” still outweigh the “pros” when it comes to desalination as a solution for water scarcity. First off, there are the environmental factors to consider—specifically the intake apparatus (which tends to suck up innocent sea life along with gallons of salt water), and the brine discharge (which alters the salinity near the outtake valves). But just as important are the energy implications— desalination is energy-intensive, and that energy comes from fossil fuel—which means an increase of greenhouse gas emissions and, possibly, an exacerbation of current climate conditions (i.e. global warming). Finally, desalination is very expensive, especially when simple efficiency and conservation option can help you use the supply you have in a smarter, more streamlined fashion.

Of course, there’s always an exception to the rule.
A few years back, I wrote an article on the Long Beach Desalination Research and Demonstration Program, a facility designed to counteract the main drawbacks of large-scale desalination: energy consumption and environmental impact. As I stated in that article, facility opened in in September 2005 as a research and development project capable of processing 300,000 gallons of water per day. The Long Beach plant is 20–30% more energy efficient than traditional desalination; an efficiency achieved through the use of nano-filtration and specially designed filtration membranes. Additionally, development the Under Ocean Floor Seawater Intake and Discharge Demonstration System at the Long Beach facility eliminates the danger of sea life inadvertently being sucked into the pipes and killed. Finally, after water is flushed through the second set of membranes, the final output contains less than 500 milligrams of dissolved substances per liter of water, thereby complying with EPA drinking-water standards (and mitigating brine discharge).
The Long Beach project is a good example of the future of desalination—a chance to enhance our current supplies in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. Nevertheless, developing new water supplies should be Plan B, something to fall back on once we’ve exhausted all the other options available to us. This means better leak detection, infrastructure repair and improvement, public outreach, and all other manner of water efficiency and conservation techniques we regularly discuss in Water Efficiency.
Ultimately, a cheaper—and more responsible option—would be for water-strapped communities to focus on demand reduction (via smart irrigation, low-flow fixtures, and public outreach) and increased conveyance efficiency (leak detection, infrastructure repair). Additionally, new sources in the form of water recycling (for irrigation and other non-potable uses) and rainwater harvesting should be explored before building any large, water treatment facility.
What do you think? Can our water crisis be solved by focusing on new sources (like desalination and reuse) or can small fixes (stopping that leak, convincing users to turn off that faucet) have a larger impact?

The Dead Zone

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

In my July blog for Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I appropriated the age old question of a tree falling in the woods by asking “if a green building stands empty, is it still “sustainable?” After reviewing some of today’s water headlines, I’m beginning to wonder if the same holds true for conveyance systems: If new pipes are bone dry, are they still a water delivery system? Or maybe the question should be: If you build it, will the water flow?
In January, I discussed a plan put forth by the California Department of Water Resources that attempts to alleviate increasing demand in the southern portion of the state with the construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River. This week, it was announced that, in fact, officials at the agency are conducting feasibility studies on an “all tunnel” option that involves a 35-mile tunnel designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south.
Those of you following the Delta-smelt decision in California and the resulting water shortages are aware of the contentious relationship between the northern and southern parts of the state when it comes to the management of local water resources. With pumping currently restricted (because of the endangered delta smelt), there is some question as to whether a large infrastructure project such as this underground tunnel (which some opponents allege could actually stretch as far as 50 miles) can be completed in a way that protects the delicate delta ecosystem and disperses the state’s water resources in an equitable manner. Additionally, there is some concern over costs (some estimates put the bill as high as $15 billion) and how the tunnel would be managed.
On the other side of the country, a worse case scenario is already taking shape. Some of you no doubt remember Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue’s prayer for rain. Although afterwards Atlanta did experience some much-needed precipitation, it looks like the governor’s water crisis is far from over: And Georgia is not alone. In fact, the southern states are “canaries in the coal mine”: The challenges they face and the solutions they employ are part of a first front in what could be rightly called a water war.
Last month, a judge ruled that Georgia has no more than a minor legal right to the water of Lake Lanier—making Georgia the loser in a long-running water rights dispute between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Lake Lanier supplies three million Atlanta residents, and the loss of that resource impacts the state’s rural areas in a way that mirrors the situation in California. In fact, it’s déjà vu, with environmentalists pitted against urban residents, while farmers worry that their own water allocations will dry up. And much like the ramifications felt after the delta-smelt court decision in California severely cut back the amount of water pumped out of the delta, in June of this year, a district court ruled that without a congressional deal in the next three years, withdrawals from Lake Lanier could be drastically cut.
Of course, the main difference in Georgia is that the water from Lake Lanier belongs to three states—making a resolution that much more difficult to come by. And much like California’s governor and his water task force, Governor Purdue is weighing all his options: larger legal case based on a 150-year-old supreme court decision that gives Georgia a larger share of the lake’s water, and perhaps controversial interbasin water transfers (shifting water from one river basin to another). But even if Georgia gains rights to all the water in the lake, it won’t be enough.
That’s because a continuing drought has dried up the region’s reservoirs, including Lake Lanier. Water levels at the lake (and at the Allatoona reservoir, which also supplies water to Atlanta) have shrunk so far down that all that’s left is dirty, bacteria-laden water just inches above the “dead zone”—the final layer of stored water that’s high in organic material (like decaying plants and animals) and low on oxygen. This substandard water supplying is forcing many communities to employ ever stronger water treatment methods, proving that even if you have the infrastructure in place, in the end it’s all about the level and quality of your water supply.
Go here for more on the California water tunnel.
Go here to read about the crisis in Georgia.

