(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the role of government regulation within a capitalist system. Can oversight and strict accountability coexist with a laissez-fair market? And should a balance be struck between private enterprise and public good? Those are tricky questions that beg complex answers, but what if we switch the subject of the discussion from economics to natural resources—more specifically, what if the shorage wasn’t dollars, but gallons. What if water rights were treated as private property and traded like commodities? What would private water ownership look like, and—more importantly—would such a system promote efficiency and conservation?
You only need to look South to see this type of system in action. In the March 14 edition of the New York Times, Alexei Barrionuevo writes about the situation in Chile’s Atacama desert, and how private water rights are impacting the country’s citizens and changing its landscape. With a private property approach to water resources, Chile has allowed water rights to be bought and sold with minimal government or environmental regulations. The result is a private ownership system that allows for a consolidation of water rights on a scale unheard of in the United States. As Barrionuevo’s article points out, 80% of water rights across a large swath of southern Chile are owned by Endesa (a Spanish-owned electric company), and in the Atacama desert (one of the driest regions in the world) some towns have sold up to 75% of their water rights to large mining companies. In Chile, farmers fight with large—often international—conglomerates over rivers and natural reservoirs, and every time the conglomerate wins, another small town or agricultural community dries up.
Chile’s water rights trading system was created during Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship during the 1980s, and it provides a great example for what happens when the government doesn’t just abdicate responsibility for controlling natural resources, but actually hands over controls to the highest bidder. Proponents of Chile’s system argue that the free-market model promotes efficiency by allocating water based on economic use, but it’s clear that this “for-profit” system ignores an important aspect: 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. Ultimately, no one can forgo water and survive: It’s not just a “want,” it’s a basic need.
So what does the situation in Chile have to do with our situation here at home? Well, just like Chile, we too are dealing with a water crisis, and our water demands—both literal and virtual—are continuing to grow, even as our water resources are threatened by pollution, waste, and inefficient collection and delivery systems. Nevertheless, we have managed to strike a balance between private and public needs. In the United States, three fourths of water systems are public, guaranteeing citizens access to clean, affordable water. In many communities throughout our country, tying cost to use (in the form of tiered-rate structures) has encouraged a more conscientious approach to water use. But a lot more needs to be done.
We must grapple with the same dilemma Chile faces—how to support the continued growth of an economy dependent upon a finite resource. California farmers are already in the cross hairs of this issue: with fewer water allocations and a weakened consumer base, these farmers must learn to do more with less. And the solution—for farmers and for all of us—will not be found in reduced operational costs (in the form of decreased crop yields or lay-offs), but using water more efficiently.
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?”
(Click Here to Read Barrionuevo’s article.)
Monday, March 16, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Breaking It All Down
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
After months of anticipation, last week President Obama finally signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Known colloquially as the “stimulus package,” the Act promises to deliver $787 billion in funds with the purpose of shoring up our weakened economy through job creation and a variety of other incentives and government programs.
For a country anxious about the future and hungry for solutions, the hope is that the Act can breath new life into struggling local economies. With that in mind, many communities have spent the first months of 2009 tabulating and numbering their wants and needs. Will those wishes finally be fulfilled, or will tangles of red tape and armies of lobbyists divert the funds away from the very trouble spots that most desperately need help?
So far, the possibilities look promising. First off, the Act allocates $80.5 billion to repair and improve roads, bridges, mass transit, and waterways. According to a statement released by the EPA on February 19, $7.22 billion in stimulus money has already been allocated for EPA-administered water projects, including $4 billion set aside for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (which helps communities deal with their water quality and wastewater infrastructure needs). An additional $2 billion has been earmarked for other drinking water infrastructure projects under the same revolving fund, and a portion of that funding is specifically set aside for “green” infrastructure, including water and energy efficiency. Treatment and cleanup command the final $1.22 billion, which has been allocated for projects like industrial/commercial brownfields, superfund hazardous sites, and leaking underground storage tanks.
Some information on how individual states plan to handle their stimulus funds has already begun to make news. In Ohio for example, $59 million will be used to improve drinking water infrastructure, while another $224 million will be used for other clean water projects and programs. According to the EPA, Wyoming should receive approximately $39 million in stimulus funds for a variety of water and sewer projects. The EPA has also stated that Illinois will receive $258.5 million in stimulus money for local water projects. Utah has garnered $50 million in stimulus funds, some of which will go to water projects in the state, while Tennessee will receive $77 million for sewer and water treatment projects. So far, the big winner appears to be Colorado, which is in line to receive about $1 billion in stimulus money. More information on specific payouts will continue to trickle out over the next few days, and updates on state-by-state distributions of the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds will be available on the EPA Web site www.epa.gov/recovery.
Let us know what you think: Will the stimulus package provide the funds needed to finally fix our aging infrastructure, and promote and improve our water collection, treatment, and delivery systems? Do you anticipate seeing any direct effect in your own community? Or, are you skeptical that the stimulus package will be able to deliver on all its promises?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
After months of anticipation, last week President Obama finally signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Known colloquially as the “stimulus package,” the Act promises to deliver $787 billion in funds with the purpose of shoring up our weakened economy through job creation and a variety of other incentives and government programs.
For a country anxious about the future and hungry for solutions, the hope is that the Act can breath new life into struggling local economies. With that in mind, many communities have spent the first months of 2009 tabulating and numbering their wants and needs. Will those wishes finally be fulfilled, or will tangles of red tape and armies of lobbyists divert the funds away from the very trouble spots that most desperately need help?
So far, the possibilities look promising. First off, the Act allocates $80.5 billion to repair and improve roads, bridges, mass transit, and waterways. According to a statement released by the EPA on February 19, $7.22 billion in stimulus money has already been allocated for EPA-administered water projects, including $4 billion set aside for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (which helps communities deal with their water quality and wastewater infrastructure needs). An additional $2 billion has been earmarked for other drinking water infrastructure projects under the same revolving fund, and a portion of that funding is specifically set aside for “green” infrastructure, including water and energy efficiency. Treatment and cleanup command the final $1.22 billion, which has been allocated for projects like industrial/commercial brownfields, superfund hazardous sites, and leaking underground storage tanks.
Some information on how individual states plan to handle their stimulus funds has already begun to make news. In Ohio for example, $59 million will be used to improve drinking water infrastructure, while another $224 million will be used for other clean water projects and programs. According to the EPA, Wyoming should receive approximately $39 million in stimulus funds for a variety of water and sewer projects. The EPA has also stated that Illinois will receive $258.5 million in stimulus money for local water projects. Utah has garnered $50 million in stimulus funds, some of which will go to water projects in the state, while Tennessee will receive $77 million for sewer and water treatment projects. So far, the big winner appears to be Colorado, which is in line to receive about $1 billion in stimulus money. More information on specific payouts will continue to trickle out over the next few days, and updates on state-by-state distributions of the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds will be available on the EPA Web site www.epa.gov/recovery.
Let us know what you think: Will the stimulus package provide the funds needed to finally fix our aging infrastructure, and promote and improve our water collection, treatment, and delivery systems? Do you anticipate seeing any direct effect in your own community? Or, are you skeptical that the stimulus package will be able to deliver on all its promises?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Unsung Heroes
(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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
