(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my April editorial “Divining Rods”, I stated, “With a finite amount of water available, it’s important that we use what we have wisely, but it’s equally important to find untapped sources that can supplement our current supplies and allow us to efficiently meet growing demand.” In Philadelphia, PA, that search for new sources has hit pay dirt in the form of stormwater control. According to a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer the city plans to spend $1.6 billion to switch away from traditional stormwater management (essentially ushering rainwater downstream) and towards a reimagined urban landscape of green roofs, porous pavements, and rain gardens.
The plan success rests, in part, on participation by all members of the community. To that end, every time a city street is dug up for standard municipal repairs and projects, it will be repaved with porous asphalt (at a slightly higher cost). And under a city ordinance, large-scale commercial structures (15,000 square feet or more) must install rainwater catchment systems. Additionally, commercial water rates are now based not on how much water is used the facility, but by how much land is covered by impervious surface materials.
The plan sounds like a “win-win:” reduced demand on the city’s sewer system, reduced energy usage, even reduced deaths (from excess heat). Jon Capacasa, regional director of water protection for the EPA, is quoted in the article, saying, “This is the most significant use of green infrastructure I’ve seen in the country, the largest scale I’ve seen.”
So what do you think? Are large-scale plans like this feasible? And are the implementation costs justified by the results?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Water Saved Is Water Earned?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week, the online edition of the Desert Sun ran a news item on a surprise announcement by the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District—two of California’s biggest users of Colorado River water allotments. Turns out, both districts estimate that they will be need a significantly smaller amount of water this year than originally projected—the smallest amount, in fact, since they were required to track their use by the 2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement (QSA).
The news couldn’t have come at a better time for Los Angeles. Under the QSA, customers in the Los Angeles area (about 19 million) are entitled to any water left over from unused agricultural supplies in the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. In Los Angeles, this water windfall will not only help ease mandatory water restrictions, it will also go a long way towards replenishing the area’s water storage supply.
As is always the case in California, the announcement spurred controversy— specifically over how the water savings were achieved. Agricultural interests in Imperial and Coachella claimed that successful conservation and efficiency programs had created the surplus. But skeptics point to the weakened economy and its effect on California’s ag industry (smaller crop yields, diminished demand) as the real culprit. These warring claims have a significance—under the QSA farmers are supposed to receive funds to aid in the implementation of water conservation efforts, funds that could help farmers sustain themselves during these lean times. Without that funding, some farmers claim there is little incentive to conserve water.
In California the push-pull relationship between rural and urban water users seems never ending—one group always feels any conservation on their part leaves them at a disadvantage while unfairly benefiting the other side. What do you think? Should conservation efforts be incentive-based? Do the farmers in California’s central valley have a point? Or is the solution to look beyond the water-as-commodity paradi
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week, the online edition of the Desert Sun ran a news item on a surprise announcement by the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District—two of California’s biggest users of Colorado River water allotments. Turns out, both districts estimate that they will be need a significantly smaller amount of water this year than originally projected—the smallest amount, in fact, since they were required to track their use by the 2003 Quantitative Settlement Agreement (QSA).
The news couldn’t have come at a better time for Los Angeles. Under the QSA, customers in the Los Angeles area (about 19 million) are entitled to any water left over from unused agricultural supplies in the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. In Los Angeles, this water windfall will not only help ease mandatory water restrictions, it will also go a long way towards replenishing the area’s water storage supply.
As is always the case in California, the announcement spurred controversy— specifically over how the water savings were achieved. Agricultural interests in Imperial and Coachella claimed that successful conservation and efficiency programs had created the surplus. But skeptics point to the weakened economy and its effect on California’s ag industry (smaller crop yields, diminished demand) as the real culprit. These warring claims have a significance—under the QSA farmers are supposed to receive funds to aid in the implementation of water conservation efforts, funds that could help farmers sustain themselves during these lean times. Without that funding, some farmers claim there is little incentive to conserve water.