Interdependency

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


When you run that tap or flush that toilet, you may be able to estimate how many gallons you’re using, but how many kilowatts are going down the drain? The question is not far-fetched when you consider that, by most estimates, 3% of the nation’s energy resources are tied up to water. And that 3% is based on a narrow focus: the water-use cycle of collection, treatment, and delivery. When the water cycle is adjusted to include consumer usage, you get a total energy demand amount of almost 20%. And that’s not even counting agriculture, which—in a state like California—accounts for up 75% of total water usage, thereby directly and significantly impacting the state’s energy consumption.
The complicated relationship between energy and water does not stop at supply and demand. In a cruel ying-yang tug or war, water and energy push and pull each other in a never-ending cycle of supply and demand: Water delivery systems result in greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn can aggravate already fragile environments and disrupt local water supplies. Decreasing water supplies require more extensive water collection and distribution systems, thereby exponentially increasing energy usage.
Global climate change is an important player, both as an influence on water supply, and as a byproduct of water treatment and delivery. In return, as recent scientific studies continue to show, climate change is responsible for the disruption of water supplies across the globe.
While all water conservation efforts should be applauded, it’s not enough to throw in a couple of low-flow toilets and call it a day. What we need is a broader effort that focuses on the interdependency of all our resources. As I’ve said before, any discussion of climate change, sustainability, or “going green” must include water: our diminishing supply, our increasing demands, and the impact our water needs has on the environment, and vice versa. Water efficiency must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with energy efficiency in the national dialogue.

"Grand Theft Water"

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


Prayers for rain, water cops on the beat, artificial turf blanketing large swathes of outdoor space…welcome to drought in the good ol’ USA. Throughout the country, communities finding themselves in the grips of a water crisis are exploring all manner of water conservation and efficiency tactics. Some work better than others, but, so far, widespread panic seems to have been averted.
But if you’re wondering just how bad it can get, look no further than Australia. Southeastern Australia has been battling a debilitating drought for several years now, forcing communities large and small to limit how and when water can be used. For example, in Melbourne, gardens can be watered only on specified days, and car washing has been banned outright.
Most citizens have taken these water conservation efforts to heart and are doing their best to comply, but a few have crossed the line. In Melbourne for example, any apparent misuse ignites not just derision, but outright anger and condemnation by neighbors suspicious of grass that looks a little too green or a car that’s cleaner than all the rest. Described as “water rage” by a local newspaper, these outraged residents employ variety of vigilante tactics—from equipment sabotage to verbal threats—in an attempt to scare their water-wasting neighbors into compliance. Sometimes the situation gets out of hand—in 2003 two Sydney neighbors literally came to blows after one family felt the grass was much too green on the other side of the fence.
But now enforcement and water management has gone beyond the actions of a few aggrieved citizens: large-scale water theft—diverting entire streams of water from a river or reservoir—is the latest and greatest threat to Australia’s fragile water resource management system. For Premier Mike Rann, the possibility of “grand theft water” is a matter of national security; an act of “environmental terrorism” that demands a hefty punishment. He warns that soon prison will await anyone found guilty of illegally siphoning off water.
“Anyone who is doing this sort of thing is unbelievably treacherous to the national interest and it’s an act of terrorism against the Australian people,” says Rann. “It is a criminal offence, and anyone siphoning water off illegally, in my view, should be locked up.”
Could a similar situation unfold in the US? Is it a stretch to equate the theft of a natural resource with terrorism? What if oil was being stolen instead of water?

