So there was recently an article posted by a local news station calling out the biggest water users in Tampa Bay. I was shocked and appalled to learn how much water the biggest users use (which are single-family residences): 3,292,000; 3,250,000; 2,101,000; 1,232,000; and 1,058,000 gallons of water last year!! That's not the worst of it. The "water king of Tampa Bay" consumed 3.3 million gallons of water last year, which "was down about 3 million gallons from his 2008 consumption." Unbelievable. I knew there were some people who used a lot of water but I never dreamed it would be this...excessive...I'm not sure there is even a word that can describe their ridiculous, needless consumption.
Of course these are people who are extremely wealthy and their outrageous water bills don't phase them in the least. To put their consumption in perspective, the average U.S. family of four uses about an acre-foot of water per year, which is 325,581 gallons. The article says that the average family in Tampa Bay uses 70,000 gallons per year. These people are using 10 to 50 times more than that. One of the comments posted said that they should not only be fined but their water should be turned off. Although I think this may be a little extreme, something has to be done.
This brings up the issue of water pricing. Municipal water in most of the U.S. is extremely underpriced at around $0.001 per gallon (think about how much bottled water is sold for). Not only that but not all municipal water is priced the same. In some cases, there is a uniform rate structure where users pay a flat fee per 1,000 gallons regardless of how much they use. In some cases users pay less per 1,000 gallons the more they use and in other cases users pay more per 1,000 gallons the more they use, which are called decreasing-block (or declining-block) and increasing-block (or inclining-block) rate structures, respectively. There are also seasonal rate structures where water is priced higher during peak demands--when water use is higher--which is typically in the summer. The most effective rate structure is budget-based rates--although this does involve an investment on the utility side through proper technology and labor costs. Typically, each residence is categorized by how many people live there and about how big their yard is. Using this data, a water budget (which is more than ample) is calculated. If the user goes over the budgeted consumption, they are charged considerably more per 1,000 gallons and if they go under their budget, they are rewarded by paying less per 1,000 gallons. This incentivizes people to be smart about their consumption. There is a lot more detail to water rates and rate structures that I could go on an on about, but that is the nuts-and-bolts of it.
Furthermore, utilities aren't out to make a profit on providing water and wastewater services, they price water based on how much it costs them to provide it, including electricity costs to pump and distribute water and infrastructure maintenance costs. However, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave water infrastructure in the country a D-. This is because most of the water infrastructure is in its original form--that is never replaced--and in most cases, over 100 years old. It hasn't been replaced because it's "out of sight and out of mind." People can't see that there is anything wrong until a water main breaks. Therefore, in some cases it's hard to raise rates to cover the costs to preemptively fix old pipes to prevent the headache from a water main break if the public can't see that replacement is necessary. The EPA estimates that water pricing for utilities is going to increase dramatically in the next decade just to cover the costs of replacing and maintaining water infrastructure.
In my opinion, there should be a budget-based water rate structure or at least an increasing-block structure that has large jumps in price from tier to tier when consumption becomes preposterous. People have a right to water and low-income families should be able to afford enough water to live. This means that the first few thousand gallons (per month) should be priced at an affordable--maybe even subsidized rate. When consumption reaches over say 5,000 gallons is when the price per 1,000 gallons starts to climb up and each tier after that should be exponentially higher. If a household is using more than 10,000 gallons per month, then most likely that water is being used for other purposes besides survival and sanitation--i.e., keeping a green lawn. As for the "Million Gallon Club" in Tampa Bay, the water management district is only authorizing them to be surcharged only when there is a period of water shortage. What do I think? I think they should be fined at least $1 per gallon over 10,000 gallons on top of their water bill each month until they get their water use in check and keep it that way.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
It's Raining...So Why Are the Sprinklers On?
We haven't had any rain to speak of in much of the Tampa Bay Area in the past month, and it's finally raining! But why are the sprinklers on when there's a downpour? And maybe, more importantly, why are they watering the road? I do know the answer to those questions, but I feel that I shouldn't be the only one asking them.
The whole topic of efficient landscape irrigation is not as complex as one might think. It does involve a little technology and routine maintenance, but that's not a far stretch from what most people are doing already. Plus, it can save water--and money--in the long term, which is something we should all be doing.
