(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Last year, in my editorial entitled “The Perfect Storm”, I discussed the Southeast’s “killer” drought and the role water waste played in the current supply crisis in Georgia and its neighbors. Specifically, I postulated “while water shortages like those faced in Georgia are the result of a variety of factors, water inefficiency can be placed squarely near the top of the list.” In fact, a report by World Water Vision had made the same point, “There is a water crisis today, but the crisis is not about having too little water to satisfy our needs,” it states. “It is a crisis of managing water so badly that billions of people—and the environment—suffer.” Now a study by Columbia University has come to the same conclusion.
Last month, researchers from the university’s Lamont-Doherty Earty Observatory concluded that the current Southeast drought is actually mild, compared to other historical shortages, and that, in fact, the severity of the current drought has less to do with climate change and more to do with population growth and ineffective infrastructure planning. Researchers compared instrumental weather records from the last century with tree-growth ring studies and discovered that over the last 500 years the region has seen droughts that are more severe, longer lasting, and with even more severe consequences. Of particular historic note: A series of droughts from the late 1500s through the 1600s has been linked (in other studies) with the destruction of several Spanish and English new world colonies—including Jamestown, VA. In comparison, the Southeast of the 20th century has benefited from abundant precipitation, and even the current dry spell is nothing compared to the periods between 1998–2002.
In fact, the real issue is not so much diminished supply as inefficiency. By not accounting for its rising population (an increase of almost 50% over the last 17 years and still rising) or working to reduce user demand, the state is now stuck: Increasing usage, increasing waste, and a collection and storage system are in desperate need of overhauls and upgrades. And the news only gets worse for the region—explaining that climate change has yet to really impact precipitation patterns, the report’s authors warn that when the effects really kick in, the state’s water woes are likely to get worse.
So what do think? Are the results of this study predictable, or should they serve as a wake-up call? By focusing on the climate change bogeyman, have we gone too far afield? And, won’t dealing with the current state of our supply and infrastructure put us in a better position to battle whatever future plans Mother Nature may have in store for us?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Smart Water Use
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
(Dispatch from WaterSmart Innovations 2009)
Dan Bena, Director of Sustainability, Health, Safety and Environment for PepsiCo delivered the opening keynote at WaterSmart Innovations 2009. The EPA recently named PepsiCo one their 2008 Water Efficiency Leaders, and in the May/June issue of Water Efficiency, we highlighted PepsiCo’s water conservation and sustainability efforts. (“Conservation Corp,”)
In his keynote address, Bena discusses the differences between water supply and use in industrialized nations versus the third-world, in order to illustrate how competing perspectives can influence behavior. In one startling example, Bena juxtaposed images of the world’s largest swimming pools in Algarrobo, Chile (250,000 cubic meters of water), with images of drought in Sub-Saharan Africa.
“To do nothing is not an option,” says Bena. “The cost of inaction is enormous.”
And no one can accuse PepsiCo of inaction. For starters, the company has challenged all of its facilities to meet the company’s own target goal of water consumption: reducing water use per unit of production by 20% by 2015. While working towards that goal, the company has already saved 800 million gallons of water domestically and two billion internationally.
Some of the conservation and demand reduction methods used by PepsiCo include:
• Treating and reusing wastewater produces
• Implementing dry lube technology in its manufacturing process
• Modifying maintenance tasks to create water efficiencies
• Continued monitoring of opportunities for reducing water loss and water usage
• Extending tank wash intervals
As the the second largest soft drink business in the world, PepsiCo’s actions are not insignificant, something the company is well aware of considering that many of its operations are based in nations facing severe water shortages. As part of its “performance with purpose” commitment, PepsiCo announced in March of this year that it had adopted a “human right-to-water” policy for all of its domestic and overseas operations.
In a statement posted on oneworld.net, Julie Goodridge, CEO of NorthStar Asset Management—the company that aided PepsiCo in developing its new water resolution—states, “This agreement moves beyond the vague promises of water conservation that many corporations claim to support. It fully commits the company to respecting the right to sufficient clean water, as well as individuals’ rights to be involved in the development of processes that extract water from their communities.”
Friday, October 2, 2009
Delta Update
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
There’s been another twist and turn in the saga surrounding water allocations in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. In case you are unfamiliar with the situation in California’s central valley, last year the state courts delivered the infamous “Delta-smelt decision” that restricted pumping in the Delta and resulted in a drastic reduction in the amount of water delivered from the delta to the rest of California—including the every-thirsty urban enclaves in the south and agricultural interests in the heart of the state. At the beginning of this year, the California Department of Water Resources attempted to readdress the issue by proposing the construction of a 35-mile tunnel, designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south at a cost that some some estimate could be as high as $15 billion.