Low-Tech Leak Detection

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Over the weekend, I spent some time frolicking in the Nevada desert just south of Las Vegas. Okay … frolicking might not be the right word, considering the temperature got as high as 122 degrees. In that kind of extreme environment, any patch of blue or green is a miracle to behold and the winding Colorado River—sparkling blue under a cloudless sky—almost mocks you with its apparent abundance as thousands of gallons of water rush by on their way to thirsty southern California.
On this particular weekend, I wasn’t dazzled as much by the river as I was by the 2 x 2 foot square of violently green grass that has recently sprouted up in my parents’ otherwise-desolate front yard. In the past, two palm trees presided over a wasteland of yellowed weeds, but some enthusiastic weed whacking had stripped away the dead vegetation, revealing a neat patch of dirt, mostly uniform in color except for this one, verdant corner.
“We must have a leak” reasoned my father—and sure enough, we quickly determined a damaged pipe was to blame for their own little patch of green or, as I took to calling it, their little patch of low-tech leak detection.
Jokes aside, unaccounted for water is no laughing matter. Currently, experts estimate that, in the US, up to 6 billion gallons of water per day are lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. That’s enough water to supply 10 of the largest urban centers in the country. It’s the antithesis of efficiency and an appalling misuse of one of our most valuable resources. When you factor in the amount of energy (and fossil fuels) required to treat and transport all of that lost water, the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars, but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
So what’s the solution? Currently, most of the nation’s water utilities are not required to conduct regular water audits, and until we have solid data regarding the amount of water being used (and lost), attempts to reduce waste will be for naught. But water audits alone are not enough. As our editorial advisory board member George Kunkel pointed out in a March 2008 guest editorial, “in order to truly achieve water efficiency on a large scale, efficiency programs must have clearly defined goals, attributes, and measures that can be monitored to ascertain that a desired water efficient outcome is reached.” (“Water Efficiency and Accountability,”)
There are solutions on the way, including a water audit methodology developed by the AWWA and the International Water Association (IWA) in 2000, to publish a water audit methodology that features a variety of well-defined terms and an array of performance indicators. A straightforward methodology is a good first step, but clearly more is needed. What do you think? Does it make sense to mandate water audits on a national level, or can communities be trusted to take care of their own resources as they see fit?

Money-Management Musical Chairs

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Most of us have probably been forced to micromanage our budgets lately. Prices continue to rise, salaries are stagnating (for those of us lucky enough to still be employed), and pocketbooks are being pinched from coast to coast. In this current economic climate, it makes sense to look over your balance sheet and consider shifting resources from column “A” to column “B” in an attempt to make sure that, while that beach vacation may be put on hold, essential services (i.e. utilities, groceries, housing) continue to receive adequate funding.
But when budget manipulation happens at the federal level, it’s difficult to determine why certain dollars are designated to one column over another. This week, the US House of Representatives prepares to vote on appropriations for energy and water development for the 2010 fiscal year (the Senate is also moving forward and Appropriations Committee approved its version last week). According to the New York Times the House will be talking a budget proposal of around $33 billion, aimed at funding energy efficiency and waterworks projects. For water projects, the budget breaks down as follow:
The water programs that will see an increase in funding include:
* A budget of $5.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers (a $139 million increase over fiscal 2009 levels) to fund improvements on existing projects
* An additional increase to the Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance budget to $2.5 billion for infrastructure improvements
But, by shifting funds to the Army Corps of Engineers, the bill forces other agencies to deal with significantly decreased funding, including:
* Construction for new projects, which will be reduced by $19 million to just over $2 billion
* A reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers budget for investigation to just $26 million
* A reduction of $133 million from 2009 levels for flood-damage reduction projects in the Mississippi River Valley
* A $38 million cut for the Bureau of Reclamation, leaving just $920 million for water development, management, and restoration in 17 western states
* A $9 million cut in the California Bay-Delta restoration project
So what do you think? While a bulk of the money is designated for a variant of energy efficiency programs, the increased funding for water projects should be a godsend. But, does it make sense to shift federal funds away from the Bureau of Reclamation and over to the Army Corps of Engineers? Some proposed amendments that deal specifically with local water issues could close the gap—including an amendment proposed by California representatives Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza to add an additional $10million to the California Bay-Delta restoration program—but how effective is a funding bill that must be micromanaged by locally focused amendments?

