(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Interesting news from the World Resources Institute (WRI) this week. According to an article entitled “Betting on Water” by Piet Klop, WRI is partnering with Goldman Sachs and General Electric to develop a “Water Index.” The index will be created using “publicly available data on water quality and water scarcity” in order to create a series of map overlays that combine and compare various water-related risks. Unlike the more familiar water footprint (and its cousin, virtual water), the Water Index offers an analysis of how the environment can effect a company’s water supply and/or its water needs, rather than the other way around.
More specifically, the Water Index would supply a company with information regarding the availability and quality of water sources considered integral to the companies operations, along with information on other competition for that water source. As the article elaborates, “Water risks, in short, are disruptions, costs, revenue losses, or growth constraints due to water shortages and declining water quality—all can affect asset performance and the profitability of a company.” The idea is that better information can lead to not only smarter investment decisions, but—hopefully—a more conscientious use of water in order to avoid a negative “repetitional cost.”
So what do you think? Can the information contained in something like this Water Index really affect the behavior of companies large and small? And if so, what—if any—information contained in this index will actually encourage water conservation and intelligent resource management
Monday, January 25, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Batten Down the Hatches
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Here in California, we’re bracing for a fortnight of winter storms that, while arriving late in the season, promise to inundate the state with several inches of rain over the next several days. As I watch trees bent and lashed by the wet weather, I think it’s perhaps the perfect time to look back on some of the rainwater harvesting articles we’ve covered in the magazine.
In “Acing the ‘Greening’ Curve” by Sue Marquette Poremba, we highlighted Duke University’s Pratt College of Engineering that, along with help from The Home Depot, designed a “smart home,” that includes two 1,000-gallon rainwater collection systems from BRAE rainwater systems irrigate the property and provide water for toilets and the clothes washing machine, as well as landscape irrigation.
If you take a look at the University of Georgia’s water conservation program (“Water Task Force”), you can read all about how the university worked hard to save over 84 million gallons of water during a five-year period. Instrumental to that program was the utilization of rain gardens, and the modification of two existing campus buildings to include cisterns capable of capturing rainwater and air-conditioning condensation for reuse.
And finally, in Margaret Buranen’s article, “Raincatcher's Delight”, we took a long look at Austin’s Seaholm project, which includes an extensive rainwater harvesting system.
So what do you think? Does rainwater harvesting get enough attention? And should cities take up the call, or should we fall back on the old mantra of individual responsibility?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Here in California, we’re bracing for a fortnight of winter storms that, while arriving late in the season, promise to inundate the state with several inches of rain over the next several days. As I watch trees bent and lashed by the wet weather, I think it’s perhaps the perfect time to look back on some of the rainwater harvesting articles we’ve covered in the magazine.
In “Acing the ‘Greening’ Curve” by Sue Marquette Poremba, we highlighted Duke University’s Pratt College of Engineering that, along with help from The Home Depot, designed a “smart home,” that includes two 1,000-gallon rainwater collection systems from BRAE rainwater systems irrigate the property and provide water for toilets and the clothes washing machine, as well as landscape irrigation.
If you take a look at the University of Georgia’s water conservation program (“Water Task Force”), you can read all about how the university worked hard to save over 84 million gallons of water during a five-year period. Instrumental to that program was the utilization of rain gardens, and the modification of two existing campus buildings to include cisterns capable of capturing rainwater and air-conditioning condensation for reuse.
And finally, in Margaret Buranen’s article, “Raincatcher's Delight”, we took a long look at Austin’s Seaholm project, which includes an extensive rainwater harvesting system.
So what do you think? Does rainwater harvesting get enough attention? And should cities take up the call, or should we fall back on the old mantra of individual responsibility?
Monday, January 11, 2010
WaterSense for New Homes
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In the “news you may have missed” category, I submit the WaterSense specifications announced by the EPA on December 10, 2009. While the rest of us were gearing up for the holidays, the EPA released its final specifications for new single-family homes—and the specifics are certainly worth reviewing as we head into a new year.