In response to concerns over costs and the environmental impact of such a large infrastructure project, and vociferous complaints from farmers who seen their water supplies disappear, the Obama administration stepped into the fray this week in an attempt to rectify the situation. According to the Los Angeles Times, the administration plans to dispatch experts from the National Academy of Sciences to the California to review the pumping restrictions. Additionally, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that six federal agencies had signed a memorandum of understanding to work together on delta issues.
The situation in California may seem unique, but the complex connection between drought, unchecked urban development, inefficient conveyance systems, and water-intensive agricultural interests can be found in areas throughout the US. When you add the difficulties inherent to the transfer of water over long distances (and often across city, county, or state borders), it’s clear that whether it’s California, Georgia, or the Mississippi Delta, the problem is the same: how to get water where its needed and while protecting the source.
So what do you think? Can water rights be designated and enforced? If so, should those rights be based on need or prior claim? And where do conservation and efficiency efforts fit in? Finally, is this a problem that can be solved locally or do we need to bring in the big (federal) guns?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
There’s been another twist and turn in the saga surrounding water allocations in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. In case you are unfamiliar with the situation in California’s central valley, last year the state courts delivered the infamous “Delta-smelt decision” that restricted pumping in the Delta and resulted in a drastic reduction in the amount of water delivered from the delta to the rest of California—including the every-thirsty urban enclaves in the south and agricultural interests in the heart of the state. At the beginning of this year, the California Department of Water Resources attempted to readdress the issue by proposing the construction of a 35-mile tunnel, designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south at a cost that some some estimate could be as high as $15 billion.
In response to concerns over costs and the environmental impact of such a large infrastructure project, and vociferous complaints from farmers who seen their water supplies disappear, the Obama administration stepped into the fray this week in an attempt to rectify the situation. According to the Los Angeles Times, the administration plans to dispatch experts from the National Academy of Sciences to the California to review the pumping restrictions. Additionally, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that six federal agencies had signed a memorandum of understanding to work together on delta issues.
The situation in California may seem unique, but the complex connection between drought, unchecked urban development, inefficient conveyance systems, and water-intensive agricultural interests can be found in areas throughout the US. When you add the difficulties inherent to the transfer of water over long distances (and often across city, county, or state borders), it’s clear that whether it’s California, Georgia, or the Mississippi Delta, the problem is the same: how to get water where its needed and while protecting the source.
So what do you think? Can water rights be designated and enforced? If so, should those rights be based on need or prior claim? And where do conservation and efficiency efforts fit in? Finally, is this a problem that can be solved locally or do we need to bring in the big (federal) guns?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Alternative Sources
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my April editorial “Divining Rods”, I stated, “With a finite amount of water available, it’s important that we use what we have wisely, but it’s equally important to find untapped sources that can supplement our current supplies and allow us to efficiently meet growing demand.” In Philadelphia, PA, that search for new sources has hit pay dirt in the form of stormwater control. According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer the city plans to spend $1.6 billion to switch away from traditional stormwater management (essentially ushering rainwater downstream) and towards a reimagined urban landscape of green roofs, porous pavements, and rain gardens.
The plan success rests, in part, on participation by all members of the community. To that end, every time a city street is dug up for standard municipal repairs and projects, it will be repaved with porous asphalt (at a slightly higher cost). And under a city ordinance, large-scale commercial structures (15,000 square feet or more) must install rainwater catchment systems. Additionally, commercial water rates are now based not on how much water is used the facility, but by how much land is covered by impervious surface materials.
The plan sounds like a “win-win:” reduced demand on the city’s sewer system, reduced energy usage, even reduced deaths (from excess heat). Jon Capacasa, regional director of water protection for the EPA, is quoted in the article, saying, “This is the most significant use of green infrastructure I’ve seen in the country, the largest scale I’ve seen.”
So what do you think? Are large-scale plans like this feasible? And are the implementation costs justified by the results?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my April editorial “Divining Rods”, I stated, “With a finite amount of water available, it’s important that we use what we have wisely, but it’s equally important to find untapped sources that can supplement our current supplies and allow us to efficiently meet growing demand.” In Philadelphia, PA, that search for new sources has hit pay dirt in the form of stormwater control. According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer the city plans to spend $1.6 billion to switch away from traditional stormwater management (essentially ushering rainwater downstream) and towards a reimagined urban landscape of green roofs, porous pavements, and rain gardens.
The plan success rests, in part, on participation by all members of the community. To that end, every time a city street is dug up for standard municipal repairs and projects, it will be repaved with porous asphalt (at a slightly higher cost). And under a city ordinance, large-scale commercial structures (15,000 square feet or more) must install rainwater catchment systems. Additionally, commercial water rates are now based not on how much water is used the facility, but by how much land is covered by impervious surface materials.
