(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Over the weekend, I spent some time frolicking in the Nevada desert just south of Las Vegas. Okay … frolicking might not be the right word, considering the temperature got as high as 122 degrees. In that kind of extreme environment, any patch of blue or green is a miracle to behold and the winding Colorado River—sparkling blue under a cloudless sky—almost mocks you with its apparent abundance as thousands of gallons of water rush by on their way to thirsty southern California.
On this particular weekend, I wasn’t dazzled as much by the river as I was by the 2 x 2 foot square of violently green grass that has recently sprouted up in my parents’ otherwise-desolate front yard. In the past, two palm trees presided over a wasteland of yellowed weeds, but some enthusiastic weed whacking had stripped away the dead vegetation, revealing a neat patch of dirt, mostly uniform in color except for this one, verdant corner.
“We must have a leak” reasoned my father—and sure enough, we quickly determined a damaged pipe was to blame for their own little patch of green or, as I took to calling it, their little patch of low-tech leak detection.
Jokes aside, unaccounted for water is no laughing matter. Currently, experts estimate that, in the US, up to 6 billion gallons of water per day are lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. That’s enough water to supply 10 of the largest urban centers in the country. It’s the antithesis of efficiency and an appalling misuse of one of our most valuable resources. When you factor in the amount of energy (and fossil fuels) required to treat and transport all of that lost water, the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars, but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
So what’s the solution? Currently, most of the nation’s water utilities are not required to conduct regular water audits, and until we have solid data regarding the amount of water being used (and lost), attempts to reduce waste will be for naught. But water audits alone are not enough. As our editorial advisory board member George Kunkel pointed out in a March 2008 guest editorial, “in order to truly achieve water efficiency on a large scale, efficiency programs must have clearly defined goals, attributes, and measures that can be monitored to ascertain that a desired water efficient outcome is reached.” (“Water Efficiency and Accountability,”)
There are solutions on the way, including a water audit methodology developed by the AWWA and the International Water Association (IWA) in 2000, to publish a water audit methodology that features a variety of well-defined terms and an array of performance indicators. A straightforward methodology is a good first step, but clearly more is needed. What do you think? Does it make sense to mandate water audits on a national level, or can communities be trusted to take care of their own resources as they see fit?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Money-Management Musical Chairs
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Most of us have probably been forced to micromanage our budgets lately. Prices continue to rise, salaries are stagnating (for those of us lucky enough to still be employed), and pocketbooks are being pinched from coast to coast. In this current economic climate, it makes sense to look over your balance sheet and consider shifting resources from column “A” to column “B” in an attempt to make sure that, while that beach vacation may be put on hold, essential services (i.e. utilities, groceries, housing) continue to receive adequate funding.
But when budget manipulation happens at the federal level, it’s difficult to determine why certain dollars are designated to one column over another. This week, the US House of Representatives prepares to vote on appropriations for energy and water development for the 2010 fiscal year (the Senate is also moving forward and Appropriations Committee approved its version last week). According to the New York Times the House will be talking a budget proposal of around $33 billion, aimed at funding energy efficiency and waterworks projects. For water projects, the budget breaks down as follow:
The water programs that will see an increase in funding include:
* A budget of $5.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers (a $139 million increase over fiscal 2009 levels) to fund improvements on existing projects
* An additional increase to the Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance budget to $2.5 billion for infrastructure improvements
But, by shifting funds to the Army Corps of Engineers, the bill forces other agencies to deal with significantly decreased funding, including:
* Construction for new projects, which will be reduced by $19 million to just over $2 billion
* A reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers budget for investigation to just $26 million
* A reduction of $133 million from 2009 levels for flood-damage reduction projects in the Mississippi River Valley
* A $38 million cut for the Bureau of Reclamation, leaving just $920 million for water development, management, and restoration in 17 western states
* A $9 million cut in the California Bay-Delta restoration project
So what do you think? While a bulk of the money is designated for a variant of energy efficiency programs, the increased funding for water projects should be a godsend. But, does it make sense to shift federal funds away from the Bureau of Reclamation and over to the Army Corps of Engineers? Some proposed amendments that deal specifically with local water issues could close the gap—including an amendment proposed by California representatives Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza to add an additional $10million to the California Bay-Delta restoration program—but how effective is a funding bill that must be micromanaged by locally focused amendments?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Most of us have probably been forced to micromanage our budgets lately. Prices continue to rise, salaries are stagnating (for those of us lucky enough to still be employed), and pocketbooks are being pinched from coast to coast. In this current economic climate, it makes sense to look over your balance sheet and consider shifting resources from column “A” to column “B” in an attempt to make sure that, while that beach vacation may be put on hold, essential services (i.e. utilities, groceries, housing) continue to receive adequate funding.