Outdoor water use in the U.S. can account for anywhere from 50-90% of daily per capita water consumption, depending on where you live. If you live in the Northeast where rain is relatively abundant, you'll probably be on the lower end and if you live in the Desert Southwest, you'll probably be on the higher end. It's also important to note that practically all of the water used outdoors is to keep lawns green.
Let's talk about technology. There are weather-based sensors that can be put on sprinkler heads that will prevent the sprinklers from turning on when the grass or landscaping doesn't need water. There are simple rain shut-off sensors that will turn off sprinklers during and after it rains, soil moisture sensors that measure how wet the soil is on varying degrees, and slightly more complex evapotranspiration sensors that are customizable to specific plant, soil, and water-use zones by using local climate data. Attaching these to your automated irrigation system can save substantial amounts of water.
Now let's talk about vegetation. There are different landscaping plants and turf grasses that can be purchased that are local to your area and may be drought-tolerant or drought-resistant if need be. These plants don't need as much water as some other types. There is a method of landscaping called Xeriscape that is becoming quite popular in the Southwest. There are seven principles that focus on water-efficient landscape design and maintenance practices that are optimal for arid and semi-arid regions: proper landscape planning and design, low-water-use plants, appropriate turf area, efficient irrigation, soil improvements, use of mulches, and appropriate maintenance. I know not everyone lives in a semi-arid or arid region, but you can still implement some or all the principles of Xeriscape wherever you live. After all, not only is it important to create a landscape that uses water efficiently, but a beautiful landscape can be created by planting native vegetation and mimicking the local environment.
Of course there are several other things you can do: harvesting rainwater off your roofs and using that water to irrigate, watering in the early mornings or late evenings when the sun is lowest in the sky, watering only once a week or when the grass and plants really need it, installing drip irrigation systems, checking sprinkler heads every now and then to make sure they're watering plants and not pavement, and remembering to reset your timers every 3 months--just to name a few. Of course, if you need or want professional help you can have a Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor come to your home to help you identify the ways you can be more efficient in your outdoor water use. The Irrigation Association is a great resource for outdoor water efficiency and has a link to where you can find a certified auditor in your area.
Lots of people know the basics of water conservation, like "turn the water off when you brush your teeth," but that only saves about 1500 to 3000 gallons per year. Being more water efficient outdoors can potentially save at least 90,000 gallons per year! And there are even more ways to conserve water and use it more efficiently. Just think about how much water you could save!
The whole topic of efficient landscape irrigation is not as complex as one might think. It does involve a little technology and routine maintenance, but that's not a far stretch from what most people are doing already. Plus, it can save water--and money--in the long term, which is something we should all be doing.
Outdoor water use in the U.S. can account for anywhere from 50-90% of daily per capita water consumption, depending on where you live. If you live in the Northeast where rain is relatively abundant, you'll probably be on the lower end and if you live in the Desert Southwest, you'll probably be on the higher end. It's also important to note that practically all of the water used outdoors is to keep lawns green.
Let's talk about technology. There are weather-based sensors that can be put on sprinkler heads that will prevent the sprinklers from turning on when the grass or landscaping doesn't need water. There are simple rain shut-off sensors that will turn off sprinklers during and after it rains, soil moisture sensors that measure how wet the soil is on varying degrees, and slightly more complex evapotranspiration sensors that are customizable to specific plant, soil, and water-use zones by using local climate data. Attaching these to your automated irrigation system can save substantial amounts of water.
Now let's talk about vegetation. There are different landscaping plants and turf grasses that can be purchased that are local to your area and may be drought-tolerant or drought-resistant if need be. These plants don't need as much water as some other types. There is a method of landscaping called Xeriscape that is becoming quite popular in the Southwest. There are seven principles that focus on water-efficient landscape design and maintenance practices that are optimal for arid and semi-arid regions: proper landscape planning and design, low-water-use plants, appropriate turf area, efficient irrigation, soil improvements, use of mulches, and appropriate maintenance. I know not everyone lives in a semi-arid or arid region, but you can still implement some or all the principles of Xeriscape wherever you live. After all, not only is it important to create a landscape that uses water efficiently, but a beautiful landscape can be created by planting native vegetation and mimicking the local environment.
