Pollution and Source Protection

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

We’ve all been keeping a close eye on the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which started April 20 and, so far, has resulted in the release of over 4 million gallons of oil and cost BP over $350 million in cleanup costs. As we round out 19 days, authorities say that there is “no end in sight” as the oil continues to leak into the gulf, threatening delicate habitats, and 200 miles of coastline. And we all know, this catastrophe will not just devastate the businesses and communities that rely on the myriad of resource provided by the gulf, it will also significantly impact the quality and quantity of water resources throughout the region.
What do pollution and source protection have to do with water efficiency and resource management? It’s a natural question. After all, most of the time, we in the industry associate water efficiency with AMR and leak detection, with maybe a bit of data integration and storage thrown in. But in the pages of Water Efficiency, we’ve often discussed the relationship between source protection, pollution, and water resource management

Conveyance "Catch Up"

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Out of sight out of mind—a familiar saying that can easily be applied to our water infrastructure. With many conveyance systems conveniently buried below our feet, it’s easy to avoid thinking about how clean, safe water gets to the tap—until, of course, something goes wrong….
Over the weekend, two million or so Boston residents found themselves on the receiving end of a failed pipeline “worst-case scenario”—one leak in one run-of-the-mill mainline that resulted in three days without drinkable tap water. By midday on Monday, authorities declared that the problem had been soled and the leak fixed—but Bostonians ended their workday with the prospect of boiled tap water for the next few days, and perhaps a greater appreciation of the extensive (and often delicate) water delivery systems that reliably supplies their metropolis with easy, clean water.
I wish I could say that the situation in Boston was unique, but every week I receive news alerts of similar breakdowns across the country. Most of the time the culprit is a small leak or a failed pump, but the result is often the same—a boil water notice and expensive emergency repairs. And the hits will keep on coming as our existing water delivery system continues to age and more and more pipes and pumps begin to fail.
So what do you think? Are we destined to play a constant game of “catch up” with our conveyance systems—sending out emergency repair crews each time a pipe springs a leak? Or is there a better way? Are the funds available for the creation of a systematic program and inspection and preemptive repair, or is there an easier (and cheaper) alternative? And how long can we turn a blind eye while our infrastructure crumbles around us?

Volume and Vintners

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

spin, you are probably aware that many of your favorite foods and beverages have rather large water footprints: due, in part, to the amount of water required for agricultural irrigation. Case in point: wine.
As you may or may not know, our homebase of Santa Barbara neighbors one of California’s most-celebrated wine regions: the Santa Ynez Valley. Vintners in the valley must make judicious use of the limited water resources at their disposal, and when questioned about their irrigation techniques, they are happy to discuss their conservation efforts. Nevertheless, on average, one glass of wine comes with the relatively high water footprint of 32 gallons (beer, for example, is slightly lower, at 29 gallons per glass).
As we explain in Waterprint, the water footprint totals of foods and beverages are calculated by combining the actual water in the product with all the virtual water embedded in every action associated with the cultivation, collection, and delivery of that item. The cultivation and exportation of food brings with it a variety of embedded water costs, including those associated with the byproducts created by food cultivation (agricultural runoff for example), as well as the items and actions necessary for the production and distribution of food, including insecticides, fuel required for transportation and the manufacture of the item’s packaging.
All this talk of the imbedded water costs behind agricultural irrigation brings me to a new irrigation project recently launched in another of California’s wine producing regions: Paso Robles. As reported by Western Farm Press, in an area east of highway 101—identified as the “Estrella-Creston Area of Concern,” an irrigation-monitoring project has been established with the goal of estimating the regions average annual irrigation water use. The hope is that having precise use numbers will help with future planning and regulatory decisions.
The study will be conducted using data loggers and pressure switches to record when irrigation systems are being used and how much water is being flushed through those drip lines and/or sprinklers. Rainfall data will also be collected over the course of the three-year study, which is being conducted with the complete cooperation of area vintners.
So what do you think? Is there a point at which agricultural and municipal water use meet? What responsibility do water purveyors have to track and monitor local agricultural water use? Is there a way to bring these two competing interests together to map out a better water resource management plan for water-scarce regions like California’s wine country?
To learn more about water footprints, go to www.waterfootprint.org/.
To download our free iPhone/iPad app, go to waterprint.net.
To learn more about the Paso Robles study, go to www.vineyardteam.org/search/search.php?query=battany&search=1

