(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
spin, you are probably aware that many of your favorite foods and beverages have rather large water footprints: due, in part, to the amount of water required for agricultural irrigation. Case in point: wine.
As you may or may not know, our homebase of Santa Barbara neighbors one of California’s most-celebrated wine regions: the Santa Ynez Valley. Vintners in the valley must make judicious use of the limited water resources at their disposal, and when questioned about their irrigation techniques, they are happy to discuss their conservation efforts. Nevertheless, on average, one glass of wine comes with the relatively high water footprint of 32 gallons (beer, for example, is slightly lower, at 29 gallons per glass).
As we explain in Waterprint, the water footprint totals of foods and beverages are calculated by combining the actual water in the product with all the virtual water embedded in every action associated with the cultivation, collection, and delivery of that item. The cultivation and exportation of food brings with it a variety of embedded water costs, including those associated with the byproducts created by food cultivation (agricultural runoff for example), as well as the items and actions necessary for the production and distribution of food, including insecticides, fuel required for transportation and the manufacture of the item’s packaging.
All this talk of the imbedded water costs behind agricultural irrigation brings me to a new irrigation project recently launched in another of California’s wine producing regions: Paso Robles. As reported by Western Farm Press, in an area east of highway 101—identified as the “Estrella-Creston Area of Concern,” an irrigation-monitoring project has been established with the goal of estimating the regions average annual irrigation water use. The hope is that having precise use numbers will help with future planning and regulatory decisions.
The study will be conducted using data loggers and pressure switches to record when irrigation systems are being used and how much water is being flushed through those drip lines and/or sprinklers. Rainfall data will also be collected over the course of the three-year study, which is being conducted with the complete cooperation of area vintners.
So what do you think? Is there a point at which agricultural and municipal water use meet? What responsibility do water purveyors have to track and monitor local agricultural water use? Is there a way to bring these two competing interests together to map out a better water resource management plan for water-scarce regions like California’s wine country?
To learn more about water footprints, go to www.waterfootprint.org/.
To download our free iPhone/iPad app, go to waterprint.net.
To learn more about the Paso Robles study, go to www.vineyardteam.org/search/search.php?query=battany&search=1
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Imbedded Industry
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The first comprehensive study of American industrial water use was recently conducted by a team of scientists (led by Chris Hendrickson) at Carnegie Mellon University. Using computer models to analyze industrial water use, the scientists were able to estimate how much water is used by 400 different industrial sectors. The study was published in the American Chemical Society’s journal, Environmental Science and Technology.
Those of you who’ve been following our coverage of water footprints and virtual water are already aware of the imbedded water costs in various products and services. It comes as no surprise that the Carnegie study concluded that a majority of water use at the industrial level is the result of processing, packaging, and shipping—with irrigation making up a smaller part of the overall total.
According to the study, it takes 270 gallons of water to produce $1 worth of sugar, and 200 gallons to proceed $1 worth of pet food—and while those are some eye-popping numbers, I suspect I am not in alone in wishing that the study had tied the water amounts to specific units of measurement rather than cost, as prices can vary across communities and be influenced by a variety of other factors. Nevertheless, it’s certainly striking to see that a relatively inexpensive product—i.e. $1 worth of sugar—can carry with it such a large water footprint.
Some other interesting statistics from the study:
* Agriculture and power generation account for 9% of all direct water withdrawals in the US.
* 60% of water use is indirect (i.e. “virtual”).
* The food and beverage industry accounts for 30% of all indirect withdrawals in the US.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The first comprehensive study of American industrial water use was recently conducted by a team of scientists (led by Chris Hendrickson) at Carnegie Mellon University. Using computer models to analyze industrial water use, the scientists were able to estimate how much water is used by 400 different industrial sectors. The study was published in the American Chemical Society’s journal, Environmental Science and Technology.
