(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.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
"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?
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?
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?
Monday, July 13, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, July 6, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