Of course there are several other things you can do: harvesting rainwater off your roofs and using that water to irrigate, watering in the early mornings or late evenings when the sun is lowest in the sky, watering only once a week or when the grass and plants really need it, installing drip irrigation systems, checking sprinkler heads every now and then to make sure they're watering plants and not pavement, and remembering to reset your timers every 3 months--just to name a few. Of course, if you need or want professional help you can have a Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor come to your home to help you identify the ways you can be more efficient in your outdoor water use. The Irrigation Association is a great resource for outdoor water efficiency and has a link to where you can find a certified auditor in your area.
Lots of people know the basics of water conservation, like "turn the water off when you brush your teeth," but that only saves about 1500 to 3000 gallons per year. Being more water efficient outdoors can potentially save at least 90,000 gallons per year! And there are even more ways to conserve water and use it more efficiently. Just think about how much water you could save!
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Fate of the Southwest
My Master's Thesis is entitled: Water Conservation: Guidelines for Mitigating the Impacts of Climate Change on Water Availability for Maricopa County, Arizona. And of course, I did an in-depth investigation of the Colorado River since it is this river that allows populous cities and expansive agricultural fields to flourish in the desert that is the American Southwest.
The Colorado River is infamous for being the most completely allocated river in the world as well as being the most legislated, regulated, managed, and politicized. Its waters have been meticulously divided and are rationed among the states that share its watershed (CO, WY, UT, NM, AZ, NV, and CA). Unfortunately, when the river was divvied up in the early 1900s, a small data set of streamflow measurements was taken during one of the hydrologically wettest periods in the the river basin’s history. Bottom line is there is much less water available than was apportioned--the river is overallocated. So much so that the mouth of the river has historically emptied into the Gulf of California, but today the river never (rarely if ever) flows to its end, leaving the delta dry.
The Colorado River has an elaborate reservoir system--the largest in the US--and is undoubtedly the most important component of life in the Southwest as it is today. Lakes Powell and Mead have the capacity to store four years worth of water and produce hydroelectric power for most of the Southwest. But there has been a drought in the Colorado River Basin for the past decade, and severe and sustained droughts are not uncommon in the Basin. Tree-ring samples indicate that many droughts have occurred since A.D. 762. The current drought has been a wake-up call to water managers that has identified the fragility of the reservoir system to climate variability. Lake Mead is at its lowest level since it began filling in 1936 threatening hydroelectric generation as well as water rations to Arizona and Nevada. The first-ever shortage guidelines may be enacted if the lake level declines another eight feet.
What will happen if this drought continues? Will there be enough water? Will coal-fired power plants replace hydroelectric generation? I don't know, but what I know for sure is that life in the Southwest will need to change. There will need to be an emphasis on water sustainability, including water conservation and water-use efficiency. If not, the over 25 million people that live in the Southwest will have to find a new home.
The Colorado River is infamous for being the most completely allocated river in the world as well as being the most legislated, regulated, managed, and politicized. Its waters have been meticulously divided and are rationed among the states that share its watershed (CO, WY, UT, NM, AZ, NV, and CA). Unfortunately, when the river was divvied up in the early 1900s, a small data set of streamflow measurements was taken during one of the hydrologically wettest periods in the the river basin’s history. Bottom line is there is much less water available than was apportioned--the river is overallocated. So much so that the mouth of the river has historically emptied into the Gulf of California, but today the river never (rarely if ever) flows to its end, leaving the delta dry.
The Colorado River has an elaborate reservoir system--the largest in the US--and is undoubtedly the most important component of life in the Southwest as it is today. Lakes Powell and Mead have the capacity to store four years worth of water and produce hydroelectric power for most of the Southwest. But there has been a drought in the Colorado River Basin for the past decade, and severe and sustained droughts are not uncommon in the Basin. Tree-ring samples indicate that many droughts have occurred since A.D. 762. The current drought has been a wake-up call to water managers that has identified the fragility of the reservoir system to climate variability. Lake Mead is at its lowest level since it began filling in 1936 threatening hydroelectric generation as well as water rations to Arizona and Nevada. The first-ever shortage guidelines may be enacted if the lake level declines another eight feet.