This new set of WaterSense specifications, three years in the making and incorporating input by a variety of stakeholders, was designed to dovetail with existing green building programs. According to the EPA’s press release, the WaterSense singly-family new homes specification creates “the first national, voluntary, water efficiency specification for an entire new home.” The new WaterSense homes will not only be 20% more efficient, according to the EPA, homeowners can expect save up to $200 a year in utility bills (as compared to existing residential structures) by employing these new efficiency standards.
The specifics of the plan include the following:
1) Any new homes aspiring to meet WaterSense criteria must be independently inspected and certified by a licensed EPA certification provider.
2) The WaterSense homes will include WaterSense-labeled plumbing fixtures, Energy Star appliances, smart landscaping, and dedicated hot-water delivery systems.
The EPA anticipates that this program will save over 12 billion gallons of water each year (based the average 1.27 million new homes built every year in the US). Additionally, by investing in WaterSense labeled homes, the EPA estimates that the average homebuyer can “reduce their water usage by more than 10,000 gallons per year” and “save enough energy annually to power a television for four years.”
So what do you think of this latest set of WaterSense specifications? Do you think that the savings alone are incentive enough to encourage homebuilders to strive for a WaterSense label? Do you think this type of consumer outreach is the first step towards name recognition on par with the EPA’s Energy Star program? And how could the EPA have insured that the program would have a significant impact?
For more on WaterSense, go to: www.epa.gov/watersense
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
In the “news you may have missed” category, I submit the WaterSense specifications announced by the EPA on December 10, 2009. While the rest of us were gearing up for the holidays, the EPA released its final specifications for new single-family homes—and the specifics are certainly worth reviewing as we head into a new year.
This new set of WaterSense specifications, three years in the making and incorporating input by a variety of stakeholders, was designed to dovetail with existing green building programs. According to the EPA’s press release, the WaterSense singly-family new homes specification creates “the first national, voluntary, water efficiency specification for an entire new home.” The new WaterSense homes will not only be 20% more efficient, according to the EPA, homeowners can expect save up to $200 a year in utility bills (as compared to existing residential structures) by employing these new efficiency standards.
The specifics of the plan include the following:
1) Any new homes aspiring to meet WaterSense criteria must be independently inspected and certified by a licensed EPA certification provider.
2) The WaterSense homes will include WaterSense-labeled plumbing fixtures, Energy Star appliances, smart landscaping, and dedicated hot-water delivery systems.
The EPA anticipates that this program will save over 12 billion gallons of water each year (based the average 1.27 million new homes built every year in the US). Additionally, by investing in WaterSense labeled homes, the EPA estimates that the average homebuyer can “reduce their water usage by more than 10,000 gallons per year” and “save enough energy annually to power a television for four years.”
So what do you think of this latest set of WaterSense specifications? Do you think that the savings alone are incentive enough to encourage homebuilders to strive for a WaterSense label? Do you think this type of consumer outreach is the first step towards name recognition on par with the EPA’s Energy Star program? And how could the EPA have insured that the program would have a significant impact?
For more on WaterSense, go to: www.epa.gov/watersense
Monday, January 4, 2010
Tri-State Co-Op
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
With all the talk these days about impending water wars, it’s heartening to hear about how three states are working together to solve their water supply and demand issues. As reported by the Yuma Sun, the Central Arizona Project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority are all splitting the $172 million cost associated with the a new storage reservoir located 25 miles west of Yuma that is being constructed as part of the rehabilitation of the All American Canal. This new reservoir will be able to capture about 70,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, water that—until now—has been lost to runoff. The project—which will be completed by September 2010—depends upon gravity (no pumps needed) created by its location to funnel water into the “six-and-a-half mile concrete-lined inlet clean that feeds the reservoir.” This inlet can transfer up to 1,800 cubic feet of water per second to the fill reservoir, and the outlet canal can then lead that water back into the All American Canal—all within three days time.
