(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
According to the Law of Unintended Consequences, “any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.” In other words, the outcome of a certain action or set of actions does not necessarily dovetail with the original intent and can often lead to unforeseen—and detrimental—results.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and when it comes to many environmental and conservation efforts, a triumph in once section can lead to a tragedy somewhere else. And while “sustainability” is a popular catchphrase, many “green” efforts have, in fact, the complete opposite effect.
Case in point—low-flow toilets. These days, programs focused on enlacing existing toilets with low-flow alternatives are a popular “go-to” strategy for communities looking to promote water conservation. On its surface, there’s nothing wrong with a rebate program or retrofit campaign that encourages consumers to be aware of their water consumption. In this context, low-flow fixtures are especially attractive because of the ease of implementation (simply take out that old toilet and replace it with a more efficient model), the low-cost threshold (rebates and tax breaks) and positive PR.
But as we get carried away by the pomp and circumstance of these often self-congratulatory campaigns—no one is asking one simple, but very important question: What do we do with all those old toilets?
This is not a trivial query. Old toilets are clogging up landfills all over the country—often as a result of a community retrofit/replacement campaign. Sometimes, these old toilets are recycled into concrete, which is the case in Fort Collins, CO, where the removed toilets are mixed with asphalt and used for road building. But many cities do not have the means or desire to recycle porcelain and metal, and, in those cases, the old toilets find new homes in rapidly filling landfills. In Austin, TX, a new program that helps apartment complexes install new toilets has come under fire after critics pointed out that up to 280 tons of old toilets would end up in country landfills.
Obviously, old toilets are not an issue for new construction or even extensive remodels where the old fixtures were always slated for removal and replacement. In those instances, it makes sense to require that low-flow toilets be mandated, but what about the homeowner with a properly working toilet who has no remodeling plans? Should we require the replacement of all existing toilets without regard for the consequences? And what about other alternatives that would allow old toilets to become more efficient with help of a little tweak here and there like the old “brick-in-the-tank” option familiar to those of us who grew up in California during the drought-stricken 70s?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
High Efficiency Plumbing
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
For those of you who don’t know, this week kicks off with World Water Day, an international day of observance designed to ready awareness of the world’s water crisis and to focus on the water quality, supply, and demand solutions that are available locally and around the world. As we’ve discussed many times before, for many developed countries, it’s water use (and misuse) that poses the biggest threat to our water resources.
These challenges manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including aging infrastructure, depleted groundwater supplies, and inefficient water resource management and unaccounted for water. California and Texas have taken the lead by enacting high-efficiency plumbing standards, including the requirement that all toilets sold or installed be high-efficiency fixtures (1.28 gallons or less) that comply with the EPA’s WaterSense program.
Last week, Georgia became the third state to enact a set of water efficiency standards. The law, which goes beyond the mere high-efficiency toilet, requires that high-efficiency standards be enacted (and enforced) for toilets, faucets, urinals, and cooling towers, as well as “standardized water loss reporting by public water utilities, metering of multi-family, commercial and industrial construction, and a statewide outdoor watering schedule.” In another bold move, Georgia’s law requires compliance two years earlier than California and Texas, with a due date of July 2012 for all components of the bill. Finally, by enacting this new water efficiency bill, Georgia had become the first state to require submetering of multi-unit residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
So what do you think? Is it only a matter of time before other utilities follow suit? By including the WaterSense standards into the language of these bills, has the EPA’s program begun to establish itself as an industry standard? And how easy will it be to garner public support for these requirements while at the same developing a feasible enforcement procedure?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
For those of you who don’t know, this week kicks off with World Water Day, an international day of observance designed to ready awareness of the world’s water crisis and to focus on the water quality, supply, and demand solutions that are available locally and around the world. As we’ve discussed many times before, for many developed countries, it’s water use (and misuse) that poses the biggest threat to our water resources.
These challenges manifest themselves in a variety of ways, including aging infrastructure, depleted groundwater supplies, and inefficient water resource management and unaccounted for water. California and Texas have taken the lead by enacting high-efficiency plumbing standards, including the requirement that all toilets sold or installed be high-efficiency fixtures (1.28 gallons or less) that comply with the EPA’s WaterSense program.
