(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
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, April 5, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
