(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
At the AWWA’s training seminar Water Demand and Conservation Management: Planning, Policy, and Rates in April of 2007, participants were encouraged to speak up about the issues and problems they faced. I will never forget the frustrations described by the water utility manager of an affluent New England community. He told us all about his utilities’ many failures: the pleas for conservation that fell on deaf ears, the tiered-rate schemes that did nothing to diminish demand. He blamed his lack of success – in part – on the wealth of his customers; a majority of which were ready, willing, and able to use as much water as they needed and pay whatever price charged just to keep their lawns green.
Recently, my local online newspaper reported on a similar issue. According to Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk Staff Writer, two of Santa Barbara County’s high-end communities – Hope Ranch and Montecito – hit record water usage amounts for 2007.(Click Here to read more.) County officials expect demand to continue to increase through 2008, just in time for reductions in water supplied to them by California’s State Water project.
Increasing demand and decreasing supply obviously puts both water districts in a tight spot, and it was their customers who put them there. In the 1990s, residents of neighbouring Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria all voted to reject the State Water project in favour of living within their means from a water resources standpoint. Voters in the Hope Ranch (serviced by the La Cumbre water district) and Montecito took a different tack, choosing instead to join the State Water Project in the hopes of tapping an unlimited water supply. This decision may have eased worries in the short term, but undoubtedly it led to the situation both districts are now facing: the illusion of unlimited water goading demand and codifying usage that would be considered extraordinary in any other context.
In fact, while the city of Santa Barbara receives most of its water from the local reservoirs and aquifers, the Montecito district receives about 22% of its water from the state water project. La Cumbre is even worse off, with 60% of its water coming from the State.
What I find most shocking is that, so far, neither district is using a tiered-rate system. As a result, the big water users pay flat rates (some of the cheapest in the country) and waste with impunity – with a majority of their water going to landscaping. It’s also important to note that both districts use two to three times the amount of water consumed by the rest of Santa Barbara County’s residents, yet they pay bargain basement prices to keep their lawns green while yards across the country wither and die (many to be reborn through smart irrigation and xeriscaping…but that’s a story for another time).
Apparently, both districts are considering adopting a tiered-rate system similar to the one employed by the city of Santa Barbara – in which case customers will pay for their water use based on a scale that raises the price per unit once higher-usage threshold has been hit. It’s your basic, the more you use the more you pay, scheme, that will – hopefully – catch the attention of the folks writing the checks. In light of how much water is being used by these communities, there’s no doubt a tiered-rate scheme will help raise revenue for the La Cumbre and Montecito water districts. But one has to wonder; when money is no object will high rates do enough to encourage conservation?
Monday, August 4, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sharks! Tomatoes! Astroturf?!
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
For the last several years, the Southern Nevada Water Association (SNWA) has experienced great success with its turf replacement program. Under the program, SNWA pays property owners $1.50 per square foot for grass removed and replaced with a water-efficient landscape, including artificial turf. According to its Web site, SNWA estimates that by replacing thirsty lawns with “water-smart” alternatives, the average property owner can save thousands of gallons per year.
No doubt inspired by SNWA’s success, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California recently began its own rebate program. As of July 1, 2008, both commercial and residential property owners are eligible to receive a 30-cent rebate for replacing grass with synthetic turf. The district anticipates similar water savings, about 33,000 gallons per year for a 750-square-foot parcel.
Similar turf replacement programs have sprouted up across the country as water scarcity and extreme drought conditions have pushed many communities to look for water-saving alternatives to traditional lawns and other water-intensive landscaping. The Synthetic Turf Council estimates that upwards of 3,500 synthetic playing fields exist throughout the nation, with another 800 installed annually at universities, parks, and stadiums.
As an artificial turf user myself – I’ve got about 20 square feet laid out on a rooftop patio at home – one of the most attractive features of artificial turf is that it stays green year-round with no irrigation needed. We’ve all felt that sense of satisfaction when a previously dry patch suddenly blooms with color, even if that color is fake. But now it appears the pigment used to keep this grass green contains lead chromate, which many of you might remember from the massive Chinese toy recall that happened earlier this year.