A First for Rainwater Harvesting

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

As I stated in my April 2009 editorial, due to increased interest in water conservation and sustainability, rainwater catchment is “poised to become not just an interesting side note, but also a powerful tool for water-strapped cities and states.”

(Divining Rods, Elements 2010)

Known as either rainwater catchment or harvesting, the process is quite simple and can be an easy first step for any water-strapped community searching for ways to supplement their current supplies. For example, in Los Angeles, CA, six projects capture 1.25 million gallons of water for every inch of rain, and there’s no reason those results can’t be replicated throughout the country.
Rainwater harvesting may be a no brainer, but it’s mostly been treated as a second-class citizen, something to ignore or marginalize in the face of (sometimes) flashier alternatives. But what rainwater catchment lacks in bells and whistles, it more than makes up for in terms of cost and ease of implementation. In Tucson, AZ, rainwater harvesting is suddenly in the spotlight. Tucson has just enacted the nation’s first municipal rainwater harvesting ordinance for commercial projects. Under this new ordinance, developers of new corporate or commercial buildings must design all landscape irrigation, so that 50% of the water used comes from a rainwater catchment system.
Tucson officials hope that the anticipated 12 inches of annual rainfall will supplement current municipal supplies (which come from wellwater and the Colorado River), starting next year. Like Santa Fe County, NM, the Tucson harvesting ordinance allows for a passive collection system (which mostly diverts run off from parking lots and roofs), as well as small harvesting combined with pumps and drip irrigation, but Tucson’s ordinance goes one step further by allowing for active harvesting as well. The Tucson city council has also approved an additional measure that requires new homes to have a plumbing system that would allow for separate drain lines so that a graywater system can be installed, and water from sinks, showers, and other appliances can be diverted to the homeowner’s irrigation system.
Because commercial projects are often a community’s largest water consumer, this ordinance should have a significant payoff. For example, the latest remodel at Tucson’s Target included a rainwater harvesting system that catches runoff from the parking lot and diverts it to towards small landscaped sections that include native plants and trees, which are designed to hold up to 15,000 cubic feet of water that would otherwise be lost to storm drains.
So what do you think? Why aren’t more communities requiring rainwater harvesting? And, are ordinances the answer, or can public outreach use incentives to inspire individuals to implement their own catchment systems?
For more information on Tucson’s rainwater catchment ordinance, go to: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/harvesting.htm.

Purpose and Intent

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

On June 24, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the discharge of 210,000 gallons of mining waste did not violate the Clean Water Act (CWA). On the surface, the decision sounds counterintuitive. After all, how could dumping a couple hundred gallons of potentially toxic mining waste into a 23-acre lake outside Juneau, Alaska, not impact water quality and thus run counter to the intent of the CWA? After all, according the EPA’s own Web site, the CWA is “the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States.” (Emphasis added).
In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the court’s decision as preordained due to changes in the CWA at the hands of the Bush Administration, which in 2002 changed the original definition of “fill material” in the act in order to allow for the discharge of contaminated mining waste. Justice Kennedy argued that the court must “accord deference” to the Army Corps of Engineers’s interpretation of the act, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent that equal deference should be paid to the intent and purpose of the CWA itself which, she argued, plainly states that waterways cannot be used for waste disposal.
The mining company is promising to pretreat its wastewater prior to dumping, and as the former editor of Onsite Water Treatment, I know that the careful and judicious treatment of wastewater can result in almost pristine discharge. But onsite wastewater treatment cannot be taken lightly, and without knowledge of exactly what system the mining company will install, I cannot say with any authority whether its efforts will be successful or if the lake will turn into a stew of toxic runoff unfit for any plant or animal life.
So what do you think? Should the court have stuck by the original intent of the CWA, or should the mining company be given the benefit of the doubt? Can successful wastewater treatment expand our notions of water quality protection and open up new resources in the process, or will unmonitored and poorly executed treatment systems doom our waterways?