In California the push-pull relationship between rural and urban water users seems never ending—one group always feels any conservation on their part leaves them at a disadvantage while unfairly benefiting the other side. What do you think? Should conservation efforts be incentive-based? Do the farmers in California’s central valley have a point? Or is the solution to look beyond the water-as-commodity paradi
Monday, September 14, 2009
Mile-High Metering
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week (Sept. 14, 2009) I’m in Denver, CO, attending the Utilimetrics Smart Metering Conference and Exposition, aka Autovation. The conference covers metering primarily in the electric utility industry, but there’s plenty of discussion on the role AMR and AMI play in the quest for efficient water resource management.
As you know, automatic meter reading (AMR) involves the automatic collection of data from meters (water, gas, and electric). Once the data is collected, it is transferred to a central database for analysis and metering. Of greatest benefit to a water utility is the possibility of measuring actual consumption, thereby enabling accurate billing and a more in depth and demand-sensitive resource management.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), on the other hand, pushes data management to another level by including the measurement, collection, and analysis of meter-acquired data. AMI includes not only hardware, but the master data management (MDM) software and customer interface that makes use of all the statistics and information collected, including water usage and billing. Another AMI benefit is the ability to craft sophisticated demand-response solutions.
I’m excited to see the newest and most innovative AMR/AMI technology that’ll be on display here in Denver, and you can rest assured that I’ll be passing along everything I’ve to learned to you.
In the meantime, check out some of our past AMR/AMI articles. They run the gamut from project profiles on one particular success story, to technologically focused pieces that will give you the basics, to grander articles that fix AMR/AMI within the bigger picture of water efficiency and resource management.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week (Sept. 14, 2009) I’m in Denver, CO, attending the Utilimetrics Smart Metering Conference and Exposition, aka Autovation. The conference covers metering primarily in the electric utility industry, but there’s plenty of discussion on the role AMR and AMI play in the quest for efficient water resource management.
As you know, automatic meter reading (AMR) involves the automatic collection of data from meters (water, gas, and electric). Once the data is collected, it is transferred to a central database for analysis and metering. Of greatest benefit to a water utility is the possibility of measuring actual consumption, thereby enabling accurate billing and a more in depth and demand-sensitive resource management.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), on the other hand, pushes data management to another level by including the measurement, collection, and analysis of meter-acquired data. AMI includes not only hardware, but the master data management (MDM) software and customer interface that makes use of all the statistics and information collected, including water usage and billing. Another AMI benefit is the ability to craft sophisticated demand-response solutions.
I’m excited to see the newest and most innovative AMR/AMI technology that’ll be on display here in Denver, and you can rest assured that I’ll be passing along everything I’ve to learned to you.
In the meantime, check out some of our past AMR/AMI articles. They run the gamut from project profiles on one particular success story, to technologically focused pieces that will give you the basics, to grander articles that fix AMR/AMI within the bigger picture of water efficiency and resource management.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Smart Water Grid
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As editor of Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I’ve heard a lot about the “smart grid” and its potential to shift our energy infrastructure into a modern—and more efficient—incarnation. No wonder then, that an article posted this week on CNET news caught my eye. Entitled “IBM Dives into ‘smart grid for water,’” Martin LaMonica’s piece lays out IBM’s ambitions and details exactly what we can expect from a “smart water grid.”
As part of a $20-billion IT-related water portfolio, IBM is teaming up with Intel to form “a working group to study how information technology can be used to improve water management.” Here at Water Efficiency, we’ve always focused on the relationship between technology, data integration, and resource management. It looks like the folks at IBM are on the right track—and following in our footsteps—by focusing on aging infrastructure, water quality, and metering.
After launching Big Green Innovations in 2007, IBM has recently begun to focus primarily on “advanced water management,” which the company describes as encompassing “a broad agenda from availability and quality to distribution and consumption.” By upgrading water conveyance systems, IBM sees an opportunity to mimic the path of smart grid implementation for electric utilities. Part of this implementation of a smart water grid would involve the collection of information related to water delivery, water quality, and non-revenue water.
Why the push into water efficiency? According to the CNET article, IBM recognizes that the connection between energy use and water delivery presents an opportunity to promote smart water use and increased water conservation, while reducing operating expenses. Additionally, several water-intense industries—like agriculture, beverage manufacturers, and semiconductor companies—are keen on controlling costs by managing their water resources wisely.
