(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’re all aware that we are smack dab in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, and those in the know are constantly warning us that, without proper funding and implementation of large-scale repair and rehabilitation of our conveyance systems, we are all headed towards a water resource management Armageddon. There have been some high-profile examples of what can happen when water conveyance systems start to fail, including a series of water main breaks that peppered Los Angeles earlier this year.
But this week in Kalama, WA, I think we’ve finally found an example of exactly what a worst-case scenario looks like. The facts, as reported in The Seattle Times, are as follows: On December 14, 2009 a frozen water main ruptured, resulting in a 15-foot gash and a complete draining of the municipal reservoir—over 1 million gallons lost. Adding insult to injury, the city’s other reservoir—which normally holds about 2 million gallons—is undergoing a series of repairs and is also empty. As a result, Kalama found itself completely bereft of a local water supply for several hours. Thanks to emergency measures, water service was restored to Kalama by the end of the day, but with all the attendant safety notices and boil-water alerts. Nevertheless, the Emergency Management Director for Cowlitz County, Grover Laseke, says it could take days to refill the reservoirs using wells in the area.
There’s no indication that anything other than the weather undermined Kalama’s water main, but be it Mother Nature, structural failures, or even sabotage, the result is the same: a broken pipe, a dry faucet, and a community without water. So what can Kalama, WA—population 2,000—teach us about water resource management and aging conveyance systems? Was this situation avoidable? Is the weather (and other environmental factors) a significant threat to existing pipelines and water mains, or are only aging or poorly maintained conveyance systems vulnerable? And was the situation in Kalama, two drained reservoirs, just an example of bad timing, or the canary in the gold mine, warning us all that our local supplies are always in jeopardy?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
All Bark and No Bite?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Earlier this year, California’s Department of Water Resources released its Pre-Final Draft of California’s Water Plan Update 2009. While the California Water Plan itself has been around since 1957, this latest version is intended to be viewed as an all-encompassing framework designed to efficiently manage California’s water resources. The 2009 plan builds upon what was originally established in the 2005 version; the two major points of which were integrated regional water management and improved statewide water management systems. The former focused on enabling individual regions within the state to implement self-sufficient strategies, while the latter focused on infrastructure upgrades and improvements. The 2009 updates goes further, listing specific areas of action and focus, including:
* Acknowledgement that the Water Plan is a living document that needs to continue to evolve in future updates
* Improved data, analytical tools, and information management and exchange
* Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
* Integrates information and recommendations from many state agency planning documents, particularly those represented on the Water Plan Steering Committee
* Integrated flood management
* Updated resource management strategies and regional reports
* Updated regional water balances to include eight years
* Consideration of uncertainty, risks, and resource sustainability into planning for the future
According to the Department of Water Resources, the 2009 update has “13 objectives that will help us achieve the Water Plan goals. Meeting these objectives, and planning and investing in their 110 related actions, will help California deal with a changing climate and other uncertainties and risks, and provide more adaptive and resilient ecosystems and more sustainable water and flood systems.”
One of the most talked about portions of this state water plan is the mandate for urban water conservation—20% by 2020 to be exact. But the vagueness of that mandate is raising eyebrows—specifically, the fact that the reduction is not based on total water used, that the regulation for reduction lacks viable enforcement methods (water districts that fail to meet the 20% goal risk eligibility for government grants and loans, but do not face fines or penalties), and the focus on urban water management without also including agriculture—which uses almost 80% of all water consumed in California.
