(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my first blog, “Titans of Industry — Should Big Business Control the Tap?”, I discussed the privatization of water delivery systems around the world. About 75% of water utilities in the US are public, and although their customers certainly can find themselves on the wrong end of a rate hike, as I stated in that first-ever blog, the not-for-profit utilities have “the luxury of using water rates to promote conservation.” But when profit is a motive, what happens?
In discussing the possibility of privatizing Chicago’s water delivery system in an article entitled, “Leasing water system could be a risky move for Chicago”, the Chicago Tribune’s Michael Hawthorne first points to the experiences of other municipalities who have made that choice, including Atlanta and, even, the Chicago suburb of Bolingbrook which, as the Tribune points out, is “one of dozens of suburbs and downstate communities furious about steep rate increases imposed by a private water operator.” Privatization is a contentious issue, and Chicago should perhaps pay heed to its neighbors—as Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar puts it, “We should control our own destiny, not turn it over to some private operation.”
In the past, I’ve focused primarily on international communities (like rural China and South America) that have suffered under the yoke of privatized water systems, but as Hawthorne’s article makes clear, many US towns and cities have been equally burdened by privatization. There’s Fort Wayne, IN, for example, which is attempting to buy back the remaining portion of its water system (after already successfully reclaiming one part) because of conflicts between shareholder interest and customer concerns. And as mentioned, Atlanta is also suffering under a 20-year deal with a corporate operator, which has so far resulted in “cost overruns, service problems, and breakdowns.”
Why would a community contemplate privatization? Because private water companies offer tantalizing promises to fix leaky pipes, rehabilitate aging infrastructure, and improve operations, while simultaneously offering pure and plentiful tap water to its customers. And the rate hikes? Well, that money is needed to fund future system improvements and promote water conservation.
There’s no point in making private water companies into the bogeyman, but it’s certainly worth taking a closer look at the panacea they offer. First of all, punitive incentives like water rate increases can go a long way towards reducing water waste. But, can’t positive reinforcement—like conservation education and government-sponsored tools (like rebate programs and free water audits)—be equally effective?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What’s Your Standard
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an oft-repeated phrase: You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the realm of water efficiency—how can you know if you’re effectively allocating your resources if you don’t have an accurate assessment of what those resources are? But there’s another side to this equation that’s a little more problematic: How do you determine the methodology behind your measurements and—perhaps more importantly—how do you develop the baseline that those measurements are compared against?
In other words: What’s your standard? More importantly, how do you develop that standard? The initial steps are pretty straightforward: Define what you will measure, decide how you will measure it, and then determine how those measurements will be used. Seems simple enough—collect some data based on a metric you’ve devised, then compare that data to the benchmark you’ve established, and voilà!
As is often the case, actually implementing those steps is a bit more complicated. Deciding what will be measured means prioritizing based on the goals you want to achieve and the activities you deem most important. And those judgment calls will be different for each community and organization.
For the water efficiency professional, water use is the top priority, but which use is the most important? Residential? Commercial? Indoors or outdoors? What about imbedded energy or source protection? If you’re a residential community, how much water use per household is a reasonable amount? Is it 59 gallons per day average determined by the AWWARF Residential End Uses of Water study? Is that total acceptable when combined with widespread low-flow fixture installation? Should outdoor water use be added to the mix?
Measurement methodology comes with its own set of challenges, because how you measure is just as important as what you measure. Do you measure based on past performance? Do you use a percentage reduction, or rely strictly on gallons per day? Do you base your metrics on regional demands (landscaping in the desert versus green lawns in the Pacific Northwest), or do you develop a national standard based on weather forecasting and interstate water rights? And if you decide on a percentage-based calculation, are you penalizing early adopters who have already reduced their water use to a point where any further progress will be incremental?
And if the first step of any water conservation initiative is to establish what is being measured and how it’s being measured, then the next step is to add meaning to that data in the form of easily identifiable benchmarks. Those benchmarks can be based on a set of predetermined goals (a desire to reduce overall water use by “X” amount for example) or specific needs (protecting groundwater resources). But how do you choose?