What will happen if this drought continues? Will there be enough water? Will coal-fired power plants replace hydroelectric generation? I don't know, but what I know for sure is that life in the Southwest will need to change. There will need to be an emphasis on water sustainability, including water conservation and water-use efficiency. If not, the over 25 million people that live in the Southwest will have to find a new home.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The Path Towards Water Sustainability
In ancient times, water was the guiding path for nomadic people and was also at the center of civilizations as they began to rise. However, as nomadic people began settling down in more permanent locations and as civilizations advanced and spread out, a source of water was not always close by or adequate enough to sustain populations. When water was not nearby, civilizations constructed simple, yet sometimes elaborate, water systems to control the water and to bring it to them.
Moving into recent times, there has not much difference in the basic concepts of managing water resources. It largely remains the same: getting adequate supplies to sustain a population, except now we have a much larger population to sustain. We also have more advanced technology, and we have built more complex and larger water control systems because of that.
However, as the global population increases, so does the demand on limited resources, especially water. Within the last thirty years or so, people have begun to realize that we need to stop exploiting and degrading our natural environment. From this, an environmental movement has spawned and has now evolved into a sustainability movement. The basis of the sustainability movement argues that we should focus on the social, economic, and environmental sectors in decision- and policy-making processes. Sustainability also considers goals for the long-term in order to secure the needs of future generations as well as the needs of the present.
Decision- and policy-makers have also been looking at water resource management through the lens of sustainability, which has ultimately prompted the recent paradigm shift. Water resource management is beginning to shift from the “hard” path to the “soft” path (more on this later). Water resource management is moving towards the sustainable development and sustainable use of water resources. With this, ecological sustainability and ecological economics are beginning to take the front stage as water policies are being implemented. In order to manage water resources for the present and future generations, a sustainable approach needs to be taken in which the integrity of the natural environment is included, along with social equity and economic vitality, in the decisions and policies surrounding water resource management.
Moving into recent times, there has not much difference in the basic concepts of managing water resources. It largely remains the same: getting adequate supplies to sustain a population, except now we have a much larger population to sustain. We also have more advanced technology, and we have built more complex and larger water control systems because of that.
However, as the global population increases, so does the demand on limited resources, especially water. Within the last thirty years or so, people have begun to realize that we need to stop exploiting and degrading our natural environment. From this, an environmental movement has spawned and has now evolved into a sustainability movement. The basis of the sustainability movement argues that we should focus on the social, economic, and environmental sectors in decision- and policy-making processes. Sustainability also considers goals for the long-term in order to secure the needs of future generations as well as the needs of the present.
Decision- and policy-makers have also been looking at water resource management through the lens of sustainability, which has ultimately prompted the recent paradigm shift. Water resource management is beginning to shift from the “hard” path to the “soft” path (more on this later). Water resource management is moving towards the sustainable development and sustainable use of water resources. With this, ecological sustainability and ecological economics are beginning to take the front stage as water policies are being implemented. In order to manage water resources for the present and future generations, a sustainable approach needs to be taken in which the integrity of the natural environment is included, along with social equity and economic vitality, in the decisions and policies surrounding water resource management.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Water Bill Woes
I live in an apartment complex that has submetering water infrastructure. This means we are charged for our own personal consumption per apartment. However, 2 weeks ago we received a notice from our property manager saying that our water bill is changing over to a flat rate, meaning we pay one fee per month regardless of how much water we use (or don't use). Our property manager promoted this switchover as: "just think how much easier it will be knowing your rent and utilities will be the same amount each month?" No, it actually wouldn't. I want to pay for how much I use.
This particularly upsets me since we actively conserve water in our household. We now have to pay $30/month for a 1 bedroom apartment with a dishwasher (it differs for the number of bedrooms and whether you have a dishwasher or clothes washer); our water bill averaged $20/month before this change. To me this is completely unfair. (Of course, reading the fine print in the lease, the complex can decide how to bill charges for utilities they provide).
