Flushing away valuable energy

TORONTO-Every time we flush the toilet or turn on the tap, we wash energy down the drain. The cost of pumping, distribution and treatment of water and wastewater is consistently the highest figure on the electricity bill of Ontario municipalities.

To put it into perspective, Toronto Water uses more electricity than the TTC and five times the energy consumed by all the city’s streetlights and traffic signals. Energy costs for water pumping and treatment cost the Region of Peel an estimated $25 million in 2006.

Cities and now the province are only beginning to recognize the critical nexus between water and energy. The most recent evidence of this recognition is in the Green Energy Act, which explicitly links energy efficiency and water efficiency, a first in Canada.

This connection is encouraging since water efficiency is among the most cost-effective energy reduction strategies. In California, the Energy Commission found that implementation of all identified water conservation measures could “achieve 95% of the savings expected from the 2006-2008 energy efficiency programs, at 58% of the cost.”

How can Ontario act to reduce the energy and dollars we flush down the drain?

An obvious place to start would be utilizing the new provisions of the Green Energy Act to ban the sale of 13-litre toilets– still on the shelves of your local hardware store despite the availability of toilets that use a quarter of the water — something the U.S. did more than 15 years ago in its Energy Policy Act.

Another key action under the Green Energy Act would be to make water conservation a simple choice for Ontario consumers by adopting WaterSense, the water efficiency equivalent of the successful EnergyStar consumer labeling program. The province should also ensure new homes and buildings are as water efficient as possible by incorporating water efficiency standards into the review of the Ontario Building Code required under the Act.

Two other critical opportunities where the province can take action on the water-energy nexus are infrastructure funding and its upcoming water conservation and efficiency strategy.

With smart spending on 21st century water infrastructure — specifically water efficiency and green infrastructure — the province would defer construction of energy-sucking water pipelines and treatment plants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention saving billions of taxpayer dollars.

Read full article

Source: Toronto Sun

Government, Planning and the Politics of Water

In addressing the issue of water in the Southwest we must be willing to recognize that prior solutions have not addressed the core problem. We have been basing solutions on simply increasing supplies.

Reservoirs and dams were built with wide surface areas resulting in huge evaporative losses, aquifers were pumped to the maximum, urban water conservation was voluntary and private wells were unmetered. Supply was there. Sometimes new sources, such as Owens Lake in California, or the San Juan /Chama diversion in NM were piped to urban centers to increase supply.

Supply solutions are still available. Desalination of ocean waters, dredging reservoirs and deep aquifer drilling are playing a new role in the discussions as the old sources dry up or prove unable to address increased demand. New deep water, low surface area, high altitude reservoirs can be built. Brackish water can still be tapped from deep aquifers and desalinated. Water pumped in rural areas with low demand can still be piped to urban areas. In other words, there remains the capacity to continue to address water management and administration in the same old way.

Current droughts in the SouthWest have raised new concerns. Is the drought caused by climate change? Is the drought a periodic historical episode of decreasing regional precipitation? What about the new risks of geological subsidence, ocean water intrusion into the water table and the reduction of groundwater flows to surface waters? These issues raise their raise their heads as aquifers are mined and groundwater levels decline and precipitation decrease.

That being said, it is worth our while to compare the current financial crisis with the impending water crisis that has already manifested in many areas of the US. For years, business as usual for urban residents has been to assume that municipal governments and state governments are up to the task. The water budgets of our regions have been overextended based on presumed maintenance of water supply from aquifers and surface water flows. Decisions are made based on short-term supply projections that no longer stand the test of reality. Water users are not included in the decision-making processes. Water planning is often projected as an ancillary process removed from the actual political decisions by governmental entities.

Read full article

Source: OpEdNews

Washington DC, New York and California Coast Could Soon Be Underwater

ScienceDaily (Feb. 5, 2009) — University of Toronto and Oregon State University geophysicists have shown that should the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse and melt in a warming world – as many scientists are concerned it will – it is the coastlines of North America and of nations in the southern Indian Ocean that will face the greatest threats from rising sea levels.

The catastrophic increase in sea level, already projected to average between 16 and 17 feet around the world, would be almost 21 feet in such places as Washington, D.C., scientists say, putting it largely underwater. Many coastal areas would be devastated. Much of Southern Florida would disappear, according to researchers at Oregon State University.

“There is widespread concern that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be prone to collapse, resulting in a rise in global sea levels,” says geophysicist Jerry X. Mitrovica, who, along with physics graduate student Natalya Gomez and Oregon State University geoscientist Peter Clark, are the authors of a new study to be published in the February 6 issue of the journal Science. “We’ve been able to calculate that not only will the rise in sea levels at most coastal sites be significantly higher than previously expected, but that the sea-level change will be highly variable around the globe,” adds Gomez.

