(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Discussing imbedded water costs and the influence of free trade and a global economy -
Let’s talk about “virtual water.” Defined as “imbedded water costs,” the idea behind virtual water is that any product – be it food or commercial goods” – requires a certain amount of water to be produced. Once a water scarce region identifies goods that come with a high virtual water cost, they can develop regional partnerships with their neighbors, who can produce the same item without the same strain on their own water resources.
The concept of virtual water has found its niche in the area of global trade. According to recent studies, 800 billion gallons of virtual water are traded each year. Most of that trade revolves around food and other farm products. And the potential impacts are dramatic – it takes 1,000 liters of water to make 1 kilogram of wheat, and a country able to import, rather than grow this crop itself, frees up water for other, more pressing needs. For countries with scarce water resources, virtual water allows a switch from an ag-heavy water use system to water-based sanitation services and drinking water.
For countries who are not in dire straights yet – like the United States – virtual water provides data that can be used for future planning. For example, according to Maude Barlow – Canadian water activist and senior advisor to the UN on water issues – the US is currently exporting a third of its water through the export of goods. (By contrast, both England and Japan import most of their virtual water.)
Does a third seem too high? With devastating droughts on the rise and a continuing struggle between urban and agricultural demand, should the US move toward a more balanced virtual water portfolio?
Monday, December 1, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Water and Compromise
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
“Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over.” – Mark Twain
As with any scarce resource, water is valued – and fought over – throughout the world. With exponential population growth, an ever-increasing consumerist class (and all their attendant demands and requirements), and longer, dryer droughts deviling every continent, those fights over water are only going to get more and more extreme.
This week, an editorial by Brahma Chellaney in The Times of India warned about the growing tension in Asia over China’s water resource management. As that editorial points out, with its control over the Tibet plateau, China can direct and impact the flow of several major river systems – rivers depended upon by many countries in Southern and Southeast Asia. Because the region is already facing severe water shortages, Chellaney predicts that Asia will morph into “most likely flash-point for water wars, a concern underscored by attempts by some states to exploit their riparian position or dominance.”
But not all disputes over water are preordained to become international incidents. Case in point, the Mississippi Basin. This week, Arkansas and Missouri announced that the two states have come to an agreement to jointly study ways to protect watersheds and aquifers that share their state boundaries, the status of which will be released in a biennial report by officials from each state. Under the agreement, both states have also pledged to develop quality programs for their shared watersheds.
According to Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, this agreement is designed to avoid the more contentious relationship that currently exists between the state and Oklahoma (including lawsuits filed against Arkansas poultry industry over water use and water quality). By contrast, the Missouri/Arkansas agreement promotes interstate cooperation, by laying the foundation for a systematic approach to prioritizing projects and coordinating monitoring and modeling efforts.
“This is an historic agreement between Missouri and Arkansas,” said Missouri Governor Matt Blunt. “Water quality is critical to jobs, economic growth, our environment, and the quality of life for citizens of both states. Watersheds and aquifers know no state borders, and interstate collaboration is essential to protecting our streams, providing healthy drinking water, and planning for future water needs. Stronger communication today will help avoid conflicts tomorrow.”
For more on China’s water wars, Click Here.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
“Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over.” – Mark Twain
As with any scarce resource, water is valued – and fought over – throughout the world. With exponential population growth, an ever-increasing consumerist class (and all their attendant demands and requirements), and longer, dryer droughts deviling every continent, those fights over water are only going to get more and more extreme.
This week, an editorial by Brahma Chellaney in The Times of India warned about the growing tension in Asia over China’s water resource management. As that editorial points out, with its control over the Tibet plateau, China can direct and impact the flow of several major river systems – rivers depended upon by many countries in Southern and Southeast Asia. Because the region is already facing severe water shortages, Chellaney predicts that Asia will morph into “most likely flash-point for water wars, a concern underscored by attempts by some states to exploit their riparian position or dominance.”
But not all disputes over water are preordained to become international incidents. Case in point, the Mississippi Basin. This week, Arkansas and Missouri announced that the two states have come to an agreement to jointly study ways to protect watersheds and aquifers that share their state boundaries, the status of which will be released in a biennial report by officials from each state. Under the agreement, both states have also pledged to develop quality programs for their shared watersheds.
According to Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, this agreement is designed to avoid the more contentious relationship that currently exists between the state and Oklahoma (including lawsuits filed against Arkansas poultry industry over water use and water quality). By contrast, the Missouri/Arkansas agreement promotes interstate cooperation, by laying the foundation for a systematic approach to prioritizing projects and coordinating monitoring and modeling efforts.