Those of you who’ve been following our coverage of water footprints and virtual water are already aware of the imbedded water costs in various products and services. It comes as no surprise that the Carnegie study concluded that a majority of water use at the industrial level is the result of processing, packaging, and shipping—with irrigation making up a smaller part of the overall total.
According to the study, it takes 270 gallons of water to produce $1 worth of sugar, and 200 gallons to proceed $1 worth of pet food—and while those are some eye-popping numbers, I suspect I am not in alone in wishing that the study had tied the water amounts to specific units of measurement rather than cost, as prices can vary across communities and be influenced by a variety of other factors. Nevertheless, it’s certainly striking to see that a relatively inexpensive product—i.e. $1 worth of sugar—can carry with it such a large water footprint.
Some other interesting statistics from the study:
* Agriculture and power generation account for 9% of all direct water withdrawals in the US.
* 60% of water use is indirect (i.e. “virtual”).
* The food and beverage industry accounts for 30% of all indirect withdrawals in the US.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Shake, Rattle, and Roll
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Nature, as a magnitude 7.2 earthquake hit south of the border near Mexicali, Mexico. As is usually the case, the potential for disaster has provoked a lot of navel gazing about earthquake preparedness and the status of the state’s emergency infrastructure.
For those of us concerned with water resource management, the possibility of a catastrophic event narrows our focus to the state of our conveyance systems. How well do you think your pipes, pumps, damns, and overall delivery systems would weather an earthquake, hurricane, or other natural (or man-made) disaster?
According to the Department of Homeland Security (www.nationalterroralert.com/safewater) in the event of a wide-scale disaster, individual households should plan for the possibility that water will not be available, and so storage is a top priority (about a gallon per person per day), with a recommendation of at least a 10-day supply stored securely. A quick calculation reveals that an average two-person household would have to squirrel away about 20 gallons of water (or four cooler-size containers).
While we can debate the likelihood of the average household actually storing that amount of water, we can say for certain that water purveyors must be prepared for any eventuality. As with any widespread disruption of service, the first priority will be to get the system back online as soon as possible.
As such, the EPA has come up with a set of emergency guidelines for large water systems. The Large Water System Emergency Response Plan outlines emergency procedures for water purveyors before, during, and after a crisis.
Some of the most important aspects of the pan include:
* The Development of a documented Emergency Response Plan (ERP)
* The creation of a Vulnerability Assessment
* Identification of Alternative Water Sources
* Chain-of-Command Chart (coordinated with the local emergency planning committee)
* Communication Procedures (who, what, when, as well as access to “system-specific information” about personnel and external parties like emergency first responders and notification procedures)
* Property and equipment assessment and protection
* Training, exercises, and drills
* Emergency Action Procedures and Incident-Specific Action Procedures
So what do you think? Does emergency and disaster planning get enough attention? And even though our water resources are perpetually in a state of crisis due to drought, waste, and mismanagement, should part of any resource management plan account for unanticipated, catastrophic events?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Nature, as a magnitude 7.2 earthquake hit south of the border near Mexicali, Mexico. As is usually the case, the potential for disaster has provoked a lot of navel gazing about earthquake preparedness and the status of the state’s emergency infrastructure.
For those of us concerned with water resource management, the possibility of a catastrophic event narrows our focus to the state of our conveyance systems. How well do you think your pipes, pumps, damns, and overall delivery systems would weather an earthquake, hurricane, or other natural (or man-made) disaster?
According to the Department of Homeland Security (www.nationalterroralert.com/safewater) in the event of a wide-scale disaster, individual households should plan for the possibility that water will not be available, and so storage is a top priority (about a gallon per person per day), with a recommendation of at least a 10-day supply stored securely. A quick calculation reveals that an average two-person household would have to squirrel away about 20 gallons of water (or four cooler-size containers).
While we can debate the likelihood of the average household actually storing that amount of water, we can say for certain that water purveyors must be prepared for any eventuality. As with any widespread disruption of service, the first priority will be to get the system back online as soon as possible.
