(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Imagine returning from a much-needed vacation only to find your house flooded due to an unchecked leak or water main break. What if the damage were not immediately apparent, and a smaller leak resulted in an astronomical water bill during the exact period you were away from home? Without visual confirmation, could you trust your water utility?
In October 2008, I wrote about Rick Baur, a resident of Ogden, UT who returned from vacation to find that he had been billed $9,700 for the alleged use of 1.4 million gallons of water. Unfortunately for Baur, the city claimed the 1.4 million gallons total was correct and demanded that Baur pay the entire amount of the bill. The mystery of where the 1.4 million gallons went is still unsolved, and, at the time I originally discussed Mr. Baur’s situation, I asked: “What responsibility does the city have to investigate the cause behind this eye-popping meter reading?”
If meters are improperly installed or maintained, they can wreak havoc. Case in point: Atlanta, GA. Just this month, Atlanta water officials announced that they have finally tracked down the source behind some eye-popping water bills: About 450 meters miscalculated usage and charged homeowners for more water than they had actually used. In some cases, residents saw their bill go up by up to 1,000%, and, despite protests, the city pushed forward on collection, employing bill collectors and shutting off service to noncompliant residents. Unlike the Baur’s case, residents in Atlanta will be eligible for refunds, and—hopefully—will have their service restored.
But meters are not the “bad guys” in either of these stories. In fact, if anything, these anecdotes just further prove the point that we have taken water for granted and have operated for too long without any real accounting of how much water we use and lose in our communities.
In the July/August 2007 issue of Water Efficiency, we highlighted the Seamount Estates community in Washington State. Described as an idyllic vacation retreat (and home to about 50 retirees and seasonal residents), the community began to notice a rise in its electricity bills in 2005 and a water leak was suspected. By 2007, the solution implemented two years prior had made significant headway—thanks to a partnership with state and local agencies, Seamount Estates had implemented an extensive leak detection and monitoring system, aided in part by the installation of water meters at all residences served by the estate’s water system. Herbert “Skip” Rand, circuit rider for the Rural Community Assistance Corp. (RCAC), described the new meters as “wonderful tools for finding leaks.”
Finding the missing water not only helped the community with its power bill, it also helped stave off real property damage that could have occurred had the leaks been allowed to flow unchecked. In one situation, the team discovered a broken water line inside of a house owned by a member who was away at the time. “You could actually hear the leak from outside,” says Derek Zock, of Evergreen Rural Water of Washington (ERWoW). “When we located the leak, we were able to shut the water off at the valve box and then advise the homeowner that they had a bad leak inside. There was already a lot of water damage, but by shutting it off I’m sure that it helped save part of the house.”
Rand agrees, adding that the owners were very appreciative. “Seeing that meter spinning saved the house; that gave us a kind of hero status,” he says.
Sometimes a shock to the system is what is needed to correct destructive behavior—and that’s the positive I see coming out of scenarios like those in Ogden and Atlanta. Just like that post-Christmas credit card bill, water meter results can open up the eyes of a community with hard numbers on how much water is flowing in and out of its boundaries.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Is it a "water grab" or a reasonable solution?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
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. A recent panel recommendation seems designed to stir up the drama by proposing that the state begin construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River as soon as 2011.
The panel is not alone in its recommendation. Last month the governor’s cabinet-level panel came away with the same recommendation in a draft report. Those supporting the project point to the added benefits of flood control and the rerouting of water away from the fragile delta habitat. But many in northern California aren’t buying those rationalizations, insisting that the project amounts to nothing more than blatant water grab by the South. Add environmentalists and a majority of California voters (who rejected a similar project in 1982) in the “con” column. And lest the issue end in a North/South stand-off, Natural Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman has stated that the committee behind the new canal project believes that legislative approval is not required for the project — which also includes the restoration of 100,000 acres of habitat in the delta, and the recommendation that more dams be built and another panel created to determine how to govern the delta).
There are similar controversies occurring throughout the country — from other areas in the Southwest (Utah-Nevada come to mind) and even in the midwestern and southern parts of the country. So what do you think? Does demand outstrip all other considerations when it comes to water resource management? Do the “haves” owe the “have-nots?” Or does a water-rich community have a right to determine how it will handle its supply?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
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. A recent panel recommendation seems designed to stir up the drama by proposing that the state begin construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River as soon as 2011.