So what do you think? Is there anything new in what IBM is proposing, or is the “smart grid for water” just a new label for the water efficiency protocols we’ve been discussing for years?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As editor of Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I’ve heard a lot about the “smart grid” and its potential to shift our energy infrastructure into a modern—and more efficient—incarnation. No wonder then, that an article posted this week on CNET news caught my eye. Entitled “IBM Dives into ‘smart grid for water,’” Martin LaMonica’s piece lays out IBM’s ambitions and details exactly what we can expect from a “smart water grid.”
As part of a $20-billion IT-related water portfolio, IBM is teaming up with Intel to form “a working group to study how information technology can be used to improve water management.” Here at Water Efficiency, we’ve always focused on the relationship between technology, data integration, and resource management. It looks like the folks at IBM are on the right track—and following in our footsteps—by focusing on aging infrastructure, water quality, and metering.
After launching Big Green Innovations in 2007, IBM has recently begun to focus primarily on “advanced water management,” which the company describes as encompassing “a broad agenda from availability and quality to distribution and consumption.” By upgrading water conveyance systems, IBM sees an opportunity to mimic the path of smart grid implementation for electric utilities. Part of this implementation of a smart water grid would involve the collection of information related to water delivery, water quality, and non-revenue water.
Why the push into water efficiency? According to the CNET article, IBM recognizes that the connection between energy use and water delivery presents an opportunity to promote smart water use and increased water conservation, while reducing operating expenses. Additionally, several water-intense industries—like agriculture, beverage manufacturers, and semiconductor companies—are keen on controlling costs by managing their water resources wisely.
So what do you think? Is there anything new in what IBM is proposing, or is the “smart grid for water” just a new label for the water efficiency protocols we’ve been discussing for years?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Seeing Into the Future
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week, Los Angeles, CA, mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced that, due to concerted efforts on the part of private homeowners and government agencies, the city of Los Angeles had managed to reduce its water consumption by 17%, in July of this year. While multi-family residences measured the smallest reduction (8%), private homes achieved a 20% reduction, as government buildings dropped down a whopping 34%. Though no details were given regarding how these reductions were achieved, it’s probably safe to assume that it involved a combination of low-flow fixtures and smart irrigation techniques: basically the low-hanging fruit of water conservation. But are these small fixes enough?
For a glimpse into Los Angeles’ potential future, one need look no further than Mexico City. As a recent article in the Houston Chronicle points out, the same drought that has crippled much of Texas this year is also wreaking havoc south of the border, “killing crops and livestock and threatening to dehydrate major cities.” Mexico City in particular is struggling to keep it’s 22 million residents hydrated, and officials warn that without extreme weather intervention in the next few weeks, the city will be forced to deal with “extreme scarcity” when the dry season begins in October.
Unlike Los Angeles, which was built upon a desert, Mexico City was sits on a large lake bed that originally held more than enough water to fulfill the city’s needs. But 500 years of water waste and faulty planning have drained the lake almost entirely. And while exponential population growth is part of the problem, rampant construction—both of tunnels that flush rainfall out of the city and widespread paving of once-open land—has led to a disruption of the normal water cycle and depleted, or “over-exploited,” aquifers. And so, even though the last three months have included a fair share of rain, the area’s water basin still hold only a fraction of its normal volume—drying up while rainwater races down paved sidewalks and storm drains that empty out miles from the city center.
So, as cities like Los Angeles and Houston attempt to control and reduce water use, it will be important to look beyond showerheads and drought-resistant plants towards large-scale water resource management that includes mitigating the impact of our traditional urban landscapes on overtaxed aquifers and parched watersheds.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
This week, Los Angeles, CA, mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced that, due to concerted efforts on the part of private homeowners and government agencies, the city of Los Angeles had managed to reduce its water consumption by 17%, in July of this year. While multi-family residences measured the smallest reduction (8%), private homes achieved a 20% reduction, as government buildings dropped down a whopping 34%. Though no details were given regarding how these reductions were achieved, it’s probably safe to assume that it involved a combination of low-flow fixtures and smart irrigation techniques: basically the low-hanging fruit of water conservation. But are these small fixes enough?