But when budget manipulation happens at the federal level, it’s difficult to determine why certain dollars are designated to one column over another. This week, the US House of Representatives prepares to vote on appropriations for energy and water development for the 2010 fiscal year (the Senate is also moving forward and Appropriations Committee approved its version last week). According to the New York Times the House will be talking a budget proposal of around $33 billion, aimed at funding energy efficiency and waterworks projects. For water projects, the budget breaks down as follow:
The water programs that will see an increase in funding include:
* A budget of $5.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers (a $139 million increase over fiscal 2009 levels) to fund improvements on existing projects
* An additional increase to the Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance budget to $2.5 billion for infrastructure improvements
But, by shifting funds to the Army Corps of Engineers, the bill forces other agencies to deal with significantly decreased funding, including:
* Construction for new projects, which will be reduced by $19 million to just over $2 billion
* A reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers budget for investigation to just $26 million
* A reduction of $133 million from 2009 levels for flood-damage reduction projects in the Mississippi River Valley
* A $38 million cut for the Bureau of Reclamation, leaving just $920 million for water development, management, and restoration in 17 western states
* A $9 million cut in the California Bay-Delta restoration project
So what do you think? While a bulk of the money is designated for a variant of energy efficiency programs, the increased funding for water projects should be a godsend. But, does it make sense to shift federal funds away from the Bureau of Reclamation and over to the Army Corps of Engineers? Some proposed amendments that deal specifically with local water issues could close the gap—including an amendment proposed by California representatives Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza to add an additional $10million to the California Bay-Delta restoration program—but how effective is a funding bill that must be micromanaged by locally focused amendments?
Monday, July 6, 2009
A First for Rainwater Harvesting
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As I stated in my April 2009 editorial, due to increased interest in water conservation and sustainability, rainwater catchment is “poised to become not just an interesting side note, but also a powerful tool for water-strapped cities and states.”
(Divining Rods, Elements 2010)
Known as either rainwater catchment or harvesting, the process is quite simple and can be an easy first step for any water-strapped community searching for ways to supplement their current supplies. For example, in Los Angeles, CA, six projects capture 1.25 million gallons of water for every inch of rain, and there’s no reason those results can’t be replicated throughout the country.
Rainwater harvesting may be a no brainer, but it’s mostly been treated as a second-class citizen, something to ignore or marginalize in the face of (sometimes) flashier alternatives. But what rainwater catchment lacks in bells and whistles, it more than makes up for in terms of cost and ease of implementation. In Tucson, AZ, rainwater harvesting is suddenly in the spotlight. Tucson has just enacted the nation’s first municipal rainwater harvesting ordinance for commercial projects. Under this new ordinance, developers of new corporate or commercial buildings must design all landscape irrigation, so that 50% of the water used comes from a rainwater catchment system.
Tucson officials hope that the anticipated 12 inches of annual rainfall will supplement current municipal supplies (which come from wellwater and the Colorado River), starting next year. Like Santa Fe County, NM, the Tucson harvesting ordinance allows for a passive collection system (which mostly diverts run off from parking lots and roofs), as well as small harvesting combined with pumps and drip irrigation, but Tucson’s ordinance goes one step further by allowing for active harvesting as well. The Tucson city council has also approved an additional measure that requires new homes to have a plumbing system that would allow for separate drain lines so that a graywater system can be installed, and water from sinks, showers, and other appliances can be diverted to the homeowner’s irrigation system.
Because commercial projects are often a community’s largest water consumer, this ordinance should have a significant payoff. For example, the latest remodel at Tucson’s Target included a rainwater harvesting system that catches runoff from the parking lot and diverts it to towards small landscaped sections that include native plants and trees, which are designed to hold up to 15,000 cubic feet of water that would otherwise be lost to storm drains.
