Archive

Tag Archives: climate

Sea Level Rise? Or Rising?

October 23, 2012
Astronomical tides, Climate, Environment, groundwater, infrastructure, Leadership, management, sea level rise, stormwater, sustainability, Tidal flooding, water sewer management, water supplies
3 Comments

October is the month that brings us the astronomical tides, or locally to the coasts, the annual high, high tide.  The position of the moon relative the Earth creates a slight alteration in the gravitational pull of the moon on the oceans so high tide, is, well high!  If you lived in a coastal areas, what did you see?  Or experience?  Southeast Florida was rife with email chatter and photographs of flooded streets, yards, and canals.  The City of Fort Lauderdale sent notices to residents warning them about the tides.  We had no rain, just the tide coming in.  These are low lying areas that 20 years ago did not flood except during storms.  This is just a phenomenon that has been monitored in coastal areas over the past 5-10 years, depending on the complaints that have come into local officials.

One of the more interesting complaints I received in my career was in Hollywood Florida where a resident complained about the “fish in the street.”  Sure enough, the storm drain in front of his house was connected directly to the Intracoastal waterway and the October tides had pushed the saltwater up through the catch basin into the street.  Now these weren’t snook or redfish, they were little fish escaping the snook and redfish, about 3-5 inches long.  Pretty funny stuff if you think about it.  Realizing the problem, I called him 3 hours later and asked if the problem had been solved.  He said told me I was a genius to fix that so fast.  My boss told me to take advantage of luck and drop the explanation, but to design a solution (which we did).  My boss was right, but the call made me more cognizant of the issue.

15 years later, I have a student developing models of what happens during the annual high and average tides, especially with respect to the potential for flooding in low lying areas where groundwater is just below the surface.  His work is impressive.  A lot more land, especially inland, may flood as a result of the annual tides, which are a precursor to the long term trend of rising seas.  See the groundwater has a slight upward gradient as you move inland.  As a result, you cannot use the tide levels to predict inland flooding, you need to add the tides on top of historical groundwater levels.  Of course the wet season is the summer in Florida, so the October tides come just at the time groundwater levels are highest.  But at least we can determine where the stormwater pumping improvements need to go.

Determining where stormwater pumping is needed is only part of the problem.  As sea levels rise, more stormwater management will be needed and a place to put the water will become a problem.  Discharging nutrient laden stormwater to tide is not a good answer when you have fragile reefs offshore.  NOAA’s Florida Area Coastal Environment  (FACE) Initiative outline this (see intensives study – http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/themes/CoastalRegional/projects/FACE/Publications.htm).  Instead, perhaps at some point we may develop infiltration systems to capture this high water table “problem” and convert it to water supplies, solving two issues for southeast Florida.  Might be 2030, but we probably should be doing some planning….

 

If You Manage An Aquifer To Last 100 Years, Does This Demonstrate Good Leadership?

September 29, 2012
communciations, groundwater, infrastructure, Leadership, management, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

Across the United States, we hear the regulatory discussions about managing groundwater supplies.  There are 20 year plans (which many think is the long-term perspective), 50 year plans and 100 year plans; no doubt a myriad of others.  The concept of managing groundwater seems reasonable, but the query here is whether or not managing for a finite period demonstrates good leadership.

In most cases, the concept of managing aquifers for finite periods is associated with the need or desire by local and state officials to develop a certain region, and obtaining the necessary water to meet development projections.  “Sustainability” for elected officials and developers is distinctly different than that of water resource professionals. The whole intent of elected officials and developers is to continue to build more, attract more people and business and, well, to use more water.  This is in contrast to the fact that water supplies in most basins is relatively finite or fixed, which means that inevitably the supply will be exceeded by local demands, the opposite of “sustainability” from a water resource perspective.  Compounding the problem is that water resource professionals are normally pretty creative in stretching finite supplies with reuse, conservation, use policies, restrictions and augmentation with other supplies, actions and programs which actually may work against their long-term goal of sustainability – there is a finite number of reasonable solutions that may work, each with increasing cost to the customers, which works against the goals for the elected officials to limit costs to customers.  As a result, a conflict over the differing views of “sustainability” are inevitable.  As solution requires leadership.