There are, of course, national and regional programs that attempt to set water use standards, but those organizations have undoubtedly fallen into the same pitfalls mentioned above: regional variations, nebulous baseline calculations, inadvertent penalization of early adopters. Community concerns should certainly be considered, but there’s risk that real needs could be obscured by special interests, and the competing requests of Balkanized entities focused on their own requirements.
If all this sounds overwhelming, you’re not alone. Stepping into the water efficiency standards debate is akin to peeling the skin off of that proverbial onion—every step you take triggers a whole set of considerations.
So what do you think? Does developing some sort of repository of verifiable data make sense? And if so, what should this repository include? And is it possible to create a set of regional and case-specific standards designed to promote water efficiency that include understandable metrics, easily accessible benchmarks, and incentives to encourage continued improveme
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an oft-repeated phrase: You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the realm of water efficiency—how can you know if you’re effectively allocating your resources if you don’t have an accurate assessment of what those resources are? But there’s another side to this equation that’s a little more problematic: How do you determine the methodology behind your measurements and—perhaps more importantly—how do you develop the baseline that those measurements are compared against?
In other words: What’s your standard? More importantly, how do you develop that standard? The initial steps are pretty straightforward: Define what you will measure, decide how you will measure it, and then determine how those measurements will be used. Seems simple enough—collect some data based on a metric you’ve devised, then compare that data to the benchmark you’ve established, and voilà!
As is often the case, actually implementing those steps is a bit more complicated. Deciding what will be measured means prioritizing based on the goals you want to achieve and the activities you deem most important. And those judgment calls will be different for each community and organization.
For the water efficiency professional, water use is the top priority, but which use is the most important? Residential? Commercial? Indoors or outdoors? What about imbedded energy or source protection? If you’re a residential community, how much water use per household is a reasonable amount? Is it 59 gallons per day average determined by the AWWARF Residential End Uses of Water study? Is that total acceptable when combined with widespread low-flow fixture installation? Should outdoor water use be added to the mix?
Measurement methodology comes with its own set of challenges, because how you measure is just as important as what you measure. Do you measure based on past performance? Do you use a percentage reduction, or rely strictly on gallons per day? Do you base your metrics on regional demands (landscaping in the desert versus green lawns in the Pacific Northwest), or do you develop a national standard based on weather forecasting and interstate water rights? And if you decide on a percentage-based calculation, are you penalizing early adopters who have already reduced their water use to a point where any further progress will be incremental?
And if the first step of any water conservation initiative is to establish what is being measured and how it’s being measured, then the next step is to add meaning to that data in the form of easily identifiable benchmarks. Those benchmarks can be based on a set of predetermined goals (a desire to reduce overall water use by “X” amount for example) or specific needs (protecting groundwater resources). But how do you choose?
There are, of course, national and regional programs that attempt to set water use standards, but those organizations have undoubtedly fallen into the same pitfalls mentioned above: regional variations, nebulous baseline calculations, inadvertent penalization of early adopters. Community concerns should certainly be considered, but there’s risk that real needs could be obscured by special interests, and the competing requests of Balkanized entities focused on their own requirements.
If all this sounds overwhelming, you’re not alone. Stepping into the water efficiency standards debate is akin to peeling the skin off of that proverbial onion—every step you take triggers a whole set of considerations.
So what do you think? Does developing some sort of repository of verifiable data make sense? And if so, what should this repository include? And is it possible to create a set of regional and case-specific standards designed to promote water efficiency that include understandable metrics, easily accessible benchmarks, and incentives to encourage continued improveme
Monday, November 2, 2009
WE Professionals Take a Bow
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The numbers are in, and the news is good: American’s are using less water. According to a report released by USGS, water use in the US is the lowest it’s been since the 1950s. In fact, in the last 30 or so years, the change in water use in the US has been nothing short of amazing: Today our nation consumes less water than it did 30 years ago, and per capita use is down nearly 30% from what it was in 1975. This is what all of us in the industry have been working towards, and it’s heartening to see numbers that illustrate without a doubt that the US has finally and firmly moved away from water waste and inefficiency, and set a course towards thoughtful, studied, and efficient water use.
