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