(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In the “news you may have missed” category, I submit the WaterSense specifications announced by the EPA on December 10, 2009. While the rest of us were gearing up for the holidays, the EPA released its final specifications for new single-family homes—and the specifics are certainly worth reviewing as we head into a new year.
This new set of WaterSense specifications, three years in the making and incorporating input by a variety of stakeholders, was designed to dovetail with existing green building programs. According to the EPA’s press release, the WaterSense singly-family new homes specification creates “the first national, voluntary, water efficiency specification for an entire new home.” The new WaterSense homes will not only be 20% more efficient, according to the EPA, homeowners can expect save up to $200 a year in utility bills (as compared to existing residential structures) by employing these new efficiency standards.
The specifics of the plan include the following:
1) Any new homes aspiring to meet WaterSense criteria must be independently inspected and certified by a licensed EPA certification provider.
2) The WaterSense homes will include WaterSense-labeled plumbing fixtures, Energy Star appliances, smart landscaping, and dedicated hot-water delivery systems.
The EPA anticipates that this program will save over 12 billion gallons of water each year (based the average 1.27 million new homes built every year in the US). Additionally, by investing in WaterSense labeled homes, the EPA estimates that the average homebuyer can “reduce their water usage by more than 10,000 gallons per year” and “save enough energy annually to power a television for four years.”
So what do you think of this latest set of WaterSense specifications? Do you think that the savings alone are incentive enough to encourage homebuilders to strive for a WaterSense label? Do you think this type of consumer outreach is the first step towards name recognition on par with the EPA’s Energy Star program? And how could the EPA have insured that the program would have a significant impact?
For more on WaterSense, go to: www.epa.gov/watersense
Monday, January 11, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Tri-State Co-Op
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
With all the talk these days about impending water wars, it’s heartening to hear about how three states are working together to solve their water supply and demand issues. As reported by the Yuma Sun, the Central Arizona Project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority are all splitting the $172 million cost associated with the a new storage reservoir located 25 miles west of Yuma that is being constructed as part of the rehabilitation of the All American Canal. This new reservoir will be able to capture about 70,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, water that—until now—has been lost to runoff. The project—which will be completed by September 2010—depends upon gravity (no pumps needed) created by its location to funnel water into the “six-and-a-half mile concrete-lined inlet clean that feeds the reservoir.” This inlet can transfer up to 1,800 cubic feet of water per second to the fill reservoir, and the outlet canal can then lead that water back into the All American Canal—all within three days time.
What makes this project interesting is the participation of three water purveyors who usually find themselves at odds over the water flowing through the Colorado River. With this new reservoir in place, the stored water (which will be used as needed by the Imperial Irrigation District) will free up water from Lake Mead—water that will then be allocated to the three funding agencies. This additional water from Lake Mead will go a long way towards helping those funding agencies meet ever increasing demand in the face of lingering drought on local scarcity.
So what do you think? Can this type of cooperation be duplicated in other parts of the country? Could a similar strategy work for regions like the South, where Georgia has found itself at odds with its neighbors over water allocations? And does this “interstate water-commerce” promote efficiency or does it provide yet another stopgap solution that will deter communities from making the tough conservation calls?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
With all the talk these days about impending water wars, it’s heartening to hear about how three states are working together to solve their water supply and demand issues. As reported by the Yuma Sun, the Central Arizona Project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority are all splitting the $172 million cost associated with the a new storage reservoir located 25 miles west of Yuma that is being constructed as part of the rehabilitation of the All American Canal. This new reservoir will be able to capture about 70,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, water that—until now—has been lost to runoff. The project—which will be completed by September 2010—depends upon gravity (no pumps needed) created by its location to funnel water into the “six-and-a-half mile concrete-lined inlet clean that feeds the reservoir.” This inlet can transfer up to 1,800 cubic feet of water per second to the fill reservoir, and the outlet canal can then lead that water back into the All American Canal—all within three days time.
What makes this project interesting is the participation of three water purveyors who usually find themselves at odds over the water flowing through the Colorado River. With this new reservoir in place, the stored water (which will be used as needed by the Imperial Irrigation District) will free up water from Lake Mead—water that will then be allocated to the three funding agencies. This additional water from Lake Mead will go a long way towards helping those funding agencies meet ever increasing demand in the face of lingering drought on local scarcity.
So what do you think? Can this type of cooperation be duplicated in other parts of the country? Could a similar strategy work for regions like the South, where Georgia has found itself at odds with its neighbors over water allocations? And does this “interstate water-commerce” promote efficiency or does it provide yet another stopgap solution that will deter communities from making the tough conservation calls?
Monday, December 21, 2009
Nuclear Desalination
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’ve talked a lot about the connection between energy and water, but here’s another perspective courtesy of Telegraph UK. In a commentary posted in the Finance section, Commodities Editor Garry White discusses the possibility that switching to nuclear energy could help solve our water crisis. White points to the Middle East as an example of how countries like UAE (which will see it's electricity demand double by 2020) and Saudi Arabia (which is already planning to use nuclear power for 25% of its electricity needs) are looking to nuclear power as the best way to meet their future power demands. While it's true that nuclear energy will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, there is—as White points out—an added benefit: Nuclear reactors not only generate electricity, they can also desalinate water.
In fact, nuclear desalination is already being used successfully in Kazakhstan, where one nuclear reactor sits on the shore of the Caspian Sea. During that reactor's lifespan (1972–1999), it produced 135 MW of electricity and 80,000 cubic meters of potable water every day. And nuclear desalination is not confined to the middle east—Japan and India are both using nuclear reactors to desalinate water.
So what do you think? Desalination in general is energy intensive, so does pairing it up with nuclear power make it a more viable option? And although nuclear power reduces dependence on fossil fuels—and as a result contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—does that benefit outweigh the risks? And is this just a niche solution suitable for only certain hard-pressed environments (like the Middle East), or could nuclear desalination make sense for any coastal region?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’ve talked a lot about the connection between energy and water, but here’s another perspective courtesy of Telegraph UK. In a commentary posted in the Finance section, Commodities Editor Garry White discusses the possibility that switching to nuclear energy could help solve our water crisis. White points to the Middle East as an example of how countries like UAE (which will see it's electricity demand double by 2020) and Saudi Arabia (which is already planning to use nuclear power for 25% of its electricity needs) are looking to nuclear power as the best way to meet their future power demands. While it's true that nuclear energy will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, there is—as White points out—an added benefit: Nuclear reactors not only generate electricity, they can also desalinate water.
In fact, nuclear desalination is already being used successfully in Kazakhstan, where one nuclear reactor sits on the shore of the Caspian Sea. During that reactor's lifespan (1972–1999), it produced 135 MW of electricity and 80,000 cubic meters of potable water every day. And nuclear desalination is not confined to the middle east—Japan and India are both using nuclear reactors to desalinate water.
So what do you think? Desalination in general is energy intensive, so does pairing it up with nuclear power make it a more viable option? And although nuclear power reduces dependence on fossil fuels—and as a result contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—does that benefit outweigh the risks? And is this just a niche solution suitable for only certain hard-pressed environments (like the Middle East), or could nuclear desalination make sense for any coastal region?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
What does a worst-case scenario look like?
(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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