On the same note, it's a complete disincentive for people to conserve water. They could just think, "it doesn't matter how much water we use, we will pay the same amount for it each month anyway." There will also be less of a chance of catching leaks. When people get their own bills, they can track their water usage and would most likely notice a spike and investigate why there was an increase in their bill should one occur. Sometimes there is a way to explain an increase in use (e.g., guests in town, new landscaping installed), but most of the time it's due to a leak. If people no longer receive monthly bills, this advantage is lost and leaks will go unnoticed and water will be wasted.
In the flyer notice, they also alluded to the fact that this would remedy some issues that they have been having with the meters and the metering company. If the infrastructure is already in place, then the meters should just be fixed and another metering company could be hired. Bottom line is the complex probably wants to save money and not deal with fixing the problem and finding a new company and to, of course, make some money in the meantime. I know they'll be making at least $10/month from us.
This particularly upsets me since we actively conserve water in our household. We now have to pay $30/month for a 1 bedroom apartment with a dishwasher (it differs for the number of bedrooms and whether you have a dishwasher or clothes washer); our water bill averaged $20/month before this change. To me this is completely unfair. (Of course, reading the fine print in the lease, the complex can decide how to bill charges for utilities they provide).
On the same note, it's a complete disincentive for people to conserve water. They could just think, "it doesn't matter how much water we use, we will pay the same amount for it each month anyway." There will also be less of a chance of catching leaks. When people get their own bills, they can track their water usage and would most likely notice a spike and investigate why there was an increase in their bill should one occur. Sometimes there is a way to explain an increase in use (e.g., guests in town, new landscaping installed), but most of the time it's due to a leak. If people no longer receive monthly bills, this advantage is lost and leaks will go unnoticed and water will be wasted.
In the flyer notice, they also alluded to the fact that this would remedy some issues that they have been having with the meters and the metering company. If the infrastructure is already in place, then the meters should just be fixed and another metering company could be hired. Bottom line is the complex probably wants to save money and not deal with fixing the problem and finding a new company and to, of course, make some money in the meantime. I know they'll be making at least $10/month from us.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
To Conserve or Not to Conserve
As I was driving by the golf course I live near one afternoon (just outside of the City of Tampa, FL), I saw rainbows forming as water droplets caught the sunlight--they were irrigating...it was 2:30pm, 95 degrees and sunny. I've also seen them watering at 8:30am when it's already 88 degrees. Keep in mind that Southwest FL has been in a drought for the past couple of years and the water management district (SWFWMD) has year-round watering restrictions in place that mandate twice-a-week watering and only from 6pm to 8am. For those who are unfamiliar, from 8am to 6pm are the times when evapotranspiration rates are highest, peaking from about noon to 3pm. This essentially means that if you irrigate during these times, a large percentage of the water will be evaporated before the plants (or your lawn) can absorb it--thus, water is wasted.
Now of course most golf courses here (and in many cities) use reclaimed water, which in Tampa (and most other cities) has no restrictions. There may be a utility that requires the same water restrictions for reclaimed as it does for potable water, but it seems that on a whole reclaimed water is exempt from watering restrictions. So the question I have is: Why doesn't reclaimed water receive the same watering restrictions as potable water? Just because water is being recycled and not being pulled from the original water source doesn't mean that it shouldn't be conserved.
Keep in mind that in order to produce energy you need water, and in order to treat and distribute water--you guessed it, you need energy. (This concept is known as the water-energy nexus, and I will save that discussion for a later date). Therefore conserving energy is conserving water and vice versa. And it takes energy to reclaim water--even though it isn't treated to potable quality--and to then distribute it again.
In my opinion, there needs to be a stronger water conservation ethic on a whole. That is, every type of water for any purpose should be conserved and used efficiently. Not only that, but if people see golf courses watering at noon and don't know that they are irrigating with reclaimed water that is exempt from watering restrictions, they may go back home and water their lawn thinking, "if their doing it, why can't I?"
Golf courses aren't the only guilty ones. I've seen sprinklers at the mall and the airport irrigating when there's a downpour and water is gushing down the street. Now that is due to improper irrigation systems and scheduling, but I'll leave that topic for another day...
Now of course most golf courses here (and in many cities) use reclaimed water, which in Tampa (and most other cities) has no restrictions. There may be a utility that requires the same water restrictions for reclaimed as it does for potable water, but it seems that on a whole reclaimed water is exempt from watering restrictions. So the question I have is: Why doesn't reclaimed water receive the same watering restrictions as potable water? Just because water is being recycled and not being pulled from the original water source doesn't mean that it shouldn't be conserved.