What makes this project interesting is the participation of three water purveyors who usually find themselves at odds over the water flowing through the Colorado River. With this new reservoir in place, the stored water (which will be used as needed by the Imperial Irrigation District) will free up water from Lake Mead—water that will then be allocated to the three funding agencies. This additional water from Lake Mead will go a long way towards helping those funding agencies meet ever increasing demand in the face of lingering drought on local scarcity.
So what do you think? Can this type of cooperation be duplicated in other parts of the country? Could a similar strategy work for regions like the South, where Georgia has found itself at odds with its neighbors over water allocations? And does this “interstate water-commerce” promote efficiency or does it provide yet another stopgap solution that will deter communities from making the tough conservation calls?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
With all the talk these days about impending water wars, it’s heartening to hear about how three states are working together to solve their water supply and demand issues. As reported by the Yuma Sun, the Central Arizona Project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority are all splitting the $172 million cost associated with the a new storage reservoir located 25 miles west of Yuma that is being constructed as part of the rehabilitation of the All American Canal. This new reservoir will be able to capture about 70,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, water that—until now—has been lost to runoff. The project—which will be completed by September 2010—depends upon gravity (no pumps needed) created by its location to funnel water into the “six-and-a-half mile concrete-lined inlet clean that feeds the reservoir.” This inlet can transfer up to 1,800 cubic feet of water per second to the fill reservoir, and the outlet canal can then lead that water back into the All American Canal—all within three days time.
What makes this project interesting is the participation of three water purveyors who usually find themselves at odds over the water flowing through the Colorado River. With this new reservoir in place, the stored water (which will be used as needed by the Imperial Irrigation District) will free up water from Lake Mead—water that will then be allocated to the three funding agencies. This additional water from Lake Mead will go a long way towards helping those funding agencies meet ever increasing demand in the face of lingering drought on local scarcity.
So what do you think? Can this type of cooperation be duplicated in other parts of the country? Could a similar strategy work for regions like the South, where Georgia has found itself at odds with its neighbors over water allocations? And does this “interstate water-commerce” promote efficiency or does it provide yet another stopgap solution that will deter communities from making the tough conservation calls?
Monday, December 21, 2009
Nuclear Desalination
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’ve talked a lot about the connection between energy and water, but here’s another perspective courtesy of Telegraph UK. In a commentary posted in the Finance section, Commodities Editor Garry White discusses the possibility that switching to nuclear energy could help solve our water crisis. White points to the Middle East as an example of how countries like UAE (which will see it's electricity demand double by 2020) and Saudi Arabia (which is already planning to use nuclear power for 25% of its electricity needs) are looking to nuclear power as the best way to meet their future power demands. While it's true that nuclear energy will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, there is—as White points out—an added benefit: Nuclear reactors not only generate electricity, they can also desalinate water.
In fact, nuclear desalination is already being used successfully in Kazakhstan, where one nuclear reactor sits on the shore of the Caspian Sea. During that reactor's lifespan (1972–1999), it produced 135 MW of electricity and 80,000 cubic meters of potable water every day. And nuclear desalination is not confined to the middle east—Japan and India are both using nuclear reactors to desalinate water.
So what do you think? Desalination in general is energy intensive, so does pairing it up with nuclear power make it a more viable option? And although nuclear power reduces dependence on fossil fuels—and as a result contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—does that benefit outweigh the risks? And is this just a niche solution suitable for only certain hard-pressed environments (like the Middle East), or could nuclear desalination make sense for any coastal region?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’ve talked a lot about the connection between energy and water, but here’s another perspective courtesy of Telegraph UK. In a commentary posted in the Finance section, Commodities Editor Garry White discusses the possibility that switching to nuclear energy could help solve our water crisis. White points to the Middle East as an example of how countries like UAE (which will see it's electricity demand double by 2020) and Saudi Arabia (which is already planning to use nuclear power for 25% of its electricity needs) are looking to nuclear power as the best way to meet their future power demands. While it's true that nuclear energy will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, there is—as White points out—an added benefit: Nuclear reactors not only generate electricity, they can also desalinate water.