All Eyes on the West

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

I’m in San Diego, CA this week, attending the AWWA’s annual Conference and Exposition (ACE 09). Interestingly enough, the conference program includes a welcome letter from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who heads a state all too familiar with the challenges and hardships associated with ever increasing demand in the face of diminishing water supplies.
Schwarzenegger is not the only governor dealing with water resource management issues and concerns. This Sunday, the three-day Western Governors Conference began in Park City, UT. The governors plan to focus on key issues that affect the western part of the country, including climate change, energy, and water use. But the governors are not the only concerned parties in attendance—the conference includes representative of President Obama’s administration, along with participants from around the world.
And what the attendees are focusing on could serve as a “to do list” for any water conservation professional: Water Conservation, new technologies, and a rethinking of supply and demand. Additionally, the participants will discuss the diminished water supplies threatening not just the west, but communities in all parts of the world. On Sunday, for example, the conference’s main discussion included experts from Canada, the Middle East, and Australia talking about water resource management under the influence of climate change.
As I stated in my last blog—manmade or not, climate change is a very real threat to our regional water supplies. As access to potable water is limited due to environmental changes and ecosystem collapse, there is a greater chance that communities will find themselves at odds over who gets what and how much. In order to avoid violent water disputes, communities need to first conserve and protect their current resources, although it couldn’t hurt to explore other options—including water reclamation and reuse, rainwater harvesting, and maybe even desalination.
Ultimately, I think the best advice can be found in the comments of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer—incoming Western Governors’ Association (WGA) chairman—who is quoted in the Associated Press for saying that water should be measured accurately and used efficiently while being conserved on a large scale. I think those three tactics would serve any water purveyor well.
For more information on the WGA: www.westgov.org

Climate Chaos

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

A recent headline over at Bloomberg News—“Water Fights, Wandering Homeless Are Planet’s Future”—brought to mind the first editorial I wrote for Water Efficiency. Writing under the title, “Can Melting Ice Caps Inspire Sabotage?” I summarized the 2007 London conference entitled “Climate Change: The Global Security Impact,” where experts warned global warming could exacerbate refugee issues as more of the world’s poor found themselves escaping inhospitable climates. And while participants like Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain’s former ambassador to the United Nations, insisted these displaced people would end up as either potential victims or recruits for extremist terrorist groups, in the end the most important point made at that London conference was that climate change left unfettered could have ghastly consequences for our global water supply.

Water Fights, Wandering Homeless Are Planet’s Future

In an interview for the “Water Fights” article, Gary Braasch, discusses his book, Earth Under Fire: How Global Warming Is Changing the World, and talks about some of the impacts he anticipates as a result of climate change and rising sea levels. What I found most important in relation to water efficiency and conservation was his characterization of a future of extreme flooding followed by extended drought, which would, of course, severely impact agricultural and sustenance farming around the world. And just like Sir Crispin Tickell, Braasch warns of global migration and hordes of displaced refugees descending upon areas that manage to remain hospitable while the rest of the world descends into global warming chaos.
Whether you think these claims are melodramatic flourishes or opportunist rants, I think it’s worth restating what I said two years ago—“I am not much concerned whether or not you believe human actions are impacting the world’s climate. I’d rather the lesson behind the rhetoric not be lost. Whether we like it or not, we are in a codependent relationship with the earth, and without water we will not survive….In the end, whether it is Mother Nature or a pipe bomb, at some point there will be an attack on your infrastructure. Planning for it now will help you prevail during the onslaught and put you in a stronger position over the long haul. Ultimately, the ethos of efficiency is “be prepared.” Cut waste, plan your actions, and guard your resources, and you’ll be able to weather any adversarial event that lands on your doorstep.”
So, what are you doing to prepare for climate change and its possible impacts on your water supply? Is global warming influencing your resource management decisions, or are budgeting and managing costs still taking precedence?

Preemptive Strike

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


Although July is Smart Irrigation Month, southern California is jumping the gun with a series of strict restriction on outdoor water usage. In Los Angeles, June 1 marks the beginning of mandatory conservation restrictions designed to reduce city water use by 15%. For those who love their green lawns, these restrictions mean that their sprinklers can only run Mondays and Thursdays, with enforcement to be handled by the city’s “drought police.”
But California is not the only state that’s taking a preemptive stance on water conservation and irrigation. June 1 also marks the start of new water restrictions in Durham, NC. Under the new policy, homeowners will be allowed to water their lawns three days a week based on their address. In addition, irrigation can only take place before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m., and no one will be allowed to water on Mondays. City officials seem determined to encourage all manner of smart irrigation, and the new regulations require rain sensors or soil moisture sensors for all newly installed automated irrigation systems, while existing systems must install sensors by November 30, 2009. Durham’s irrigation schedule applies only to the new outdoor spray irrigation systems, and so, hand-watering and drip irrigation systems will not be restricted.
Meanwhile in San Antonio, city officials anticipate the implementation of even stricter irrigation regulations. Agricultural and residential irrigation could soon see “Stage Two” restrictions, which include once a week lawn-watering. Later this summer, San Antonio residents could even be subjected to “Stage Three” regulations—which go into effect whenever the local aquifer falls below 640 feet—and that means sprinkler irrigation once every two weeks, and drip irrigation limited to either 3–8 a.m. or 8–10 p.m. Should “Stage Four” regulations go into effect, surcharges will also be imposed on users who exceed 12,717 gallons per month.
So what do you think? Are these kinds of irrigation restrictions an important part of water resource management? And, more importantly, should these restrictions be limited to times of extreme drought, or would it make more sense to always require smart and studied outdoor water use?