So what do you think? Why aren’t more communities requiring rainwater harvesting? And, are ordinances the answer, or can public outreach use incentives to inspire individuals to implement their own catchment systems?
For more information on Tucson’s rainwater catchment ordinance, go to: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/harvesting.htm.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As I stated in my April 2009 editorial, due to increased interest in water conservation and sustainability, rainwater catchment is “poised to become not just an interesting side note, but also a powerful tool for water-strapped cities and states.”
(Divining Rods, Elements 2010)
Known as either rainwater catchment or harvesting, the process is quite simple and can be an easy first step for any water-strapped community searching for ways to supplement their current supplies. For example, in Los Angeles, CA, six projects capture 1.25 million gallons of water for every inch of rain, and there’s no reason those results can’t be replicated throughout the country.
Rainwater harvesting may be a no brainer, but it’s mostly been treated as a second-class citizen, something to ignore or marginalize in the face of (sometimes) flashier alternatives. But what rainwater catchment lacks in bells and whistles, it more than makes up for in terms of cost and ease of implementation. In Tucson, AZ, rainwater harvesting is suddenly in the spotlight. Tucson has just enacted the nation’s first municipal rainwater harvesting ordinance for commercial projects. Under this new ordinance, developers of new corporate or commercial buildings must design all landscape irrigation, so that 50% of the water used comes from a rainwater catchment system.
Tucson officials hope that the anticipated 12 inches of annual rainfall will supplement current municipal supplies (which come from wellwater and the Colorado River), starting next year. Like Santa Fe County, NM, the Tucson harvesting ordinance allows for a passive collection system (which mostly diverts run off from parking lots and roofs), as well as small harvesting combined with pumps and drip irrigation, but Tucson’s ordinance goes one step further by allowing for active harvesting as well. The Tucson city council has also approved an additional measure that requires new homes to have a plumbing system that would allow for separate drain lines so that a graywater system can be installed, and water from sinks, showers, and other appliances can be diverted to the homeowner’s irrigation system.
Because commercial projects are often a community’s largest water consumer, this ordinance should have a significant payoff. For example, the latest remodel at Tucson’s Target included a rainwater harvesting system that catches runoff from the parking lot and diverts it to towards small landscaped sections that include native plants and trees, which are designed to hold up to 15,000 cubic feet of water that would otherwise be lost to storm drains.
So what do you think? Why aren’t more communities requiring rainwater harvesting? And, are ordinances the answer, or can public outreach use incentives to inspire individuals to implement their own catchment systems?
For more information on Tucson’s rainwater catchment ordinance, go to: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/harvesting.htm.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Purpose and Intent
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
On June 24, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the discharge of 210,000 gallons of mining waste did not violate the Clean Water Act (CWA). On the surface, the decision sounds counterintuitive. After all, how could dumping a couple hundred gallons of potentially toxic mining waste into a 23-acre lake outside Juneau, Alaska, not impact water quality and thus run counter to the intent of the CWA? After all, according the EPA’s own Web site, the CWA is “the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States.” (Emphasis added).
In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the court’s decision as preordained due to changes in the CWA at the hands of the Bush Administration, which in 2002 changed the original definition of “fill material” in the act in order to allow for the discharge of contaminated mining waste. Justice Kennedy argued that the court must “accord deference” to the Army Corps of Engineers’s interpretation of the act, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent that equal deference should be paid to the intent and purpose of the CWA itself which, she argued, plainly states that waterways cannot be used for waste disposal.
The mining company is promising to pretreat its wastewater prior to dumping, and as the former editor of Onsite Water Treatment, I know that the careful and judicious treatment of wastewater can result in almost pristine discharge. But onsite wastewater treatment cannot be taken lightly, and without knowledge of exactly what system the mining company will install, I cannot say with any authority whether its efforts will be successful or if the lake will turn into a stew of toxic runoff unfit for any plant or animal life.
So what do you think? Should the court have stuck by the original intent of the CWA, or should the mining company be given the benefit of the doubt? Can successful wastewater treatment expand our notions of water quality protection and open up new resources in the process, or will unmonitored and poorly executed treatment systems doom our waterways?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
On June 24, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the discharge of 210,000 gallons of mining waste did not violate the Clean Water Act (CWA). On the surface, the decision sounds counterintuitive. After all, how could dumping a couple hundred gallons of potentially toxic mining waste into a 23-acre lake outside Juneau, Alaska, not impact water quality and thus run counter to the intent of the CWA? After all, according the EPA’s own Web site, the CWA is “the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States.” (Emphasis added).