Imbedded Industry

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

The first comprehensive study of American industrial water use was recently conducted by a team of scientists (led by Chris Hendrickson) at Carnegie Mellon University. Using computer models to analyze industrial water use, the scientists were able to estimate how much water is used by 400 different industrial sectors. The study was published in the American Chemical Society’s journal, Environmental Science and Technology.
Those of you who’ve been following our coverage of water footprints and virtual water are already aware of the imbedded water costs in various products and services. It comes as no surprise that the Carnegie study concluded that a majority of water use at the industrial level is the result of processing, packaging, and shipping—with irrigation making up a smaller part of the overall total.
According to the study, it takes 270 gallons of water to produce $1 worth of sugar, and 200 gallons to proceed $1 worth of pet food—and while those are some eye-popping numbers, I suspect I am not in alone in wishing that the study had tied the water amounts to specific units of measurement rather than cost, as prices can vary across communities and be influenced by a variety of other factors. Nevertheless, it’s certainly striking to see that a relatively inexpensive product—i.e. $1 worth of sugar—can carry with it such a large water footprint.
Some other interesting statistics from the study:
* Agriculture and power generation account for 9% of all direct water withdrawals in the US.
* 60% of water use is indirect (i.e. “virtual”).
* The food and beverage industry accounts for 30% of all indirect withdrawals in the US.

Shake, Rattle, and Roll

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Nature, as a magnitude 7.2 earthquake hit south of the border near Mexicali, Mexico. As is usually the case, the potential for disaster has provoked a lot of navel gazing about earthquake preparedness and the status of the state’s emergency infrastructure.
For those of us concerned with water resource management, the possibility of a catastrophic event narrows our focus to the state of our conveyance systems. How well do you think your pipes, pumps, damns, and overall delivery systems would weather an earthquake, hurricane, or other natural (or man-made) disaster?
According to the Department of Homeland Security (www.nationalterroralert.com/safewater) in the event of a wide-scale disaster, individual households should plan for the possibility that water will not be available, and so storage is a top priority (about a gallon per person per day), with a recommendation of at least a 10-day supply stored securely. A quick calculation reveals that an average two-person household would have to squirrel away about 20 gallons of water (or four cooler-size containers).
While we can debate the likelihood of the average household actually storing that amount of water, we can say for certain that water purveyors must be prepared for any eventuality. As with any widespread disruption of service, the first priority will be to get the system back online as soon as possible.
As such, the EPA has come up with a set of emergency guidelines for large water systems. The Large Water System Emergency Response Plan outlines emergency procedures for water purveyors before, during, and after a crisis.
Some of the most important aspects of the pan include:
* The Development of a documented Emergency Response Plan (ERP)
* The creation of a Vulnerability Assessment
* Identification of Alternative Water Sources
* Chain-of-Command Chart (coordinated with the local emergency planning committee)
* Communication Procedures (who, what, when, as well as access to “system-specific information” about personnel and external parties like emergency first responders and notification procedures)
* Property and equipment assessment and protection
* Training, exercises, and drills
* Emergency Action Procedures and Incident-Specific Action Procedures
So what do you think? Does emergency and disaster planning get enough attention? And even though our water resources are perpetually in a state of crisis due to drought, waste, and mismanagement, should part of any resource management plan account for unanticipated, catastrophic events?

Low-Flow Hubris?

