(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Scary story #1: Due to the collapse of the US housing market, mayors in many parts of Florida have been warned that their municipal tax base will likely shrink by $1.5 trillion this year.
Scary story #2: Last week, Buffalo, NY’s comptroller’s office confirmed that rising interest rates on the variable rate bonds used to finance improvements to the municipal water system have cost the city an additional $90,000 in borrowing costs.
We all know these examples are not isolated incidents.
It looks like the Wall Street meltdown is the gift that keeps on giving, including – it appears – the harsh reality that the cost of retrofitting, repairing, and rehabilitating our aging infrastructure just got a whole lot more expensive. If this isn’t a crisis, I don’t know what is. After all, in 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers released a study indicating that over the next five years the US would need to spend over $1.5 trillion to whip US infrastructure into “reasonably decent shape.” And the EPA has said that it’s going to cost upwards of $440 billion over the next 20 years to repair our water and wastewater systems.
Shrinking tax bases, rising interest rates, and a tightened credit market – not the ideal environment for promoting infrastructure investment. There’s been lots of talk by pundits, news anchors, and candidates about Wall Street versus Main Street, but is it really an either/or situation? As the examples above prove, the financial and institutional health of our communities is directly dependent upon the wellbeing of our financial markets. Nobody got into this mess alone, and it’s doubtful that one-sided solutions will be strong enough to pull us out of this economic nosedive.
We need innovative thinking, multi-layered propositions, and a commitment to continue to invest in our country – its people, its structures, and its foundation – even in the face of frightening statistics and skittish investors. Now is not the time to freeze cityworks, shelve construction plans, or curtail in any way the repairs that must be made, the retrofits that must be installed, and the rehabilitation that our water and wastewater systems desperately need.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
De-Centralizing
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of a water crisis. You can blame it on climate change or aging infrastructure or green-lawn addicts, but whichever devil you choose the outcome is still the same: a diminishing supply struggling to meet an ever-growing demand.
Decentralized water systems (both treatment and delivery) can attack the problem of a shrinking water supply in two ways. First, advances in water reuse now allow for pristine, potable-quality water to be discharged back into the water supply, thereby curtailing the amount of water “lost” to pollution. Secondly, when onsite water treatment is combined with water reuse, we can insure that valuable drinking water is not squandered on green lawns in the desert or urban carwashes.
While municipal water treatment and delivery systems are most often associated with centralized systems (like city sewers or water utilities), the refinement of treatment technologies, ever-grander land development, and the push to “green” public and private industry is sure to change all that: one day onsite water treatment will go beyond the backyard septic system and bleed into the municipal market where it can reach its full potential and vastly improve the management and conservation of our water resources.
In Europe, that day has already come…
The public sewer systems in Germany are over 100 years old and rapidly deteriorating. Experts warn it could take years and several billion dollars to rehabilitate the centralized systems currently in place. The high cost associated with maintaining the existing centralized systems has prompted the exploration of alternative treatment systems. “As with an old car,” explains Dr. Harald Hiesll of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI (Fraunhofer-ISI), “if the costs for repairs and renovations start to increase, you should think about whether to make further investments in the old system or whether a new system would be more sensible in the long term"
In April of 2003, the Fraunhofer-ISI initiated the AKWA 2100 project in order to “investigated alternative water infrastructure systems.” The study concluded that although rehabilitating the current centralized system was the least expensive option, abandoning a centralized system altogether in favor of a combination of decentralized water treatment and water reuse was the better option. According to Dr. Hiessl, the sustainable aspects of combining onsite water treatment with water recycling far outweighed the 5-15% increase in cost.
Although this study was conducted in Europe, it has international implications. The conclusion drawn by the study – that decentralized systems in an urban environment are “technologically and economically feasible”– should serve as a clarion call to municipalities around the world.
There are several reasons for a municipality to encourage onsite water treatment. A decentralized system allows for greater flexibility when it comes to growth and development. Onsite water treatment facilities also allow for the development of previously inaccessible areas, opening up development opportunities for communities bursting at the seams. Of course, as cities expand, the strain on water resources increases. What better way to mitigate increased water demand than to combine water treatment with water recycling?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of a water crisis. You can blame it on climate change or aging infrastructure or green-lawn addicts, but whichever devil you choose the outcome is still the same: a diminishing supply struggling to meet an ever-growing demand.
Decentralized water systems (both treatment and delivery) can attack the problem of a shrinking water supply in two ways. First, advances in water reuse now allow for pristine, potable-quality water to be discharged back into the water supply, thereby curtailing the amount of water “lost” to pollution. Secondly, when onsite water treatment is combined with water reuse, we can insure that valuable drinking water is not squandered on green lawns in the desert or urban carwashes.
While municipal water treatment and delivery systems are most often associated with centralized systems (like city sewers or water utilities), the refinement of treatment technologies, ever-grander land development, and the push to “green” public and private industry is sure to change all that: one day onsite water treatment will go beyond the backyard septic system and bleed into the municipal market where it can reach its full potential and vastly improve the management and conservation of our water resources.