Keep in mind that in order to produce energy you need water, and in order to treat and distribute water--you guessed it, you need energy. (This concept is known as the water-energy nexus, and I will save that discussion for a later date). Therefore conserving energy is conserving water and vice versa. And it takes energy to reclaim water--even though it isn't treated to potable quality--and to then distribute it again.
In my opinion, there needs to be a stronger water conservation ethic on a whole. That is, every type of water for any purpose should be conserved and used efficiently. Not only that, but if people see golf courses watering at noon and don't know that they are irrigating with reclaimed water that is exempt from watering restrictions, they may go back home and water their lawn thinking, "if their doing it, why can't I?"
Golf courses aren't the only guilty ones. I've seen sprinklers at the mall and the airport irrigating when there's a downpour and water is gushing down the street. Now that is due to improper irrigation systems and scheduling, but I'll leave that topic for another day...
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Bulk Water Exportation
In about 6 to 8 months, the first-ever bulk water exportation will begin. Up to 2.9 billion gallons of water is legally available for exportation from Sitka's Blue Lake Reservoir in Alaska that was specifically built to facilitate bulk exportation. Sitka will sell the water to Alaska Resource Management, LLC (ARM) for a penny a gallon. The water will be transported in huge plastic bags held in tankers from Alaska to a water hub somewhere in the world. From there, the water will be transported in smaller quantities to wherever it is needed within the region.
Recently, a water hub has been completed just south of Mumbai, India--the India World Water Hub. This hub is expected to purchase about half a billion gallons of water from ARM per year. Not only that, but there are 3 other applications that the Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources is considering for bulk exportation off of Adak Island, which is southwest of Anchorage on the Aleutian Chain. This process will take at least 1 year in order to determine if bulk water removal permits can be granted from this location. In other words, this could be the start of the global bulk water export market.
I have to admit that I am (slightly) torn on this issue. On the one hand bulk water exportation can provide clean water for people in water-starved regions. I do believe that all humans have an inalienable right to access clean, safe water...but from a water source is coming from half way across the globe? Displacing such a large quantity of water from one ecosystem to the next is not without consequence. Who knows what types of consequences could occur since this has never been done before. Not only that, but think of the carbon footprint from transporting that much water over such an expansive distance! FYI: the community of Sitka on a whole is behind this exportation since they do have "excess" water from a renewable resource. Moreover, the city stands to make $25 to $90 million annually from the sale of water for bulk exportation.
The concept of transporting large quantities of water over vast distances isn't new. There have been some rather radical ideas to provide water to water-starved regions and/or arid regions with explosive population growth. Some include towing icebergs from the North or South Pole, creating monstrous dams and reservoirs, and building massive pipeline systems that cover thousands of miles. Some of these ideas have become actualized: the Three Gorges Dam in China and the various reservoir and canal systems on the Colorado River (e.g., the Central Arizona Project, the State Water Project (CA).)
Not only that, but there have been ideas for over half a century about building massive pipelines in the US from the Columbia River, Mississippi River, and Great Lakes to provide water to the agricultural economy of California and to feed the explosive population growth in the arid Southwest. The Great Lakes States and Canada have recently reached an agreement to protect their water resources by banning any exportation of water from the Great Lakes. I applaud their efforts to keep the water in the Great Lakes and to maintain the integrity of that ecosystem. For Americans in particular, there is a lot of work to be done to streamline the efficiency of our water use and/or change our lifestyles that can stretch current water supplies before we begin building massive water projects that have astronomical financial and ecological costs.
Recently, a water hub has been completed just south of Mumbai, India--the India World Water Hub. This hub is expected to purchase about half a billion gallons of water from ARM per year. Not only that, but there are 3 other applications that the Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources is considering for bulk exportation off of Adak Island, which is southwest of Anchorage on the Aleutian Chain. This process will take at least 1 year in order to determine if bulk water removal permits can be granted from this location. In other words, this could be the start of the global bulk water export market.
