(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)
Showing posts with label water efficiency resource management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water efficiency resource management. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
What does a worst-case scenario look like?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’re all aware that we are smack dab in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, and those in the know are constantly warning us that, without proper funding and implementation of large-scale repair and rehabilitation of our conveyance systems, we are all headed towards a water resource management Armageddon. There have been some high-profile examples of what can happen when water conveyance systems start to fail, including a series of water main breaks that peppered Los Angeles earlier this year.
But this week in Kalama, WA, I think we’ve finally found an example of exactly what a worst-case scenario looks like. The facts, as reported in The Seattle Times, are as follows: On December 14, 2009 a frozen water main ruptured, resulting in a 15-foot gash and a complete draining of the municipal reservoir—over 1 million gallons lost. Adding insult to injury, the city’s other reservoir—which normally holds about 2 million gallons—is undergoing a series of repairs and is also empty. As a result, Kalama found itself completely bereft of a local water supply for several hours. Thanks to emergency measures, water service was restored to Kalama by the end of the day, but with all the attendant safety notices and boil-water alerts. Nevertheless, the Emergency Management Director for Cowlitz County, Grover Laseke, says it could take days to refill the reservoirs using wells in the area.
There’s no indication that anything other than the weather undermined Kalama’s water main, but be it Mother Nature, structural failures, or even sabotage, the result is the same: a broken pipe, a dry faucet, and a community without water. So what can Kalama, WA—population 2,000—teach us about water resource management and aging conveyance systems? Was this situation avoidable? Is the weather (and other environmental factors) a significant threat to existing pipelines and water mains, or are only aging or poorly maintained conveyance systems vulnerable? And was the situation in Kalama, two drained reservoirs, just an example of bad timing, or the canary in the gold mine, warning us all that our local supplies are always in jeopardy?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’re all aware that we are smack dab in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, and those in the know are constantly warning us that, without proper funding and implementation of large-scale repair and rehabilitation of our conveyance systems, we are all headed towards a water resource management Armageddon. There have been some high-profile examples of what can happen when water conveyance systems start to fail, including a series of water main breaks that peppered Los Angeles earlier this year.
But this week in Kalama, WA, I think we’ve finally found an example of exactly what a worst-case scenario looks like. The facts, as reported in The Seattle Times, are as follows: On December 14, 2009 a frozen water main ruptured, resulting in a 15-foot gash and a complete draining of the municipal reservoir—over 1 million gallons lost. Adding insult to injury, the city’s other reservoir—which normally holds about 2 million gallons—is undergoing a series of repairs and is also empty. As a result, Kalama found itself completely bereft of a local water supply for several hours. Thanks to emergency measures, water service was restored to Kalama by the end of the day, but with all the attendant safety notices and boil-water alerts. Nevertheless, the Emergency Management Director for Cowlitz County, Grover Laseke, says it could take days to refill the reservoirs using wells in the area.
There’s no indication that anything other than the weather undermined Kalama’s water main, but be it Mother Nature, structural failures, or even sabotage, the result is the same: a broken pipe, a dry faucet, and a community without water. So what can Kalama, WA—population 2,000—teach us about water resource management and aging conveyance systems? Was this situation avoidable? Is the weather (and other environmental factors) a significant threat to existing pipelines and water mains, or are only aging or poorly maintained conveyance systems vulnerable? And was the situation in Kalama, two drained reservoirs, just an example of bad timing, or the canary in the gold mine, warning us all that our local supplies are always in jeopardy?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Subsidized Water
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Water and Energy—two forces forever bound together … it’s a relationship we’ve discussed many times. Because of the delicate balance between these two elements, conservation of one ultimately leads to conservation of the other (usually with the added bonus of reduced operational costs). But when there’s disturbance in this interplay, inefficiency takes hold, and we are left with a costly and wasteful delivery system. At other times, a surplus at one end of the spectrum can supplement a shortfall: But, does this kind of overcompensation really serve our ultimate goal of an efficient system that promotes conservation of all our precious resources?
Case in point: Arizona’s Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP—one of the state’s largest water suppliers—supplies water to farmers and 10 cities in and around the Phoenix area. But the SRP’s water delivery system has been operating with a financial deficit for years. According an article published this week in the Arizona Republic, the SRP ended the last fiscal year with a $33 million deficit. How does the SRP make up the difference? Electricity.
It costs the SRP $47 million deliver all of its water, and, while SRP customers pay $14 million of that bill in water assessments, electricity customers pick up the remaining $33 million. Using an energy surfeit to subsidize water delivery is nothing new for Arizona—for the past 100 years, power revenue has filled the gap between the cost to deliver water and the amount customers are charged on the receiving end. This quid-pro-quo started in 1909, when the Roosevelt Dam was paid for, in part, by the electricity revenue received from the energy generated by the dam. Once the SRP took over dam operations from the federal government, three more dams were built downstream using the same sort of energy-funding setup (with the added bonus of water storage). In fact, SRP officials have said that it’s this ability to store water and sell electricity that’s allowed for widespread development in Arizona.
So what do you think? Should electricity revenue subsidize water delivery? By artificially stabilizing water rates (and keeping those rates low despite increased demand or reduced supply), is the SRP encouraging water waste? According the SRP, only 1.4% of a customer’s energy bill goes funds water operations, but that figure does not take into account that all water users are not created equally—a single-family home, for example, uses less water than a even the smallest farm. It’s a complex issue, with many competing interests, but, in the end, as long as water customers are not paying the true cost for the resources they are con
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Water and Energy—two forces forever bound together … it’s a relationship we’ve discussed many times. Because of the delicate balance between these two elements, conservation of one ultimately leads to conservation of the other (usually with the added bonus of reduced operational costs). But when there’s disturbance in this interplay, inefficiency takes hold, and we are left with a costly and wasteful delivery system. At other times, a surplus at one end of the spectrum can supplement a shortfall: But, does this kind of overcompensation really serve our ultimate goal of an efficient system that promotes conservation of all our precious resources?