In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the court’s decision as preordained due to changes in the CWA at the hands of the Bush Administration, which in 2002 changed the original definition of “fill material” in the act in order to allow for the discharge of contaminated mining waste. Justice Kennedy argued that the court must “accord deference” to the Army Corps of Engineers’s interpretation of the act, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent that equal deference should be paid to the intent and purpose of the CWA itself which, she argued, plainly states that waterways cannot be used for waste disposal.
The mining company is promising to pretreat its wastewater prior to dumping, and as the former editor of Onsite Water Treatment, I know that the careful and judicious treatment of wastewater can result in almost pristine discharge. But onsite wastewater treatment cannot be taken lightly, and without knowledge of exactly what system the mining company will install, I cannot say with any authority whether its efforts will be successful or if the lake will turn into a stew of toxic runoff unfit for any plant or animal life.
So what do you think? Should the court have stuck by the original intent of the CWA, or should the mining company be given the benefit of the doubt? Can successful wastewater treatment expand our notions of water quality protection and open up new resources in the process, or will unmonitored and poorly executed treatment systems doom our waterways?
Monday, June 15, 2009
All Eyes on the West
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
I’m in San Diego, CA this week, attending the AWWA’s annual Conference and Exposition (ACE 09). Interestingly enough, the conference program includes a welcome letter from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who heads a state all too familiar with the challenges and hardships associated with ever increasing demand in the face of diminishing water supplies.
Schwarzenegger is not the only governor dealing with water resource management issues and concerns. This Sunday, the three-day Western Governors Conference began in Park City, UT. The governors plan to focus on key issues that affect the western part of the country, including climate change, energy, and water use. But the governors are not the only concerned parties in attendance—the conference includes representative of President Obama’s administration, along with participants from around the world.
And what the attendees are focusing on could serve as a “to do list” for any water conservation professional: Water Conservation, new technologies, and a rethinking of supply and demand. Additionally, the participants will discuss the diminished water supplies threatening not just the west, but communities in all parts of the world. On Sunday, for example, the conference’s main discussion included experts from Canada, the Middle East, and Australia talking about water resource management under the influence of climate change.
As I stated in my last blog—manmade or not, climate change is a very real threat to our regional water supplies. As access to potable water is limited due to environmental changes and ecosystem collapse, there is a greater chance that communities will find themselves at odds over who gets what and how much. In order to avoid violent water disputes, communities need to first conserve and protect their current resources, although it couldn’t hurt to explore other options—including water reclamation and reuse, rainwater harvesting, and maybe even desalination.
Ultimately, I think the best advice can be found in the comments of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer—incoming Western Governors’ Association (WGA) chairman—who is quoted in the Associated Press for saying that water should be measured accurately and used efficiently while being conserved on a large scale. I think those three tactics would serve any water purveyor well.
For more information on the WGA: www.westgov.org
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
I’m in San Diego, CA this week, attending the AWWA’s annual Conference and Exposition (ACE 09). Interestingly enough, the conference program includes a welcome letter from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who heads a state all too familiar with the challenges and hardships associated with ever increasing demand in the face of diminishing water supplies.
Schwarzenegger is not the only governor dealing with water resource management issues and concerns. This Sunday, the three-day Western Governors Conference began in Park City, UT. The governors plan to focus on key issues that affect the western part of the country, including climate change, energy, and water use. But the governors are not the only concerned parties in attendance—the conference includes representative of President Obama’s administration, along with participants from around the world.
And what the attendees are focusing on could serve as a “to do list” for any water conservation professional: Water Conservation, new technologies, and a rethinking of supply and demand. Additionally, the participants will discuss the diminished water supplies threatening not just the west, but communities in all parts of the world. On Sunday, for example, the conference’s main discussion included experts from Canada, the Middle East, and Australia talking about water resource management under the influence of climate change.