I have to admit that I am (slightly) torn on this issue. On the one hand bulk water exportation can provide clean water for people in water-starved regions. I do believe that all humans have an inalienable right to access clean, safe water...but from a water source is coming from half way across the globe? Displacing such a large quantity of water from one ecosystem to the next is not without consequence. Who knows what types of consequences could occur since this has never been done before. Not only that, but think of the carbon footprint from transporting that much water over such an expansive distance! FYI: the community of Sitka on a whole is behind this exportation since they do have "excess" water from a renewable resource. Moreover, the city stands to make $25 to $90 million annually from the sale of water for bulk exportation.
The concept of transporting large quantities of water over vast distances isn't new. There have been some rather radical ideas to provide water to water-starved regions and/or arid regions with explosive population growth. Some include towing icebergs from the North or South Pole, creating monstrous dams and reservoirs, and building massive pipeline systems that cover thousands of miles. Some of these ideas have become actualized: the Three Gorges Dam in China and the various reservoir and canal systems on the Colorado River (e.g., the Central Arizona Project, the State Water Project (CA).)
Not only that, but there have been ideas for over half a century about building massive pipelines in the US from the Columbia River, Mississippi River, and Great Lakes to provide water to the agricultural economy of California and to feed the explosive population growth in the arid Southwest. The Great Lakes States and Canada have recently reached an agreement to protect their water resources by banning any exportation of water from the Great Lakes. I applaud their efforts to keep the water in the Great Lakes and to maintain the integrity of that ecosystem. For Americans in particular, there is a lot of work to be done to streamline the efficiency of our water use and/or change our lifestyles that can stretch current water supplies before we begin building massive water projects that have astronomical financial and ecological costs.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Day 71
Who would have thought we would be on day 71 of the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill? I have to admit that I sure didn't. I--as many others--believed that as technologically advanced beings, we would be able to fix this mess...or at least have an idea of how to fix it. As it turns out, we have no idea what we are doing. To me this is a scary realization, one where humans are unafraid to try anything regardless of the consequences.
Humans believe that we can conquer anything. After all, we are intelligent--I don't deny that. Technology never ceases to amaze me, but we are not by any stretch of the imagination more powerful than nature or the forces of the universe--we are merely a part of it--and are nothing less than ignorant and egotistical to believe that we are anything more. This oil debacle and any type of natural "disaster" proves that we are not more powerful than natural forces.
Bottom line: we should not be drilling in deep water, in an environment where we are unfamiliar with the conditions and how to react and recover from emergency situations. More importantly, BP should have had an emergency plan for every possibility of something that could go wrong i.e., what if a rig exploded causing the pipe to a deepwater well to burst leaking hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil into the water? If you don't have an emergency plan for even the one-in-a-billion chance, then don't drill until we have that technology securely developed along with a response plan to any emergency that might occur. Even if it means that billions of dollars will be missed out on by not tapping into those oil reserves. Just look at the costs thus far with this disaster...
As is witnessed with this oil spill, not only are the fish, shellfish, shorebirds, dolphins, sea turtles, estuaries, and marshlands being affected but so are the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people. What are they going to do? They know nothing else. How are they expected to find other work if all they have done their whole lives is fish? Not only that, but most of the Gulf Region's economy survives on tourism. If there are no tourists, then there is no other work to be had. Moreover, what are the long-term effects on the region's economy, on its environment? How long will it take to recover? Will it ever be the same? Your guess is as good as mine.
Humans believe that we can conquer anything. After all, we are intelligent--I don't deny that. Technology never ceases to amaze me, but we are not by any stretch of the imagination more powerful than nature or the forces of the universe--we are merely a part of it--and are nothing less than ignorant and egotistical to believe that we are anything more. This oil debacle and any type of natural "disaster" proves that we are not more powerful than natural forces.
Bottom line: we should not be drilling in deep water, in an environment where we are unfamiliar with the conditions and how to react and recover from emergency situations. More importantly, BP should have had an emergency plan for every possibility of something that could go wrong i.e., what if a rig exploded causing the pipe to a deepwater well to burst leaking hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil into the water? If you don't have an emergency plan for even the one-in-a-billion chance, then don't drill until we have that technology securely developed along with a response plan to any emergency that might occur. Even if it means that billions of dollars will be missed out on by not tapping into those oil reserves. Just look at the costs thus far with this disaster...