In fact, nuclear desalination is already being used successfully in Kazakhstan, where one nuclear reactor sits on the shore of the Caspian Sea. During that reactor's lifespan (1972–1999), it produced 135 MW of electricity and 80,000 cubic meters of potable water every day. And nuclear desalination is not confined to the middle east—Japan and India are both using nuclear reactors to desalinate water.
So what do you think? Desalination in general is energy intensive, so does pairing it up with nuclear power make it a more viable option? And although nuclear power reduces dependence on fossil fuels—and as a result contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—does that benefit outweigh the risks? And is this just a niche solution suitable for only certain hard-pressed environments (like the Middle East), or could nuclear desalination make sense for any coastal region?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
What does a worst-case scenario look like?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’re all aware that we are smack dab in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, and those in the know are constantly warning us that, without proper funding and implementation of large-scale repair and rehabilitation of our conveyance systems, we are all headed towards a water resource management Armageddon. There have been some high-profile examples of what can happen when water conveyance systems start to fail, including a series of water main breaks that peppered Los Angeles earlier this year.
But this week in Kalama, WA, I think we’ve finally found an example of exactly what a worst-case scenario looks like. The facts, as reported in The Seattle Times, are as follows: On December 14, 2009 a frozen water main ruptured, resulting in a 15-foot gash and a complete draining of the municipal reservoir—over 1 million gallons lost. Adding insult to injury, the city’s other reservoir—which normally holds about 2 million gallons—is undergoing a series of repairs and is also empty. As a result, Kalama found itself completely bereft of a local water supply for several hours. Thanks to emergency measures, water service was restored to Kalama by the end of the day, but with all the attendant safety notices and boil-water alerts. Nevertheless, the Emergency Management Director for Cowlitz County, Grover Laseke, says it could take days to refill the reservoirs using wells in the area.
There’s no indication that anything other than the weather undermined Kalama’s water main, but be it Mother Nature, structural failures, or even sabotage, the result is the same: a broken pipe, a dry faucet, and a community without water. So what can Kalama, WA—population 2,000—teach us about water resource management and aging conveyance systems? Was this situation avoidable? Is the weather (and other environmental factors) a significant threat to existing pipelines and water mains, or are only aging or poorly maintained conveyance systems vulnerable? And was the situation in Kalama, two drained reservoirs, just an example of bad timing, or the canary in the gold mine, warning us all that our local supplies are always in jeopardy?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’re all aware that we are smack dab in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, and those in the know are constantly warning us that, without proper funding and implementation of large-scale repair and rehabilitation of our conveyance systems, we are all headed towards a water resource management Armageddon. There have been some high-profile examples of what can happen when water conveyance systems start to fail, including a series of water main breaks that peppered Los Angeles earlier this year.
But this week in Kalama, WA, I think we’ve finally found an example of exactly what a worst-case scenario looks like. The facts, as reported in The Seattle Times, are as follows: On December 14, 2009 a frozen water main ruptured, resulting in a 15-foot gash and a complete draining of the municipal reservoir—over 1 million gallons lost. Adding insult to injury, the city’s other reservoir—which normally holds about 2 million gallons—is undergoing a series of repairs and is also empty. As a result, Kalama found itself completely bereft of a local water supply for several hours. Thanks to emergency measures, water service was restored to Kalama by the end of the day, but with all the attendant safety notices and boil-water alerts. Nevertheless, the Emergency Management Director for Cowlitz County, Grover Laseke, says it could take days to refill the reservoirs using wells in the area.
There’s no indication that anything other than the weather undermined Kalama’s water main, but be it Mother Nature, structural failures, or even sabotage, the result is the same: a broken pipe, a dry faucet, and a community without water. So what can Kalama, WA—population 2,000—teach us about water resource management and aging conveyance systems? Was this situation avoidable? Is the weather (and other environmental factors) a significant threat to existing pipelines and water mains, or are only aging or poorly maintained conveyance systems vulnerable? And was the situation in Kalama, two drained reservoirs, just an example of bad timing, or the canary in the gold mine, warning us all that our local supplies are always in jeopardy?
