(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
After months of anticipation, last week President Obama finally signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Known colloquially as the “stimulus package,” the Act promises to deliver $787 billion in funds with the purpose of shoring up our weakened economy through job creation and a variety of other incentives and government programs.
For a country anxious about the future and hungry for solutions, the hope is that the Act can breath new life into struggling local economies. With that in mind, many communities have spent the first months of 2009 tabulating and numbering their wants and needs. Will those wishes finally be fulfilled, or will tangles of red tape and armies of lobbyists divert the funds away from the very trouble spots that most desperately need help?
So far, the possibilities look promising. First off, the Act allocates $80.5 billion to repair and improve roads, bridges, mass transit, and waterways. According to a statement released by the EPA on February 19, $7.22 billion in stimulus money has already been allocated for EPA-administered water projects, including $4 billion set aside for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (which helps communities deal with their water quality and wastewater infrastructure needs). An additional $2 billion has been earmarked for other drinking water infrastructure projects under the same revolving fund, and a portion of that funding is specifically set aside for “green” infrastructure, including water and energy efficiency. Treatment and cleanup command the final $1.22 billion, which has been allocated for projects like industrial/commercial brownfields, superfund hazardous sites, and leaking underground storage tanks.
Some information on how individual states plan to handle their stimulus funds has already begun to make news. In Ohio for example, $59 million will be used to improve drinking water infrastructure, while another $224 million will be used for other clean water projects and programs. According to the EPA, Wyoming should receive approximately $39 million in stimulus funds for a variety of water and sewer projects. The EPA has also stated that Illinois will receive $258.5 million in stimulus money for local water projects. Utah has garnered $50 million in stimulus funds, some of which will go to water projects in the state, while Tennessee will receive $77 million for sewer and water treatment projects. So far, the big winner appears to be Colorado, which is in line to receive about $1 billion in stimulus money. More information on specific payouts will continue to trickle out over the next few days, and updates on state-by-state distributions of the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds will be available on the EPA Web site www.epa.gov/recovery.
Let us know what you think: Will the stimulus package provide the funds needed to finally fix our aging infrastructure, and promote and improve our water collection, treatment, and delivery systems? Do you anticipate seeing any direct effect in your own community? Or, are you skeptical that the stimulus package will be able to deliver on all its promises?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Unsung Heroes
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Imagine returning from a much-needed vacation only to find your house flooded due to an unchecked leak or water main break. What if the damage were not immediately apparent, and a smaller leak resulted in an astronomical water bill during the exact period you were away from home? Without visual confirmation, could you trust your water utility?
In October 2008, I wrote about Rick Baur, a resident of Ogden, UT who returned from vacation to find that he had been billed $9,700 for the alleged use of 1.4 million gallons of water. Unfortunately for Baur, the city claimed the 1.4 million gallons total was correct and demanded that Baur pay the entire amount of the bill. The mystery of where the 1.4 million gallons went is still unsolved, and, at the time I originally discussed Mr. Baur’s situation, I asked: “What responsibility does the city have to investigate the cause behind this eye-popping meter reading?”
If meters are improperly installed or maintained, they can wreak havoc. Case in point: Atlanta, GA. Just this month, Atlanta water officials announced that they have finally tracked down the source behind some eye-popping water bills: About 450 meters miscalculated usage and charged homeowners for more water than they had actually used. In some cases, residents saw their bill go up by up to 1,000%, and, despite protests, the city pushed forward on collection, employing bill collectors and shutting off service to noncompliant residents. Unlike the Baur’s case, residents in Atlanta will be eligible for refunds, and—hopefully—will have their service restored.
But meters are not the “bad guys” in either of these stories. In fact, if anything, these anecdotes just further prove the point that we have taken water for granted and have operated for too long without any real accounting of how much water we use and lose in our communities.
In the July/August 2007 issue of Water Efficiency, we highlighted the Seamount Estates community in Washington State. Described as an idyllic vacation retreat (and home to about 50 retirees and seasonal residents), the community began to notice a rise in its electricity bills in 2005 and a water leak was suspected. By 2007, the solution implemented two years prior had made significant headway—thanks to a partnership with state and local agencies, Seamount Estates had implemented an extensive leak detection and monitoring system, aided in part by the installation of water meters at all residences served by the estate’s water system. Herbert “Skip” Rand, circuit rider for the Rural Community Assistance Corp. (RCAC), described the new meters as “wonderful tools for finding leaks.”
