(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.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
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?
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?
Monday, February 8, 2010
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)
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)
Monday, February 1, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