The plan sounds like a “win-win:” reduced demand on the city’s sewer system, reduced energy usage, even reduced deaths (from excess heat). Jon Capacasa, regional director of water protection for the EPA, is quoted in the article, saying, “This is the most significant use of green infrastructure I’ve seen in the country, the largest scale I’ve seen.”
So what do you think? Are large-scale plans like this feasible? And are the implementation costs justified by the results?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Water Saved Is Water Earned?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week, the online edition of the Desert Sun ran a news item on a surprise announcement by the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District—two of California’s biggest users of Colorado River water allotments. Turns out, both districts estimate that they will be need a significantly smaller amount of water this year than originally projected—the smallest amount, in fact, since they were required to track their use by the 2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement (QSA).
The news couldn’t have come at a better time for Los Angeles. Under the QSA, customers in the Los Angeles area (about 19 million) are entitled to any water left over from unused agricultural supplies in the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. In Los Angeles, this water windfall will not only help ease mandatory water restrictions, it will also go a long way towards replenishing the area’s water storage supply.
As is always the case in California, the announcement spurred controversy— specifically over how the water savings were achieved. Agricultural interests in Imperial and Coachella claimed that successful conservation and efficiency programs had created the surplus. But skeptics point to the weakened economy and its effect on California’s ag industry (smaller crop yields, diminished demand) as the real culprit. These warring claims have a significance—under the QSA farmers are supposed to receive funds to aid in the implementation of water conservation efforts, funds that could help farmers sustain themselves during these lean times. Without that funding, some farmers claim there is little incentive to conserve water.
In California the push-pull relationship between rural and urban water users seems never ending—one group always feels any conservation on their part leaves them at a disadvantage while unfairly benefiting the other side. What do you think? Should conservation efforts be incentive-based? Do the farmers in California’s central valley have a point? Or is the solution to look beyond the water-as-commodity paradi
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week, the online edition of the Desert Sun ran a news item on a surprise announcement by the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District—two of California’s biggest users of Colorado River water allotments. Turns out, both districts estimate that they will be need a significantly smaller amount of water this year than originally projected—the smallest amount, in fact, since they were required to track their use by the 2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement (QSA).
The news couldn’t have come at a better time for Los Angeles. Under the QSA, customers in the Los Angeles area (about 19 million) are entitled to any water left over from unused agricultural supplies in the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. In Los Angeles, this water windfall will not only help ease mandatory water restrictions, it will also go a long way towards replenishing the area’s water storage supply.
As is always the case in California, the announcement spurred controversy— specifically over how the water savings were achieved. Agricultural interests in Imperial and Coachella claimed that successful conservation and efficiency programs had created the surplus. But skeptics point to the weakened economy and its effect on California’s ag industry (smaller crop yields, diminished demand) as the real culprit. These warring claims have a significance—under the QSA farmers are supposed to receive funds to aid in the implementation of water conservation efforts, funds that could help farmers sustain themselves during these lean times. Without that funding, some farmers claim there is little incentive to conserve water.
In California the push-pull relationship between rural and urban water users seems never ending—one group always feels any conservation on their part leaves them at a disadvantage while unfairly benefiting the other side. What do you think? Should conservation efforts be incentive-based? Do the farmers in California’s central valley have a point? Or is the solution to look beyond the water-as-commodity paradi
Monday, September 14, 2009
Mile-High Metering
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week (Sept. 14, 2009) I’m in Denver, CO, attending the Utilimetrics Smart Metering Conference and Exposition, aka Autovation. The conference covers metering primarily in the electric utility industry, but there’s plenty of discussion on the role AMR and AMI play in the quest for efficient water resource management.
As you know, automatic meter reading (AMR) involves the automatic collection of data from meters (water, gas, and electric). Once the data is collected, it is transferred to a central database for analysis and metering. Of greatest benefit to a water utility is the possibility of measuring actual consumption, thereby enabling accurate billing and a more in depth and demand-sensitive resource management.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), on the other hand, pushes data management to another level by including the measurement, collection, and analysis of meter-acquired data. AMI includes not only hardware, but the master data management (MDM) software and customer interface that makes use of all the statistics and information collected, including water usage and billing. Another AMI benefit is the ability to craft sophisticated demand-response solutions.
I’m excited to see the newest and most innovative AMR/AMI technology that’ll be on display here in Denver, and you can rest assured that I’ll be passing along everything I’ve to learned to you.