“The net effect of all of these processes is that if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses, the rise in sea levels around many coastal regions will be as much as 25 per cent more than expected, for a total of between six and seven metres if the whole ice sheet melts,” says Mitrovica. “That’s a lot of additional water, particularly around such highly populated areas as Washington, D.C., New York City, and the California coastline.”

Click here for digital animation of what various sea-level rise scenarios might look like for up to six metres.

Read full article

Source: Science Daily

Water Conservation: Garden Water Savings

By Phil The Gardener

Each of us should do our part to save water. Water is a necessary element in the sustenance of life. It becomes a strong issue in areas where there isn’t enough clean and sanitary water for people to drink. You have to admit we take a lot for granted.

As the days get shorter and they are not as intense we don’t have the evaporation by the sun like we did during the long hot summer days. Plants don’t require as much water to stay healthy.

Take a look around you as you drive through your neighborhood, and you’ll see how your neighbors do their part to conserve water. Some do real well, others never change their sprinkler timer from the time it was installed.

Your lawn and plants require less water in cooler temperatures so your sprinkler timer should be adjusted accordingly to save you lots of dollars on your water bill, especially if you have a meter.

With good soil preparation around your plants and regulating the amount of water you apply, your plants can be trained to put out more roots this will encourage them to flourish with less water.

Cities around the country that are located in areas that don’t get enough water for your plants to live without irrigation enforce water restrictions to conserve this necessary resource.

Check with your local water district to see what days you are allowed to water at your address. The schedules are generally odd and even days with the odd-numbered addresses taking one side of the street and the even-numbered addresses take the other.

Adjust your sprinkler timer for the correct watering days for your side of the street. Make adjustments to the amount of time each zone is allowed to water depending on the type of plant material you are applying water to.

Another way to reduce your water usage is to just walk around your yard and identify the areas where there is being too much water applied by your sprinklers. Make the necessary adjustments by changing the nozzle or repairing broken heads.  Hand water dry spots for new plantings instead of running that zone will save water.

Water Down The Drain

By Crhis Olson, To Inspire and Mobilize

A major aspect of my Lutheran Volunteer Corps year deals with forming intentional community around the three tenets of Social Justice, Sustainability, and Community. One of the issues that our house as been talking about is water conservation, specifically around our dishwasher. We didn’t expect to have many amenities in our house since so much of the LVC experience is about simplified living, but were surprised to find a well furnished home when we arrived (thanks to the generous folks at Ballard First Lutheran next door and the keenly honed rummaging skills of past LVC house dwellers). Dishwasher use immediately became one of our topics of conversation. Some of us saw the community value in chatting around the sink while doing the dishes. I have had wonderfully rich conversations with past roommates while holding a sponge in one hand and a dirty plate in the other. My other housemates were pushing for filling the dishwasher and spending community time doing other things, getting the dishes out the way and moving on with the night. Ultimately the decision came down to the LVC tenet of sustainability, would we save more water using our dishwasher or washing our dishes by hand? We all thought we knew the answer, but each housemate had a different idea with a different logic behind it and all of them made sense in one way or another. I started to do some research on the subject and found a few articles and studies that compared dishwashers vs hand washing.

Here is a summary of what I found:

The first dishwasher was created in 1850 and consisted of a wooden box with a hand-cranked wheel that splashed water onto the dirty dishes (HA!). Since the mid 1800’s, dishwasher technology has evolved and throughout the latter half of the 20th century grew in popularity. According to a study done by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the two main problems with dishwashers stem from energy and water efficiency. The authors of the study write, “The implementation of energy standards for appliances by the U.S. Department of Energy established new benchmarks for energy and water efficiency. A significant proportion of the energy savings for today’s automatic dishwashers comes from the reduction in hot water use. Because energy is used to heat water, less water use by a dishwasher also means reduced energy use. In 1978, 83% of a dishwasher’s energy use went to heating water, with 10% used for washing and 7% for drying (Enders, 1978). By 1994, only 56% of the energy used by the dishwasher was to heat water (Whirlpool Corporation, 1993). A significant reduction in water usage resulted from designing more efficient wash systems that incorporate direct water delivery and improved soil-handling systems (Dzierwa, 1994). The average water use per dishwasher cycle decreased from a range of 11-15 gallons per normal cycle in 1978 (Garrett, 1978) to 6-10 gallons per normal cycle in 2000 (Soap and Detergent Association [SDA], 2000).”

