(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?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, October 12, 2009
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.”
Friday, October 2, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