Case in point: Arizona’s Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP—one of the state’s largest water suppliers—supplies water to farmers and 10 cities in and around the Phoenix area. But the SRP’s water delivery system has been operating with a financial deficit for years. According an article published this week in the Arizona Republic, the SRP ended the last fiscal year with a $33 million deficit. How does the SRP make up the difference? Electricity.
It costs the SRP $47 million deliver all of its water, and, while SRP customers pay $14 million of that bill in water assessments, electricity customers pick up the remaining $33 million. Using an energy surfeit to subsidize water delivery is nothing new for Arizona—for the past 100 years, power revenue has filled the gap between the cost to deliver water and the amount customers are charged on the receiving end. This quid-pro-quo started in 1909, when the Roosevelt Dam was paid for, in part, by the electricity revenue received from the energy generated by the dam. Once the SRP took over dam operations from the federal government, three more dams were built downstream using the same sort of energy-funding setup (with the added bonus of water storage). In fact, SRP officials have said that it’s this ability to store water and sell electricity that’s allowed for widespread development in Arizona.
So what do you think? Should electricity revenue subsidize water delivery? By artificially stabilizing water rates (and keeping those rates low despite increased demand or reduced supply), is the SRP encouraging water waste? According the SRP, only 1.4% of a customer’s energy bill goes funds water operations, but that figure does not take into account that all water users are not created equally—a single-family home, for example, uses less water than a even the smallest farm. It’s a complex issue, with many competing interests, but, in the end, as long as water customers are not paying the true cost for the resources they are con
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What’s Your Standard
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an oft-repeated phrase: You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the realm of water efficiency—how can you know if you’re effectively allocating your resources if you don’t have an accurate assessment of what those resources are? But there’s another side to this equation that’s a little more problematic: How do you determine the methodology behind your measurements and—perhaps more importantly—how do you develop the baseline that those measurements are compared against?
In other words: What’s your standard? More importantly, how do you develop that standard? The initial steps are pretty straightforward: Define what you will measure, decide how you will measure it, and then determine how those measurements will be used. Seems simple enough—collect some data based on a metric you’ve devised, then compare that data to the benchmark you’ve established, and voilà!
As is often the case, actually implementing those steps is a bit more complicated. Deciding what will be measured means prioritizing based on the goals you want to achieve and the activities you deem most important. And those judgment calls will be different for each community and organization.
For the water efficiency professional, water use is the top priority, but which use is the most important? Residential? Commercial? Indoors or outdoors? What about imbedded energy or source protection? If you’re a residential community, how much water use per household is a reasonable amount? Is it 59 gallons per day average determined by the AWWARF Residential End Uses of Water study? Is that total acceptable when combined with widespread low-flow fixture installation? Should outdoor water use be added to the mix?
Measurement methodology comes with its own set of challenges, because how you measure is just as important as what you measure. Do you measure based on past performance? Do you use a percentage reduction, or rely strictly on gallons per day? Do you base your metrics on regional demands (landscaping in the desert versus green lawns in the Pacific Northwest), or do you develop a national standard based on weather forecasting and interstate water rights? And if you decide on a percentage-based calculation, are you penalizing early adopters who have already reduced their water use to a point where any further progress will be incremental?
And if the first step of any water conservation initiative is to establish what is being measured and how it’s being measured, then the next step is to add meaning to that data in the form of easily identifiable benchmarks. Those benchmarks can be based on a set of predetermined goals (a desire to reduce overall water use by “X” amount for example) or specific needs (protecting groundwater resources). But how do you choose?
There are, of course, national and regional programs that attempt to set water use standards, but those organizations have undoubtedly fallen into the same pitfalls mentioned above: regional variations, nebulous baseline calculations, inadvertent penalization of early adopters. Community concerns should certainly be considered, but there’s risk that real needs could be obscured by special interests, and the competing requests of Balkanized entities focused on their own requirements.
If all this sounds overwhelming, you’re not alone. Stepping into the water efficiency standards debate is akin to peeling the skin off of that proverbial onion—every step you take triggers a whole set of considerations.
So what do you think? Does developing some sort of repository of verifiable data make sense? And if so, what should this repository include? And is it possible to create a set of regional and case-specific standards designed to promote water efficiency that include understandable metrics, easily accessible benchmarks, and incentives to encourage continued improveme
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an oft-repeated phrase: You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the realm of water efficiency—how can you know if you’re effectively allocating your resources if you don’t have an accurate assessment of what those resources are? But there’s another side to this equation that’s a little more problematic: How do you determine the methodology behind your measurements and—perhaps more importantly—how do you develop the baseline that those measurements are compared against?
In other words: What’s your standard? More importantly, how do you develop that standard? The initial steps are pretty straightforward: Define what you will measure, decide how you will measure it, and then determine how those measurements will be used. Seems simple enough—collect some data based on a metric you’ve devised, then compare that data to the benchmark you’ve established, and voilà!
As is often the case, actually implementing those steps is a bit more complicated. Deciding what will be measured means prioritizing based on the goals you want to achieve and the activities you deem most important. And those judgment calls will be different for each community and organization.
For the water efficiency professional, water use is the top priority, but which use is the most important? Residential? Commercial? Indoors or outdoors? What about imbedded energy or source protection? If you’re a residential community, how much water use per household is a reasonable amount? Is it 59 gallons per day average determined by the AWWARF Residential End Uses of Water study? Is that total acceptable when combined with widespread low-flow fixture installation? Should outdoor water use be added to the mix?
Measurement methodology comes with its own set of challenges, because how you measure is just as important as what you measure. Do you measure based on past performance? Do you use a percentage reduction, or rely strictly on gallons per day? Do you base your metrics on regional demands (landscaping in the desert versus green lawns in the Pacific Northwest), or do you develop a national standard based on weather forecasting and interstate water rights? And if you decide on a percentage-based calculation, are you penalizing early adopters who have already reduced their water use to a point where any further progress will be incremental?