Every five years, the USGS releases an assessment of water use in the US, but the numbers that appear in this most recent report have generated a lot of excitement. Some of the USGS report statistics for 2005 include:
* A reduction of total water use from 410 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d)—for residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling—down from 413 Bgal/day in 2005 (and 5% less than the peak numbers reported in 1980)
* Fresh groundwater withdrawals of 79.6 Bgal/day in 2005 (about 5% less than in 2000)
* 128 Bgal/d for irrigation withdrawals (about 8% less than in 2000 and approximately equal to estimates of irrigation water use in 1970)
* And although there was a 2% increase in public supply withdrawals (44.2 Bgal/d in 2005), population increased by more than 5% during the same period.
While the conservation numbers are exciting, it’s also interesting to see exactly where all our water goes:
* Nearly 30% of all fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005 occurred in five states: California, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois.
* Irrigation accounts for more than half of all groundwater withdrawals in California, Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Idaho.
* Almost 67% of fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005 were for irrigation.
* Another 18% of groundwater withdrawals were for the country’s public supply.
* In Florida, 52% of all fresh groundwater withdrawals were for public supply, and 34% were for irrigation.
All of us involved in water efficiency and conservation should feel proud. The USGS report specifically credits water-saving technologies and public outreach for the drop in usage throughout the country. As Susan Hutson, one of authors of the report, points out, “Even during a time of population growth and economic growth, we are all using less water. It’s exciting to see we have responded to these crises by really seeking solutions.”
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The numbers are in, and the news is good: American’s are using less water. According to a report released by USGS, water use in the US is the lowest it’s been since the 1950s. In fact, in the last 30 or so years, the change in water use in the US has been nothing short of amazing: Today our nation consumes less water than it did 30 years ago, and per capita use is down nearly 30% from what it was in 1975. This is what all of us in the industry have been working towards, and it’s heartening to see numbers that illustrate without a doubt that the US has finally and firmly moved away from water waste and inefficiency, and set a course towards thoughtful, studied, and efficient water use.
Every five years, the USGS releases an assessment of water use in the US, but the numbers that appear in this most recent report have generated a lot of excitement. Some of the USGS report statistics for 2005 include:
* A reduction of total water use from 410 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d)—for residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and power plant cooling—down from 413 Bgal/day in 2005 (and 5% less than the peak numbers reported in 1980)
* Fresh groundwater withdrawals of 79.6 Bgal/day in 2005 (about 5% less than in 2000)
* 128 Bgal/d for irrigation withdrawals (about 8% less than in 2000 and approximately equal to estimates of irrigation water use in 1970)
* And although there was a 2% increase in public supply withdrawals (44.2 Bgal/d in 2005), population increased by more than 5% during the same period.
While the conservation numbers are exciting, it’s also interesting to see exactly where all our water goes:
* Nearly 30% of all fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005 occurred in five states: California, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois.
* Irrigation accounts for more than half of all groundwater withdrawals in California, Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Idaho.
* Almost 67% of fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005 were for irrigation.
* Another 18% of groundwater withdrawals were for the country’s public supply.
* In Florida, 52% of all fresh groundwater withdrawals were for public supply, and 34% were for irrigation.
All of us involved in water efficiency and conservation should feel proud. The USGS report specifically credits water-saving technologies and public outreach for the drop in usage throughout the country. As Susan Hutson, one of authors of the report, points out, “Even during a time of population growth and economic growth, we are all using less water. It’s exciting to see we have responded to these crises by really seeking solutions.”