In fact, a Center for Environmental Health (CEH) study, released on June 23, 2008, included test results showing high levels of lead in all kinds of artificial turf – from the type used on big, stadium-like installations, all the way down to the stuff you can buy one yard at a time at your local home improvement center. Reaction to the test results was swift: On June 25, the CEH initiated legal action against the retailers and synthetic turf companies under California’s Proposition 65 law.
This is not good news for the MWD, but the storm’s been brewing for a while. In May of this year, the California Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria), calling for a state study investigating the health and environmental impacts of natural versus synthetic turf fields. And earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released its own warning about potential lead exposures from turf, stating that “As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases.”
Additionally, when the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) closed several artificial turf fields, one of the potential hazards cited was the possibility of ingesting the turf dust created from dissolved turf fibers. And although the artificial turf industry continues to assert that its products are safe, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has launched its own investigation into the potential risks of lead poisoning from artificial turf.
So what is the solution? On the one hand, there is no denying that replacing real grass with artificial turf can save thousand of gallons of water … but at what price? Are our kids really at risk, or this just another “shark week” moment – just one more opportunity for the media to ramp up the hype and induce consumer hysteria?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
For the last several years, the Southern Nevada Water Association (SNWA) has experienced great success with its turf replacement program. Under the program, SNWA pays property owners $1.50 per square foot for grass removed and replaced with a water-efficient landscape, including artificial turf. According to its Web site, SNWA estimates that by replacing thirsty lawns with “water-smart” alternatives, the average property owner can save thousands of gallons per year.
No doubt inspired by SNWA’s success, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California recently began its own rebate program. As of July 1, 2008, both commercial and residential property owners are eligible to receive a 30-cent rebate for replacing grass with synthetic turf. The district anticipates similar water savings, about 33,000 gallons per year for a 750-square-foot parcel.
Similar turf replacement programs have sprouted up across the country as water scarcity and extreme drought conditions have pushed many communities to look for water-saving alternatives to traditional lawns and other water-intensive landscaping. The Synthetic Turf Council estimates that upwards of 3,500 synthetic playing fields exist throughout the nation, with another 800 installed annually at universities, parks, and stadiums.
As an artificial turf user myself – I’ve got about 20 square feet laid out on a rooftop patio at home – one of the most attractive features of artificial turf is that it stays green year-round with no irrigation needed. We’ve all felt that sense of satisfaction when a previously dry patch suddenly blooms with color, even if that color is fake. But now it appears the pigment used to keep this grass green contains lead chromate, which many of you might remember from the massive Chinese toy recall that happened earlier this year.
In fact, a Center for Environmental Health (CEH) study, released on June 23, 2008, included test results showing high levels of lead in all kinds of artificial turf – from the type used on big, stadium-like installations, all the way down to the stuff you can buy one yard at a time at your local home improvement center. Reaction to the test results was swift: On June 25, the CEH initiated legal action against the retailers and synthetic turf companies under California’s Proposition 65 law.
This is not good news for the MWD, but the storm’s been brewing for a while. In May of this year, the California Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria), calling for a state study investigating the health and environmental impacts of natural versus synthetic turf fields. And earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released its own warning about potential lead exposures from turf, stating that “As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases.”
Additionally, when the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) closed several artificial turf fields, one of the potential hazards cited was the possibility of ingesting the turf dust created from dissolved turf fibers. And although the artificial turf industry continues to assert that its products are safe, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has launched its own investigation into the potential risks of lead poisoning from artificial turf.
So what is the solution? On the one hand, there is no denying that replacing real grass with artificial turf can save thousand of gallons of water … but at what price? Are our kids really at risk, or this just another “shark week” moment – just one more opportunity for the media to ramp up the hype and induce consumer hysteria?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Titans of Industry - Should Big Business Control The Tap?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency Magazine
In many parts of the country, water utilities depend on tiered rate structures to promote water conservation: the idea being that as the gallons increase, the cost goes up and the water usage will decline. This works…sometimes. There will always be that one customer who cherishes his lawn and is willing to pay whatever it takes to keep his jewel green.
In the United States, 3/4ths of water systems are public, which affords us the luxury of using water rates to promote conservation. Other countries are not as lucky. In fact, many struggling nations with crumbling infrastructures have chosen to turn over their water utilities to private companies. Known as the “Water Barons” or “Big Water,” these companies build and/or manage municipal systems for profit.