The dishwasher has become a more viable option in recent years, especially when compared with recent studies on hand washing dishes. “Scientists at the University of Bonn [pdf] in Germany who studied the issue found that the dishwasher uses only half the energy, one-sixth of the water, and less soap than hand-washing an identical set of dirty dishes. Even the most sparing and careful washers could not beat the modern dishwasher.”

However, even when using a dishwasher some people still wash-by-hand to a certain extent. This has direct consequences on water conservation. “One consumer decision that greatly affects water and energy usage during dish washing is rinsing the dishes before washing them in the dishwasher. If dishes are pre-rinsed using a dishwasher pre-rinse cycle, approximately one gallon of water is used. Pre-rinsing in the sink under running water, however, uses up to 25 gallons of water for 5 minutes of pre-rinsing–a substantial difference. In the study discussed here, 93% did some pre-rinsing of dishes in the sink, and 48% rinsed five or more times per week. With the estimated water use of up to 25 gallons per meal, this practice represents a substantial use of water and energy.”

So, dishwashers seem to be the better choice as long as you have a recent model and stay away from pre-washing your own dishes. My LVC house is still working out the details on our simplicity strategy, but its nice to have a little back ground to base our decision on. I’m placing two of the article links at the bottom of the blog and the other research paper has a link if you click within the text on the “University of Bonn”.

In The Interest of Fresh Water Conservation

By Phil’s Green Room

Here’s an article that appeared in the New York Times today regarding a ban on diverting water from the Great Lakes. I certainly believe that the fresh water issue is imminent, and the discussion in Congress certainly supports that contention.

Bart Stupak has taken the position that the ban doesn’t go far enough leaving loopholes that do not bode well for the future:

(From the NYTimes article by Susan Saulny) “Because these concerns remain unaddressed,” Mr. Stupak said in a statement, “I regret that I have to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the compact until proper protections are put in place.”

“I see no reason why we must rush this process when our nation’s most precious natural resource is at stake,” said Mr. Stupak, whose district borders three of the lakes, calling the bottled-water exemption a loophole that could be used for large-scale diversion, exactly what the compact seeks to prevent.”

Sounding the Alarm Bell on Water

By: La Marguerite

I know, I know, the economy and partisan politics have taken over our conversations, leaving little room for anything else, let alone problems that are still removed from the reality of our lives. Huge global issues such as the water crisis. A chance business meeting with a friend, about to launch a new water efficiency venture, got me thinking about water. Just as with deforestation, and biodiversity loss, I am shocked by the magnitude of the problem, and the corresponding relative inaction to curb it.

The water crisis raises some critical questions about water economics, water ethics, water technology, water efficiency, water conservation, water waste, water inequities, water rights, water laws, water politics, water awareness . . . all of which need to be addressed at the various appropriate levels.

As with other global environmental issues, it is easy to feel lost as an individual citizen. Yet, there is lots one can do to favorably impact the situation:

* boycott bottled water
* conserve water at home, and other places
* blog about it, and also comment on other blogs
* support watchdog organizations such as Food and Water Watch
* support legislation to encourage water conservation and efficiency
* share problem and possible solutions with friends

You may also want to go see “Flow”, Irena Salina’s recently released documentary on water.

Nestle Eyes Water in Chaffee County, CO – Despite Laws Protecting Basin From Water Removal

Nestle Waters of North America is in the process of cutting a deal with the town of Salida, CO and the Arkansas River Conservation District. The goal? Avoid laws created to prevent the wholesale removal of water from a specific basin.

From Chris Woodka of the Pueblo Chieftan:

Nestle Waters North America, Salida and the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District are working on a deal that would allow the bottled water giant to ship up to 200 acre-feet of water a year to its Denver plant, possibly to market as spring water.

The spring is located in Nathrop, north of Salida.

Essentially, Nestle would take advantage of the Upper Ark’s augmentation plan to use Salida’s water to replace the water it pumps from a well near a spring on property it is buying near Nathrop. Salida would sell the company excess water for 20 years, and the Upper Ark’s augmentation plan would allow the water to be used to replace flows, since Salida’s water cannot be used outside the city without a change in court decree.

Unfortunately, those charged with protecting the Arkansas River seem happy to see the water leave the basin (from the same story):

Some have asked why the Upper Ark would support moving water from the basin, but Scanga believes bottling water is no different than his family business, meat packing and marketing, where animals are raised on water in one basin, slaughtered and shipped all over the country.“It’s the same thing, putting water in a bottle or putting water in an animal,” Scanga said.