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

According to the Law of Unintended Consequences, “any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.” In other words, the outcome of a certain action or set of actions does not necessarily dovetail with the original intent and can often lead to unforeseen—and detrimental—results.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and when it comes to many environmental and conservation efforts, a triumph in once section can lead to a tragedy somewhere else. And while “sustainability” is a popular catchphrase, many “green” efforts have, in fact, the complete opposite effect.
Case in point—low-flow toilets. These days, programs focused on enlacing existing toilets with low-flow alternatives are a popular “go-to” strategy for communities looking to promote water conservation. On its surface, there’s nothing wrong with a rebate program or retrofit campaign that encourages consumers to be aware of their water consumption. In this context, low-flow fixtures are especially attractive because of the ease of implementation (simply take out that old toilet and replace it with a more efficient model), the low-cost threshold (rebates and tax breaks) and positive PR.
But as we get carried away by the pomp and circumstance of these often self-congratulatory campaigns—no one is asking one simple, but very important question: What do we do with all those old toilets?
This is not a trivial query. Old toilets are clogging up landfills all over the country—often as a result of a community retrofit/replacement campaign. Sometimes, these old toilets are recycled into concrete, which is the case in Fort Collins, CO, where the removed toilets are mixed with asphalt and used for road building. But many cities do not have the means or desire to recycle porcelain and metal, and, in those cases, the old toilets find new homes in rapidly filling landfills. In Austin, TX, a new program that helps apartment complexes install new toilets has come under fire after critics pointed out that up to 280 tons of old toilets would end up in country landfills.
Obviously, old toilets are not an issue for new construction or even extensive remodels where the old fixtures were always slated for removal and replacement. In those instances, it makes sense to require that low-flow toilets be mandated, but what about the homeowner with a properly working toilet who has no remodeling plans? Should we require the replacement of all existing toilets without regard for the consequences? And what about other alternatives that would allow old toilets to become more efficient with help of a little tweak here and there like the old “brick-in-the-tank” option familiar to those of us who grew up in California during the drought-stricken 70s?

High Efficiency Plumbing

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

For those of you who don’t know, this week kicks off with World Water Day, an international day of observance designed to ready awareness of the world’s water crisis and to focus on the water quality, supply, and demand solutions that are available locally and around the world. As we’ve discussed many times before, for many developed countries, it’s water use (and misuse) that poses the biggest threat to our water resources.
These challenges manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including aging infrastructure, depleted groundwater supplies, and inefficient water resource management and unaccounted for water. California and Texas have taken the lead by enacting high-efficiency plumbing standards, including the requirement that all toilets sold or installed be high-efficiency fixtures (1.28 gallons or less) that comply with the EPA’s WaterSense program.
Last week, Georgia became the third state to enact a set of water efficiency standards. The law, which goes beyond the mere high-efficiency toilet, requires that high-efficiency standards be enacted (and enforced) for toilets, faucets, urinals, and cooling towers, as well as “standardized water loss reporting by public water utilities, metering of multi-family, commercial and industrial construction, and a statewide outdoor watering schedule.” In another bold move, Georgia’s law requires compliance two years earlier than California and Texas, with a due date of July 2012 for all components of the bill. Finally, by enacting this new water efficiency bill, Georgia had become the first state to require submetering of multi-unit residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
So what do you think? Is it only a matter of time before other utilities follow suit? By including the WaterSense standards into the language of these bills, has the EPA’s program begun to establish itself as an industry standard? And how easy will it be to garner public support for these requirements while at the same developing a feasible enforcement procedure?