The panel is not alone in its recommendation. Last month the governor’s cabinet-level panel came away with the same recommendation in a draft report. Those supporting the project point to the added benefits of flood control and the rerouting of water away from the fragile delta habitat. But many in northern California aren’t buying those rationalizations, insisting that the project amounts to nothing more than blatant water grab by the South. Add environmentalists and a majority of California voters (who rejected a similar project in 1982) in the “con” column. And lest the issue end in a North/South stand-off, Natural Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman has stated that the committee behind the new canal project believes that legislative approval is not required for the project — which also includes the restoration of 100,000 acres of habitat in the delta, and the recommendation that more dams be built and another panel created to determine how to govern the delta).
There are similar controversies occurring throughout the country — from other areas in the Southwest (Utah-Nevada come to mind) and even in the midwestern and southern parts of the country. So what do you think? Does demand outstrip all other considerations when it comes to water resource management? Do the “haves” owe the “have-nots?” Or does a water-rich community have a right to determine how it will handle its supply?
Monday, December 29, 2008
Drops and Crops
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
At the annual Sourcing USA Summit (a biannual meeting, jointly hosted by Cotton Council International and Cotton Inc., that “gathers global leaders along the cotton supply chain for an open exchange of ideas”), Erik R. Peterson, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic and International Studies gave a presentation entitled “Outlook for Global Water: Can We Stay Above the Surface?”
Why do cotton growers care about water supplies, and why are their concerns relevant to the rest of us? Considering that agriculture accounts for 70% of water use, it behooves us all to stop and listen to what our farmers and growers have to say. Especially when, as Peterson points out, “the food production target for 2025 will require the flow of more than 100 Colorado Rivers.” Considering the contention and acrimony already surrounding water rights along the mighty Colorado, the prospect of coming up with 100 times the amount it already supplies to the western US is daunting and – hopefully – mobilizing.
With demand increasing and supply decreasing, efficiency and conservation naturally come to the forefront – only those solutions that incorporate smart water use, treatment, and delivery will help us not only sustain our current needs, but adapt to future challenges and opportunities. As Peterson points out, “One flush of a US toilet equals one day’s water use in a developing country. The bottom line is that water policy goes beyond altruism. A far-sighted study will help define the impact of dislocation and will identify areas of competitive advantage.”
Although it may appear at first that municipal water providers and the agricultural industry operate in two separate universes, their mutual dependence on a safe, clean, and reliable water supply binds them together – one cannot operate without considering the actions of the other. It’s often said that water is a shared resource, which makes me wonder if the current balkanization of our water supply – that clear demarcation between ag interests and muni interests – makes sense. Isn’t about time we present a united front against the challenges of scarcity and demand?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
At the annual Sourcing USA Summit (a biannual meeting, jointly hosted by Cotton Council International and Cotton Inc., that “gathers global leaders along the cotton supply chain for an open exchange of ideas”), Erik R. Peterson, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic and International Studies gave a presentation entitled “Outlook for Global Water: Can We Stay Above the Surface?”
Why do cotton growers care about water supplies, and why are their concerns relevant to the rest of us? Considering that agriculture accounts for 70% of water use, it behooves us all to stop and listen to what our farmers and growers have to say. Especially when, as Peterson points out, “the food production target for 2025 will require the flow of more than 100 Colorado Rivers.” Considering the contention and acrimony already surrounding water rights along the mighty Colorado, the prospect of coming up with 100 times the amount it already supplies to the western US is daunting and – hopefully – mobilizing.
With demand increasing and supply decreasing, efficiency and conservation naturally come to the forefront – only those solutions that incorporate smart water use, treatment, and delivery will help us not only sustain our current needs, but adapt to future challenges and opportunities. As Peterson points out, “One flush of a US toilet equals one day’s water use in a developing country. The bottom line is that water policy goes beyond altruism. A far-sighted study will help define the impact of dislocation and will identify areas of competitive advantage.”
Although it may appear at first that municipal water providers and the agricultural industry operate in two separate universes, their mutual dependence on a safe, clean, and reliable water supply binds them together – one cannot operate without considering the actions of the other. It’s often said that water is a shared resource, which makes me wonder if the current balkanization of our water supply – that clear demarcation between ag interests and muni interests – makes sense. Isn’t about time we present a united front against the challenges of scarcity and demand?
