(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The role of the water purveyor—also known as any public utility, mutual water company, county water district, or municipality that delivers drinking water to customers—involves a variety of responsibilities. Not only do water agencies control and manage supply and delivery, but they must also handle everything from stormwater and flood control to wastewater and water quality, habitat protection, and other environmental concerns. As a result, the water purveyor is the ultimate multitasker—charged with overseeing projects and solving problems while making sure that the community can depend upon clean and reliable water. In other words, the work of the water purveyor involves integrated water resources management.
Generally speaking, integrated water resources management involves the consideration of multiple water management viewpoints when considering courses of action. These voices include “management agencies with specific purposes, governmental and stakeholder groups, geographic regions, and disciplines of knowledge.” This could involve the organization of a task force or even the collaboration of different agencies all charged with finding the best solution for the issue at hand, be it river basin planning, conservation outreach, or aqueduct recharge. Because there are many competing water needs, it’s important to involving as many participants in the process as possible.
While the implementation of integrated water resources management depends upon the situation, “Total Water Management” has been coined to describe the inclusion of “integration principals” in water supply development. In 1996, the AWWA defined Total Water Management as “the exercise of stewardship of water resources for the greatest good of society and the environment,” that includes:
* Encouraging planning and management on a natural water systems basis through a dynamic process that adapts to changing conditions
* Balancing competing uses of water through efficient allocation that addresses social values, cost effectiveness, and environmental benefits and costs
* Requiring the participation of all units of government and stakeholders in decision-making through a process of coordination and conflict resolution
* Promoting water conservation, reuse, source protection, and supply development to enhance water quality and quantity
* Fostering public health, safety, and community goodwill
Following in that same vein, last week the US House of Representatives passed the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act. Essentially, the bill legislates total water management by mandating the coordination of national research and development efforts to “provide a clear path forward to ensure adequate water supplies for generations to come.”
Highlights of the bill include:
* The creation of a National Water Initiative Coordination Office for technical and administrative support, as well as public “point of contact”
* The requirement that the president establish or designate an interagency committee that will include representation from all federal agencies dealing with water so that a National Water Research and Development Initiative can be implemented in order to improve federal activities on water, including research, development, demonstration, data collection and dissemination, education, and technology transfer
* The interagency committee would be responsible for the implementation of a national water census, the development of new water technologies and techniques, the development of tools to facilitate water resource conflicts, the development of information technology systems to enhance water quality and supply, the improvement of hydrologic prediction models, an enhanced understanding related to ecosystem services, and an analyses of the energy-water nexus
In a statement, bill author and Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) says, “Coordination of federal agency activities and a stronger partnership with state, local, and tribal governments will ensure that federal programs are focused on areas of greatest concern, and that our efforts are complementary and effective.”
So what do you think? Is integrated water resource management the ultimate water efficiency practice? And if it is, will the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act pave the way for nationwide efficiency programs?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Tainted Water
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
According to an investigation by the Associated Press, “US manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water.” While we’ve focused a bit on water treatment—especially in relation to reuse and reclamation—we haven’t spent much time talking about water quality. Yet, the whole point of water efficiency and conservation is to protect our water resources. After all, protecting your water delivery system is one of the most vital aspects of water efficiency. Securing a community’s water share involves conserving and securing the source. To make sure your system is safe, you must employ a variety of tactics, including keeping a close eye on contamination and water quality.
With that in mind, last year’s report by the Associated Press (AP), which traces amounts of a wide range of pharmaceuticals—including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers, and sex hormones—that were found in US drinking water supplies, triggered alarm… How tainted had our water become? This week, the news is even grimmer: According to the AP, US manufacturers—including major drugmakers—have “legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water.”
What does this mean? Predictably, drug manufacturers feel unjustly vilified. They point out that there is no direct line of culpability when it comes to pharmaceuticals in our drinking water: After all, lithium can leach out not just from pills, but from ceramics, and copper can come from pipes as well as contraceptives. Additionally, according to the AP, federal and industry officials admit that the extent to which pharmaceuticals are released by US manufacturers is unknown—due, in large part, because these compounds are not tracked as drugs. In a written statement, Acting EPA assistant administrator for water, Mike Shapiro, says, “Pharmaceuticals get into water in many ways. It's commonly believed the majority comes from human and animal excretion. A portion also comes from flushing unused drugs down the toilet or drain."