A Place With No Meters

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

My mother has a favorite saying, “We all make our own hell.” Of course, what she means is that we are all ultimately accountable for the situation we find ourselves in, and it’s up to each of us to find our own solutions. When it comes to water resource management, we’re lucky to have so many options, from infrastructure improvements to leak detection, to resource management via AMR/AMI and data integration. But what if those options weren’t available? Or, even worse, illegal? That’s the case in Fresno, CA, where water meters are banned by a city charter, and residential water use flows unfettered and unrecorded, propelling Fresno to the top of the urban water users in the country. In her article, “Without Meters, Fresno Water Beyond Measure” Sasha Khokha details how Fresno has become a water meter no-man’s land. Due in no small part to a history of cheap water provided by state and federal projects, citizens of this central valley community are adamant about their right to unmetered water.
In the 1990s, while head of the city’s water department, Martin McIntyre initially succeeded in implementing a voluntary residential meter program. Although 8,000 customers agreed to install meters on their property, a “vehement group of taxpayers convinced city leaders to incorporate a ‘no meter policy’ into Fresno’s city charter.” As a result, meters were actually banned for single-family residential units and McIntyre’s department was forced to remove every single one of those 8,000 meters.
But change is coming. California legislature now requires that any city using water from federal dams must install meters by 2013—this new law deftly trumping Fresno’s existing city charter. In the meantime, water will flow unchecked, and Fresno residents will most likely continue to use—on average—290 gallons per home. The city is not completely at the mercy of unrecorded water users. Fresno employs a small group of “conservation specialists” who check leaky sprinkler systems, malfunctioning showerheads, and, even, faulty toilets. These specialists come armed with wrenches and low-flow showerheads, and their efforts do help raise awareness of the need for water conservation.
Fresno is not alone. Many cities in and out of California are only partially metered. And while water meters (and their high-tech cousins AMR and AMI) are not a cure all, one wonders how we can have any effective demand reduction strategy when we cannot even measure how much water is being used.

Water Buffaloes in the Delta

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

It’s a dilemma that faces many water purveyors: how to balance urban and agricultural water needs, while protecting and maintaining environmentally delicate water sources. One need only look to northern California’s Sacramento Delta for a real-world example of just how difficult it is to manage competing demands while protecting a finite resource.
In California, there has long been tension between the relatively water-rich north and the arid south. Surrounded by desert and charged with supplying water to dense urban areas, southern California depends on remote water sources to meet demand. In fact, almost 20 million state residents get at least some of their water from the Sacramento Delta—a small patch of land in the north where the ocean and rivers meet. But the Delta provides more than just drinking water; its resources support a large chunk of California’s agribusiness, and it just happens be the home of the endangered Delta Smelt. Unfortunately, the Delta is under siege—not just from urban and rural consumers, but also from rising sea levels and never-ending drought.
And while climate change, species protection, and ears that every predicted earthquake catastrophe known as “the big one” hold some sway, it’s clear that California’s big water players, known as “water buffalos,” will not sit idly by as decisions are made about the water they depend on for survival. These water buffalos—comprised of agribusiness as well as large urban centers and commercial interests—are focused on keeping the water flowing, and their needs sometimes trump future planning.
It’s a precarious situation, and the Delta’s survival depends upon how the parties involved will manage competing demands and interests. Recently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration came up with the Deltavision Blue Ribbon Task Force in an attempt to develop a workable plan to protect the Delta and maintain the state’s water supply. The current Task Force suggestions include using recycled water for irrigation and industry, the construction of additional desalination plants, and new infrastructure in the form of reservoirs and peripheral canals. The Task Force also calls for stricter oversight of water rights permits to insure that the agricultural industry is not using more than its allocated water share.
What do you think? Can the situation in California be used as a test case for other communities similarly stuck between urban, rural, and environmental interests? And can an entity like the Delatavision Task Force really make a difference?