Last week, Georgia became the third state to enact a set of water efficiency standards. The law, which goes beyond the mere high-efficiency toilet, requires that high-efficiency standards be enacted (and enforced) for toilets, faucets, urinals, and cooling towers, as well as “standardized water loss reporting by public water utilities, metering of multi-family, commercial and industrial construction, and a statewide outdoor watering schedule.” In another bold move, Georgia’s law requires compliance two years earlier than California and Texas, with a due date of July 2012 for all components of the bill. Finally, by enacting this new water efficiency bill, Georgia had become the first state to require submetering of multi-unit residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
So what do you think? Is it only a matter of time before other utilities follow suit? By including the WaterSense standards into the language of these bills, has the EPA’s program begun to establish itself as an industry standard? And how easy will it be to garner public support for these requirements while at the same developing a feasible enforcement procedure?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Water Saving at the Corporate Level
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
If you've had a chance to play around with our new iPhone app—Waterprint—then perhaps you already know that it takes approximately 16.5 gallons of water to produce one 12-oz bottle of beer. And while it’s important for the consumer to be aware of their water footprint so that they can make educated choices designed to reduce their overall impact on water resources, for the maker of those products, getting a handle on imbedded water costs can not only lead to better conservation practices, but actually help that business stay afloat.
Case in point: Anheuser Busch.
As one of the world’s largest beer manufacturers, Anheuser Busch InBev (AB InBev) has always been aware of the water-intensive nature of the business. In 2007, the company required 5 liters of water for every liter of beer it produced.
In a statement announcing the company’s goal of reducing water consumption by 30% (3.5 liters of water per liter of beer), AB InBev CEO Carlos Brito says, “We are acutely aware that water is a finite and precious resource and the principal ingredient in our products. Efficient water use is essential to the continued, sustainable growth of our business around the world”.
A few months back we discussed the calculation of water risk (Gauging Risks), and I pointed out that a Water Index has the possibility of affecting the behavior of water-intensive companies. This was certainly the case with AB InBev, who found themselves at the top of a list of 100 companies rated by Ceres in regards to their water risk practices.
Beer is popular around the world—in different surveys it’s held everything from the fifth to top spot—and we’ve looked at efforts by the industry to effectively manage their water resources in several articles, the most recent of which appeared in the magazine last year (Green Beer). This is an educated and proactive industry, and as AB InBev demonstrates, there is no shortage of willingness to reduce water use across the board. In this week’s New York Times, AB InBev's director of environment and sustainability is quoted as saying, “Reducing water use and other natural resources is really part of how we drive efficiency in our operations. It’s simply good business.”
So what do you think? In the absence of concrete guidelines, can water-intensive enterprises rise above mere lip service and actually effect real change when it comes to water use? And is it fair to expect the same results across country lines, or should expectations be tailored to the challenges and concerns of each community touch by these big corporate enterprises? And what role—if any—can individual actions and user demands play in the quest for water efficient commercial practices?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
If you've had a chance to play around with our new iPhone app—Waterprint—then perhaps you already know that it takes approximately 16.5 gallons of water to produce one 12-oz bottle of beer. And while it’s important for the consumer to be aware of their water footprint so that they can make educated choices designed to reduce their overall impact on water resources, for the maker of those products, getting a handle on imbedded water costs can not only lead to better conservation practices, but actually help that business stay afloat.
Case in point: Anheuser Busch.
As one of the world’s largest beer manufacturers, Anheuser Busch InBev (AB InBev) has always been aware of the water-intensive nature of the business. In 2007, the company required 5 liters of water for every liter of beer it produced.
In a statement announcing the company’s goal of reducing water consumption by 30% (3.5 liters of water per liter of beer), AB InBev CEO Carlos Brito says, “We are acutely aware that water is a finite and precious resource and the principal ingredient in our products. Efficient water use is essential to the continued, sustainable growth of our business around the world”.
A few months back we discussed the calculation of water risk (Gauging Risks), and I pointed out that a Water Index has the possibility of affecting the behavior of water-intensive companies. This was certainly the case with AB InBev, who found themselves at the top of a list of 100 companies rated by Ceres in regards to their water risk practices.
Beer is popular around the world—in different surveys it’s held everything from the fifth to top spot—and we’ve looked at efforts by the industry to effectively manage their water resources in several articles, the most recent of which appeared in the magazine last year (Green Beer). This is an educated and proactive industry, and as AB InBev demonstrates, there is no shortage of willingness to reduce water use across the board. In this week’s New York Times, AB InBev's director of environment and sustainability is quoted as saying, “Reducing water use and other natural resources is really part of how we drive efficiency in our operations. It’s simply good business.”