For a glimpse into Los Angeles’ potential future, one need look no further than Mexico City. As a recent article in the Houston Chronicle points out, the same drought that has crippled much of Texas this year is also wreaking havoc south of the border, “killing crops and livestock and threatening to dehydrate major cities.” Mexico City in particular is struggling to keep it’s 22 million residents hydrated, and officials warn that without extreme weather intervention in the next few weeks, the city will be forced to deal with “extreme scarcity” when the dry season begins in October.
Unlike Los Angeles, which was built upon a desert, Mexico City was sits on a large lake bed that originally held more than enough water to fulfill the city’s needs. But 500 years of water waste and faulty planning have drained the lake almost entirely. And while exponential population growth is part of the problem, rampant construction—both of tunnels that flush rainfall out of the city and widespread paving of once-open land—has led to a disruption of the normal water cycle and depleted, or “over-exploited,” aquifers. And so, even though the last three months have included a fair share of rain, the area’s water basin still hold only a fraction of its normal volume—drying up while rainwater races down paved sidewalks and storm drains that empty out miles from the city center.
So, as cities like Los Angeles and Houston attempt to control and reduce water use, it will be important to look beyond showerheads and drought-resistant plants towards large-scale water resource management that includes mitigating the impact of our traditional urban landscapes on overtaxed aquifers and parched watersheds.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thinking Big, Going Small?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
A few weeks back, a friend of mine asked my opinion on desalination, specifically a proposed desalination plant in his hometown of San Diego, CA. As he said in his message, “I am not sold on this being the answer or even one of the answers to solving southern California’s water problems.”
I responded that, at the moment, the “cons” still outweigh the “pros” when it comes to desalination as a solution for water scarcity. First off, there are the environmental factors to consider—specifically the intake apparatus (which tends to suck up innocent sea life along with gallons of salt water), and the brine discharge (which alters the salinity near the outtake valves). But just as important are the energy implications— desalination is energy-intensive, and that energy comes from fossil fuel—which means an increase of greenhouse gas emissions and, possibly, an exacerbation of current climate conditions (i.e. global warming). Finally, desalination is very expensive, especially when simple efficiency and conservation option can help you use the supply you have in a smarter, more streamlined fashion.
Of course, there’s always an exception to the rule.
A few years back, I wrote an article on the Long Beach Desalination Research and Demonstration Program, a facility designed to counteract the main drawbacks of large-scale desalination: energy consumption and environmental impact. As I stated in that article, facility opened in in September 2005 as a research and development project capable of processing 300,000 gallons of water per day. The Long Beach plant is 20–30% more energy efficient than traditional desalination; an efficiency achieved through the use of nano-filtration and specially designed filtration membranes. Additionally, development the Under Ocean Floor Seawater Intake and Discharge Demonstration System at the Long Beach facility eliminates the danger of sea life inadvertently being sucked into the pipes and killed. Finally, after water is flushed through the second set of membranes, the final output contains less than 500 milligrams of dissolved substances per liter of water, thereby complying with EPA drinking-water standards (and mitigating brine discharge).
The Long Beach project is a good example of the future of desalination—a chance to enhance our current supplies in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. Nevertheless, developing new water supplies should be Plan B, something to fall back on once we’ve exhausted all the other options available to us. This means better leak detection, infrastructure repair and improvement, public outreach, and all other manner of water efficiency and conservation techniques we regularly discuss in Water Efficiency.
Ultimately, a cheaper—and more responsible option—would be for water-strapped communities to focus on demand reduction (via smart irrigation, low-flow fixtures, and public outreach) and increased conveyance efficiency (leak detection, infrastructure repair). Additionally, new sources in the form of water recycling (for irrigation and other non-potable uses) and rainwater harvesting should be explored before building any large, water treatment facility.
What do you think? Can our water crisis be solved by focusing on new sources (like desalination and reuse) or can small fixes (stopping that leak, convincing users to turn off that faucet) have a larger impact?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
A few weeks back, a friend of mine asked my opinion on desalination, specifically a proposed desalination plant in his hometown of San Diego, CA. As he said in his message, “I am not sold on this being the answer or even one of the answers to solving southern California’s water problems.”