According to many researchers, the “drugging” of our waterways has harmed aquatic species, but according to many scientists—and the EPA—there has been no documented or confirmed risk to humans who consume traced amounts of these compounds. Of course, all eyes look to the water purveyor whenever this type of information is made public. Questions naturally abound: What can, and should, water utilities do to make sure that the water resources under their control are not compromised by third-party activity—be it a consumer absent-mindedly tossing leftover medication into the toilet, or industrial and chemical manufacturers failing to employ effective water treatment protocols?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
According to an investigation by the Associated Press, “US manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water.” While we’ve focused a bit on water treatment—especially in relation to reuse and reclamation—we haven’t spent much time talking about water quality. Yet, the whole point of water efficiency and conservation is to protect our water resources. After all, protecting your water delivery system is one of the most vital aspects of water efficiency. Securing a community’s water share involves conserving and securing the source. To make sure your system is safe, you must employ a variety of tactics, including keeping a close eye on contamination and water quality.
With that in mind, last year’s report by the Associated Press (AP), which traces amounts of a wide range of pharmaceuticals—including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers, and sex hormones—that were found in US drinking water supplies, triggered alarm… How tainted had our water become? This week, the news is even grimmer: According to the AP, US manufacturers—including major drugmakers—have “legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water.”
What does this mean? Predictably, drug manufacturers feel unjustly vilified. They point out that there is no direct line of culpability when it comes to pharmaceuticals in our drinking water: After all, lithium can leach out not just from pills, but from ceramics, and copper can come from pipes as well as contraceptives. Additionally, according to the AP, federal and industry officials admit that the extent to which pharmaceuticals are released by US manufacturers is unknown—due, in large part, because these compounds are not tracked as drugs. In a written statement, Acting EPA assistant administrator for water, Mike Shapiro, says, “Pharmaceuticals get into water in many ways. It's commonly believed the majority comes from human and animal excretion. A portion also comes from flushing unused drugs down the toilet or drain."
According to many researchers, the “drugging” of our waterways has harmed aquatic species, but according to many scientists—and the EPA—there has been no documented or confirmed risk to humans who consume traced amounts of these compounds. Of course, all eyes look to the water purveyor whenever this type of information is made public. Questions naturally abound: What can, and should, water utilities do to make sure that the water resources under their control are not compromised by third-party activity—be it a consumer absent-mindedly tossing leftover medication into the toilet, or industrial and chemical manufacturers failing to employ effective water treatment protocols?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
"Hit them in the pocketbook!"
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
There’s a long history of attempting to impact human behavior via economic incentives and penalties, although the latter tends to take precedence: We often utilize additional “vice taxes” to commodities and activities deemed unsavory (i.e. levies on alcohol and tobacco purchases). But awarding positive action can be just as effective. Case in point: cap and trade. While cap and trade is getting a lot of buzz as of late—due to the Obama administration’s decision to create a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide—Mark Lange of The Christian Science points out, in an opinion piece, the viability of cap and trade that, in 1989, a cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions resulted in a 45% reduction in acid rain within five years.
Which brings us to water conservation. Many water utilities employ rate structures that charge based on water usage (and waste)—a clear example of using an economic penalty to modify behavior. But perhaps there is a better way.…
US Representative Mike Coffman thinks so. On April 2, Coffman introduced the “Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment (WATER) Act, which mimics the EPA’s Energy Star Program that offers tax credits for the energy-efficient appliances. Under Coffman’s WATER Act, WaterSense products would be eligible for tax credits of up to 30% (with a $1500 cap). According to EPA estimates, the installation of WaterSense fixtures (including low-flow faucets, showerheads, and toilets) could save a family of four $17,000 gallons a year. The WATER Act (aka HR 1908) now awaits review by the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In a statement to the press, Coffman says “The Water Conservation Act will help meet this demand by helping individuals and businesses conserve water.”