As is witnessed with this oil spill, not only are the fish, shellfish, shorebirds, dolphins, sea turtles, estuaries, and marshlands being affected but so are the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people. What are they going to do? They know nothing else. How are they expected to find other work if all they have done their whole lives is fish? Not only that, but most of the Gulf Region's economy survives on tourism. If there are no tourists, then there is no other work to be had. Moreover, what are the long-term effects on the region's economy, on its environment? How long will it take to recover? Will it ever be the same? Your guess is as good as mine.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
"Children of the Recession"
After watching Katie Couric's piece on "Children of the Recession" on the CBS evening news last Wed night, I couldn't help but think about myself. Although I am far from a child, I am an "adult" of the recession. I have been affected the same way those college students have been. Fortunately (or unfortunately, since I now have a monstrous amount of debt) I had the foresight to go to grad school because, just as one of the college graduates said in that piece, a Bachelor's degree is synonymous to a high school degree from the previous generation--a grad degree is now what a Bachelor's degree was 20-30 years ago.
So in realizing this, I enrolled in grad school. Although knowing I wanted to work in the environmental field, I was unsure exactly how I wanted to focus my passion. By living in the desert in Arizona and seeing the excessive water use as well as observing the excessive amount of people that live in the desert, my direction became clear. I have conserved water since I was in the third grade, and I grew up in Syracuse, New York--a place that receives plenty of rain. So if I can adapt water conservation and efficiency in my life (to the point where I don't even think twice about it--I just do it), why can't everyone else? This is how I figured out I wanted to be involved in public education about our most important natural resource (especially youth education since I love kids and that was the age when I developed my passion for environmentalism).
Unfortunately, I graduated right in time for the heart of the economic downturn (June 09). Even though I've realized and worked hard towards my dream, I have to fight to find a job. I am a well-educated, passionate individual--exactly the way I was taught to be--and how we were all told that if we were educated and passionate, we would be successful in our chosen career path. So is that notion completely thrown out the window now? Has all of my hard work been for nothing?
Even though I can't help but think that sometimes, I try to keep a positive outlook. Job searching has taken on a new meaning: now it's all about being creative, creating and maintaining an online identity, and, of course, networking (even more so than in the past). However, this does take a lot of time and energy, and when you're working full-time, can seem utterly impossible. On the other hand, I think it can be a good thing in the long run. You can really discover who you are and what you want out of life and out of a career. You can reaffirm your passions and your confidence. You can become who you want to be. So even though times are tough right now, they will get better. Sometimes all it takes is a different perspective.
So in realizing this, I enrolled in grad school. Although knowing I wanted to work in the environmental field, I was unsure exactly how I wanted to focus my passion. By living in the desert in Arizona and seeing the excessive water use as well as observing the excessive amount of people that live in the desert, my direction became clear. I have conserved water since I was in the third grade, and I grew up in Syracuse, New York--a place that receives plenty of rain. So if I can adapt water conservation and efficiency in my life (to the point where I don't even think twice about it--I just do it), why can't everyone else? This is how I figured out I wanted to be involved in public education about our most important natural resource (especially youth education since I love kids and that was the age when I developed my passion for environmentalism).
Unfortunately, I graduated right in time for the heart of the economic downturn (June 09). Even though I've realized and worked hard towards my dream, I have to fight to find a job. I am a well-educated, passionate individual--exactly the way I was taught to be--and how we were all told that if we were educated and passionate, we would be successful in our chosen career path. So is that notion completely thrown out the window now? Has all of my hard work been for nothing?
Even though I can't help but think that sometimes, I try to keep a positive outlook. Job searching has taken on a new meaning: now it's all about being creative, creating and maintaining an online identity, and, of course, networking (even more so than in the past). However, this does take a lot of time and energy, and when you're working full-time, can seem utterly impossible. On the other hand, I think it can be a good thing in the long run. You can really discover who you are and what you want out of life and out of a career. You can reaffirm your passions and your confidence. You can become who you want to be. So even though times are tough right now, they will get better. Sometimes all it takes is a different perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)