I responded that, at the moment, the “cons” still outweigh the “pros” when it comes to desalination as a solution for water scarcity. First off, there are the environmental factors to consider—specifically the intake apparatus (which tends to suck up innocent sea life along with gallons of salt water), and the brine discharge (which alters the salinity near the outtake valves). But just as important are the energy implications— desalination is energy-intensive, and that energy comes from fossil fuel—which means an increase of greenhouse gas emissions and, possibly, an exacerbation of current climate conditions (i.e. global warming). Finally, desalination is very expensive, especially when simple efficiency and conservation option can help you use the supply you have in a smarter, more streamlined fashion.
Of course, there’s always an exception to the rule.
A few years back, I wrote an article on the Long Beach Desalination Research and Demonstration Program, a facility designed to counteract the main drawbacks of large-scale desalination: energy consumption and environmental impact. As I stated in that article, facility opened in in September 2005 as a research and development project capable of processing 300,000 gallons of water per day. The Long Beach plant is 20–30% more energy efficient than traditional desalination; an efficiency achieved through the use of nano-filtration and specially designed filtration membranes. Additionally, development the Under Ocean Floor Seawater Intake and Discharge Demonstration System at the Long Beach facility eliminates the danger of sea life inadvertently being sucked into the pipes and killed. Finally, after water is flushed through the second set of membranes, the final output contains less than 500 milligrams of dissolved substances per liter of water, thereby complying with EPA drinking-water standards (and mitigating brine discharge).
The Long Beach project is a good example of the future of desalination—a chance to enhance our current supplies in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. Nevertheless, developing new water supplies should be Plan B, something to fall back on once we’ve exhausted all the other options available to us. This means better leak detection, infrastructure repair and improvement, public outreach, and all other manner of water efficiency and conservation techniques we regularly discuss in Water Efficiency.
Ultimately, a cheaper—and more responsible option—would be for water-strapped communities to focus on demand reduction (via smart irrigation, low-flow fixtures, and public outreach) and increased conveyance efficiency (leak detection, infrastructure repair). Additionally, new sources in the form of water recycling (for irrigation and other non-potable uses) and rainwater harvesting should be explored before building any large, water treatment facility.
What do you think? Can our water crisis be solved by focusing on new sources (like desalination and reuse) or can small fixes (stopping that leak, convincing users to turn off that faucet) have a larger impact?
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Dead Zone
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my July blog for Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I appropriated the age old question of a tree falling in the woods by asking “if a green building stands empty, is it still “sustainable?” After reviewing some of today’s water headlines, I’m beginning to wonder if the same holds true for conveyance systems: If new pipes are bone dry, are they still a water delivery system? Or maybe the question should be: If you build it, will the water flow?
In January, I discussed a plan put forth by the California Department of Water Resources that attempts to alleviate increasing demand in the southern portion of the state with the construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River. This week, it was announced that, in fact, officials at the agency are conducting feasibility studies on an “all tunnel” option that involves a 35-mile tunnel designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south.
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. With pumping currently restricted (because of the endangered delta smelt), there is some question as to whether a large infrastructure project such as this underground tunnel (which some opponents allege could actually stretch as far as 50 miles) can be completed in a way that protects the delicate delta ecosystem and disperses the state’s water resources in an equitable manner. Additionally, there is some concern over costs (some estimates put the bill as high as $15 billion) and how the tunnel would be managed.
On the other side of the country, a worse case scenario is already taking shape. Some of you no doubt remember Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue’s prayer for rain. Although afterwards Atlanta did experience some much-needed precipitation, it looks like the governor’s water crisis is far from over: And Georgia is not alone. In fact, the southern states are “canaries in the coal mine”: The challenges they face and the solutions they employ are part of a first front in what could be rightly called a water war.
Last month, a judge ruled that Georgia has no more than a minor legal right to the water of Lake Lanier—making Georgia the loser in a long-running water rights dispute between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Lake Lanier supplies three million Atlanta residents, and the loss of that resource impacts the state’s rural areas in a way that mirrors the situation in California. In fact, it’s déjà vu, with environmentalists pitted against urban residents, while farmers worry that their own water allocations will dry up. And much like the ramifications felt after the delta-smelt court decision in California severely cut back the amount of water pumped out of the delta, in June of this year, a district court ruled that without a congressional deal in the next three years, withdrawals from Lake Lanier could be drastically cut.