What do you think? Are incentives the way to go when it comes to promoting conscientious water use, or should we combine tiered rate systems with low-flow rebates?
To read Mark Lange’s opinion piece on cap and trade go to: www.csmonitor.com/2009/0413/p09s04-coop.html
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
There’s a long history of attempting to impact human behavior via economic incentives and penalties, although the latter tends to take precedence: We often utilize additional “vice taxes” to commodities and activities deemed unsavory (i.e. levies on alcohol and tobacco purchases). But awarding positive action can be just as effective. Case in point: cap and trade. While cap and trade is getting a lot of buzz as of late—due to the Obama administration’s decision to create a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide—Mark Lange of The Christian Science points out, in an opinion piece, the viability of cap and trade that, in 1989, a cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions resulted in a 45% reduction in acid rain within five years.
Which brings us to water conservation. Many water utilities employ rate structures that charge based on water usage (and waste)—a clear example of using an economic penalty to modify behavior. But perhaps there is a better way.…
US Representative Mike Coffman thinks so. On April 2, Coffman introduced the “Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment (WATER) Act, which mimics the EPA’s Energy Star Program that offers tax credits for the energy-efficient appliances. Under Coffman’s WATER Act, WaterSense products would be eligible for tax credits of up to 30% (with a $1500 cap). According to EPA estimates, the installation of WaterSense fixtures (including low-flow faucets, showerheads, and toilets) could save a family of four $17,000 gallons a year. The WATER Act (aka HR 1908) now awaits review by the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In a statement to the press, Coffman says “The Water Conservation Act will help meet this demand by helping individuals and businesses conserve water.”
What do you think? Are incentives the way to go when it comes to promoting conscientious water use, or should we combine tiered rate systems with low-flow rebates?
To read Mark Lange’s opinion piece on cap and trade go to: www.csmonitor.com/2009/0413/p09s04-coop.html
Monday, March 16, 2009
Free Market Water
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the role of government regulation within a capitalist system. Can oversight and strict accountability coexist with a laissez-fair market? And should a balance be struck between private enterprise and public good? Those are tricky questions that beg complex answers, but what if we switch the subject of the discussion from economics to natural resources—more specifically, what if the shorage wasn’t dollars, but gallons. What if water rights were treated as private property and traded like commodities? What would private water ownership look like, and—more importantly—would such a system promote efficiency and conservation?
You only need to look South to see this type of system in action. In the March 14 edition of the New York Times, Alexei Barrionuevo writes about the situation in Chile’s Atacama desert, and how private water rights are impacting the country’s citizens and changing its landscape. With a private property approach to water resources, Chile has allowed water rights to be bought and sold with minimal government or environmental regulations. The result is a private ownership system that allows for a consolidation of water rights on a scale unheard of in the United States. As Barrionuevo’s article points out, 80% of water rights across a large swath of southern Chile are owned by Endesa (a Spanish-owned electric company), and in the Atacama desert (one of the driest regions in the world) some towns have sold up to 75% of their water rights to large mining companies. In Chile, farmers fight with large—often international—conglomerates over rivers and natural reservoirs, and every time the conglomerate wins, another small town or agricultural community dries up.
Chile’s water rights trading system was created during Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship during the 1980s, and it provides a great example for what happens when the government doesn’t just abdicate responsibility for controlling natural resources, but actually hands over controls to the highest bidder. Proponents of Chile’s system argue that the free-market model promotes efficiency by allocating water based on economic use, but it’s clear that this “for-profit” system ignores an important aspect: 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. Ultimately, no one can forgo water and survive: It’s not just a “want,” it’s a basic need.
So what does the situation in Chile have to do with our situation here at home? Well, just like Chile, we too are dealing with a water crisis, and our water demands—both literal and virtual—are continuing to grow, even as our water resources are threatened by pollution, waste, and inefficient collection and delivery systems. Nevertheless, we have managed to strike a balance between private and public needs. In the United States, three fourths of water systems are public, guaranteeing citizens access to clean, affordable water. In many communities throughout our country, tying cost to use (in the form of tiered-rate structures) has encouraged a more conscientious approach to water use. But a lot more needs to be done.