In the meantime, check out some of our past AMR/AMI articles. They run the gamut from project profiles on one particular success story, to technologically focused pieces that will give you the basics, to grander articles that fix AMR/AMI within the bigger picture of water efficiency and resource management.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week (Sept. 14, 2009) I’m in Denver, CO, attending the Utilimetrics Smart Metering Conference and Exposition, aka Autovation. The conference covers metering primarily in the electric utility industry, but there’s plenty of discussion on the role AMR and AMI play in the quest for efficient water resource management.
As you know, automatic meter reading (AMR) involves the automatic collection of data from meters (water, gas, and electric). Once the data is collected, it is transferred to a central database for analysis and metering. Of greatest benefit to a water utility is the possibility of measuring actual consumption, thereby enabling accurate billing and a more in depth and demand-sensitive resource management.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), on the other hand, pushes data management to another level by including the measurement, collection, and analysis of meter-acquired data. AMI includes not only hardware, but the master data management (MDM) software and customer interface that makes use of all the statistics and information collected, including water usage and billing. Another AMI benefit is the ability to craft sophisticated demand-response solutions.
I’m excited to see the newest and most innovative AMR/AMI technology that’ll be on display here in Denver, and you can rest assured that I’ll be passing along everything I’ve to learned to you.
In the meantime, check out some of our past AMR/AMI articles. They run the gamut from project profiles on one particular success story, to technologically focused pieces that will give you the basics, to grander articles that fix AMR/AMI within the bigger picture of water efficiency and resource management.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Smart Water Grid
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As editor of Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I’ve heard a lot about the “smart grid” and its potential to shift our energy infrastructure into a modern—and more efficient—incarnation. No wonder then, that an article posted this week on CNET news caught my eye. Entitled “IBM Dives into ‘smart grid for water,’” Martin LaMonica’s piece lays out IBM’s ambitions and details exactly what we can expect from a “smart water grid.”
As part of a $20-billion IT-related water portfolio, IBM is teaming up with Intel to form “a working group to study how information technology can be used to improve water management.” Here at Water Efficiency, we’ve always focused on the relationship between technology, data integration, and resource management. It looks like the folks at IBM are on the right track—and following in our footsteps—by focusing on aging infrastructure, water quality, and metering.
After launching Big Green Innovations in 2007, IBM has recently begun to focus primarily on “advanced water management,” which the company describes as encompassing “a broad agenda from availability and quality to distribution and consumption.” By upgrading water conveyance systems, IBM sees an opportunity to mimic the path of smart grid implementation for electric utilities. Part of this implementation of a smart water grid would involve the collection of information related to water delivery, water quality, and non-revenue water.
Why the push into water efficiency? According to the CNET article, IBM recognizes that the connection between energy use and water delivery presents an opportunity to promote smart water use and increased water conservation, while reducing operating expenses. Additionally, several water-intense industries—like agriculture, beverage manufacturers, and semiconductor companies—are keen on controlling costs by managing their water resources wisely.
So what do you think? Is there anything new in what IBM is proposing, or is the “smart grid for water” just a new label for the water efficiency protocols we’ve been discussing for years?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As editor of Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I’ve heard a lot about the “smart grid” and its potential to shift our energy infrastructure into a modern—and more efficient—incarnation. No wonder then, that an article posted this week on CNET news caught my eye. Entitled “IBM Dives into ‘smart grid for water,’” Martin LaMonica’s piece lays out IBM’s ambitions and details exactly what we can expect from a “smart water grid.”
As part of a $20-billion IT-related water portfolio, IBM is teaming up with Intel to form “a working group to study how information technology can be used to improve water management.” Here at Water Efficiency, we’ve always focused on the relationship between technology, data integration, and resource management. It looks like the folks at IBM are on the right track—and following in our footsteps—by focusing on aging infrastructure, water quality, and metering.
After launching Big Green Innovations in 2007, IBM has recently begun to focus primarily on “advanced water management,” which the company describes as encompassing “a broad agenda from availability and quality to distribution and consumption.” By upgrading water conveyance systems, IBM sees an opportunity to mimic the path of smart grid implementation for electric utilities. Part of this implementation of a smart water grid would involve the collection of information related to water delivery, water quality, and non-revenue water.
Why the push into water efficiency? According to the CNET article, IBM recognizes that the connection between energy use and water delivery presents an opportunity to promote smart water use and increased water conservation, while reducing operating expenses. Additionally, several water-intense industries—like agriculture, beverage manufacturers, and semiconductor companies—are keen on controlling costs by managing their water resources wisely.
So what do you think? Is there anything new in what IBM is proposing, or is the “smart grid for water” just a new label for the water efficiency protocols we’ve been discussing for years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