So what do you think? Is this water plan another broad mandate with no real teeth? As critics have pointed out, regions measure water use in many different ways, and with no real baseline for usage that 20% reduction becomes meaningless. And what about failing to address the elephant in the room: California’s large water buffalos and agricultural use
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Earlier this year, California’s Department of Water Resources released its Pre-Final Draft of California’s Water Plan Update 2009. While the California Water Plan itself has been around since 1957, this latest version is intended to be viewed as an all-encompassing framework designed to efficiently manage California’s water resources. The 2009 plan builds upon what was originally established in the 2005 version; the two major points of which were integrated regional water management and improved statewide water management systems. The former focused on enabling individual regions within the state to implement self-sufficient strategies, while the latter focused on infrastructure upgrades and improvements. The 2009 updates goes further, listing specific areas of action and focus, including:
* Acknowledgement that the Water Plan is a living document that needs to continue to evolve in future updates
* Improved data, analytical tools, and information management and exchange
* Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
* Integrates information and recommendations from many state agency planning documents, particularly those represented on the Water Plan Steering Committee
* Integrated flood management
* Updated resource management strategies and regional reports
* Updated regional water balances to include eight years
* Consideration of uncertainty, risks, and resource sustainability into planning for the future
According to the Department of Water Resources, the 2009 update has “13 objectives that will help us achieve the Water Plan goals. Meeting these objectives, and planning and investing in their 110 related actions, will help California deal with a changing climate and other uncertainties and risks, and provide more adaptive and resilient ecosystems and more sustainable water and flood systems.”
One of the most talked about portions of this state water plan is the mandate for urban water conservation—20% by 2020 to be exact. But the vagueness of that mandate is raising eyebrows—specifically, the fact that the reduction is not based on total water used, that the regulation for reduction lacks viable enforcement methods (water districts that fail to meet the 20% goal risk eligibility for government grants and loans, but do not face fines or penalties), and the focus on urban water management without also including agriculture—which uses almost 80% of all water consumed in California.
So what do you think? Is this water plan another broad mandate with no real teeth? As critics have pointed out, regions measure water use in many different ways, and with no real baseline for usage that 20% reduction becomes meaningless. And what about failing to address the elephant in the room: California’s large water buffalos and agricultural use
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Subsidized Water
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Water and Energy—two forces forever bound together … it’s a relationship we’ve discussed many times. Because of the delicate balance between these two elements, conservation of one ultimately leads to conservation of the other (usually with the added bonus of reduced operational costs). But when there’s disturbance in this interplay, inefficiency takes hold, and we are left with a costly and wasteful delivery system. At other times, a surplus at one end of the spectrum can supplement a shortfall: But, does this kind of overcompensation really serve our ultimate goal of an efficient system that promotes conservation of all our precious resources?
Case in point: Arizona’s Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP—one of the state’s largest water suppliers—supplies water to farmers and 10 cities in and around the Phoenix area. But the SRP’s water delivery system has been operating with a financial deficit for years. According an article published this week in the Arizona Republic, the SRP ended the last fiscal year with a $33 million deficit. How does the SRP make up the difference? Electricity.
It costs the SRP $47 million deliver all of its water, and, while SRP customers pay $14 million of that bill in water assessments, electricity customers pick up the remaining $33 million. Using an energy surfeit to subsidize water delivery is nothing new for Arizona—for the past 100 years, power revenue has filled the gap between the cost to deliver water and the amount customers are charged on the receiving end. This quid-pro-quo started in 1909, when the Roosevelt Dam was paid for, in part, by the electricity revenue received from the energy generated by the dam. Once the SRP took over dam operations from the federal government, three more dams were built downstream using the same sort of energy-funding setup (with the added bonus of water storage). In fact, SRP officials have said that it’s this ability to store water and sell electricity that’s allowed for widespread development in Arizona.
So what do you think? Should electricity revenue subsidize water delivery? By artificially stabilizing water rates (and keeping those rates low despite increased demand or reduced supply), is the SRP encouraging water waste? According the SRP, only 1.4% of a customer’s energy bill goes funds water operations, but that figure does not take into account that all water users are not created equally—a single-family home, for example, uses less water than a even the smallest farm. It’s a complex issue, with many competing interests, but, in the end, as long as water customers are not paying the true cost for the resources they are con
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Water and Energy—two forces forever bound together … it’s a relationship we’ve discussed many times. Because of the delicate balance between these two elements, conservation of one ultimately leads to conservation of the other (usually with the added bonus of reduced operational costs). But when there’s disturbance in this interplay, inefficiency takes hold, and we are left with a costly and wasteful delivery system. At other times, a surplus at one end of the spectrum can supplement a shortfall: But, does this kind of overcompensation really serve our ultimate goal of an efficient system that promotes conservation of all our precious resources?