We must grapple with the same dilemma Chile faces—how to support the continued growth of an economy dependent upon a finite resource. California farmers are already in the cross hairs of this issue: with fewer water allocations and a weakened consumer base, these farmers must learn to do more with less. And the solution—for farmers and for all of us—will not be found in reduced operational costs (in the form of decreased crop yields or lay-offs), but using water more efficiently.
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?”
(Click Here to Read Barrionuevo’s article.)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the role of government regulation within a capitalist system. Can oversight and strict accountability coexist with a laissez-fair market? And should a balance be struck between private enterprise and public good? Those are tricky questions that beg complex answers, but what if we switch the subject of the discussion from economics to natural resources—more specifically, what if the shorage wasn’t dollars, but gallons. What if water rights were treated as private property and traded like commodities? What would private water ownership look like, and—more importantly—would such a system promote efficiency and conservation?
You only need to look South to see this type of system in action. In the March 14 edition of the New York Times, Alexei Barrionuevo writes about the situation in Chile’s Atacama desert, and how private water rights are impacting the country’s citizens and changing its landscape. With a private property approach to water resources, Chile has allowed water rights to be bought and sold with minimal government or environmental regulations. The result is a private ownership system that allows for a consolidation of water rights on a scale unheard of in the United States. As Barrionuevo’s article points out, 80% of water rights across a large swath of southern Chile are owned by Endesa (a Spanish-owned electric company), and in the Atacama desert (one of the driest regions in the world) some towns have sold up to 75% of their water rights to large mining companies. In Chile, farmers fight with large—often international—conglomerates over rivers and natural reservoirs, and every time the conglomerate wins, another small town or agricultural community dries up.
Chile’s water rights trading system was created during Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship during the 1980s, and it provides a great example for what happens when the government doesn’t just abdicate responsibility for controlling natural resources, but actually hands over controls to the highest bidder. Proponents of Chile’s system argue that the free-market model promotes efficiency by allocating water based on economic use, but it’s clear that this “for-profit” system ignores an important aspect: 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. Ultimately, no one can forgo water and survive: It’s not just a “want,” it’s a basic need.
So what does the situation in Chile have to do with our situation here at home? Well, just like Chile, we too are dealing with a water crisis, and our water demands—both literal and virtual—are continuing to grow, even as our water resources are threatened by pollution, waste, and inefficient collection and delivery systems. Nevertheless, we have managed to strike a balance between private and public needs. In the United States, three fourths of water systems are public, guaranteeing citizens access to clean, affordable water. In many communities throughout our country, tying cost to use (in the form of tiered-rate structures) has encouraged a more conscientious approach to water use. But a lot more needs to be done.
We must grapple with the same dilemma Chile faces—how to support the continued growth of an economy dependent upon a finite resource. California farmers are already in the cross hairs of this issue: with fewer water allocations and a weakened consumer base, these farmers must learn to do more with less. And the solution—for farmers and for all of us—will not be found in reduced operational costs (in the form of decreased crop yields or lay-offs), but using water more efficiently.
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?”
(Click Here to Read Barrionuevo’s article.)
Monday, February 23, 2009
Breaking It All Down
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
After months of anticipation, last week President Obama finally signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Known colloquially as the “stimulus package,” the Act promises to deliver $787 billion in funds with the purpose of shoring up our weakened economy through job creation and a variety of other incentives and government programs.
For a country anxious about the future and hungry for solutions, the hope is that the Act can breath new life into struggling local economies. With that in mind, many communities have spent the first months of 2009 tabulating and numbering their wants and needs. Will those wishes finally be fulfilled, or will tangles of red tape and armies of lobbyists divert the funds away from the very trouble spots that most desperately need help?
So far, the possibilities look promising. First off, the Act allocates $80.5 billion to repair and improve roads, bridges, mass transit, and waterways. According to a statement released by the EPA on February 19, $7.22 billion in stimulus money has already been allocated for EPA-administered water projects, including $4 billion set aside for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (which helps communities deal with their water quality and wastewater infrastructure needs). An additional $2 billion has been earmarked for other drinking water infrastructure projects under the same revolving fund, and a portion of that funding is specifically set aside for “green” infrastructure, including water and energy efficiency. Treatment and cleanup command the final $1.22 billion, which has been allocated for projects like industrial/commercial brownfields, superfund hazardous sites, and leaking underground storage tanks.