So what do you think? In the absence of concrete guidelines, can water-intensive enterprises rise above mere lip service and actually effect real change when it comes to water use? And is it fair to expect the same results across country lines, or should expectations be tailored to the challenges and concerns of each community touch by these big corporate enterprises? And what role—if any—can individual actions and user demands play in the quest for water efficient commercial practices?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Household Water Use
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As you all know by now, last week Water Efficiency and Forester Media Inc. unveiled Waterprint, our first iPhone application. Waterprint is intended to be a fun and educational tool designed to make users aware of the virtual water imbedded in the products and behaviors typical of daily life in the developed world. We plan on continually updating the application, and part of the process involves you, the user.
In fact, many of the comments I’ve received have revolved around the “household” section of the application. As we explain in the “information” section of the application, “Household water use runs the gamut from toilets to lawns, and all the gallons associated with those activities can be measured and mitigated.”
While we briefly discuss the impact of toilet flushes and running faucets, we plan to expand our coverage of household water use and water efficient fixtures and technologies in subsequent versions of the Waterprint application. After all, the EPA has concluded that the installation of WaterSense fixtures could save a family of four 17,000 gallons a year—and that's a significant amount of water no matter where you live.
When talking about household water use, it’s also important to address the issue of leaks. Leaks, also known as “unaccounted for water,” account for 6 billion gallons of water per day in the US. That 6 billion includes water lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. As we point out in the information section of the Waterprint application, 6 billion gallons is “enough water to supply 10 of the largest urban centers in the country.” It’s the antithesis of efficiency and an appalling misuse of one of our most valuable resources—especially in a world where so many communities struggle to supply enough water to fulfill the basic needs of their citizens. And keep in mind that when you factor in the amount of energy required to treat and transport all of that lost water (approximately 3 gallons for every kilowatt) the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
We’ve already received a lot of feedback, along with some helpful suggestions and important questions. Please keep sending in your insights, questions, complaints, challenges, and comments. With your help, we are confident that our first iPhone application can become a powerful tool for change
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As you all know by now, last week Water Efficiency and Forester Media Inc. unveiled Waterprint, our first iPhone application. Waterprint is intended to be a fun and educational tool designed to make users aware of the virtual water imbedded in the products and behaviors typical of daily life in the developed world. We plan on continually updating the application, and part of the process involves you, the user.
In fact, many of the comments I’ve received have revolved around the “household” section of the application. As we explain in the “information” section of the application, “Household water use runs the gamut from toilets to lawns, and all the gallons associated with those activities can be measured and mitigated.”
While we briefly discuss the impact of toilet flushes and running faucets, we plan to expand our coverage of household water use and water efficient fixtures and technologies in subsequent versions of the Waterprint application. After all, the EPA has concluded that the installation of WaterSense fixtures could save a family of four 17,000 gallons a year—and that's a significant amount of water no matter where you live.
When talking about household water use, it’s also important to address the issue of leaks. Leaks, also known as “unaccounted for water,” account for 6 billion gallons of water per day in the US. That 6 billion includes water lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. As we point out in the information section of the Waterprint application, 6 billion gallons is “enough water to supply 10 of the largest urban centers in the country.” It’s the antithesis of efficiency and an appalling misuse of one of our most valuable resources—especially in a world where so many communities struggle to supply enough water to fulfill the basic needs of their citizens. And keep in mind that when you factor in the amount of energy required to treat and transport all of that lost water (approximately 3 gallons for every kilowatt) the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
We’ve already received a lot of feedback, along with some helpful suggestions and important questions. Please keep sending in your insights, questions, complaints, challenges, and comments. With your help, we are confident that our first iPhone application can become a powerful tool for change
Monday, February 22, 2010
What's Your Waterprint?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Did you know that it takes 30 gallons of water to produce one cup of coffee? And that half-pound steak you had for dinner required 774 gallons of water to get from the ranch to your table. Where do these numbers come from, and what do they mean? These total refer to water footprints, and the totals themselves are calculated by adding up the total amount of freshwater used to create a particular item or support a specific activity.
The idea of a water footprint was first introduced by A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung from UNESCO-IHE in 2002. Hoekstra and Hung believed that one should total up both the direct and indirect water used by a particular entity—consumer, community, or commercial/industrial enterprise—so that total amount of freshwater needed to produce the goods and services consumed by that entity could be measured. These measurements include the actual water in the product, along with all the virtual water embedded in every action associated with the cultivation, collection, and delivery of that item.
The water footprint of foodstuffs, for example, include actions by the farmer, food processor, retailer, and consumer. These tasks that consume actual water include growing, harvesting, delivering, or purchasing a food item. But the cultivation and exportation of food brings with it a variety of embedded water costs, including those associated with the byproducts created by food cultivation (agricultural runoff for example), as well as the items and actions necessary for the production and distribution of food. (This includes fertilizers and insecticides, as well as the fuel required for transportation and the packaging that keeps the food safe and fresh as it travels from field to home.)