Water Saving at the Corporate Level

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

If you've had a chance to play around with our new iPhone app—Waterprint—then perhaps you already know that it takes approximately 16.5 gallons of water to produce one 12-oz bottle of beer. And while it’s important for the consumer to be aware of their water footprint so that they can make educated choices designed to reduce their overall impact on water resources, for the maker of those products, getting a handle on imbedded water costs can not only lead to better conservation practices, but actually help that business stay afloat.
Case in point: Anheuser Busch.
As one of the world’s largest beer manufacturers, Anheuser Busch InBev (AB InBev) has always been aware of the water-intensive nature of the business. In 2007, the company required 5 liters of water for every liter of beer it produced.
In a statement announcing the company’s goal of reducing water consumption by 30% (3.5 liters of water per liter of beer), AB InBev CEO Carlos Brito says, “We are acutely aware that water is a finite and precious resource and the principal ingredient in our products. Efficient water use is essential to the continued, sustainable growth of our business around the world”.
A few months back we discussed the calculation of water risk (Gauging Risks), and I pointed out that a Water Index has the possibility of affecting the behavior of water-intensive companies. This was certainly the case with AB InBev, who found themselves at the top of a list of 100 companies rated by Ceres in regards to their water risk practices.
Beer is popular around the world—in different surveys it’s held everything from the fifth to top spot—and we’ve looked at efforts by the industry to effectively manage their water resources in several articles, the most recent of which appeared in the magazine last year (Green Beer). This is an educated and proactive industry, and as AB InBev demonstrates, there is no shortage of willingness to reduce water use across the board. In this week’s New York Times, AB InBev's director of environment and sustainability is quoted as saying, “Reducing water use and other natural resources is really part of how we drive efficiency in our operations. It’s simply good business.”
So what do you think? In the absence of concrete guidelines, can water-intensive enterprises rise above mere lip service and actually effect real change when it comes to water use? And is it fair to expect the same results across country lines, or should expectations be tailored to the challenges and concerns of each community touch by these big corporate enterprises? And what role—if any—can individual actions and user demands play in the quest for water efficient commercial practices?

Household Water Use

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

As you all know by now, last week Water Efficiency and Forester Media Inc. unveiled Waterprint, our first iPhone application. Waterprint is intended to be a fun and educational tool designed to make users aware of the virtual water imbedded in the products and behaviors typical of daily life in the developed world. We plan on continually updating the application, and part of the process involves you, the user.
In fact, many of the comments I’ve received have revolved around the “household” section of the application. As we explain in the “information” section of the application, “Household water use runs the gamut from toilets to lawns, and all the gallons associated with those activities can be measured and mitigated.”
While we briefly discuss the impact of toilet flushes and running faucets, we plan to expand our coverage of household water use and water efficient fixtures and technologies in subsequent versions of the Waterprint application. After all, the EPA has concluded that the installation of WaterSense fixtures could save a family of four 17,000 gallons a year—and that's a significant amount of water no matter where you live.
When talking about household water use, it’s also important to address the issue of leaks. Leaks, also known as “unaccounted for water,” account for 6 billion gallons of water per day in the US. That 6 billion includes water lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. As we point out in the information section of the Waterprint application, 6 billion gallons is “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—especially in a world where so many communities struggle to supply enough water to fulfill the basic needs of their citizens. And keep in mind that when you factor in the amount of energy required to treat and transport all of that lost water (approximately 3 gallons for every kilowatt) the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
We’ve already received a lot of feedback, along with some helpful suggestions and important questions. Please keep sending in your insights, questions, complaints, challenges, and comments. With your help, we are confident that our first iPhone application can become a powerful tool for change

What's Your Waterprint?