As such, the EPA has come up with a set of emergency guidelines for large water systems. The Large Water System Emergency Response Plan outlines emergency procedures for water purveyors before, during, and after a crisis.
Some of the most important aspects of the pan include:
* The Development of a documented Emergency Response Plan (ERP)
* The creation of a Vulnerability Assessment
* Identification of Alternative Water Sources
* Chain-of-Command Chart (coordinated with the local emergency planning committee)
* Communication Procedures (who, what, when, as well as access to “system-specific information” about personnel and external parties like emergency first responders and notification procedures)
* Property and equipment assessment and protection
* Training, exercises, and drills
* Emergency Action Procedures and Incident-Specific Action Procedures
So what do you think? Does emergency and disaster planning get enough attention? And even though our water resources are perpetually in a state of crisis due to drought, waste, and mismanagement, should part of any resource management plan account for unanticipated, catastrophic events?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Low-Flow Hubris?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
According to the Law of Unintended Consequences, “any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.” In other words, the outcome of a certain action or set of actions does not necessarily dovetail with the original intent and can often lead to unforeseen—and detrimental—results.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and when it comes to many environmental and conservation efforts, a triumph in once section can lead to a tragedy somewhere else. And while “sustainability” is a popular catchphrase, many “green” efforts have, in fact, the complete opposite effect.
Case in point—low-flow toilets. These days, programs focused on enlacing existing toilets with low-flow alternatives are a popular “go-to” strategy for communities looking to promote water conservation. On its surface, there’s nothing wrong with a rebate program or retrofit campaign that encourages consumers to be aware of their water consumption. In this context, low-flow fixtures are especially attractive because of the ease of implementation (simply take out that old toilet and replace it with a more efficient model), the low-cost threshold (rebates and tax breaks) and positive PR.
But as we get carried away by the pomp and circumstance of these often self-congratulatory campaigns—no one is asking one simple, but very important question: What do we do with all those old toilets?
This is not a trivial query. Old toilets are clogging up landfills all over the country—often as a result of a community retrofit/replacement campaign. Sometimes, these old toilets are recycled into concrete, which is the case in Fort Collins, CO, where the removed toilets are mixed with asphalt and used for road building. But many cities do not have the means or desire to recycle porcelain and metal, and, in those cases, the old toilets find new homes in rapidly filling landfills. In Austin, TX, a new program that helps apartment complexes install new toilets has come under fire after critics pointed out that up to 280 tons of old toilets would end up in country landfills.
Obviously, old toilets are not an issue for new construction or even extensive remodels where the old fixtures were always slated for removal and replacement. In those instances, it makes sense to require that low-flow toilets be mandated, but what about the homeowner with a properly working toilet who has no remodeling plans? Should we require the replacement of all existing toilets without regard for the consequences? And what about other alternatives that would allow old toilets to become more efficient with help of a little tweak here and there like the old “brick-in-the-tank” option familiar to those of us who grew up in California during the drought-stricken 70s?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
According to the Law of Unintended Consequences, “any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.” In other words, the outcome of a certain action or set of actions does not necessarily dovetail with the original intent and can often lead to unforeseen—and detrimental—results.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and when it comes to many environmental and conservation efforts, a triumph in once section can lead to a tragedy somewhere else. And while “sustainability” is a popular catchphrase, many “green” efforts have, in fact, the complete opposite effect.
Case in point—low-flow toilets. These days, programs focused on enlacing existing toilets with low-flow alternatives are a popular “go-to” strategy for communities looking to promote water conservation. On its surface, there’s nothing wrong with a rebate program or retrofit campaign that encourages consumers to be aware of their water consumption. In this context, low-flow fixtures are especially attractive because of the ease of implementation (simply take out that old toilet and replace it with a more efficient model), the low-cost threshold (rebates and tax breaks) and positive PR.