But what does water footprinting (or virtual water) have to do with water efficiency? Well, as I stated in an editorial on the subject last year, entitled “How Much Is That Droplet in the Window, “efficiency depends upon the ratio of work expended to benefit received. Many times, there are a variety of methods available to achieve a particular end, and knowing which of those many options is less water-intensive can make a big difference. As I’ve stated before, I believe that by redefining how we measure the value of water—by monitoring our “water footprint” and keeping track of our virtual water costs—we can harness new tools to help us protect, and efficiently manage, our resources.”
In keeping with our commitment to provide you with all the information and tools necessary to manage your water resources, I’m excited about our latest venture, the first Water Efficiency iPhone application: Waterprint. Waterprint is a free application that lists and calculates how much water is imbedded in a variety of activities and products, including what you wear, eat, and drink. You can learn more about the application at the Waterprint Web site, and it’s available now at the App Store. If you’re iPhone enabled, please take it for a spin and let us know what you think. We plan to continue to update and improve the application, and, as always, your feedback is a valuable resource for us.
For more on the origins of the water footprint concept (as well as a list of the many water footprint totals we’ve included in our application), go to: www.waterfootprint.org.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Did you know that it takes 30 gallons of water to produce one cup of coffee? And that half-pound steak you had for dinner required 774 gallons of water to get from the ranch to your table. Where do these numbers come from, and what do they mean? These total refer to water footprints, and the totals themselves are calculated by adding up the total amount of freshwater used to create a particular item or support a specific activity.
The idea of a water footprint was first introduced by A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung from UNESCO-IHE in 2002. Hoekstra and Hung believed that one should total up both the direct and indirect water used by a particular entity—consumer, community, or commercial/industrial enterprise—so that total amount of freshwater needed to produce the goods and services consumed by that entity could be measured. These measurements include the actual water in the product, along with all the virtual water embedded in every action associated with the cultivation, collection, and delivery of that item.
The water footprint of foodstuffs, for example, include actions by the farmer, food processor, retailer, and consumer. These tasks that consume actual water include growing, harvesting, delivering, or purchasing a food item. But the cultivation and exportation of food brings with it a variety of embedded water costs, including those associated with the byproducts created by food cultivation (agricultural runoff for example), as well as the items and actions necessary for the production and distribution of food. (This includes fertilizers and insecticides, as well as the fuel required for transportation and the packaging that keeps the food safe and fresh as it travels from field to home.)
But what does water footprinting (or virtual water) have to do with water efficiency? Well, as I stated in an editorial on the subject last year, entitled “How Much Is That Droplet in the Window, “efficiency depends upon the ratio of work expended to benefit received. Many times, there are a variety of methods available to achieve a particular end, and knowing which of those many options is less water-intensive can make a big difference. As I’ve stated before, I believe that by redefining how we measure the value of water—by monitoring our “water footprint” and keeping track of our virtual water costs—we can harness new tools to help us protect, and efficiently manage, our resources.”
In keeping with our commitment to provide you with all the information and tools necessary to manage your water resources, I’m excited about our latest venture, the first Water Efficiency iPhone application: Waterprint. Waterprint is a free application that lists and calculates how much water is imbedded in a variety of activities and products, including what you wear, eat, and drink. You can learn more about the application at the Waterprint Web site, and it’s available now at the App Store. If you’re iPhone enabled, please take it for a spin and let us know what you think. We plan to continue to update and improve the application, and, as always, your feedback is a valuable resource for us.
For more on the origins of the water footprint concept (as well as a list of the many water footprint totals we’ve included in our application), go to: www.waterfootprint.org.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Lawsuits, Pipelines, and One Tiny Fish
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As we all know, agricultural irrigation commands a majority of community water allocations in many parts of the country. In California for example, agricultural irrigation accounts for 41% of all water use, and about 30% of that water is supplied by groundwater extraction, with the remaining 20% coming from the state’s extensive conveyance system that involves a series of dams, canals, and pumping plants. Perhaps the most famous of these conveyance sources is the San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta—subject of many lawsuits and continuing battleground for environmental versus agricultural interests.
Last week, Judge Oliver Wanger of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California supplied yet another twist to the ongoing delta smelt saga. Ruling against agricultural interests, Wanger reinstated water flow restrictions that had been recently lifted. These restrictions were initially put in place for the protection of the endangered delta smelt, and while they do not foreclose all pumping at the delta, they do significantly limit the amount of water that can be pumped (and delivered to California’s farmers throughout the central valley).