“This is an historic agreement between Missouri and Arkansas,” said Missouri Governor Matt Blunt. “Water quality is critical to jobs, economic growth, our environment, and the quality of life for citizens of both states. Watersheds and aquifers know no state borders, and interstate collaboration is essential to protecting our streams, providing healthy drinking water, and planning for future water needs. Stronger communication today will help avoid conflicts tomorrow.”
For more on China’s water wars, Click Here.
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?
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Wall Street Ripple Effect
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Scary story #1: Due to the collapse of the US housing market, mayors in many parts of Florida have been warned that their municipal tax base will likely shrink by $1.5 trillion this year.
Scary story #2: Last week, Buffalo, NY’s comptroller’s office confirmed that rising interest rates on the variable rate bonds used to finance improvements to the municipal water system have cost the city an additional $90,000 in borrowing costs.
We all know these examples are not isolated incidents.
It looks like the Wall Street meltdown is the gift that keeps on giving, including – it appears – the harsh reality that the cost of retrofitting, repairing, and rehabilitating our aging infrastructure just got a whole lot more expensive. If this isn’t a crisis, I don’t know what is. After all, in 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers released a study indicating that over the next five years the US would need to spend over $1.5 trillion to whip US infrastructure into “reasonably decent shape.” And the EPA has said that it’s going to cost upwards of $440 billion over the next 20 years to repair our water and wastewater systems.
Shrinking tax bases, rising interest rates, and a tightened credit market – not the ideal environment for promoting infrastructure investment. There’s been lots of talk by pundits, news anchors, and candidates about Wall Street versus Main Street, but is it really an either/or situation? As the examples above prove, the financial and institutional health of our communities is directly dependent upon the wellbeing of our financial markets. Nobody got into this mess alone, and it’s doubtful that one-sided solutions will be strong enough to pull us out of this economic nosedive.
We need innovative thinking, multi-layered propositions, and a commitment to continue to invest in our country – its people, its structures, and its foundation – even in the face of frightening statistics and skittish investors. Now is not the time to freeze cityworks, shelve construction plans, or curtail in any way the repairs that must be made, the retrofits that must be installed, and the rehabilitation that our water and wastewater systems desperately need.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Scary story #1: Due to the collapse of the US housing market, mayors in many parts of Florida have been warned that their municipal tax base will likely shrink by $1.5 trillion this year.
Scary story #2: Last week, Buffalo, NY’s comptroller’s office confirmed that rising interest rates on the variable rate bonds used to finance improvements to the municipal water system have cost the city an additional $90,000 in borrowing costs.
We all know these examples are not isolated incidents.
It looks like the Wall Street meltdown is the gift that keeps on giving, including – it appears – the harsh reality that the cost of retrofitting, repairing, and rehabilitating our aging infrastructure just got a whole lot more expensive. If this isn’t a crisis, I don’t know what is. After all, in 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers released a study indicating that over the next five years the US would need to spend over $1.5 trillion to whip US infrastructure into “reasonably decent shape.” And the EPA has said that it’s going to cost upwards of $440 billion over the next 20 years to repair our water and wastewater systems.
Shrinking tax bases, rising interest rates, and a tightened credit market – not the ideal environment for promoting infrastructure investment. There’s been lots of talk by pundits, news anchors, and candidates about Wall Street versus Main Street, but is it really an either/or situation? As the examples above prove, the financial and institutional health of our communities is directly dependent upon the wellbeing of our financial markets. Nobody got into this mess alone, and it’s doubtful that one-sided solutions will be strong enough to pull us out of this economic nosedive.
We need innovative thinking, multi-layered propositions, and a commitment to continue to invest in our country – its people, its structures, and its foundation – even in the face of frightening statistics and skittish investors. Now is not the time to freeze cityworks, shelve construction plans, or curtail in any way the repairs that must be made, the retrofits that must be installed, and the rehabilitation that our water and wastewater systems desperately need.
Monday, September 8, 2008
De-Centralizing
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of a water crisis. You can blame it on climate change or aging infrastructure or green-lawn addicts, but whichever devil you choose the outcome is still the same: a diminishing supply struggling to meet an ever-growing demand.
Decentralized water systems (both treatment and delivery) can attack the problem of a shrinking water supply in two ways. First, advances in water reuse now allow for pristine, potable-quality water to be discharged back into the water supply, thereby curtailing the amount of water “lost” to pollution. Secondly, when onsite water treatment is combined with water reuse, we can insure that valuable drinking water is not squandered on green lawns in the desert or urban carwashes.
While municipal water treatment and delivery systems are most often associated with centralized systems (like city sewers or water utilities), the refinement of treatment technologies, ever-grander land development, and the push to “green” public and private industry is sure to change all that: one day onsite water treatment will go beyond the backyard septic system and bleed into the municipal market where it can reach its full potential and vastly improve the management and conservation of our water resources.
