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?