And if the first step of any water conservation initiative is to establish what is being measured and how it’s being measured, then the next step is to add meaning to that data in the form of easily identifiable benchmarks. Those benchmarks can be based on a set of predetermined goals (a desire to reduce overall water use by “X” amount for example) or specific needs (protecting groundwater resources). But how do you choose?
There are, of course, national and regional programs that attempt to set water use standards, but those organizations have undoubtedly fallen into the same pitfalls mentioned above: regional variations, nebulous baseline calculations, inadvertent penalization of early adopters. Community concerns should certainly be considered, but there’s risk that real needs could be obscured by special interests, and the competing requests of Balkanized entities focused on their own requirements.
If all this sounds overwhelming, you’re not alone. Stepping into the water efficiency standards debate is akin to peeling the skin off of that proverbial onion—every step you take triggers a whole set of considerations.
So what do you think? Does developing some sort of repository of verifiable data make sense? And if so, what should this repository include? And is it possible to create a set of regional and case-specific standards designed to promote water efficiency that include understandable metrics, easily accessible benchmarks, and incentives to encourage continued improveme
Monday, November 2, 2009
WE Professionals Take a Bow
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The numbers are in, and the news is good: American’s are using less water. According to a report released by USGS, water use in the US is the lowest it’s been since the 1950s. In fact, in the last 30 or so years, the change in water use in the US has been nothing short of amazing: Today our nation consumes less water than it did 30 years ago, and per capita use is down nearly 30% from what it was in 1975. This is what all of us in the industry have been working towards, and it’s heartening to see numbers that illustrate without a doubt that the US has finally and firmly moved away from water waste and inefficiency, and set a course towards thoughtful, studied, and efficient water use.
Every five years, the USGS releases an assessment of water use in the US, but the numbers that appear in this most recent report have generated a lot of excitement. Some of the USGS report statistics for 2005 include:
* A reduction of total water use from 410 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d)—for residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling—down from 413 Bgal/day in 2005 (and 5% less than the peak numbers reported in 1980)
* Fresh groundwater withdrawals of 79.6 Bgal/day in 2005 (about 5% less than in 2000)
* 128 Bgal/d for irrigation withdrawals (about 8% less than in 2000 and approximately equal to estimates of irrigation water use in 1970)
* And although there was a 2% increase in public supply withdrawals (44.2 Bgal/d in 2005), population increased by more than 5% during the same period.
While the conservation numbers are exciting, it’s also interesting to see exactly where all our water goes:
* Nearly 30% of all fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005 occurred in five states: California, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois.
* Irrigation accounts for more than half of all groundwater withdrawals in California, Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Idaho.
* Almost 67% of fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005 were for irrigation.
* Another 18% of groundwater withdrawals were for the country’s public supply.
* In Florida, 52% of all fresh groundwater withdrawals were for public supply, and 34% were for irrigation.
All of us involved in water efficiency and conservation should feel proud. The USGS report specifically credits water-saving technologies and public outreach for the drop in usage throughout the country. As Susan Hutson, one of authors of the report, points out, “Even during a time of population growth and economic growth, we are all using less water. It’s exciting to see we have responded to these crises by really seeking solutions.”
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The numbers are in, and the news is good: American’s are using less water. According to a report released by USGS, water use in the US is the lowest it’s been since the 1950s. In fact, in the last 30 or so years, the change in water use in the US has been nothing short of amazing: Today our nation consumes less water than it did 30 years ago, and per capita use is down nearly 30% from what it was in 1975. This is what all of us in the industry have been working towards, and it’s heartening to see numbers that illustrate without a doubt that the US has finally and firmly moved away from water waste and inefficiency, and set a course towards thoughtful, studied, and efficient water use.
Every five years, the USGS releases an assessment of water use in the US, but the numbers that appear in this most recent report have generated a lot of excitement. Some of the USGS report statistics for 2005 include:
* A reduction of total water use from 410 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d)—for residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling—down from 413 Bgal/day in 2005 (and 5% less than the peak numbers reported in 1980)
* Fresh groundwater withdrawals of 79.6 Bgal/day in 2005 (about 5% less than in 2000)
* 128 Bgal/d for irrigation withdrawals (about 8% less than in 2000 and approximately equal to estimates of irrigation water use in 1970)
* And although there was a 2% increase in public supply withdrawals (44.2 Bgal/d in 2005), population increased by more than 5% during the same period.
While the conservation numbers are exciting, it’s also interesting to see exactly where all our water goes:
* Nearly 30% of all fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005 occurred in five states: California, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois.
* Irrigation accounts for more than half of all groundwater withdrawals in California, Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Idaho.
* Almost 67% of fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005 were for irrigation.
* Another 18% of groundwater withdrawals were for the country’s public supply.
* In Florida, 52% of all fresh groundwater withdrawals were for public supply, and 34% were for irrigation.
All of us involved in water efficiency and conservation should feel proud. The USGS report specifically credits water-saving technologies and public outreach for the drop in usage throughout the country. As Susan Hutson, one of authors of the report, points out, “Even during a time of population growth and economic growth, we are all using less water. It’s exciting to see we have responded to these crises by really seeking solutions.”
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, September 28, 2009
Alternative Sources
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my April editorial “Divining Rods”, I stated, “With a finite amount of water available, it’s important that we use what we have wisely, but it’s equally important to find untapped sources that can supplement our current supplies and allow us to efficiently meet growing demand.” In Philadelphia, PA, that search for new sources has hit pay dirt in the form of stormwater control. According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer the city plans to spend $1.6 billion to switch away from traditional stormwater management (essentially ushering rainwater downstream) and towards a reimagined urban landscape of green roofs, porous pavements, and rain gardens.
The plan success rests, in part, on participation by all members of the community. To that end, every time a city street is dug up for standard municipal repairs and projects, it will be repaved with porous asphalt (at a slightly higher cost). And under a city ordinance, large-scale commercial structures (15,000 square feet or more) must install rainwater catchment systems. Additionally, commercial water rates are now based not on how much water is used the facility, but by how much land is covered by impervious surface materials.