Some information on how individual states plan to handle their stimulus funds has already begun to make news. In Ohio for example, $59 million will be used to improve drinking water infrastructure, while another $224 million will be used for other clean water projects and programs. According to the EPA, Wyoming should receive approximately $39 million in stimulus funds for a variety of water and sewer projects. The EPA has also stated that Illinois will receive $258.5 million in stimulus money for local water projects. Utah has garnered $50 million in stimulus funds, some of which will go to water projects in the state, while Tennessee will receive $77 million for sewer and water treatment projects. So far, the big winner appears to be Colorado, which is in line to receive about $1 billion in stimulus money. More information on specific payouts will continue to trickle out over the next few days, and updates on state-by-state distributions of the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds will be available on the EPA Web site www.epa.gov/recovery.
Let us know what you think: Will the stimulus package provide the funds needed to finally fix our aging infrastructure, and promote and improve our water collection, treatment, and delivery systems? Do you anticipate seeing any direct effect in your own community? Or, are you skeptical that the stimulus package will be able to deliver on all its promises?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
After months of anticipation, last week President Obama finally signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Known colloquially as the “stimulus package,” the Act promises to deliver $787 billion in funds with the purpose of shoring up our weakened economy through job creation and a variety of other incentives and government programs.
For a country anxious about the future and hungry for solutions, the hope is that the Act can breath new life into struggling local economies. With that in mind, many communities have spent the first months of 2009 tabulating and numbering their wants and needs. Will those wishes finally be fulfilled, or will tangles of red tape and armies of lobbyists divert the funds away from the very trouble spots that most desperately need help?
So far, the possibilities look promising. First off, the Act allocates $80.5 billion to repair and improve roads, bridges, mass transit, and waterways. According to a statement released by the EPA on February 19, $7.22 billion in stimulus money has already been allocated for EPA-administered water projects, including $4 billion set aside for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (which helps communities deal with their water quality and wastewater infrastructure needs). An additional $2 billion has been earmarked for other drinking water infrastructure projects under the same revolving fund, and a portion of that funding is specifically set aside for “green” infrastructure, including water and energy efficiency. Treatment and cleanup command the final $1.22 billion, which has been allocated for projects like industrial/commercial brownfields, superfund hazardous sites, and leaking underground storage tanks.
Some information on how individual states plan to handle their stimulus funds has already begun to make news. In Ohio for example, $59 million will be used to improve drinking water infrastructure, while another $224 million will be used for other clean water projects and programs. According to the EPA, Wyoming should receive approximately $39 million in stimulus funds for a variety of water and sewer projects. The EPA has also stated that Illinois will receive $258.5 million in stimulus money for local water projects. Utah has garnered $50 million in stimulus funds, some of which will go to water projects in the state, while Tennessee will receive $77 million for sewer and water treatment projects. So far, the big winner appears to be Colorado, which is in line to receive about $1 billion in stimulus money. More information on specific payouts will continue to trickle out over the next few days, and updates on state-by-state distributions of the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds will be available on the EPA Web site www.epa.gov/recovery.
Let us know what you think: Will the stimulus package provide the funds needed to finally fix our aging infrastructure, and promote and improve our water collection, treatment, and delivery systems? Do you anticipate seeing any direct effect in your own community? Or, are you skeptical that the stimulus package will be able to deliver on all its promises?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Unsung Heroes
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Imagine returning from a much-needed vacation only to find your house flooded due to an unchecked leak or water main break. What if the damage were not immediately apparent, and a smaller leak resulted in an astronomical water bill during the exact period you were away from home? Without visual confirmation, could you trust your water utility?