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Did you know that it takes 30 gallons of water to produce one cup of coffee? And that half-pound steak you had for dinner required 774 gallons of water to get from the ranch to your table. Where do these numbers come from, and what do they mean? These total refer to water footprints, and the totals themselves are calculated by adding up the total amount of freshwater used to create a particular item or support a specific activity.
The idea of a water footprint was first introduced by A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung from UNESCO-IHE in 2002. Hoekstra and Hung believed that one should total up both the direct and indirect water used by a particular entity—consumer, community, or commercial/industrial enterprise—so that total amount of freshwater needed to produce the goods and services consumed by that entity could be measured. These measurements include the actual water in the product, along with all the virtual water embedded in every action associated with the cultivation, collection, and delivery of that item.
The water footprint of foodstuffs, for example, include actions by the farmer, food processor, retailer, and consumer. These tasks that consume actual water include growing, harvesting, delivering, or purchasing a food item. But the cultivation and exportation of food brings with it a variety of embedded water costs, including those associated with the byproducts created by food cultivation (agricultural runoff for example), as well as the items and actions necessary for the production and distribution of food. (This includes fertilizers and insecticides, as well as the fuel required for transportation and the packaging that keeps the food safe and fresh as it travels from field to home.)
But what does water footprinting (or virtual water) have to do with water efficiency? Well, as I stated in an editorial on the subject last year, entitled “How Much Is That Droplet in the Window, “efficiency depends upon the ratio of work expended to benefit received. Many times, there are a variety of methods available to achieve a particular end, and knowing which of those many options is less water-intensive can make a big difference. As I’ve stated before, I believe that by redefining how we measure the value of water—by monitoring our “water footprint” and keeping track of our virtual water costs—we can harness new tools to help us protect, and efficiently manage, our resources.”
In keeping with our commitment to provide you with all the information and tools necessary to manage your water resources, I’m excited about our latest venture, the first Water Efficiency iPhone application: Waterprint. Waterprint is a free application that lists and calculates how much water is imbedded in a variety of activities and products, including what you wear, eat, and drink. You can learn more about the application at the Waterprint Web site, and it’s available now at the App Store. If you’re iPhone enabled, please take it for a spin and let us know what you think. We plan to continue to update and improve the application, and, as always, your feedback is a valuable resource for us.
For more on the origins of the water footprint concept (as well as a list of the many water footprint totals we’ve included in our application), go to: www.waterfootprint.org.

Lawsuits, Pipelines, and One Tiny Fish

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


As we all know, agricultural irrigation commands a majority of community water allocations in many parts of the country. In California for example, agricultural irrigation accounts for 41% of all water use, and about 30% of that water is supplied by groundwater extraction, with the remaining 20% coming from the state’s extensive conveyance system that involves a series of dams, canals, and pumping plants. Perhaps the most famous of these conveyance sources is the San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta—subject of many lawsuits and continuing battleground for environmental versus agricultural interests.
Last week, Judge Oliver Wanger of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California supplied yet another twist to the ongoing delta smelt saga. Ruling against agricultural interests, Wanger reinstated water flow restrictions that had been recently lifted. These restrictions were initially put in place for the protection of the endangered delta smelt, and while they do not foreclose all pumping at the delta, they do significantly limit the amount of water that can be pumped (and delivered to California’s farmers throughout the central valley).
So what do you think? Are lawsuits and restraining orders the best way to reduce the impact of agricultural irrigation? Or does it make more sense to encourage an open dialogue between competing interests? In Queensland, Australia, community groups and local governments are working with farmers to develop a water resource management plan focused on protecting supply and keeping demand within “sustainable” standards—could a similar program help California and other water-strapped/agriculture-heavy states?

One Million Acre-Feet

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


Last month, Dr. Peter Gleick (President, Pacific Institute) discussed California’s water problems, including the state’s need to come up with an additional 1 million acre-feet of water to fulfill current and future demand. In an article that originally appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, Gleick does a wonderful job of discussing both California’s successes (25 years of improved water efficiency) and failures (less than 40% of all toilets in the state are low-flow or HET commodes).
Gleick goes on to discuss a series of reports recently completed by the Pacific Institute that “provide a comprehensive statewide analysis of California’s urban and agricultural water needs.” While the reports focus on California, I think the information they contain—including how existing technologies can be harnessed for immediate water efficiency results—is applicable to any community concerned about water resource management.
So how does one community go about finding an additional 1 million acre-feet of water? The Pacific Institute reports enumerate two effect starting points:
* 400,000 acre-feet of water per year by urban users conserved by replacing inefficient fixtures (toilets, showerheads, commercial spray-rinse nozzles, and washing machines) with their low-flow counterparts.
* The remaining 600,000 acre-feet per year of water can be saved through smart irrigation, regulated deficit irrigation, and converting orchards and vineyards to drip and sprinkler irrigation.
So what do you think? Do you have faith in smart irrigation technologies and low-flow fixtures? And is enough being done to make it easy and economically feasible for communities large and small to embrace these effective water conservation tools?
Click here to read more.