The plan sounds like a “win-win:” reduced demand on the city’s sewer system, reduced energy usage, even reduced deaths (from excess heat). Jon Capacasa, regional director of water protection for the EPA, is quoted in the article, saying, “This is the most significant use of green infrastructure I’ve seen in the country, the largest scale I’ve seen.”
So what do you think? Are large-scale plans like this feasible? And are the implementation costs justified by the results?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my April editorial “Divining Rods”, I stated, “With a finite amount of water available, it’s important that we use what we have wisely, but it’s equally important to find untapped sources that can supplement our current supplies and allow us to efficiently meet growing demand.” In Philadelphia, PA, that search for new sources has hit pay dirt in the form of stormwater control. According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer the city plans to spend $1.6 billion to switch away from traditional stormwater management (essentially ushering rainwater downstream) and towards a reimagined urban landscape of green roofs, porous pavements, and rain gardens.
The plan success rests, in part, on participation by all members of the community. To that end, every time a city street is dug up for standard municipal repairs and projects, it will be repaved with porous asphalt (at a slightly higher cost). And under a city ordinance, large-scale commercial structures (15,000 square feet or more) must install rainwater catchment systems. Additionally, commercial water rates are now based not on how much water is used the facility, but by how much land is covered by impervious surface materials.
The plan sounds like a “win-win:” reduced demand on the city’s sewer system, reduced energy usage, even reduced deaths (from excess heat). Jon Capacasa, regional director of water protection for the EPA, is quoted in the article, saying, “This is the most significant use of green infrastructure I’ve seen in the country, the largest scale I’ve seen.”
So what do you think? Are large-scale plans like this feasible? And are the implementation costs justified by the results?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Water Saved Is Water Earned?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week, the online edition of the Desert Sun ran a news item on a surprise announcement by the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District—two of California’s biggest users of Colorado River water allotments. Turns out, both districts estimate that they will be need a significantly smaller amount of water this year than originally projected—the smallest amount, in fact, since they were required to track their use by the 2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement (QSA).
The news couldn’t have come at a better time for Los Angeles. Under the QSA, customers in the Los Angeles area (about 19 million) are entitled to any water left over from unused agricultural supplies in the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. In Los Angeles, this water windfall will not only help ease mandatory water restrictions, it will also go a long way towards replenishing the area’s water storage supply.
As is always the case in California, the announcement spurred controversy— specifically over how the water savings were achieved. Agricultural interests in Imperial and Coachella claimed that successful conservation and efficiency programs had created the surplus. But skeptics point to the weakened economy and its effect on California’s ag industry (smaller crop yields, diminished demand) as the real culprit. These warring claims have a significance—under the QSA farmers are supposed to receive funds to aid in the implementation of water conservation efforts, funds that could help farmers sustain themselves during these lean times. Without that funding, some farmers claim there is little incentive to conserve water.
In California the push-pull relationship between rural and urban water users seems never ending—one group always feels any conservation on their part leaves them at a disadvantage while unfairly benefiting the other side. What do you think? Should conservation efforts be incentive-based? Do the farmers in California’s central valley have a point? Or is the solution to look beyond the water-as-commodity paradi
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week, the online edition of the Desert Sun ran a news item on a surprise announcement by the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District—two of California’s biggest users of Colorado River water allotments. Turns out, both districts estimate that they will be need a significantly smaller amount of water this year than originally projected—the smallest amount, in fact, since they were required to track their use by the 2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement (QSA).
The news couldn’t have come at a better time for Los Angeles. Under the QSA, customers in the Los Angeles area (about 19 million) are entitled to any water left over from unused agricultural supplies in the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. In Los Angeles, this water windfall will not only help ease mandatory water restrictions, it will also go a long way towards replenishing the area’s water storage supply.
As is always the case in California, the announcement spurred controversy— specifically over how the water savings were achieved. Agricultural interests in Imperial and Coachella claimed that successful conservation and efficiency programs had created the surplus. But skeptics point to the weakened economy and its effect on California’s ag industry (smaller crop yields, diminished demand) as the real culprit. These warring claims have a significance—under the QSA farmers are supposed to receive funds to aid in the implementation of water conservation efforts, funds that could help farmers sustain themselves during these lean times. Without that funding, some farmers claim there is little incentive to conserve water.
In California the push-pull relationship between rural and urban water users seems never ending—one group always feels any conservation on their part leaves them at a disadvantage while unfairly benefiting the other side. What do you think? Should conservation efforts be incentive-based? Do the farmers in California’s central valley have a point? Or is the solution to look beyond the water-as-commodity paradi
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Dead Zone
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my July blog for Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I appropriated the age old question of a tree falling in the woods by asking “if a green building stands empty, is it still “sustainable?” After reviewing some of today’s water headlines, I’m beginning to wonder if the same holds true for conveyance systems: If new pipes are bone dry, are they still a water delivery system? Or maybe the question should be: If you build it, will the water flow?
In January, I discussed a plan put forth by the California Department of Water Resources that attempts to alleviate increasing demand in the southern portion of the state with the construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River. This week, it was announced that, in fact, officials at the agency are conducting feasibility studies on an “all tunnel” option that involves a 35-mile tunnel designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south.
Those of you following the Delta-smelt decision in California and the resulting water shortages are aware of the contentious relationship between the northern and southern parts of the state when it comes to the management of local water resources. With pumping currently restricted (because of the endangered delta smelt), there is some question as to whether a large infrastructure project such as this underground tunnel (which some opponents allege could actually stretch as far as 50 miles) can be completed in a way that protects the delicate delta ecosystem and disperses the state’s water resources in an equitable manner. Additionally, there is some concern over costs (some estimates put the bill as high as $15 billion) and how the tunnel would be managed.