Finding the missing water not only helped the community with its power bill, it also helped stave off real property damage that could have occurred had the leaks been allowed to flow unchecked. In one situation, the team discovered a broken water line inside of a house owned by a member who was away at the time. “You could actually hear the leak from outside,” says Derek Zock, of Evergreen Rural Water of Washington (ERWoW). “When we located the leak, we were able to shut the water off at the valve box and then advise the homeowner that they had a bad leak inside. There was already a lot of water damage, but by shutting it off I’m sure that it helped save part of the house.”
Rand agrees, adding that the owners were very appreciative. “Seeing that meter spinning saved the house; that gave us a kind of hero status,” he says.
Sometimes a shock to the system is what is needed to correct destructive behavior—and that’s the positive I see coming out of scenarios like those in Ogden and Atlanta. Just like that post-Christmas credit card bill, water meter results can open up the eyes of a community with hard numbers on how much water is flowing in and out of its boundaries.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Imagine returning from a much-needed vacation only to find your house flooded due to an unchecked leak or water main break. What if the damage were not immediately apparent, and a smaller leak resulted in an astronomical water bill during the exact period you were away from home? Without visual confirmation, could you trust your water utility?
In October 2008, I wrote about Rick Baur, a resident of Ogden, UT who returned from vacation to find that he had been billed $9,700 for the alleged use of 1.4 million gallons of water. Unfortunately for Baur, the city claimed the 1.4 million gallons total was correct and demanded that Baur pay the entire amount of the bill. The mystery of where the 1.4 million gallons went is still unsolved, and, at the time I originally discussed Mr. Baur’s situation, I asked: “What responsibility does the city have to investigate the cause behind this eye-popping meter reading?”
If meters are improperly installed or maintained, they can wreak havoc. Case in point: Atlanta, GA. Just this month, Atlanta water officials announced that they have finally tracked down the source behind some eye-popping water bills: About 450 meters miscalculated usage and charged homeowners for more water than they had actually used. In some cases, residents saw their bill go up by up to 1,000%, and, despite protests, the city pushed forward on collection, employing bill collectors and shutting off service to noncompliant residents. Unlike the Baur’s case, residents in Atlanta will be eligible for refunds, and—hopefully—will have their service restored.
But meters are not the “bad guys” in either of these stories. In fact, if anything, these anecdotes just further prove the point that we have taken water for granted and have operated for too long without any real accounting of how much water we use and lose in our communities.
In the July/August 2007 issue of Water Efficiency, we highlighted the Seamount Estates community in Washington State. Described as an idyllic vacation retreat (and home to about 50 retirees and seasonal residents), the community began to notice a rise in its electricity bills in 2005 and a water leak was suspected. By 2007, the solution implemented two years prior had made significant headway—thanks to a partnership with state and local agencies, Seamount Estates had implemented an extensive leak detection and monitoring system, aided in part by the installation of water meters at all residences served by the estate’s water system. Herbert “Skip” Rand, circuit rider for the Rural Community Assistance Corp. (RCAC), described the new meters as “wonderful tools for finding leaks.”
Finding the missing water not only helped the community with its power bill, it also helped stave off real property damage that could have occurred had the leaks been allowed to flow unchecked. In one situation, the team discovered a broken water line inside of a house owned by a member who was away at the time. “You could actually hear the leak from outside,” says Derek Zock, of Evergreen Rural Water of Washington (ERWoW). “When we located the leak, we were able to shut the water off at the valve box and then advise the homeowner that they had a bad leak inside. There was already a lot of water damage, but by shutting it off I’m sure that it helped save part of the house.”
Rand agrees, adding that the owners were very appreciative. “Seeing that meter spinning saved the house; that gave us a kind of hero status,” he says.
Sometimes a shock to the system is what is needed to correct destructive behavior—and that’s the positive I see coming out of scenarios like those in Ogden and Atlanta. Just like that post-Christmas credit card bill, water meter results can open up the eyes of a community with hard numbers on how much water is flowing in and out of its boundaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