In October 2008, I wrote about Rick Baur, a resident of Ogden, UT who returned from vacation to find that he had been billed $9,700 for the alleged use of 1.4 million gallons of water. Unfortunately for Baur, the city claimed the 1.4 million gallons total was correct and demanded that Baur pay the entire amount of the bill. The mystery of where the 1.4 million gallons went is still unsolved, and, at the time I originally discussed Mr. Baur’s situation, I asked: “What responsibility does the city have to investigate the cause behind this eye-popping meter reading?”
If meters are improperly installed or maintained, they can wreak havoc. Case in point: Atlanta, GA. Just this month, Atlanta water officials announced that they have finally tracked down the source behind some eye-popping water bills: About 450 meters miscalculated usage and charged homeowners for more water than they had actually used. In some cases, residents saw their bill go up by up to 1,000%, and, despite protests, the city pushed forward on collection, employing bill collectors and shutting off service to noncompliant residents. Unlike the Baur’s case, residents in Atlanta will be eligible for refunds, and—hopefully—will have their service restored.
But meters are not the “bad guys” in either of these stories. In fact, if anything, these anecdotes just further prove the point that we have taken water for granted and have operated for too long without any real accounting of how much water we use and lose in our communities.
In the July/August 2007 issue of Water Efficiency, we highlighted the Seamount Estates community in Washington State. Described as an idyllic vacation retreat (and home to about 50 retirees and seasonal residents), the community began to notice a rise in its electricity bills in 2005 and a water leak was suspected. By 2007, the solution implemented two years prior had made significant headway—thanks to a partnership with state and local agencies, Seamount Estates had implemented an extensive leak detection and monitoring system, aided in part by the installation of water meters at all residences served by the estate’s water system. Herbert “Skip” Rand, circuit rider for the Rural Community Assistance Corp. (RCAC), described the new meters as “wonderful tools for finding leaks.”
Finding the missing water not only helped the community with its power bill, it also helped stave off real property damage that could have occurred had the leaks been allowed to flow unchecked. In one situation, the team discovered a broken water line inside of a house owned by a member who was away at the time. “You could actually hear the leak from outside,” says Derek Zock, of Evergreen Rural Water of Washington (ERWoW). “When we located the leak, we were able to shut the water off at the valve box and then advise the homeowner that they had a bad leak inside. There was already a lot of water damage, but by shutting it off I’m sure that it helped save part of the house.”
Rand agrees, adding that the owners were very appreciative. “Seeing that meter spinning saved the house; that gave us a kind of hero status,” he says.
Sometimes a shock to the system is what is needed to correct destructive behavior—and that’s the positive I see coming out of scenarios like those in Ogden and Atlanta. Just like that post-Christmas credit card bill, water meter results can open up the eyes of a community with hard numbers on how much water is flowing in and out of its boundaries.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Imagine returning from a much-needed vacation only to find your house flooded due to an unchecked leak or water main break. What if the damage were not immediately apparent, and a smaller leak resulted in an astronomical water bill during the exact period you were away from home? Without visual confirmation, could you trust your water utility?
In October 2008, I wrote about Rick Baur, a resident of Ogden, UT who returned from vacation to find that he had been billed $9,700 for the alleged use of 1.4 million gallons of water. Unfortunately for Baur, the city claimed the 1.4 million gallons total was correct and demanded that Baur pay the entire amount of the bill. The mystery of where the 1.4 million gallons went is still unsolved, and, at the time I originally discussed Mr. Baur’s situation, I asked: “What responsibility does the city have to investigate the cause behind this eye-popping meter reading?”
If meters are improperly installed or maintained, they can wreak havoc. Case in point: Atlanta, GA. Just this month, Atlanta water officials announced that they have finally tracked down the source behind some eye-popping water bills: About 450 meters miscalculated usage and charged homeowners for more water than they had actually used. In some cases, residents saw their bill go up by up to 1,000%, and, despite protests, the city pushed forward on collection, employing bill collectors and shutting off service to noncompliant residents. Unlike the Baur’s case, residents in Atlanta will be eligible for refunds, and—hopefully—will have their service restored.
But meters are not the “bad guys” in either of these stories. In fact, if anything, these anecdotes just further prove the point that we have taken water for granted and have operated for too long without any real accounting of how much water we use and lose in our communities.