But as we get carried away by the pomp and circumstance of these often self-congratulatory campaigns—no one is asking one simple, but very important question: What do we do with all those old toilets?
This is not a trivial query. Old toilets are clogging up landfills all over the country—often as a result of a community retrofit/replacement campaign. Sometimes, these old toilets are recycled into concrete, which is the case in Fort Collins, CO, where the removed toilets are mixed with asphalt and used for road building. But many cities do not have the means or desire to recycle porcelain and metal, and, in those cases, the old toilets find new homes in rapidly filling landfills. In Austin, TX, a new program that helps apartment complexes install new toilets has come under fire after critics pointed out that up to 280 tons of old toilets would end up in country landfills.
Obviously, old toilets are not an issue for new construction or even extensive remodels where the old fixtures were always slated for removal and replacement. In those instances, it makes sense to require that low-flow toilets be mandated, but what about the homeowner with a properly working toilet who has no remodeling plans? Should we require the replacement of all existing toilets without regard for the consequences? And what about other alternatives that would allow old toilets to become more efficient with help of a little tweak here and there like the old “brick-in-the-tank” option familiar to those of us who grew up in California during the drought-stricken 70s?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
High Efficiency Plumbing
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
For those of you who don’t know, this week kicks off with World Water Day, an international day of observance designed to ready awareness of the world’s water crisis and to focus on the water quality, supply, and demand solutions that are available locally and around the world. As we’ve discussed many times before, for many developed countries, it’s water use (and misuse) that poses the biggest threat to our water resources.
These challenges manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including aging infrastructure, depleted groundwater supplies, and inefficient water resource management and unaccounted for water. California and Texas have taken the lead by enacting high-efficiency plumbing standards, including the requirement that all toilets sold or installed be high-efficiency fixtures (1.28 gallons or less) that comply with the EPA’s WaterSense program.
Last week, Georgia became the third state to enact a set of water efficiency standards. The law, which goes beyond the mere high-efficiency toilet, requires that high-efficiency standards be enacted (and enforced) for toilets, faucets, urinals, and cooling towers, as well as “standardized water loss reporting by public water utilities, metering of multi-family, commercial and industrial construction, and a statewide outdoor watering schedule.” In another bold move, Georgia’s law requires compliance two years earlier than California and Texas, with a due date of July 2012 for all components of the bill. Finally, by enacting this new water efficiency bill, Georgia had become the first state to require submetering of multi-unit residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
So what do you think? Is it only a matter of time before other utilities follow suit? By including the WaterSense standards into the language of these bills, has the EPA’s program begun to establish itself as an industry standard? And how easy will it be to garner public support for these requirements while at the same developing a feasible enforcement procedure?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
For those of you who don’t know, this week kicks off with World Water Day, an international day of observance designed to ready awareness of the world’s water crisis and to focus on the water quality, supply, and demand solutions that are available locally and around the world. As we’ve discussed many times before, for many developed countries, it’s water use (and misuse) that poses the biggest threat to our water resources.
These challenges manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including aging infrastructure, depleted groundwater supplies, and inefficient water resource management and unaccounted for water. California and Texas have taken the lead by enacting high-efficiency plumbing standards, including the requirement that all toilets sold or installed be high-efficiency fixtures (1.28 gallons or less) that comply with the EPA’s WaterSense program.