On the other side of the country, a worse case scenario is already taking shape. Some of you no doubt remember Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue’s prayer for rain. Although afterwards Atlanta did experience some much-needed precipitation, it looks like the governor’s water crisis is far from over: And Georgia is not alone. In fact, the southern states are “canaries in the coal mine”: The challenges they face and the solutions they employ are part of a first front in what could be rightly called a water war.
Last month, a judge ruled that Georgia has no more than a minor legal right to the water of Lake Lanier—making Georgia the loser in a long-running water rights dispute between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Lake Lanier supplies three million Atlanta residents, and the loss of that resource impacts the state’s rural areas in a way that mirrors the situation in California. In fact, it’s déjà vu, with environmentalists pitted against urban residents, while farmers worry that their own water allocations will dry up. And much like the ramifications felt after the delta-smelt court decision in California severely cut back the amount of water pumped out of the delta, in June of this year, a district court ruled that without a congressional deal in the next three years, withdrawals from Lake Lanier could be drastically cut.
Of course, the main difference in Georgia is that the water from Lake Lanier belongs to three states—making a resolution that much more difficult to come by. And much like California’s governor and his water task force, Governor Purdue is weighing all his options: larger legal case based on a 150-year-old supreme court decision that gives Georgia a larger share of the lake’s water, and perhaps controversial interbasin water transfers (shifting water from one river basin to another). But even if Georgia gains rights to all the water in the lake, it won’t be enough.
That’s because a continuing drought has dried up the region’s reservoirs, including Lake Lanier. Water levels at the lake (and at the Allatoona reservoir, which also supplies water to Atlanta) have shrunk so far down that all that’s left is dirty, bacteria-laden water just inches above the “dead zone”—the final layer of stored water that’s high in organic material (like decaying plants and animals) and low on oxygen. This substandard water supplying is forcing many communities to employ ever stronger water treatment methods, proving that even if you have the infrastructure in place, in the end it’s all about the level and quality of your water supply.
Go here for more on the California water tunnel.
Go here to read about the crisis in Georgia.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my July blog for Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I appropriated the age old question of a tree falling in the woods by asking “if a green building stands empty, is it still “sustainable?” After reviewing some of today’s water headlines, I’m beginning to wonder if the same holds true for conveyance systems: If new pipes are bone dry, are they still a water delivery system? Or maybe the question should be: If you build it, will the water flow?
In January, I discussed a plan put forth by the California Department of Water Resources that attempts to alleviate increasing demand in the southern portion of the state with the construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River. This week, it was announced that, in fact, officials at the agency are conducting feasibility studies on an “all tunnel” option that involves a 35-mile tunnel designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south.
Those of you following the Delta-smelt decision in California and the resulting water shortages are aware of the contentious relationship between the northern and southern parts of the state when it comes to the management of local water resources. With pumping currently restricted (because of the endangered delta smelt), there is some question as to whether a large infrastructure project such as this underground tunnel (which some opponents allege could actually stretch as far as 50 miles) can be completed in a way that protects the delicate delta ecosystem and disperses the state’s water resources in an equitable manner. Additionally, there is some concern over costs (some estimates put the bill as high as $15 billion) and how the tunnel would be managed.
On the other side of the country, a worse case scenario is already taking shape. Some of you no doubt remember Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue’s prayer for rain. Although afterwards Atlanta did experience some much-needed precipitation, it looks like the governor’s water crisis is far from over: And Georgia is not alone. In fact, the southern states are “canaries in the coal mine”: The challenges they face and the solutions they employ are part of a first front in what could be rightly called a water war.
Last month, a judge ruled that Georgia has no more than a minor legal right to the water of Lake Lanier—making Georgia the loser in a long-running water rights dispute between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Lake Lanier supplies three million Atlanta residents, and the loss of that resource impacts the state’s rural areas in a way that mirrors the situation in California. In fact, it’s déjà vu, with environmentalists pitted against urban residents, while farmers worry that their own water allocations will dry up. And much like the ramifications felt after the delta-smelt court decision in California severely cut back the amount of water pumped out of the delta, in June of this year, a district court ruled that without a congressional deal in the next three years, withdrawals from Lake Lanier could be drastically cut.
Of course, the main difference in Georgia is that the water from Lake Lanier belongs to three states—making a resolution that much more difficult to come by. And much like California’s governor and his water task force, Governor Purdue is weighing all his options: larger legal case based on a 150-year-old supreme court decision that gives Georgia a larger share of the lake’s water, and perhaps controversial interbasin water transfers (shifting water from one river basin to another). But even if Georgia gains rights to all the water in the lake, it won’t be enough.
That’s because a continuing drought has dried up the region’s reservoirs, including Lake Lanier. Water levels at the lake (and at the Allatoona reservoir, which also supplies water to Atlanta) have shrunk so far down that all that’s left is dirty, bacteria-laden water just inches above the “dead zone”—the final layer of stored water that’s high in organic material (like decaying plants and animals) and low on oxygen. This substandard water supplying is forcing many communities to employ ever stronger water treatment methods, proving that even if you have the infrastructure in place, in the end it’s all about the level and quality of your water supply.
Go here for more on the California water tunnel.
Go here to read about the crisis in Georgia.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Finally...Teamwork
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The role of the water purveyor—also known as any public utility, mutual water company, county water district, or municipality that delivers drinking water to customers—involves a variety of responsibilities. Not only do water agencies control and manage supply and delivery, but they must also handle everything from stormwater and flood control to wastewater and water quality, habitat protection, and other environmental concerns. As a result, the water purveyor is the ultimate multitasker—charged with overseeing projects and solving problems while making sure that the community can depend upon clean and reliable water. In other words, the work of the water purveyor involves integrated water resources management.
Generally speaking, integrated water resources management involves the consideration of multiple water management viewpoints when considering courses of action. These voices include “management agencies with specific purposes, governmental and stakeholder groups, geographic regions, and disciplines of knowledge.” This could involve the organization of a task force or even the collaboration of different agencies all charged with finding the best solution for the issue at hand, be it river basin planning, conservation outreach, or aqueduct recharge. Because there are many competing water needs, it’s important to involving as many participants in the process as possible.