Case in point: Arizona’s Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP—one of the state’s largest water suppliers—supplies water to farmers and 10 cities in and around the Phoenix area. But the SRP’s water delivery system has been operating with a financial deficit for years. According an article published this week in the Arizona Republic, the SRP ended the last fiscal year with a $33 million deficit. How does the SRP make up the difference? Electricity.
It costs the SRP $47 million deliver all of its water, and, while SRP customers pay $14 million of that bill in water assessments, electricity customers pick up the remaining $33 million. Using an energy surfeit to subsidize water delivery is nothing new for Arizona—for the past 100 years, power revenue has filled the gap between the cost to deliver water and the amount customers are charged on the receiving end. This quid-pro-quo started in 1909, when the Roosevelt Dam was paid for, in part, by the electricity revenue received from the energy generated by the dam. Once the SRP took over dam operations from the federal government, three more dams were built downstream using the same sort of energy-funding setup (with the added bonus of water storage). In fact, SRP officials have said that it’s this ability to store water and sell electricity that’s allowed for widespread development in Arizona.
So what do you think? Should electricity revenue subsidize water delivery? By artificially stabilizing water rates (and keeping those rates low despite increased demand or reduced supply), is the SRP encouraging water waste? According the SRP, only 1.4% of a customer’s energy bill goes funds water operations, but that figure does not take into account that all water users are not created equally—a single-family home, for example, uses less water than a even the smallest farm. It’s a complex issue, with many competing interests, but, in the end, as long as water customers are not paying the true cost for the resources they are con
Monday, November 23, 2009
Keeping It Local
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
A few weeks back, I asked, “What’s your standard?”. In exploring the vagaries of water use, water needs, and water waste, I discussed the challenges inherent in any attempt to standardize efficiency measurements. In particular, any attempt to create a cohesive measurement system (and we all know, “you can’t manage what you don’t measure”), must depend on verifiable data, clear benchmarks, and a set of agreed upon metrics. Additionally, if the point of measuring is to encourage conservation, then any system must also include incentives to encourage water efficiency.
One of the greatest challenges when it comes to measuring and monitoring water use involves accounting for regional differences. What might be effective in one community could be counterproductive in another. In fact, it could be that standards and measurements will ultimately have to be tailored to deal with the unique properties of each watershed.
An example of the looming showdown between national protocols and local controls is already taking shape in California. Last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the state of California is well within its rights to create its own set of water conservation standards for clothes washing machines. In its decision, the Court overturned a US DOE decision to bar California from establishing its own water efficiency. In Judge William Canby’s decision, the judge indicated that improving efficiency was essential given the state’s current water crisis.
So what do you think? Is the DOE fighting the wrong fight here? Are states better able to handle their own resources? And if so, how do we account for resources that cross state lines?
Click here for more on the 9th District’s decision.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
A few weeks back, I asked, “What’s your standard?”. In exploring the vagaries of water use, water needs, and water waste, I discussed the challenges inherent in any attempt to standardize efficiency measurements. In particular, any attempt to create a cohesive measurement system (and we all know, “you can’t manage what you don’t measure”), must depend on verifiable data, clear benchmarks, and a set of agreed upon metrics. Additionally, if the point of measuring is to encourage conservation, then any system must also include incentives to encourage water efficiency.
One of the greatest challenges when it comes to measuring and monitoring water use involves accounting for regional differences. What might be effective in one community could be counterproductive in another. In fact, it could be that standards and measurements will ultimately have to be tailored to deal with the unique properties of each watershed.
An example of the looming showdown between national protocols and local controls is already taking shape in California. Last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the state of California is well within its rights to create its own set of water conservation standards for clothes washing machines. In its decision, the Court overturned a US DOE decision to bar California from establishing its own water efficiency. In Judge William Canby’s decision, the judge indicated that improving efficiency was essential given the state’s current water crisis.
So what do you think? Is the DOE fighting the wrong fight here? Are states better able to handle their own resources? And if so, how do we account for resources that cross state lines?
Click here for more on the 9th District’s decision.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Private or Public?
(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?
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?
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