Wildfires and Water Conservation

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


There’s nothing like watching a water-dropping helicopter attack a seemingly impenetrable wall of fire blazing up in your own backyard to make you understand the power and fragility of water. Last week, drought conditions conspired with high winds to create a wildfire monster that threatened almost every corner of Santa Barbara—my and Water Efficiency’s hometown. As always, fire season in California—which officially starts this week—highlights the precarious situation many Southwest communities face: sprawling development in mostly desert locales with few local water sources. As ash fell in flurries and flames flashed in the foothills, water conservation morphed from smart resource management to an essential survival tactic.
As the fire whipped around the outskirts of the city’s center, officials called on residents to curtail water usage and practice conservation. With five air tankers (including the DC10) and 10 helicopters, it was easy to see that our local reservoirs—already adversely affected by extreme weather and increased demand—would be stretched to their limit. In fact, as local water utilities calculated the fire’s potential effects on water supplies, the call was put out for an immediate stop to all non-essential water usage, including car-washing, laundry, and landscape irrigation.
Of course, in Santa Barbara—as in many southern Californian communities—homes sit alongside wildland vegetation, and, as a result, irrigation and landscaping can alternately save or condemn your home. According to scientists at the Center for Fire Research and Outreach at UC Berkley, this wild-urban interface is where “wildfires post the biggest risk to people and structures.” Water deprived landscaping only ups the ante, and so smart irrigation techniques—including drought-resistant vegetation and xeriscaping—not only save water, but also can provide extra protection during wildfire season.
And for those of us in southern California, fire season is starting to feel like a year-round phenomenon. In Santa Barbara alone, the community has battled several large-scale blazes over the last three years, including the summer-long Zaca fire, last year’s Gap fire, and the devastating Tea fire that raged in our foothills just six months ago. For a great blow-by-blow account of the Tea fire, see John Trotti’s November blog, “Southern California Fires”.
What about after the fire? Janice Kaspersen, editor of Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Erosion Control, discusses just that in her blog “Fire Season: Planning for What Comes Next”. Janice includes a healthy list of some of Erosion Control's wildfire-related articles, which provide a nice background if you’re interested in learning about the relationship between water quality and soil erosion.
With 8,733 acres burned so far and an estimated cost of over $10 million, the Jesusita Fire will be legendary, but thanks to the heroic efforts of firefighters, complete devastation and annihilation was kept at bay. With evacuation orders lifted and most of us back in our own homes, the immediacy has faded, but I hope the lesson remains: Water conservation must be practiced in times of crisis, but every day we must strive to employ smart and efficient practices to conserve and protect our water resources.

Finally...Teamwork

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


The role of the water purveyor—also known as any public utility, mutual water company, county water district, or municipality that delivers drinking water to customers—involves a variety of responsibilities. Not only do water agencies control and manage supply and delivery, but they must also handle everything from stormwater and flood control to wastewater and water quality, habitat protection, and other environmental concerns. As a result, the water purveyor is the ultimate multitasker—charged with overseeing projects and solving problems while making sure that the community can depend upon clean and reliable water. In other words, the work of the water purveyor involves integrated water resources management.
Generally speaking, integrated water resources management involves the consideration of multiple water management viewpoints when considering courses of action. These voices include “management agencies with specific purposes, governmental and stakeholder groups, geographic regions, and disciplines of knowledge.” This could involve the organization of a task force or even the collaboration of different agencies all charged with finding the best solution for the issue at hand, be it river basin planning, conservation outreach, or aqueduct recharge. Because there are many competing water needs, it’s important to involving as many participants in the process as possible.
While the implementation of integrated water resources management depends upon the situation, “Total Water Management” has been coined to describe the inclusion of “integration principals” in water supply development. In 1996, the AWWA defined Total Water Management as “the exercise of stewardship of water resources for the greatest good of society and the environment,” that includes:
* Encouraging planning and management on a natural water systems basis through a dynamic process that adapts to changing conditions
* Balancing competing uses of water through efficient allocation that addresses social values, cost effectiveness, and environmental benefits and costs
* Requiring the participation of all units of government and stakeholders in decision-making through a process of coordination and conflict resolution
* Promoting water conservation, reuse, source protection, and supply development to enhance water quality and quantity
* Fostering public health, safety, and community goodwill
Following in that same vein, last week the US House of Representatives passed the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act. Essentially, the bill legislates total water management by mandating the coordination of national research and development efforts to “provide a clear path forward to ensure adequate water supplies for generations to come.”
Highlights of the bill include:
* The creation of a National Water Initiative Coordination Office for technical and administrative support, as well as public “point of contact”
* The requirement that the president establish or designate an interagency committee that will include representation from all federal agencies dealing with water so that a National Water Research and Development Initiative can be implemented in order to improve federal activities on water, including research, development, demonstration, data collection and dissemination, education, and technology transfer
* The interagency committee would be responsible for the implementation of a national water census, the development of new water technologies and techniques, the development of tools to facilitate water resource conflicts, the development of information technology systems to enhance water quality and supply, the improvement of hydrologic prediction models, an enhanced understanding related to ecosystem services, and an analyses of the energy-water nexus
In a statement, bill author and Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) says, “Coordination of federal agency activities and a stronger partnership with state, local, and tribal governments will ensure that federal programs are focused on areas of greatest concern, and that our efforts are complementary and effective.”
So what do you think? Is integrated water resource management the ultimate water efficiency practice? And if it is, will the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act pave the way for nationwide efficiency programs?