While the implementation of integrated water resources management depends upon the situation, “Total Water Management” has been coined to describe the inclusion of “integration principals” in water supply development. In 1996, the AWWA defined Total Water Management as “the exercise of stewardship of water resources for the greatest good of society and the environment,” that includes:
* Encouraging planning and management on a natural water systems basis through a dynamic process that adapts to changing conditions
* Balancing competing uses of water through efficient allocation that addresses social values, cost effectiveness, and environmental benefits and costs
* Requiring the participation of all units of government and stakeholders in decision-making through a process of coordination and conflict resolution
* Promoting water conservation, reuse, source protection, and supply development to enhance water quality and quantity
* Fostering public health, safety, and community goodwill
Following in that same vein, last week the US House of Representatives passed the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act. Essentially, the bill legislates total water management by mandating the coordination of national research and development efforts to “provide a clear path forward to ensure adequate water supplies for generations to come.”
Highlights of the bill include:
* The creation of a National Water Initiative Coordination Office for technical and administrative support, as well as public “point of contact”
* The requirement that the president establish or designate an interagency committee that will include representation from all federal agencies dealing with water so that a National Water Research and Development Initiative can be implemented in order to improve federal activities on water, including research, development, demonstration, data collection and dissemination, education, and technology transfer
* The interagency committee would be responsible for the implementation of a national water census, the development of new water technologies and techniques, the development of tools to facilitate water resource conflicts, the development of information technology systems to enhance water quality and supply, the improvement of hydrologic prediction models, an enhanced understanding related to ecosystem services, and an analyses of the energy-water nexus
In a statement, bill author and Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) says, “Coordination of federal agency activities and a stronger partnership with state, local, and tribal governments will ensure that federal programs are focused on areas of greatest concern, and that our efforts are complementary and effective.”
So what do you think? Is integrated water resource management the ultimate water efficiency practice? And if it is, will the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act pave the way for nationwide efficiency programs?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The role of the water purveyor—also known as any public utility, mutual water company, county water district, or municipality that delivers drinking water to customers—involves a variety of responsibilities. Not only do water agencies control and manage supply and delivery, but they must also handle everything from stormwater and flood control to wastewater and water quality, habitat protection, and other environmental concerns. As a result, the water purveyor is the ultimate multitasker—charged with overseeing projects and solving problems while making sure that the community can depend upon clean and reliable water. In other words, the work of the water purveyor involves integrated water resources management.
Generally speaking, integrated water resources management involves the consideration of multiple water management viewpoints when considering courses of action. These voices include “management agencies with specific purposes, governmental and stakeholder groups, geographic regions, and disciplines of knowledge.” This could involve the organization of a task force or even the collaboration of different agencies all charged with finding the best solution for the issue at hand, be it river basin planning, conservation outreach, or aqueduct recharge. Because there are many competing water needs, it’s important to involving as many participants in the process as possible.
While the implementation of integrated water resources management depends upon the situation, “Total Water Management” has been coined to describe the inclusion of “integration principals” in water supply development. In 1996, the AWWA defined Total Water Management as “the exercise of stewardship of water resources for the greatest good of society and the environment,” that includes:
* Encouraging planning and management on a natural water systems basis through a dynamic process that adapts to changing conditions
* Balancing competing uses of water through efficient allocation that addresses social values, cost effectiveness, and environmental benefits and costs
* Requiring the participation of all units of government and stakeholders in decision-making through a process of coordination and conflict resolution
* Promoting water conservation, reuse, source protection, and supply development to enhance water quality and quantity
* Fostering public health, safety, and community goodwill
Following in that same vein, last week the US House of Representatives passed the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act. Essentially, the bill legislates total water management by mandating the coordination of national research and development efforts to “provide a clear path forward to ensure adequate water supplies for generations to come.”
Highlights of the bill include:
* The creation of a National Water Initiative Coordination Office for technical and administrative support, as well as public “point of contact”
* The requirement that the president establish or designate an interagency committee that will include representation from all federal agencies dealing with water so that a National Water Research and Development Initiative can be implemented in order to improve federal activities on water, including research, development, demonstration, data collection and dissemination, education, and technology transfer
* The interagency committee would be responsible for the implementation of a national water census, the development of new water technologies and techniques, the development of tools to facilitate water resource conflicts, the development of information technology systems to enhance water quality and supply, the improvement of hydrologic prediction models, an enhanced understanding related to ecosystem services, and an analyses of the energy-water nexus
In a statement, bill author and Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) says, “Coordination of federal agency activities and a stronger partnership with state, local, and tribal governments will ensure that federal programs are focused on areas of greatest concern, and that our efforts are complementary and effective.”
So what do you think? Is integrated water resource management the ultimate water efficiency practice? And if it is, will the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act pave the way for nationwide efficiency programs?
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Nine Steps
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
On October 22, 2008, Washington-based American Rivers released its report on the Southeast’s water crisis. Entitled “Hidden Reservoir: Why Water Efficiency Is the Best Solution for the Southeast.” The report essentially states that improvements in water efficiency—demand reduction, pipe and pump rehabilitation, low-flow fixtures, and smart irrigation—will result in a bigger return on investment than large-scale infrastructure projects.
Overall, there are nine essential water conservation tactics outlined in the report:
*Stop leaks from aging and broken water pipes.
*Raise the price of water.
*Meter all water users.
*Retrofit buildings with water-efficient toilets, faucets, and appliances.
*Install drought-resistant landscapes, require meters for sprinkler systems, and charge more for irrigation water.
*Educate the public about ways to save water.
*Design new buildings that can capture rainwater to water landscaping, and recycle shower and sink water in the toilet.
*Determine how much water can be safely withdrawn from rivers and lakes, and don’t take more.
*Involve water users in water-policy decisions.