As I stated in my last blog—manmade or not, climate change is a very real threat to our regional water supplies. As access to potable water is limited due to environmental changes and ecosystem collapse, there is a greater chance that communities will find themselves at odds over who gets what and how much. In order to avoid violent water disputes, communities need to first conserve and protect their current resources, although it couldn’t hurt to explore other options—including water reclamation and reuse, rainwater harvesting, and maybe even desalination.
Ultimately, I think the best advice can be found in the comments of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer—incoming Western Governors’ Association (WGA) chairman—who is quoted in the Associated Press for saying that water should be measured accurately and used efficiently while being conserved on a large scale. I think those three tactics would serve any water purveyor well.
For more information on the WGA: www.westgov.org
Monday, June 8, 2009
Climate Chaos
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
A recent headline over at Bloomberg News—“Water Fights, Wandering Homeless Are Planet’s Future”—brought to mind the first editorial I wrote for Water Efficiency. Writing under the title, “Can Melting Ice Caps Inspire Sabotage?” I summarized the 2007 London conference entitled “Climate Change: The Global Security Impact,” where experts warned global warming could exacerbate refugee issues as more of the world’s poor found themselves escaping inhospitable climates. And while participants like Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain’s former ambassador to the United Nations, insisted these displaced people would end up as either potential victims or recruits for extremist terrorist groups, in the end the most important point made at that London conference was that climate change left unfettered could have ghastly consequences for our global water supply.
Water Fights, Wandering Homeless Are Planet’s Future
In an interview for the “Water Fights” article, Gary Braasch, discusses his book, Earth Under Fire: How Global Warming Is Changing the World, and talks about some of the impacts he anticipates as a result of climate change and rising sea levels. What I found most important in relation to water efficiency and conservation was his characterization of a future of extreme flooding followed by extended drought, which would, of course, severely impact agricultural and sustenance farming around the world. And just like Sir Crispin Tickell, Braasch warns of global migration and hordes of displaced refugees descending upon areas that manage to remain hospitable while the rest of the world descends into global warming chaos.
Whether you think these claims are melodramatic flourishes or opportunist rants, I think it’s worth restating what I said two years ago—“I am not much concerned whether or not you believe human actions are impacting the world’s climate. I’d rather the lesson behind the rhetoric not be lost. Whether we like it or not, we are in a codependent relationship with the earth, and without water we will not survive….In the end, whether it is Mother Nature or a pipe bomb, at some point there will be an attack on your infrastructure. Planning for it now will help you prevail during the onslaught and put you in a stronger position over the long haul. Ultimately, the ethos of efficiency is “be prepared.” Cut waste, plan your actions, and guard your resources, and you’ll be able to weather any adversarial event that lands on your doorstep.”
So, what are you doing to prepare for climate change and its possible impacts on your water supply? Is global warming influencing your resource management decisions, or are budgeting and managing costs still taking precedence?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
A recent headline over at Bloomberg News—“Water Fights, Wandering Homeless Are Planet’s Future”—brought to mind the first editorial I wrote for Water Efficiency. Writing under the title, “Can Melting Ice Caps Inspire Sabotage?” I summarized the 2007 London conference entitled “Climate Change: The Global Security Impact,” where experts warned global warming could exacerbate refugee issues as more of the world’s poor found themselves escaping inhospitable climates. And while participants like Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain’s former ambassador to the United Nations, insisted these displaced people would end up as either potential victims or recruits for extremist terrorist groups, in the end the most important point made at that London conference was that climate change left unfettered could have ghastly consequences for our global water supply.
Water Fights, Wandering Homeless Are Planet’s Future
In an interview for the “Water Fights” article, Gary Braasch, discusses his book, Earth Under Fire: How Global Warming Is Changing the World, and talks about some of the impacts he anticipates as a result of climate change and rising sea levels. What I found most important in relation to water efficiency and conservation was his characterization of a future of extreme flooding followed by extended drought, which would, of course, severely impact agricultural and sustenance farming around the world. And just like Sir Crispin Tickell, Braasch warns of global migration and hordes of displaced refugees descending upon areas that manage to remain hospitable while the rest of the world descends into global warming chaos.