Some of the more successful private water companies offer a virtual genie’s lamp of promises. Just turn your system over to us, they imply, and watch as new pipes are laid, old leaks are fixed and every man, woman and child gains access to pure, plentiful tap water. All this while instituting a rate system they argue will fund system improvements and promote water conservation
The reality is not so pretty. Although there have been some successes, privatization of water utilities has resulted in a long list of tragedies: in China citizens are sometimes forced to pay a quarter of their annual income for barely usable water; in South Africa those unable to pay turning to untreated lakes and streams (resulting in the worst Cholera outbreak in the nation’s history); and in South America, unfinished projects are often abandoned in the wake of civil unrest, leaving the task of reinstating the defunct and barely functional municipal systems in the hands of under-funded and fragile new governments.
Can increasing the cost of water decrease water waste? Of course, especially if the rate increases are combined with conservation education and government-sponsored tools (i.e. low-flow rebate programs and free water audits). But when you are dealing with a region experiencing extreme water shortages and substandard or nonexistent infrastructure, rate increases can be counterproductive and even cruel.
What is the answer? I think it depends on whether or not you are asking the right questions. Although water can be a commodity – something to be bought and sold based on the balance of supply and demand – that is not its only identity. End users in the third world struggle to meet the daily demands of survival. There is no expendable income to fund an ornamental rose garden or patch of vibrant green sod. They count themselves lucky if the well has yet to run dry. Ultimately no one can forgo water and survive: it’s not just a “want” it’s a basic need.
So the question is not “can water rates promote water conservation?” We first need to determine whether we are committed to fair, equitable, and cost-effective water distribution that rewards conservation where possible but does not deny access in the process. Within that context, I think it’s fair to then ask, “should water delivery be a for-profit undertaking?”
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency Magazine
In many parts of the country, water utilities depend on tiered rate structures to promote water conservation: the idea being that as the gallons increase, the cost goes up and the water usage will decline. This works…sometimes. There will always be that one customer who cherishes his lawn and is willing to pay whatever it takes to keep his jewel green.
In the United States, 3/4ths of water systems are public, which affords us the luxury of using water rates to promote conservation. Other countries are not as lucky. In fact, many struggling nations with crumbling infrastructures have chosen to turn over their water utilities to private companies. Known as the “Water Barons” or “Big Water,” these companies build and/or manage municipal systems for profit.
Some of the more successful private water companies offer a virtual genie’s lamp of promises. Just turn your system over to us, they imply, and watch as new pipes are laid, old leaks are fixed and every man, woman and child gains access to pure, plentiful tap water. All this while instituting a rate system they argue will fund system improvements and promote water conservation
The reality is not so pretty. Although there have been some successes, privatization of water utilities has resulted in a long list of tragedies: in China citizens are sometimes forced to pay a quarter of their annual income for barely usable water; in South Africa those unable to pay turning to untreated lakes and streams (resulting in the worst Cholera outbreak in the nation’s history); and in South America, unfinished projects are often abandoned in the wake of civil unrest, leaving the task of reinstating the defunct and barely functional municipal systems in the hands of under-funded and fragile new governments.
Can increasing the cost of water decrease water waste? Of course, especially if the rate increases are combined with conservation education and government-sponsored tools (i.e. low-flow rebate programs and free water audits). But when you are dealing with a region experiencing extreme water shortages and substandard or nonexistent infrastructure, rate increases can be counterproductive and even cruel.
What is the answer? I think it depends on whether or not you are asking the right questions. Although water can be a commodity – something to be bought and sold based on the balance of supply and demand – that is not its only identity. End users in the third world struggle to meet the daily demands of survival. There is no expendable income to fund an ornamental rose garden or patch of vibrant green sod. They count themselves lucky if the well has yet to run dry. Ultimately no one can forgo water and survive: it’s not just a “want” it’s a basic need.
So the question is not “can water rates promote water conservation?” We first need to determine whether we are committed to fair, equitable, and cost-effective water distribution that rewards conservation where possible but does not deny access in the process. Within that context, I think it’s fair to then ask, “should water delivery be a for-profit undertaking?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