In Europe, that day has already come…
The public sewer systems in Germany are over 100 years old and rapidly deteriorating. Experts warn it could take years and several billion dollars to rehabilitate the centralized systems currently in place. The high cost associated with maintaining the existing centralized systems has prompted the exploration of alternative treatment systems. “As with an old car,” explains Dr. Harald Hiesll of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI (Fraunhofer-ISI), “if the costs for repairs and renovations start to increase, you should think about whether to make further investments in the old system or whether a new system would be more sensible in the long term"
In April of 2003, the Fraunhofer-ISI initiated the AKWA 2100 project in order to “investigated alternative water infrastructure systems.” The study concluded that although rehabilitating the current centralized system was the least expensive option, abandoning a centralized system altogether in favor of a combination of decentralized water treatment and water reuse was the better option. According to Dr. Hiessl, the sustainable aspects of combining onsite water treatment with water recycling far outweighed the 5-15% increase in cost.
Although this study was conducted in Europe, it has international implications. The conclusion drawn by the study – that decentralized systems in an urban environment are “technologically and economically feasible”– should serve as a clarion call to municipalities around the world.
There are several reasons for a municipality to encourage onsite water treatment. A decentralized system allows for greater flexibility when it comes to growth and development. Onsite water treatment facilities also allow for the development of previously inaccessible areas, opening up development opportunities for communities bursting at the seams. Of course, as cities expand, the strain on water resources increases. What better way to mitigate increased water demand than to combine water treatment with water recycling?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of a water crisis. You can blame it on climate change or aging infrastructure or green-lawn addicts, but whichever devil you choose the outcome is still the same: a diminishing supply struggling to meet an ever-growing demand.
Decentralized water systems (both treatment and delivery) can attack the problem of a shrinking water supply in two ways. First, advances in water reuse now allow for pristine, potable-quality water to be discharged back into the water supply, thereby curtailing the amount of water “lost” to pollution. Secondly, when onsite water treatment is combined with water reuse, we can insure that valuable drinking water is not squandered on green lawns in the desert or urban carwashes.
While municipal water treatment and delivery systems are most often associated with centralized systems (like city sewers or water utilities), the refinement of treatment technologies, ever-grander land development, and the push to “green” public and private industry is sure to change all that: one day onsite water treatment will go beyond the backyard septic system and bleed into the municipal market where it can reach its full potential and vastly improve the management and conservation of our water resources.
In Europe, that day has already come…
The public sewer systems in Germany are over 100 years old and rapidly deteriorating. Experts warn it could take years and several billion dollars to rehabilitate the centralized systems currently in place. The high cost associated with maintaining the existing centralized systems has prompted the exploration of alternative treatment systems. “As with an old car,” explains Dr. Harald Hiesll of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI (Fraunhofer-ISI), “if the costs for repairs and renovations start to increase, you should think about whether to make further investments in the old system or whether a new system would be more sensible in the long term"
In April of 2003, the Fraunhofer-ISI initiated the AKWA 2100 project in order to “investigated alternative water infrastructure systems.” The study concluded that although rehabilitating the current centralized system was the least expensive option, abandoning a centralized system altogether in favor of a combination of decentralized water treatment and water reuse was the better option. According to Dr. Hiessl, the sustainable aspects of combining onsite water treatment with water recycling far outweighed the 5-15% increase in cost.
Although this study was conducted in Europe, it has international implications. The conclusion drawn by the study – that decentralized systems in an urban environment are “technologically and economically feasible”– should serve as a clarion call to municipalities around the world.
There are several reasons for a municipality to encourage onsite water treatment. A decentralized system allows for greater flexibility when it comes to growth and development. Onsite water treatment facilities also allow for the development of previously inaccessible areas, opening up development opportunities for communities bursting at the seams. Of course, as cities expand, the strain on water resources increases. What better way to mitigate increased water demand than to combine water treatment with water recycling?
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?
Monday, August 4, 2008
Money Changes Everything?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
At the AWWA’s training seminar Water Demand and Conservation Management: Planning, Policy, and Rates in April of 2007, participants were encouraged to speak up about the issues and problems they faced. I will never forget the frustrations described by the water utility manager of an affluent New England community. He told us all about his utilities’ many failures: the pleas for conservation that fell on deaf ears, the tiered-rate schemes that did nothing to diminish demand. He blamed his lack of success – in part – on the wealth of his customers; a majority of which were ready, willing, and able to use as much water as they needed and pay whatever price charged just to keep their lawns green.