(nine steps summary courtesy of ajc.com)
In fact, American Rivers’ report calls the plan to build dams throughout the southeast—like the controversial Flint River project south of Atlanta—expensive as well as destructive. Ultimately, it’s the hit to the region’s pocketbook that might be the most persuasive. According to statistics provided by Hordan, Jones & Goulding, water conservation efforts would cost no more than $250 for every 1,000 gallons of water saved. The dam? That price tag would be significantly higher: an eye-popping $4,000 for every 1,000 gallons of water saved.
Dams are a popular “go-to” solution when the going gets tough, and a community finds itself at the losing end of a dried-up water source. In Georgia, for example, the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning district has its heart set on four new dams in four different counties. Then again, with credit markets drying up as fast as a Georgia river bed (sorry – I couldn’t help myself!), the great “dam plan” might be stuck in a holding pattern, at least for the time being.
And that may provide a much needed cooling-off period. The “nine steps towards reducing water consumption and protecting water resources” delineated in the American Rivers’ report shouldn’t be taken as suggestions, but, instead, treated as mandates—not just for the Southeast, but for the entire country. Now is not the time for extravagance of thought or action. We’re going to have to tighten our belts and protect all of our dwindling resources because—as we are all now painfully learning—treating your assets (be they money, fuel, or water) with wild abandon does not build a foundation for a better future, but actually erodes any progress made and puts us all in jeopardy. So what do you say, are you ready to make the “nine steps” your mantra?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
On October 22, 2008, Washington-based American Rivers released its report on the Southeast’s water crisis. Entitled “Hidden Reservoir: Why Water Efficiency Is the Best Solution for the Southeast.” The report essentially states that improvements in water efficiency—demand reduction, pipe and pump rehabilitation, low-flow fixtures, and smart irrigation—will result in a bigger return on investment than large-scale infrastructure projects.
Overall, there are nine essential water conservation tactics outlined in the report:
*Stop leaks from aging and broken water pipes.
*Raise the price of water.
*Meter all water users.
*Retrofit buildings with water-efficient toilets, faucets, and appliances.
*Install drought-resistant landscapes, require meters for sprinkler systems, and charge more for irrigation water.
*Educate the public about ways to save water.
*Design new buildings that can capture rainwater to water landscaping, and recycle shower and sink water in the toilet.
*Determine how much water can be safely withdrawn from rivers and lakes, and don’t take more.
*Involve water users in water-policy decisions.
(nine steps summary courtesy of ajc.com)
In fact, American Rivers’ report calls the plan to build dams throughout the southeast—like the controversial Flint River project south of Atlanta—expensive as well as destructive. Ultimately, it’s the hit to the region’s pocketbook that might be the most persuasive. According to statistics provided by Hordan, Jones & Goulding, water conservation efforts would cost no more than $250 for every 1,000 gallons of water saved. The dam? That price tag would be significantly higher: an eye-popping $4,000 for every 1,000 gallons of water saved.
Dams are a popular “go-to” solution when the going gets tough, and a community finds itself at the losing end of a dried-up water source. In Georgia, for example, the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning district has its heart set on four new dams in four different counties. Then again, with credit markets drying up as fast as a Georgia river bed (sorry – I couldn’t help myself!), the great “dam plan” might be stuck in a holding pattern, at least for the time being.
And that may provide a much needed cooling-off period. The “nine steps towards reducing water consumption and protecting water resources” delineated in the American Rivers’ report shouldn’t be taken as suggestions, but, instead, treated as mandates—not just for the Southeast, but for the entire country. Now is not the time for extravagance of thought or action. We’re going to have to tighten our belts and protect all of our dwindling resources because—as we are all now painfully learning—treating your assets (be they money, fuel, or water) with wild abandon does not build a foundation for a better future, but actually erodes any progress made and puts us all in jeopardy. So what do you say, are you ready to make the “nine steps” your mantra?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Personal Responsibility Versus Government Action
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an age-old argument: How much should we be held accountable for as individuals, and at what point should the government step in to help? When it comes to water conservation and efficiency, the question becomes even more complex: Can public outreach and a call to action be enough to inspire change, or will real results happen only after rules and regulations are enacted and enforced?
We’ve highlighted several successful public outreach programs in the magazine. Communities like Denver, Co and Seattle, Wa are just two examples—both cities have made great strides in encouraging involvement and stirring enthusiasm for water conservation and efficiency amongst its citizens. In Seattle, the Saving Water Partnership program—which is sponsored by a group of local utilities that fund water conservation programs in Seattle and King County, and includes workshops and a Web site—promotes the 1% Water Conservation Initiative, a plan to reduce personal and business water consumption 1% every year for 10 years. (For more information, go to www.savingwater.org) In the meantime, Denver’s citywide billboard program, with slogans like “Be Responsible” and “Use Only What You Need,” serve as a constant reminder to residents to stay aware and vigilant about their water usage. (For more information on Denver’s program, go to http://useonlywhatyouneed.org).
These programs work, but are they enough?
At one point, will we have to take a serious look at local, state, and federal conservation, and efficiency statutes and regulations? Some cities and states have already begun to make and enforce water conservation laws. In Georgia for example, the Georgia EPD regulates the withdrawal and use of Georgia’s ground and surface water resources and has the authority to prohibit residential outdoor water use. And in Texas, several water conservation house bills have been enacted, including rules imposing new conservation prerequisites and easing the way for greater use of “graywater” for landscape purposes. In fact, in most drought-stricken areas you can find some type of rule or law that dictates at least some facet of water usage and conservation.
Local control appears to be somewhat effective, but can we leave it up to the Cities and States, or is it time for the Federal Government to step in?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an age-old argument: How much should we be held accountable for as individuals, and at what point should the government step in to help? When it comes to water conservation and efficiency, the question becomes even more complex: Can public outreach and a call to action be enough to inspire change, or will real results happen only after rules and regulations are enacted and enforced?