In the July/August 2007 issue of Water Efficiency, we highlighted the Seamount Estates community in Washington State. Described as an idyllic vacation retreat (and home to about 50 retirees and seasonal residents), the community began to notice a rise in its electricity bills in 2005 and a water leak was suspected. By 2007, the solution implemented two years prior had made significant headway—thanks to a partnership with state and local agencies, Seamount Estates had implemented an extensive leak detection and monitoring system, aided in part by the installation of water meters at all residences served by the estate’s water system. Herbert “Skip” Rand, circuit rider for the Rural Community Assistance Corp. (RCAC), described the new meters as “wonderful tools for finding leaks.”
Finding the missing water not only helped the community with its power bill, it also helped stave off real property damage that could have occurred had the leaks been allowed to flow unchecked. In one situation, the team discovered a broken water line inside of a house owned by a member who was away at the time. “You could actually hear the leak from outside,” says Derek Zock, of Evergreen Rural Water of Washington (ERWoW). “When we located the leak, we were able to shut the water off at the valve box and then advise the homeowner that they had a bad leak inside. There was already a lot of water damage, but by shutting it off I’m sure that it helped save part of the house.”
Rand agrees, adding that the owners were very appreciative. “Seeing that meter spinning saved the house; that gave us a kind of hero status,” he says.
Sometimes a shock to the system is what is needed to correct destructive behavior—and that’s the positive I see coming out of scenarios like those in Ogden and Atlanta. Just like that post-Christmas credit card bill, water meter results can open up the eyes of a community with hard numbers on how much water is flowing in and out of its boundaries.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Is it a "water grab" or a reasonable solution?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Those of you following the Delta-smelt decision in California and the resulting water shortages are aware of the contentious relationship between the northern and southern parts of the state when it comes to the management of local water resources. A recent panel recommendation seems designed to stir up the drama by proposing that the state begin construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River as soon as 2011.
The panel is not alone in its recommendation. Last month the governor’s cabinet-level panel came away with the same recommendation in a draft report. Those supporting the project point to the added benefits of flood control and the rerouting of water away from the fragile delta habitat. But many in northern California aren’t buying those rationalizations, insisting that the project amounts to nothing more than blatant water grab by the South. Add environmentalists and a majority of California voters (who rejected a similar project in 1982) in the “con” column. And lest the issue end in a North/South stand-off, Natural Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman has stated that the committee behind the new canal project believes that legislative approval is not required for the project — which also includes the restoration of 100,000 acres of habitat in the delta, and the recommendation that more dams be built and another panel created to determine how to govern the delta).
There are similar controversies occurring throughout the country — from other areas in the Southwest (Utah-Nevada come to mind) and even in the midwestern and southern parts of the country. So what do you think? Does demand outstrip all other considerations when it comes to water resource management? Do the “haves” owe the “have-nots?” Or does a water-rich community have a right to determine how it will handle its supply?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Those of you following the Delta-smelt decision in California and the resulting water shortages are aware of the contentious relationship between the northern and southern parts of the state when it comes to the management of local water resources. A recent panel recommendation seems designed to stir up the drama by proposing that the state begin construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River as soon as 2011.
The panel is not alone in its recommendation. Last month the governor’s cabinet-level panel came away with the same recommendation in a draft report. Those supporting the project point to the added benefits of flood control and the rerouting of water away from the fragile delta habitat. But many in northern California aren’t buying those rationalizations, insisting that the project amounts to nothing more than blatant water grab by the South. Add environmentalists and a majority of California voters (who rejected a similar project in 1982) in the “con” column. And lest the issue end in a North/South stand-off, Natural Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman has stated that the committee behind the new canal project believes that legislative approval is not required for the project — which also includes the restoration of 100,000 acres of habitat in the delta, and the recommendation that more dams be built and another panel created to determine how to govern the delta).
There are similar controversies occurring throughout the country — from other areas in the Southwest (Utah-Nevada come to mind) and even in the midwestern and southern parts of the country. So what do you think? Does demand outstrip all other considerations when it comes to water resource management? Do the “haves” owe the “have-nots?” Or does a water-rich community have a right to determine how it will handle its supply?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