Monday, October 26, 2009
Pipe Bursts, News at 11
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Every day lately, it seems like news comes out of Los Angeles about yet another sinkhole appearance or water main failure. In fact, on just one Tuesday in October, the city experienced the following calamities (source: Los Angeles Times)
* The rupture of a 12-inch steel water main on Mulholland Drive, that sent water gushing onto surrounding streets and homes
* A break in a 6-inch cast-iron water main, that caused a sinkhole and spit mud and debris out onto surrounding streets
* A pipe break at a major intersection, that lifted up asphalt and forced the closure of said intersection for extensive repairs
Three in one day may not seem unusual for a large metropolitan area, but 18 similar incidents in October, combined with an additional 44 in September, brought the tally to an eye-popping 62 significant leaks since September 1. Residents were concerned, and city officials were quick to point out that despite the unusual rash of water main bursts this fall, the situation in Los Angeles is about par for the course for the city (and most urban locations throughout the country). According to the Los Angeles Times, “The city’s 7,200 miles of pipe are not actually leaking more than usual—in fact, the number of leaks, about 1,400 a year, is down from the past.” But the leaks are still significant—having caused more destruction and wasted more water than is normally expected from leaks and main breaks of this magnitude.
So what can cities like Los Angeles do to mitigate these losses and protect against future occurrences?
One solution is to follow the International Water Association’s (IWA) water loss guidelines, as set out by the Water Loss Task Force, created by the IWA in 1996.
Under these guidelines, the first step involves the creation of standard water balance using international terminology. In other words, a water audit should be performed to determine “the major components of water consumption and water loss.” The next step is to develop performance indicators for water utilities. One of these indicators involves the measurement of “non-revenue water.” Non-revenue water is the difference between the amount of water released into the distribution systems and the amount customers are billed for using. Finally, a community or municipality should develop strategies to reduce water loss through leak management, including improving the speed and quality of repairs, pressure management, and active leak control.
So what do you think? Are these guidelines “doable?” Is there a better way? And can the promised ARRA funding for infrastructure improvements make these daily pipe-bursts a thing of the past?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Every day lately, it seems like news comes out of Los Angeles about yet another sinkhole appearance or water main failure. In fact, on just one Tuesday in October, the city experienced the following calamities (source: Los Angeles Times)
* The rupture of a 12-inch steel water main on Mulholland Drive, that sent water gushing onto surrounding streets and homes
* A break in a 6-inch cast-iron water main, that caused a sinkhole and spit mud and debris out onto surrounding streets
* A pipe break at a major intersection, that lifted up asphalt and forced the closure of said intersection for extensive repairs
Three in one day may not seem unusual for a large metropolitan area, but 18 similar incidents in October, combined with an additional 44 in September, brought the tally to an eye-popping 62 significant leaks since September 1. Residents were concerned, and city officials were quick to point out that despite the unusual rash of water main bursts this fall, the situation in Los Angeles is about par for the course for the city (and most urban locations throughout the country). According to the Los Angeles Times, “The city’s 7,200 miles of pipe are not actually leaking more than usual—in fact, the number of leaks, about 1,400 a year, is down from the past.” But the leaks are still significant—having caused more destruction and wasted more water than is normally expected from leaks and main breaks of this magnitude.
So what can cities like Los Angeles do to mitigate these losses and protect against future occurrences?
One solution is to follow the International Water Association’s (IWA) water loss guidelines, as set out by the Water Loss Task Force, created by the IWA in 1996.
Under these guidelines, the first step involves the creation of standard water balance using international terminology. In other words, a water audit should be performed to determine “the major components of water consumption and water loss.” The next step is to develop performance indicators for water utilities. One of these indicators involves the measurement of “non-revenue water.” Non-revenue water is the difference between the amount of water released into the distribution systems and the amount customers are billed for using. Finally, a community or municipality should develop strategies to reduce water loss through leak management, including improving the speed and quality of repairs, pressure management, and active leak control.
So what do you think? Are these guidelines “doable?” Is there a better way? And can the promised ARRA funding for infrastructure improvements make these daily pipe-bursts a thing of the past?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Drought, Demand, and the GW Bogeyman
(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?
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 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