Recently, my local online newspaper reported on a similar issue. According to Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk Staff Writer, two of Santa Barbara County’s high-end communities – Hope Ranch and Montecito – hit record water usage amounts for 2007.(Click Here to read more.) County officials expect demand to continue to increase through 2008, just in time for reductions in water supplied to them by California’s State Water project.
Increasing demand and decreasing supply obviously puts both water districts in a tight spot, and it was their customers who put them there. In the 1990s, residents of neighbouring Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria all voted to reject the State Water project in favour of living within their means from a water resources standpoint. Voters in the Hope Ranch (serviced by the La Cumbre water district) and Montecito took a different tack, choosing instead to join the State Water Project in the hopes of tapping an unlimited water supply. This decision may have eased worries in the short term, but undoubtedly it led to the situation both districts are now facing: the illusion of unlimited water goading demand and codifying usage that would be considered extraordinary in any other context.
In fact, while the city of Santa Barbara receives most of its water from the local reservoirs and aquifers, the Montecito district receives about 22% of its water from the state water project. La Cumbre is even worse off, with 60% of its water coming from the State.
What I find most shocking is that, so far, neither district is using a tiered-rate system. As a result, the big water users pay flat rates (some of the cheapest in the country) and waste with impunity – with a majority of their water going to landscaping. It’s also important to note that both districts use two to three times the amount of water consumed by the rest of Santa Barbara County’s residents, yet they pay bargain basement prices to keep their lawns green while yards across the country wither and die (many to be reborn through smart irrigation and xeriscaping…but that’s a story for another time).
Apparently, both districts are considering adopting a tiered-rate system similar to the one employed by the city of Santa Barbara – in which case customers will pay for their water use based on a scale that raises the price per unit once higher-usage threshold has been hit. It’s your basic, the more you use the more you pay, scheme, that will – hopefully – catch the attention of the folks writing the checks. In light of how much water is being used by these communities, there’s no doubt a tiered-rate scheme will help raise revenue for the La Cumbre and Montecito water districts. But one has to wonder; when money is no object will high rates do enough to encourage conservation?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
At the AWWA’s training seminar Water Demand and Conservation Management: Planning, Policy, and Rates in April of 2007, participants were encouraged to speak up about the issues and problems they faced. I will never forget the frustrations described by the water utility manager of an affluent New England community. He told us all about his utilities’ many failures: the pleas for conservation that fell on deaf ears, the tiered-rate schemes that did nothing to diminish demand. He blamed his lack of success – in part – on the wealth of his customers; a majority of which were ready, willing, and able to use as much water as they needed and pay whatever price charged just to keep their lawns green.
Recently, my local online newspaper reported on a similar issue. According to Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk Staff Writer, two of Santa Barbara County’s high-end communities – Hope Ranch and Montecito – hit record water usage amounts for 2007.(Click Here to read more.) County officials expect demand to continue to increase through 2008, just in time for reductions in water supplied to them by California’s State Water project.
Increasing demand and decreasing supply obviously puts both water districts in a tight spot, and it was their customers who put them there. In the 1990s, residents of neighbouring Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria all voted to reject the State Water project in favour of living within their means from a water resources standpoint. Voters in the Hope Ranch (serviced by the La Cumbre water district) and Montecito took a different tack, choosing instead to join the State Water Project in the hopes of tapping an unlimited water supply. This decision may have eased worries in the short term, but undoubtedly it led to the situation both districts are now facing: the illusion of unlimited water goading demand and codifying usage that would be considered extraordinary in any other context.
In fact, while the city of Santa Barbara receives most of its water from the local reservoirs and aquifers, the Montecito district receives about 22% of its water from the state water project. La Cumbre is even worse off, with 60% of its water coming from the State.
What I find most shocking is that, so far, neither district is using a tiered-rate system. As a result, the big water users pay flat rates (some of the cheapest in the country) and waste with impunity – with a majority of their water going to landscaping. It’s also important to note that both districts use two to three times the amount of water consumed by the rest of Santa Barbara County’s residents, yet they pay bargain basement prices to keep their lawns green while yards across the country wither and die (many to be reborn through smart irrigation and xeriscaping…but that’s a story for another time).
Apparently, both districts are considering adopting a tiered-rate system similar to the one employed by the city of Santa Barbara – in which case customers will pay for their water use based on a scale that raises the price per unit once higher-usage threshold has been hit. It’s your basic, the more you use the more you pay, scheme, that will – hopefully – catch the attention of the folks writing the checks. In light of how much water is being used by these communities, there’s no doubt a tiered-rate scheme will help raise revenue for the La Cumbre and Montecito water districts. But one has to wonder; when money is no object will high rates do enough to encourage conservation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