Monday, December 7, 2009
All Bark and No Bite?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Earlier this year, California’s Department of Water Resources released its Pre-Final Draft of California’s Water Plan Update 2009. While the California Water Plan itself has been around since 1957, this latest version is intended to be viewed as an all-encompassing framework designed to efficiently manage California’s water resources. The 2009 plan builds upon what was originally established in the 2005 version; the two major points of which were integrated regional water management and improved statewide water management systems. The former focused on enabling individual regions within the state to implement self-sufficient strategies, while the latter focused on infrastructure upgrades and improvements. The 2009 updates goes further, listing specific areas of action and focus, including:
* Acknowledgement that the Water Plan is a living document that needs to continue to evolve in future updates
* Improved data, analytical tools, and information management and exchange
* Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
* Integrates information and recommendations from many state agency planning documents, particularly those represented on the Water Plan Steering Committee
* Integrated flood management
* Updated resource management strategies and regional reports
* Updated regional water balances to include eight years
* Consideration of uncertainty, risks, and resource sustainability into planning for the future
According to the Department of Water Resources, the 2009 update has “13 objectives that will help us achieve the Water Plan goals. Meeting these objectives, and planning and investing in their 110 related actions, will help California deal with a changing climate and other uncertainties and risks, and provide more adaptive and resilient ecosystems and more sustainable water and flood systems.”
One of the most talked about portions of this state water plan is the mandate for urban water conservation—20% by 2020 to be exact. But the vagueness of that mandate is raising eyebrows—specifically, the fact that the reduction is not based on total water used, that the regulation for reduction lacks viable enforcement methods (water districts that fail to meet the 20% goal risk eligibility for government grants and loans, but do not face fines or penalties), and the focus on urban water management without also including agriculture—which uses almost 80% of all water consumed in California.
So what do you think? Is this water plan another broad mandate with no real teeth? As critics have pointed out, regions measure water use in many different ways, and with no real baseline for usage that 20% reduction becomes meaningless. And what about failing to address the elephant in the room: California’s large water buffalos and agricultural use
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Earlier this year, California’s Department of Water Resources released its Pre-Final Draft of California’s Water Plan Update 2009. While the California Water Plan itself has been around since 1957, this latest version is intended to be viewed as an all-encompassing framework designed to efficiently manage California’s water resources. The 2009 plan builds upon what was originally established in the 2005 version; the two major points of which were integrated regional water management and improved statewide water management systems. The former focused on enabling individual regions within the state to implement self-sufficient strategies, while the latter focused on infrastructure upgrades and improvements. The 2009 updates goes further, listing specific areas of action and focus, including:
* Acknowledgement that the Water Plan is a living document that needs to continue to evolve in future updates
* Improved data, analytical tools, and information management and exchange
* Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
* Integrates information and recommendations from many state agency planning documents, particularly those represented on the Water Plan Steering Committee
* Integrated flood management
* Updated resource management strategies and regional reports
* Updated regional water balances to include eight years
* Consideration of uncertainty, risks, and resource sustainability into planning for the future
According to the Department of Water Resources, the 2009 update has “13 objectives that will help us achieve the Water Plan goals. Meeting these objectives, and planning and investing in their 110 related actions, will help California deal with a changing climate and other uncertainties and risks, and provide more adaptive and resilient ecosystems and more sustainable water and flood systems.”
One of the most talked about portions of this state water plan is the mandate for urban water conservation—20% by 2020 to be exact. But the vagueness of that mandate is raising eyebrows—specifically, the fact that the reduction is not based on total water used, that the regulation for reduction lacks viable enforcement methods (water districts that fail to meet the 20% goal risk eligibility for government grants and loans, but do not face fines or penalties), and the focus on urban water management without also including agriculture—which uses almost 80% of all water consumed in California.
So what do you think? Is this water plan another broad mandate with no real teeth? As critics have pointed out, regions measure water use in many different ways, and with no real baseline for usage that 20% reduction becomes meaningless. And what about failing to address the elephant in the room: California’s large water buffalos and agricultural use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