In Europe, that day has already come…
The public sewer systems in Germany are over 100 years old and rapidly deteriorating. Experts warn it could take years and several billion dollars to rehabilitate the centralized systems currently in place. The high cost associated with maintaining the existing centralized systems has prompted the exploration of alternative treatment systems. “As with an old car,” explains Dr. Harald Hiesll of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI (Fraunhofer-ISI), “if the costs for repairs and renovations start to increase, you should think about whether to make further investments in the old system or whether a new system would be more sensible in the long term"
In April of 2003, the Fraunhofer-ISI initiated the AKWA 2100 project in order to “investigated alternative water infrastructure systems.” The study concluded that although rehabilitating the current centralized system was the least expensive option, abandoning a centralized system altogether in favor of a combination of decentralized water treatment and water reuse was the better option. According to Dr. Hiessl, the sustainable aspects of combining onsite water treatment with water recycling far outweighed the 5-15% increase in cost.
Although this study was conducted in Europe, it has international implications. The conclusion drawn by the study – that decentralized systems in an urban environment are “technologically and economically feasible”– should serve as a clarion call to municipalities around the world.
There are several reasons for a municipality to encourage onsite water treatment. A decentralized system allows for greater flexibility when it comes to growth and development. Onsite water treatment facilities also allow for the development of previously inaccessible areas, opening up development opportunities for communities bursting at the seams. Of course, as cities expand, the strain on water resources increases. What better way to mitigate increased water demand than to combine water treatment with water recycling?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Personal Responsibility Versus Government Action
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an age-old argument: How much should we be held accountable for as individuals, and at what point should the government step in to help? When it comes to water conservation and efficiency, the question becomes even more complex: Can public outreach and a call to action be enough to inspire change, or will real results happen only after rules and regulations are enacted and enforced?
We’ve highlighted several successful public outreach programs in the magazine. Communities like Denver, Co and Seattle, Wa are just two examples—both cities have made great strides in encouraging involvement and stirring enthusiasm for water conservation and efficiency amongst its citizens. In Seattle, the Saving Water Partnership program—which is sponsored by a group of local utilities that fund water conservation programs in Seattle and King County, and includes workshops and a Web site—promotes the 1% Water Conservation Initiative, a plan to reduce personal and business water consumption 1% every year for 10 years. (For more information, go to www.savingwater.org) In the meantime, Denver’s citywide billboard program, with slogans like “Be Responsible” and “Use Only What You Need,” serve as a constant reminder to residents to stay aware and vigilant about their water usage. (For more information on Denver’s program, go to http://useonlywhatyouneed.org).
These programs work, but are they enough?
At one point, will we have to take a serious look at local, state, and federal conservation, and efficiency statutes and regulations? Some cities and states have already begun to make and enforce water conservation laws. In Georgia for example, the Georgia EPD regulates the withdrawal and use of Georgia’s ground and surface water resources and has the authority to prohibit residential outdoor water use. And in Texas, several water conservation house bills have been enacted, including rules imposing new conservation prerequisites and easing the way for greater use of “graywater” for landscape purposes. In fact, in most drought-stricken areas you can find some type of rule or law that dictates at least some facet of water usage and conservation.
Local control appears to be somewhat effective, but can we leave it up to the Cities and States, or is it time for the Federal Government to step in?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
It’s an age-old argument: How much should we be held accountable for as individuals, and at what point should the government step in to help? When it comes to water conservation and efficiency, the question becomes even more complex: Can public outreach and a call to action be enough to inspire change, or will real results happen only after rules and regulations are enacted and enforced?
We’ve highlighted several successful public outreach programs in the magazine. Communities like Denver, Co and Seattle, Wa are just two examples—both cities have made great strides in encouraging involvement and stirring enthusiasm for water conservation and efficiency amongst its citizens. In Seattle, the Saving Water Partnership program—which is sponsored by a group of local utilities that fund water conservation programs in Seattle and King County, and includes workshops and a Web site—promotes the 1% Water Conservation Initiative, a plan to reduce personal and business water consumption 1% every year for 10 years. (For more information, go to www.savingwater.org) In the meantime, Denver’s citywide billboard program, with slogans like “Be Responsible” and “Use Only What You Need,” serve as a constant reminder to residents to stay aware and vigilant about their water usage. (For more information on Denver’s program, go to http://useonlywhatyouneed.org).
These programs work, but are they enough?
At one point, will we have to take a serious look at local, state, and federal conservation, and efficiency statutes and regulations? Some cities and states have already begun to make and enforce water conservation laws. In Georgia for example, the Georgia EPD regulates the withdrawal and use of Georgia’s ground and surface water resources and has the authority to prohibit residential outdoor water use. And in Texas, several water conservation house bills have been enacted, including rules imposing new conservation prerequisites and easing the way for greater use of “graywater” for landscape purposes. In fact, in most drought-stricken areas you can find some type of rule or law that dictates at least some facet of water usage and conservation.
Local control appears to be somewhat effective, but can we leave it up to the Cities and States, or is it time for the Federal Government to step in?
Monday, August 4, 2008
Money Changes Everything?
(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?
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, 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)