We’ve highlighted several successful public outreach programs in the magazine. Communities like Denver, Co and Seattle, Wa are just two examples—both cities have made great strides in encouraging involvement and stirring enthusiasm for water conservation and efficiency amongst its citizens. In Seattle, the Saving Water Partnership program—which is sponsored by a group of local utilities that fund water conservation programs in Seattle and King County, and includes workshops and a Web site—promotes the 1% Water Conservation Initiative, a plan to reduce personal and business water consumption 1% every year for 10 years. (For more information, go to www.savingwater.org) In the meantime, Denver’s citywide billboard program, with slogans like “Be Responsible” and “Use Only What You Need,” serve as a constant reminder to residents to stay aware and vigilant about their water usage. (For more information on Denver’s program, go to http://useonlywhatyouneed.org).
These programs work, but are they enough?
At one point, will we have to take a serious look at local, state, and federal conservation, and efficiency statutes and regulations? Some cities and states have already begun to make and enforce water conservation laws. In Georgia for example, the Georgia EPD regulates the withdrawal and use of Georgia’s ground and surface water resources and has the authority to prohibit residential outdoor water use. And in Texas, several water conservation house bills have been enacted, including rules imposing new conservation prerequisites and easing the way for greater use of “graywater” for landscape purposes. In fact, in most drought-stricken areas you can find some type of rule or law that dictates at least some facet of water usage and conservation.
Local control appears to be somewhat effective, but can we leave it up to the Cities and States, or is it time for the Federal Government to step in?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Titans of Industry - Should Big Business Control The Tap?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency Magazine
In many parts of the country, water utilities depend on tiered rate structures to promote water conservation: the idea being that as the gallons increase, the cost goes up and the water usage will decline. This works…sometimes. There will always be that one customer who cherishes his lawn and is willing to pay whatever it takes to keep his jewel green.
In the United States, 3/4ths of water systems are public, which affords us the luxury of using water rates to promote conservation. Other countries are not as lucky. In fact, many struggling nations with crumbling infrastructures have chosen to turn over their water utilities to private companies. Known as the “Water Barons” or “Big Water,” these companies build and/or manage municipal systems for profit.
Some of the more successful private water companies offer a virtual genie’s lamp of promises. Just turn your system over to us, they imply, and watch as new pipes are laid, old leaks are fixed and every man, woman and child gains access to pure, plentiful tap water. All this while instituting a rate system they argue will fund system improvements and promote water conservation
The reality is not so pretty. Although there have been some successes, privatization of water utilities has resulted in a long list of tragedies: in China citizens are sometimes forced to pay a quarter of their annual income for barely usable water; in South Africa those unable to pay turning to untreated lakes and streams (resulting in the worst Cholera outbreak in the nation’s history); and in South America, unfinished projects are often abandoned in the wake of civil unrest, leaving the task of reinstating the defunct and barely functional municipal systems in the hands of under-funded and fragile new governments.
Can increasing the cost of water decrease water waste? Of course, especially if the rate increases are combined with conservation education and government-sponsored tools (i.e. low-flow rebate programs and free water audits). But when you are dealing with a region experiencing extreme water shortages and substandard or nonexistent infrastructure, rate increases can be counterproductive and even cruel.
What is the answer? I think it depends on whether or not you are asking the right questions. Although water can be a commodity – something to be bought and sold based on the balance of supply and demand – that is not its only identity. End users in the third world struggle to meet the daily demands of survival. There is no expendable income to fund an ornamental rose garden or patch of vibrant green sod. They count themselves lucky if the well has yet to run dry. Ultimately no one can forgo water and survive: it’s not just a “want” it’s a basic need.
So the question is not “can water rates promote water conservation?” We first need to determine whether we are committed to fair, equitable, and cost-effective water distribution that rewards conservation where possible but does not deny access in the process. Within that context, I think it’s fair to then ask, “should water delivery be a for-profit undertaking?”
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency Magazine
In many parts of the country, water utilities depend on tiered rate structures to promote water conservation: the idea being that as the gallons increase, the cost goes up and the water usage will decline. This works…sometimes. There will always be that one customer who cherishes his lawn and is willing to pay whatever it takes to keep his jewel green.
In the United States, 3/4ths of water systems are public, which affords us the luxury of using water rates to promote conservation. Other countries are not as lucky. In fact, many struggling nations with crumbling infrastructures have chosen to turn over their water utilities to private companies. Known as the “Water Barons” or “Big Water,” these companies build and/or manage municipal systems for profit.
Some of the more successful private water companies offer a virtual genie’s lamp of promises. Just turn your system over to us, they imply, and watch as new pipes are laid, old leaks are fixed and every man, woman and child gains access to pure, plentiful tap water. All this while instituting a rate system they argue will fund system improvements and promote water conservation
The reality is not so pretty. Although there have been some successes, privatization of water utilities has resulted in a long list of tragedies: in China citizens are sometimes forced to pay a quarter of their annual income for barely usable water; in South Africa those unable to pay turning to untreated lakes and streams (resulting in the worst Cholera outbreak in the nation’s history); and in South America, unfinished projects are often abandoned in the wake of civil unrest, leaving the task of reinstating the defunct and barely functional municipal systems in the hands of under-funded and fragile new governments.
Can increasing the cost of water decrease water waste? Of course, especially if the rate increases are combined with conservation education and government-sponsored tools (i.e. low-flow rebate programs and free water audits). But when you are dealing with a region experiencing extreme water shortages and substandard or nonexistent infrastructure, rate increases can be counterproductive and even cruel.
What is the answer? I think it depends on whether or not you are asking the right questions. Although water can be a commodity – something to be bought and sold based on the balance of supply and demand – that is not its only identity. End users in the third world struggle to meet the daily demands of survival. There is no expendable income to fund an ornamental rose garden or patch of vibrant green sod. They count themselves lucky if the well has yet to run dry. Ultimately no one can forgo water and survive: it’s not just a “want” it’s a basic need.
So the question is not “can water rates promote water conservation?” We first need to determine whether we are committed to fair, equitable, and cost-effective water distribution that rewards conservation where possible but does not deny access in the process. Within that context, I think it’s fair to then ask, “should water delivery be a for-profit undertaking?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