Last week, Georgia became the third state to enact a set of water efficiency standards. The law, which goes beyond the mere high-efficiency toilet, requires that high-efficiency standards be enacted (and enforced) for toilets, faucets, urinals, and cooling towers, as well as “standardized water loss reporting by public water utilities, metering of multi-family, commercial and industrial construction, and a statewide outdoor watering schedule.” In another bold move, Georgia’s law requires compliance two years earlier than California and Texas, with a due date of July 2012 for all components of the bill. Finally, by enacting this new water efficiency bill, Georgia had become the first state to require submetering of multi-unit residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
So what do you think? Is it only a matter of time before other utilities follow suit? By including the WaterSense standards into the language of these bills, has the EPA’s program begun to establish itself as an industry standard? And how easy will it be to garner public support for these requirements while at the same developing a feasible enforcement procedure?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Water Saving at the Corporate Level
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
If you've had a chance to play around with our new iPhone app—Waterprint—then perhaps you already know that it takes approximately 16.5 gallons of water to produce one 12-oz bottle of beer. And while it’s important for the consumer to be aware of their water footprint so that they can make educated choices designed to reduce their overall impact on water resources, for the maker of those products, getting a handle on imbedded water costs can not only lead to better conservation practices, but actually help that business stay afloat.
Case in point: Anheuser Busch.
As one of the world’s largest beer manufacturers, Anheuser Busch InBev (AB InBev) has always been aware of the water-intensive nature of the business. In 2007, the company required 5 liters of water for every liter of beer it produced.
In a statement announcing the company’s goal of reducing water consumption by 30% (3.5 liters of water per liter of beer), AB InBev CEO Carlos Brito says, “We are acutely aware that water is a finite and precious resource and the principal ingredient in our products. Efficient water use is essential to the continued, sustainable growth of our business around the world”.
A few months back we discussed the calculation of water risk (Gauging Risks), and I pointed out that a Water Index has the possibility of affecting the behavior of water-intensive companies. This was certainly the case with AB InBev, who found themselves at the top of a list of 100 companies rated by Ceres in regards to their water risk practices.
Beer is popular around the world—in different surveys it’s held everything from the fifth to top spot—and we’ve looked at efforts by the industry to effectively manage their water resources in several articles, the most recent of which appeared in the magazine last year (Green Beer). This is an educated and proactive industry, and as AB InBev demonstrates, there is no shortage of willingness to reduce water use across the board. In this week’s New York Times, AB InBev's director of environment and sustainability is quoted as saying, “Reducing water use and other natural resources is really part of how we drive efficiency in our operations. It’s simply good business.”
So what do you think? In the absence of concrete guidelines, can water-intensive enterprises rise above mere lip service and actually effect real change when it comes to water use? And is it fair to expect the same results across country lines, or should expectations be tailored to the challenges and concerns of each community touch by these big corporate enterprises? And what role—if any—can individual actions and user demands play in the quest for water efficient commercial practices?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
If you've had a chance to play around with our new iPhone app—Waterprint—then perhaps you already know that it takes approximately 16.5 gallons of water to produce one 12-oz bottle of beer. And while it’s important for the consumer to be aware of their water footprint so that they can make educated choices designed to reduce their overall impact on water resources, for the maker of those products, getting a handle on imbedded water costs can not only lead to better conservation practices, but actually help that business stay afloat.
Case in point: Anheuser Busch.
As one of the world’s largest beer manufacturers, Anheuser Busch InBev (AB InBev) has always been aware of the water-intensive nature of the business. In 2007, the company required 5 liters of water for every liter of beer it produced.
In a statement announcing the company’s goal of reducing water consumption by 30% (3.5 liters of water per liter of beer), AB InBev CEO Carlos Brito says, “We are acutely aware that water is a finite and precious resource and the principal ingredient in our products. Efficient water use is essential to the continued, sustainable growth of our business around the world”.
A few months back we discussed the calculation of water risk (Gauging Risks), and I pointed out that a Water Index has the possibility of affecting the behavior of water-intensive companies. This was certainly the case with AB InBev, who found themselves at the top of a list of 100 companies rated by Ceres in regards to their water risk practices.
Beer is popular around the world—in different surveys it’s held everything from the fifth to top spot—and we’ve looked at efforts by the industry to effectively manage their water resources in several articles, the most recent of which appeared in the magazine last year (Green Beer). This is an educated and proactive industry, and as AB InBev demonstrates, there is no shortage of willingness to reduce water use across the board. In this week’s New York Times, AB InBev's director of environment and sustainability is quoted as saying, “Reducing water use and other natural resources is really part of how we drive efficiency in our operations. It’s simply good business.”