So what do you think? Are lawsuits and restraining orders the best way to reduce the impact of agricultural irrigation? Or does it make more sense to encourage an open dialogue between competing interests? In Queensland, Australia, community groups and local governments are working with farmers to develop a water resource management plan focused on protecting supply and keeping demand within “sustainable” standards—could a similar program help California and other water-strapped/agriculture-heavy states?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As we all know, agricultural irrigation commands a majority of community water allocations in many parts of the country. In California for example, agricultural irrigation accounts for 41% of all water use, and about 30% of that water is supplied by groundwater extraction, with the remaining 20% coming from the state’s extensive conveyance system that involves a series of dams, canals, and pumping plants. Perhaps the most famous of these conveyance sources is the San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta—subject of many lawsuits and continuing battleground for environmental versus agricultural interests.
Last week, Judge Oliver Wanger of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California supplied yet another twist to the ongoing delta smelt saga. Ruling against agricultural interests, Wanger reinstated water flow restrictions that had been recently lifted. These restrictions were initially put in place for the protection of the endangered delta smelt, and while they do not foreclose all pumping at the delta, they do significantly limit the amount of water that can be pumped (and delivered to California’s farmers throughout the central valley).
So what do you think? Are lawsuits and restraining orders the best way to reduce the impact of agricultural irrigation? Or does it make more sense to encourage an open dialogue between competing interests? In Queensland, Australia, community groups and local governments are working with farmers to develop a water resource management plan focused on protecting supply and keeping demand within “sustainable” standards—could a similar program help California and other water-strapped/agriculture-heavy states?
Monday, February 8, 2010
One Million Acre-Feet
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Last month, Dr. Peter Gleick (President, Pacific Institute) discussed California’s water problems, including the state’s need to come up with an additional 1 million acre-feet of water to fulfill current and future demand. In an article that originally appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, Gleick does a wonderful job of discussing both California’s successes (25 years of improved water efficiency) and failures (less than 40% of all toilets in the state are low-flow or HET commodes).
Gleick goes on to discuss a series of reports recently completed by the Pacific Institute that “provide a comprehensive statewide analysis of California’s urban and agricultural water needs.” While the reports focus on California, I think the information they contain—including how existing technologies can be harnessed for immediate water efficiency results—is applicable to any community concerned about water resource management.
So how does one community go about finding an additional 1 million acre-feet of water? The Pacific Institute reports enumerate two effect starting points:
* 400,000 acre-feet of water per year by urban users conserved by replacing inefficient fixtures (toilets, showerheads, commercial spray-rinse nozzles, and washing machines) with their low-flow counterparts.
* The remaining 600,000 acre-feet per year of water can be saved through smart irrigation, regulated deficit irrigation, and converting orchards and vineyards to drip and sprinkler irrigation.
So what do you think? Do you have faith in smart irrigation technologies and low-flow fixtures? And is enough being done to make it easy and economically feasible for communities large and small to embrace these effective water conservation tools?
Click here to read more.
(Originally posted February 8th, 2010 10:00am PST)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Last month, Dr. Peter Gleick (President, Pacific Institute) discussed California’s water problems, including the state’s need to come up with an additional 1 million acre-feet of water to fulfill current and future demand. In an article that originally appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, Gleick does a wonderful job of discussing both California’s successes (25 years of improved water efficiency) and failures (less than 40% of all toilets in the state are low-flow or HET commodes).
Gleick goes on to discuss a series of reports recently completed by the Pacific Institute that “provide a comprehensive statewide analysis of California’s urban and agricultural water needs.” While the reports focus on California, I think the information they contain—including how existing technologies can be harnessed for immediate water efficiency results—is applicable to any community concerned about water resource management.
So how does one community go about finding an additional 1 million acre-feet of water? The Pacific Institute reports enumerate two effect starting points:
* 400,000 acre-feet of water per year by urban users conserved by replacing inefficient fixtures (toilets, showerheads, commercial spray-rinse nozzles, and washing machines) with their low-flow counterparts.
* The remaining 600,000 acre-feet per year of water can be saved through smart irrigation, regulated deficit irrigation, and converting orchards and vineyards to drip and sprinkler irrigation.
So what do you think? Do you have faith in smart irrigation technologies and low-flow fixtures? And is enough being done to make it easy and economically feasible for communities large and small to embrace these effective water conservation tools?
Click here to read more.
(Originally posted February 8th, 2010 10:00am PST)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