(Originally posted February 8th, 2010 10:00am PST)

Rainwater Ordinance

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

A few weeks back, after a week-long set of storms soaked California, I wondered if urban rainwater catchment was getting enough attention. I asked, “Should cities take up the call, or should we fall back on the old mantra of individual responsibility?”
In Los Angeles, the answer is clear—it’s city government that should take the first necessary steps towards promoting rainwater catchment. In a new proposed law, new homes (as well as housing developments) would have to capture and reuse stormwater runoff. As reported today in the Los Angeles Times, a new ordinance approved at the beginning of the year by the Department of Public Works would “require such projects to capture, reuse, or infiltrate 100% of runoff generated in a 3/4-inch rainstorm or to pay a stormwater pollution mitigation fee that would help fund off-site, low-impact public developments.”
There’s a dual benefit to rainwater catchment in urban areas—not only can capturing and reusing rainwater supplement current water supplies, controlling stormwater can help reduce the deleterious effects runoff can have on water quality. In fact, the Times reports that Paula Daniels (Commissioner for the Board of Public works) believes the new ordinance—which she drafted—would “prevent 104 million gallons of polluted urban runoff from ending up in the ocean.”
In order to comply with the ordinance, developers would have to incorporate a variety of storage and treatment systems, including storage tanks and infiltration swales—with a goal of controlling 100% of a projects runoff. Failure to hit that 100% mark would result in a $13-per-gallon penalty.
It’s this penalty that’s causing the most concern amongst local developers and the Building Industry Association. The issue is whether low impact development (LID) is specific enough that successful implementation can be guaranteed. For example, much depends on the individual elements of each project’s locale, including soil content and topography.
At this stage of the game, it’s all still theoretical. The ordinance has several hurdles to clear before it becomes law, including approval by he Energy and the Environment and the Planning, the Land Use Management committees of the City Council, and an affirmative vote from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The hope is that, six months from now, the ordinance will garner all the necessary approvals and go into effect just in time to capitalize on 2011’s rainy season.
So what do you think? Should LIDs be used as a regulatory tool? Should there be some flexibility included in regulations of this nature to account of the differences inherent in each individual project? And are penalties the most effective way to promote conservation tactics like rainwater harvesting?

Gauging Risks

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

Interesting news from the World Resources Institute (WRI) this week. According to an article entitled “Betting on Water” by Piet Klop, WRI is partnering with Goldman Sachs and General Electric to develop a “Water Index.” The index will be created using “publicly available data on water quality and water scarcity” in order to create a series of map overlays that combine and compare various water-related risks. Unlike the more familiar water footprint (and its cousin, virtual water), the Water Index offers an analysis of how the environment can effect a company’s water supply and/or its water needs, rather than the other way around.
More specifically, the Water Index would supply a company with information regarding the availability and quality of water sources considered integral to the companies operations, along with information on other competition for that water source. As the article elaborates, “Water risks, in short, are disruptions, costs, revenue losses, or growth constraints due to water shortages and declining water quality—all can affect asset performance and the profitability of a company.” The idea is that better information can lead to not only smarter investment decisions, but—hopefully—a more conscientious use of water in order to avoid a negative “repetitional cost.”
So what do you think? Can the information contained in something like this Water Index really affect the behavior of companies large and small? And if so, what—if any—information contained in this index will actually encourage water conservation and intelligent resource management