So what do you think? In the absence of concrete guidelines, can water-intensive enterprises rise above mere lip service and actually effect real change when it comes to water use? And is it fair to expect the same results across country lines, or should expectations be tailored to the challenges and concerns of each community touch by these big corporate enterprises? And what role—if any—can individual actions and user demands play in the quest for water efficient commercial practices?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Household Water Use
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As you all know by now, last week Water Efficiency and Forester Media Inc. unveiled Waterprint, our first iPhone application. Waterprint is intended to be a fun and educational tool designed to make users aware of the virtual water imbedded in the products and behaviors typical of daily life in the developed world. We plan on continually updating the application, and part of the process involves you, the user.
In fact, many of the comments I’ve received have revolved around the “household” section of the application. As we explain in the “information” section of the application, “Household water use runs the gamut from toilets to lawns, and all the gallons associated with those activities can be measured and mitigated.”
While we briefly discuss the impact of toilet flushes and running faucets, we plan to expand our coverage of household water use and water efficient fixtures and technologies in subsequent versions of the Waterprint application. After all, the EPA has concluded that the installation of WaterSense fixtures could save a family of four 17,000 gallons a year—and that's a significant amount of water no matter where you live.
When talking about household water use, it’s also important to address the issue of leaks. Leaks, also known as “unaccounted for water,” account for 6 billion gallons of water per day in the US. That 6 billion includes water lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. As we point out in the information section of the Waterprint application, 6 billion gallons is “enough water to supply 10 of the largest urban centers in the country.” It’s the antithesis of efficiency and an appalling misuse of one of our most valuable resources—especially in a world where so many communities struggle to supply enough water to fulfill the basic needs of their citizens. And keep in mind that when you factor in the amount of energy required to treat and transport all of that lost water (approximately 3 gallons for every kilowatt) the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
We’ve already received a lot of feedback, along with some helpful suggestions and important questions. Please keep sending in your insights, questions, complaints, challenges, and comments. With your help, we are confident that our first iPhone application can become a powerful tool for change
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As you all know by now, last week Water Efficiency and Forester Media Inc. unveiled Waterprint, our first iPhone application. Waterprint is intended to be a fun and educational tool designed to make users aware of the virtual water imbedded in the products and behaviors typical of daily life in the developed world. We plan on continually updating the application, and part of the process involves you, the user.
In fact, many of the comments I’ve received have revolved around the “household” section of the application. As we explain in the “information” section of the application, “Household water use runs the gamut from toilets to lawns, and all the gallons associated with those activities can be measured and mitigated.”
While we briefly discuss the impact of toilet flushes and running faucets, we plan to expand our coverage of household water use and water efficient fixtures and technologies in subsequent versions of the Waterprint application. After all, the EPA has concluded that the installation of WaterSense fixtures could save a family of four 17,000 gallons a year—and that's a significant amount of water no matter where you live.
When talking about household water use, it’s also important to address the issue of leaks. Leaks, also known as “unaccounted for water,” account for 6 billion gallons of water per day in the US. That 6 billion includes water lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. As we point out in the information section of the Waterprint application, 6 billion gallons is “enough water to supply 10 of the largest urban centers in the country.” It’s the antithesis of efficiency and an appalling misuse of one of our most valuable resources—especially in a world where so many communities struggle to supply enough water to fulfill the basic needs of their citizens. And keep in mind that when you factor in the amount of energy required to treat and transport all of that lost water (approximately 3 gallons for every kilowatt) the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
We’ve already received a lot of feedback, along with some helpful suggestions and important questions. Please keep sending in your insights, questions, complaints, challenges, and comments. With your help, we are confident that our first iPhone application can become a powerful tool for change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