Monday, December 8, 2008
Wondering After a Winter Break
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
I’ve just returned from a trip to Spain, a country that’s certainly seen its share of water woes. Spain has suffered a water shortage for almost two years, and by spring of 2008 it had only received a third of the average seasonal rainfall. With reservoirs less than half full, the country is gripped in its worst drought since the 1940s. And in Catalonia the situation is even worse: Reservoirs are less than a fifth full, and, in April, Barcelona – a city known for its efficient infrastructure – was forced to import water by ship and train to prevent a water crisis prompted by extreme drought. The water was brought in from Marseilles, France and from desalination plants in southern Spain. And Barcelona is not alone, for many years now the island of Mallorca has depended upon imported water to meet its needs – especially the spike in demand during tourist season.
I was lucky enough to spend some time in Barcelona and Mallorca, as well as a few other destinations in southern Spain. What struck me while I was visiting was the ubiquity of low-flow fixtures throughout the region. Every hotel – whether it was a small, family-owned pension or a large, commercial chain – had bathrooms outfitted with dual-flush toilets and low-flow showerheads. In larger cities, like Madrid, the hotel rooms were also adorned with the requests for conscientious water usage that we often see here in the US.
Unfortunately, many times that’s as far as it goes – just a postcard asking you to hang up your towel and maybe turn the faucet off while your brushing your teeth. And yet, the traveler is an important demographic when it comes to public outreach and water efficiency. Studies have shown that when people are on vacation they tend to throw caution to the wind and put aside daily habits – including their normal water conservation efforts. It’s certainly an unwanted twist on “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.”
Tourism is big business in the US. According to a report by the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, in 2007 “56 million international visitors from 213 countries during 2007, up 10% from 2006.” And that’s just international travelers. When you add domestic tourism to the mix, you can begin to see how much impact water-wasting tourists can have on a local economy and water parched region – be it California, Nevada, Georgia, Florida, National Parks, and just about any city, town, or hamlet situated near an attraction or interstate.
If the people of Spain are willing to mitigate the impact of tourism on their water resources by investing in water-saving technologies and low-flow fixtures, shouldn’t we, in the US, be doing the same before it gets to the point where our most water-starved communities are actually forced to import water to meet their needs?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
I’ve just returned from a trip to Spain, a country that’s certainly seen its share of water woes. Spain has suffered a water shortage for almost two years, and by spring of 2008 it had only received a third of the average seasonal rainfall. With reservoirs less than half full, the country is gripped in its worst drought since the 1940s. And in Catalonia the situation is even worse: Reservoirs are less than a fifth full, and, in April, Barcelona – a city known for its efficient infrastructure – was forced to import water by ship and train to prevent a water crisis prompted by extreme drought. The water was brought in from Marseilles, France and from desalination plants in southern Spain. And Barcelona is not alone, for many years now the island of Mallorca has depended upon imported water to meet its needs – especially the spike in demand during tourist season.
I was lucky enough to spend some time in Barcelona and Mallorca, as well as a few other destinations in southern Spain. What struck me while I was visiting was the ubiquity of low-flow fixtures throughout the region. Every hotel – whether it was a small, family-owned pension or a large, commercial chain – had bathrooms outfitted with dual-flush toilets and low-flow showerheads. In larger cities, like Madrid, the hotel rooms were also adorned with the requests for conscientious water usage that we often see here in the US.
Unfortunately, many times that’s as far as it goes – just a postcard asking you to hang up your towel and maybe turn the faucet off while your brushing your teeth. And yet, the traveler is an important demographic when it comes to public outreach and water efficiency. Studies have shown that when people are on vacation they tend to throw caution to the wind and put aside daily habits – including their normal water conservation efforts. It’s certainly an unwanted twist on “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.”
Tourism is big business in the US. According to a report by the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, in 2007 “56 million international visitors from 213 countries during 2007, up 10% from 2006.” And that’s just international travelers. When you add domestic tourism to the mix, you can begin to see how much impact water-wasting tourists can have on a local economy and water parched region – be it California, Nevada, Georgia, Florida, National Parks, and just about any city, town, or hamlet situated near an attraction or interstate.
If the people of Spain are willing to mitigate the impact of tourism on their water resources by investing in water-saving technologies and low-flow fixtures, shouldn’t we, in the US, be doing the same before it gets to the point where our most water-starved communities are actually forced to import water to meet their needs?
Monday, December 1, 2008
Virtual Water
(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?
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, 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