We’d like to go on record as suggesting bottling water is not the same as raising livestock – and the laws in place seemingly recognize that reality.

Little Local Opposition

I spoke to Pueblo Chieftan reporter Woodka about the deal, and he says local opposition is light; while some have questioned the removal of so much water from the basin – and the odd thinking of Scanga (the man charged with protecting the basin’s water) – there isn’t much in the way of widespread opposition to Nestle’s proposed water mining operation.

Still, even if those charged with protecting the watershed are OK with the removal, the other impacts to the area are the same facing rural communities everywhere.

Truck Impacts to the Area

One of the biggest is an increase in truck traffic: Mapquest tells us Nestle’s Denver plant is approximately 140 miles from Salida, and the story suggests Nestle wants to pull as much as 65 million gallons of water annually. Given an average 6,000 gallon water load (water’s heavy, so tankers typically carry less than a gasoline tanker might), that means the area’s looking at 60 truck trips per day (30 trucks coming and going) – every day of the year.

In addition, the tankers will likely take US 285 – a winding road that takes in several high passes in the Rocky Mountains, a reality which suggests Salida’s going to see a lot more truck traffic in the summer months than the winter.

A Recurring Pattern

This attempt to remove water from the Upper Arkansas River neatly follows Nestle’s operations in other areas; they establish the bottling plant, then begin tapping other water sources in the area – increasing impacts like truck traffic, noise, pollution, and water withdrawals from underground sources – with little or no economic return to the area.

Let’s hope Colorado wakes up before it’s too late.

Source: StopNestleWaters.org

For more information about water conservation, visit our LEARN section

Gray-water ordinance good policy

By Rodney Glassman

Water conservation will always be needed in Tucson. With Arizona sitting at the bottom of the Colorado River and our city located at the bottom of the Central Arizona Project, as shortages are declared on the Colorado River it is our city that will be dramatically impacted.

The City Council has committed to requiring gray-water plumbing on all new residential construction. The time has come to turn our commitment into reality.

Gray water, which is defined and regulated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, is created from residential water uses such as baths, showers, washing machines, and bathroom sinks and is mostly suited for the subsurface irrigation of non-edible landscape plants. It differs from black water, which is the name used to describe water flushed from toilets and water from kitchen sinks, garbage disposals and dishwashers.

According to the Tucson Water Department, more than 45 percent of the water used in single-family residences is for outdoor landscaping. Yet the average Tucson home can produce enough gray water to satisfy its own irrigation needs for a yard planted with native species.

This past spring, the City Council created a stakeholder group with members ranging from the Tucson Association of Realtors and the Arizona Builders Alliance to the Tucson Audubon Society and Sierra Club. For more than eight months, the group met regularly, receiving presentations, exploring concepts and identifying the best ways to create a policy ensuring that all new homes would be “gray-water ready.”

Yet when the group’s “draft” ordinance was presented to the City Council, the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, which helped draft the policy, spoke against the concept.

In a guest opinion in the Arizona Daily Star, a representative of the home builders wrote, “Well-intentioned members of the Tucson City Council want to mandate a requirement for gray-water systems within the city limits. The logic is that homeowners, at a later date at their expense, might install the additional piping and hardware to complete the gray-water system.”

The council couldn’t have summed it up better ourselves.

After meeting with members of the council, SAHBA wrote, “We endorse the concept of gray-water harvesting and are officially removing our public and formal opposition.”

Organizations from across the community agree that “plumbing” for gray-water systems places conservation firmly in the hands of the homeowner, where it belongs.

While we must be sensitive to the fact that there is a crisis in the homebuilding industry, the City Council has a responsibility to ensure that the new construction of today facilitates the green living of tomorrow.

Read full article

Source: The Arizona Daily Star

For more information about water conservation, visit our LEARN section

Jordanians, Israelis and Palestinians Collaborate to Save the Jordan River

Sep 18th, 2008 by Ilana Teitelbaum

There are few environmental topics in the Middle East more controversial than the proposed Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal to revive the Dead Sea, which has the potential to cause lasting damage to the composition of the sea’s ecosystem.

The multinational organization Friends of the Earth Middle East (FEME), who are working to build a peace park to restore the Jordan River, have an effective rejoinder to counter the Canal proposal.

With the use of water conservation and rainwater harvesting on the part of communities in Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan, FEME seeks to restore the Jordan River–and thereby restore the main water source of the Dead Sea.

According to Gidon Bromberg, Israel’s Director of FEME, restoring the Jordan River may be the first step to achieving Middle East peace.

Read full article

Source: Green Prohet

For more information about water conservation, visit our LEARN section

Next Page »