Tainted Water

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

According to an investigation by the Associated Press, “US manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water.” While we’ve focused a bit on water treatment—especially in relation to reuse and reclamation—we haven’t spent much time talking about water quality. Yet, the whole point of water efficiency and conservation is to protect our water resources. After all, protecting your water delivery system is one of the most vital aspects of water efficiency. Securing a community’s water share involves conserving and securing the source. To make sure your system is safe, you must employ a variety of tactics, including keeping a close eye on contamination and water quality.
With that in mind, last year’s report by the Associated Press (AP), which traces amounts of a wide range of pharmaceuticals—including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers, and sex hormones—that were found in US drinking water supplies, triggered alarm… How tainted had our water become? This week, the news is even grimmer: According to the AP, US manufacturers—including major drugmakers—have “legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water.”
What does this mean? Predictably, drug manufacturers feel unjustly vilified. They point out that there is no direct line of culpability when it comes to pharmaceuticals in our drinking water: After all, lithium can leach out not just from pills, but from ceramics, and copper can come from pipes as well as contraceptives. Additionally, according to the AP, federal and industry officials admit that the extent to which pharmaceuticals are released by US manufacturers is unknown—due, in large part, because these compounds are not tracked as drugs. In a written statement, Acting EPA assistant administrator for water, Mike Shapiro, says, “Pharmaceuticals get into water in many ways. It's commonly believed the majority comes from human and animal excretion. A portion also comes from flushing unused drugs down the toilet or drain."
According to many researchers, the “drugging” of our waterways has harmed aquatic species, but according to many scientists—and the EPA—there has been no documented or confirmed risk to humans who consume traced amounts of these compounds. Of course, all eyes look to the water purveyor whenever this type of information is made public. Questions naturally abound: What can, and should, water utilities do to make sure that the water resources under their control are not compromised by third-party activity—be it a consumer absent-mindedly tossing leftover medication into the toilet, or industrial and chemical manufacturers failing to employ effective water treatment protocols?

"Hit them in the pocketbook!"

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

There’s a long history of attempting to impact human behavior via economic incentives and penalties, although the latter tends to take precedence: We often utilize additional “vice taxes” to commodities and activities deemed unsavory (i.e. levies on alcohol and tobacco purchases). But awarding positive action can be just as effective. Case in point: cap and trade. While cap and trade is getting a lot of buzz as of late—due to the Obama administration’s decision to create a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide—Mark Lange of The Christian Science points out, in an opinion piece, the viability of cap and trade that, in 1989, a cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions resulted in a 45% reduction in acid rain within five years.
Which brings us to water conservation. Many water utilities employ rate structures that charge based on water usage (and waste)—a clear example of using an economic penalty to modify behavior. But perhaps there is a better way.…
US Representative Mike Coffman thinks so. On April 2, Coffman introduced the “Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment (WATER) Act, which mimics the EPA’s Energy Star Program that offers tax credits for the energy-efficient appliances. Under Coffman’s WATER Act, WaterSense products would be eligible for tax credits of up to 30% (with a $1500 cap). According to EPA estimates, the installation of WaterSense fixtures (including low-flow faucets, showerheads, and toilets) could save a family of four $17,000 gallons a year. The WATER Act (aka HR 1908) now awaits review by the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In a statement to the press, Coffman says “The Water Conservation Act will help meet this demand by helping individuals and businesses conserve water.”
What do you think? Are incentives the way to go when it comes to promoting conscientious water use, or should we combine tiered rate systems with low-flow rebates?
To read Mark Lange’s opinion piece on cap and trade go to: www.csmonitor.com/2009/0413/p09s04-coop.html