Of course, the main difference in Georgia is that the water from Lake Lanier belongs to three states—making a resolution that much more difficult to come by. And much like California’s governor and his water task force, Governor Purdue is weighing all his options: larger legal case based on a 150-year-old supreme court decision that gives Georgia a larger share of the lake’s water, and perhaps controversial interbasin water transfers (shifting water from one river basin to another). But even if Georgia gains rights to all the water in the lake, it won’t be enough.
That’s because a continuing drought has dried up the region’s reservoirs, including Lake Lanier. Water levels at the lake (and at the Allatoona reservoir, which also supplies water to Atlanta) have shrunk so far down that all that’s left is dirty, bacteria-laden water just inches above the “dead zone”—the final layer of stored water that’s high in organic material (like decaying plants and animals) and low on oxygen. This substandard water supplying is forcing many communities to employ ever stronger water treatment methods, proving that even if you have the infrastructure in place, in the end it’s all about the level and quality of your water supply.
Go here for more on the California water tunnel.
Go here to read about the crisis in Georgia.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In my July blog for Water Efficiency’s sister publication, Distributed Energy, I appropriated the age old question of a tree falling in the woods by asking “if a green building stands empty, is it still “sustainable?” After reviewing some of today’s water headlines, I’m beginning to wonder if the same holds true for conveyance systems: If new pipes are bone dry, are they still a water delivery system? Or maybe the question should be: If you build it, will the water flow?
In January, I discussed a plan put forth by the California Department of Water Resources that attempts to alleviate increasing demand in the southern portion of the state with the construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River. This week, it was announced that, in fact, officials at the agency are conducting feasibility studies on an “all tunnel” option that involves a 35-mile tunnel designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south.
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. With pumping currently restricted (because of the endangered delta smelt), there is some question as to whether a large infrastructure project such as this underground tunnel (which some opponents allege could actually stretch as far as 50 miles) can be completed in a way that protects the delicate delta ecosystem and disperses the state’s water resources in an equitable manner. Additionally, there is some concern over costs (some estimates put the bill as high as $15 billion) and how the tunnel would be managed.
On the other side of the country, a worse case scenario is already taking shape. Some of you no doubt remember Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue’s prayer for rain. Although afterwards Atlanta did experience some much-needed precipitation, it looks like the governor’s water crisis is far from over: And Georgia is not alone. In fact, the southern states are “canaries in the coal mine”: The challenges they face and the solutions they employ are part of a first front in what could be rightly called a water war.
Last month, a judge ruled that Georgia has no more than a minor legal right to the water of Lake Lanier—making Georgia the loser in a long-running water rights dispute between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Lake Lanier supplies three million Atlanta residents, and the loss of that resource impacts the state’s rural areas in a way that mirrors the situation in California. In fact, it’s déjà vu, with environmentalists pitted against urban residents, while farmers worry that their own water allocations will dry up. And much like the ramifications felt after the delta-smelt court decision in California severely cut back the amount of water pumped out of the delta, in June of this year, a district court ruled that without a congressional deal in the next three years, withdrawals from Lake Lanier could be drastically cut.
Of course, the main difference in Georgia is that the water from Lake Lanier belongs to three states—making a resolution that much more difficult to come by. And much like California’s governor and his water task force, Governor Purdue is weighing all his options: larger legal case based on a 150-year-old supreme court decision that gives Georgia a larger share of the lake’s water, and perhaps controversial interbasin water transfers (shifting water from one river basin to another). But even if Georgia gains rights to all the water in the lake, it won’t be enough.
That’s because a continuing drought has dried up the region’s reservoirs, including Lake Lanier. Water levels at the lake (and at the Allatoona reservoir, which also supplies water to Atlanta) have shrunk so far down that all that’s left is dirty, bacteria-laden water just inches above the “dead zone”—the final layer of stored water that’s high in organic material (like decaying plants and animals) and low on oxygen. This substandard water supplying is forcing many communities to employ ever stronger water treatment methods, proving that even if you have the infrastructure in place, in the end it’s all about the level and quality of your water supply.
Go here for more on the California water tunnel.
Go here to read about the crisis in Georgia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