Whether you think these claims are melodramatic flourishes or opportunist rants, I think it’s worth restating what I said two years ago—“I am not much concerned whether or not you believe human actions are impacting the world’s climate. I’d rather the lesson behind the rhetoric not be lost. Whether we like it or not, we are in a codependent relationship with the earth, and without water we will not survive….In the end, whether it is Mother Nature or a pipe bomb, at some point there will be an attack on your infrastructure. Planning for it now will help you prevail during the onslaught and put you in a stronger position over the long haul. Ultimately, the ethos of efficiency is “be prepared.” Cut waste, plan your actions, and guard your resources, and you’ll be able to weather any adversarial event that lands on your doorstep.”
So, what are you doing to prepare for climate change and its possible impacts on your water supply? Is global warming influencing your resource management decisions, or are budgeting and managing costs still taking precedence?
Monday, June 1, 2009
Preemptive Strike
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Although July is Smart Irrigation Month, southern California is jumping the gun with a series of strict restriction on outdoor water usage. In Los Angeles, June 1 marks the beginning of mandatory conservation restrictions designed to reduce city water use by 15%. For those who love their green lawns, these restrictions mean that their sprinklers can only run Mondays and Thursdays, with enforcement to be handled by the city’s “drought police.”
But California is not the only state that’s taking a preemptive stance on water conservation and irrigation. June 1 also marks the start of new water restrictions in Durham, NC. Under the new policy, homeowners will be allowed to water their lawns three days a week based on their address. In addition, irrigation can only take place before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m., and no one will be allowed to water on Mondays. City officials seem determined to encourage all manner of smart irrigation, and the new regulations require rain sensors or soil moisture sensors for all newly installed automated irrigation systems, while existing systems must install sensors by November 30, 2009. Durham’s irrigation schedule applies only to the new outdoor spray irrigation systems, and so, hand-watering and drip irrigation systems will not be restricted.
Meanwhile in San Antonio, city officials anticipate the implementation of even stricter irrigation regulations. Agricultural and residential irrigation could soon see “Stage Two” restrictions, which include once a week lawn-watering. Later this summer, San Antonio residents could even be subjected to “Stage Three” regulations—which go into effect whenever the local aquifer falls below 640 feet—and that means sprinkler irrigation once every two weeks, and drip irrigation limited to either 3–8 a.m. or 8–10 p.m. Should “Stage Four” regulations go into effect, surcharges will also be imposed on users who exceed 12,717 gallons per month.
So what do you think? Are these kinds of irrigation restrictions an important part of water resource management? And, more importantly, should these restrictions be limited to times of extreme drought, or would it make more sense to always require smart and studied outdoor water use?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Although July is Smart Irrigation Month, southern California is jumping the gun with a series of strict restriction on outdoor water usage. In Los Angeles, June 1 marks the beginning of mandatory conservation restrictions designed to reduce city water use by 15%. For those who love their green lawns, these restrictions mean that their sprinklers can only run Mondays and Thursdays, with enforcement to be handled by the city’s “drought police.”
But California is not the only state that’s taking a preemptive stance on water conservation and irrigation. June 1 also marks the start of new water restrictions in Durham, NC. Under the new policy, homeowners will be allowed to water their lawns three days a week based on their address. In addition, irrigation can only take place before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m., and no one will be allowed to water on Mondays. City officials seem determined to encourage all manner of smart irrigation, and the new regulations require rain sensors or soil moisture sensors for all newly installed automated irrigation systems, while existing systems must install sensors by November 30, 2009. Durham’s irrigation schedule applies only to the new outdoor spray irrigation systems, and so, hand-watering and drip irrigation systems will not be restricted.
Meanwhile in San Antonio, city officials anticipate the implementation of even stricter irrigation regulations. Agricultural and residential irrigation could soon see “Stage Two” restrictions, which include once a week lawn-watering. Later this summer, San Antonio residents could even be subjected to “Stage Three” regulations—which go into effect whenever the local aquifer falls below 640 feet—and that means sprinkler irrigation once every two weeks, and drip irrigation limited to either 3–8 a.m. or 8–10 p.m. Should “Stage Four” regulations go into effect, surcharges will also be imposed on users who exceed 12,717 gallons per month.
So what do you think? Are these kinds of irrigation restrictions an important part of water resource management? And, more importantly, should these restrictions be limited to times of extreme drought, or would it make more sense to always require smart and studied outdoor water use?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