Batten Down the Hatches

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


Here in California, we’re bracing for a fortnight of winter storms that, while arriving late in the season, promise to inundate the state with several inches of rain over the next several days. As I watch trees bent and lashed by the wet weather, I think it’s perhaps the perfect time to look back on some of the rainwater harvesting articles we’ve covered in the magazine.
In “Acing the ‘Greening’ Curve” by Sue Marquette Poremba, we highlighted Duke University’s Pratt College of Engineering that, along with help from The Home Depot, designed a “smart home,” that includes two 1,000-gallon rainwater collection systems from BRAE rainwater systems irrigate the property and provide water for toilets and the clothes washing machine, as well as landscape irrigation.
If you take a look at the University of Georgia’s water conservation program (“Water Task Force”), you can read all about how the university worked hard to save over 84 million gallons of water during a five-year period. Instrumental to that program was the utilization of rain gardens, and the modification of two existing campus buildings to include cisterns capable of capturing rainwater and air-conditioning condensation for reuse.
And finally, in Margaret Buranen’s article, “Raincatcher's Delight”, we took a long look at Austin’s Seaholm project, which includes an extensive rainwater harvesting system.
So what do you think? Does rainwater harvesting get enough attention? And should cities take up the call, or should we fall back on the old mantra of individual responsibility?

WaterSense for New Homes

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

In the “news you may have missed” category, I submit the WaterSense specifications announced by the EPA on December 10, 2009. While the rest of us were gearing up for the holidays, the EPA released its final specifications for new single-family homes—and the specifics are certainly worth reviewing as we head into a new year.
This new set of WaterSense specifications, three years in the making and incorporating input by a variety of stakeholders, was designed to dovetail with existing green building programs. According to the EPA’s press release, the WaterSense singly-family new homes specification creates “the first national, voluntary, water efficiency specification for an entire new home.” The new WaterSense homes will not only be 20% more efficient, according to the EPA, homeowners can expect save up to $200 a year in utility bills (as compared to existing residential structures) by employing these new efficiency standards.
The specifics of the plan include the following:
1) Any new homes aspiring to meet WaterSense criteria must be independently inspected and certified by a licensed EPA certification provider.
2) The WaterSense homes will include WaterSense-labeled plumbing fixtures, Energy Star appliances, smart landscaping, and dedicated hot-water delivery systems.
The EPA anticipates that this program will save over 12 billion gallons of water each year (based the average 1.27 million new homes built every year in the US). Additionally, by investing in WaterSense labeled homes, the EPA estimates that the average homebuyer can “reduce their water usage by more than 10,000 gallons per year” and “save enough energy annually to power a television for four years.”
So what do you think of this latest set of WaterSense specifications? Do you think that the savings alone are incentive enough to encourage homebuilders to strive for a WaterSense label? Do you think this type of consumer outreach is the first step towards name recognition on par with the EPA’s Energy Star program? And how could the EPA have insured that the program would have a significant impact?
For more on WaterSense, go to: www.epa.gov/watersense

Tri-State Co-Op

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

With all the talk these days about impending water wars, it’s heartening to hear about how three states are working together to solve their water supply and demand issues. As reported by the Yuma Sun, the Central Arizona Project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority are all splitting the $172 million cost associated with the a new storage reservoir located 25 miles west of Yuma that is being constructed as part of the rehabilitation of the All American Canal. This new reservoir will be able to capture about 70,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, water that—until now—has been lost to runoff. The project—which will be completed by September 2010—depends upon gravity (no pumps needed) created by its location to funnel water into the “six-and-a-half mile concrete-lined inlet clean that feeds the reservoir.” This inlet can transfer up to 1,800 cubic feet of water per second to the fill reservoir, and the outlet canal can then lead that water back into the All American Canal—all within three days time.
What makes this project interesting is the participation of three water purveyors who usually find themselves at odds over the water flowing through the Colorado River. With this new reservoir in place, the stored water (which will be used as needed by the Imperial Irrigation District) will free up water from Lake Mead—water that will then be allocated to the three funding agencies. This additional water from Lake Mead will go a long way towards helping those funding agencies meet ever increasing demand in the face of lingering drought on local scarcity.
So what do you think? Can this type of cooperation be duplicated in other parts of the country? Could a similar strategy work for regions like the South, where Georgia has found itself at odds with its neighbors over water allocations? And does this “interstate water-commerce” promote efficiency or does it provide yet another stopgap solution that will deter communities from making the tough conservation calls?