Leadership is understanding that there are constraints to the resources.  Leadership is understanding that there is a limit to the reasonable solutions and a limit to development, or the type of development that can be accommodated.  For example in Colorado, Denver Water, going back 100 years, built tunnels and reservoirs to transfer water from the west side of the Rockies to the east.  This worked for 70 years or so, until the Denver area started to explode, exceeding the capacity of those transfer systems.  As this occurred, groundwater was far less costly than tunnels, reservoirs and acquiring access to water supplies west of the Rockies (and the downstream water delivery contracts impacted this as well).  A 100 year management plan was developed and approved by the State Legislature in 1985 to allow water to be withdrawn from the Denver Basin, despite very limited recharge.  This is not to say that the plan for management was not a good leadership start (certainly it is an improvement over doing nothing), but what happens in 70 years?  We assume some up with a solution to extend the life of the aquifer, but when will that occur and who will lead that charge?   What will be the political backlash when the initial rumblings begin?  The good news is that the major users are utilities, which have resources to pay for treatment, aquifer storage, indirect potable reuse, direct potable reuse and a host of other potential options, but not every basin is so lucky.  If the major users are agriculture or ecosystems, who pays that bill?  If the answer is no one, what happens to the industry?  The jobs?  Communities?  People?

The query begs the question, how do we align competing definitions for sustainability, as defined by local officials, developers, water resource professional and others?  And how do we educate the local officials and the populace of the perils of over-allocation of water supplies?  This is a legacy leadership issue, and it requires hard and sometimes unpopular decisions that can change the course of history.

Legacy leadership is defined by what is left behind not by the current condition.  It’s how we change our thinking and actions to adapt to the changed conditions.  We look back as great water projects of the 20th century – Hoover Dam, the channels carrying water to Los Angeles from the Colorado River and central California that allowed southern California to develop, or the numerous dams across the west that permitted crops to grow in arid regions.  You can search out who led those projects.  That is their legacy.  Those that came afterward reaps the rewards created from the efforts of these leaders.  Now we face a changing condition in the 21st century.  Who will take the 21st century leadership mantle?  And how will we change our viewpoint to protect our resources?  We can start by trying to change the perception of deeper groundwater, especially confined systems, as primary water sources, when they may better serve us in the long-term as back-up or emergency sources in many regions, with surface water as the primary sources.  Where surface waters and surficial aquifers do not exist, perhaps development as desired by local officials is not the sustainable way to go?  So who takes the lead in those areas where there are insufficient resources and tells the developers, no you can’t develop here?  That will be leadership….

 

WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE. GAS TOO. WHAT TO DO?

August 13, 2012
Climate, Environment, groundwater, sustainability
Leave a comment

 

I recently spent time in Denali National Park and surrounding area.  60 in the day, 45 at night, and this time of year, rain.  Lots of rain.  Denali creates its own weather, so precipitation and clouds are common for much of the year.  But it was not all the water in the Denali area that interested me as much as some local discussions about methane release from the permafrost.  I was told that many of the native populations rely on storage below ground in the permafrost to freeze winter provisions.  But a curious thing has occurred in recent years – some of the provisions spoiled.  It seems the permafrost relied upon for generations as a natural freezer is no longer permanent in some areas and the soil, frozen for generations, is now suddenly soggy.  Once unfrozen, the soil appears to release copious amounts of methane that has been trapped for years (no smoking on the tunda!).  The issue is further complicated by the fact that some of the methane could potentially get into surface water supplies and without power, and with limited funds, the treatment becomes far more difficult.

Interesting…for those of you who are interested in climate change, either side, read this

August 2, 2012
Climate, Environment, management, sustainability
Leave a comment

2012-07-28 conversion-of-climate-change-skeptic  from the New York Times

July 28, 2012
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Berkeley, Calif.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the
very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost
entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two
and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the
scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before
1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which
allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from
urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the
available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor
ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we
demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the
particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small,
rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening”
of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but
systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar
activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of
sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
“Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite
measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude
is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and
they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least
as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our
analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden
assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed
temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative,
exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down,
not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by
2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or
“Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent
warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is
weaker than tenuous.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of
temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that
matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with
the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart
of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to
proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China
continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds
one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions
that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global
warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and
should be done.
Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the
author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”

Our Disappearing Groundwater

July 21, 2012
Climate, Environment, finance, funding, groundwater, infrastructure, management, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

The need for more water for urban and agricultural uses has drive even more competition for limited supplies in stressed basins.  The effects of urbanization and agriculture on surface water supplies are obvious to most people.  We have also seemed the ecosystem impacts from surface water diversions and pollution.  As a result, many areas have pursued groundwater, the unseen resource.

I have been touting a USGS report (#1323 by Reilly, et al, 2009) to many in the water industry.  It is an important report that gives us a little insight on state of groundwater supplies in the US.  As we have developed arid regions and developed better pumps to irrigate in dry places, groundwater has been the obvious choice.  And it is not regulated in some states.  However the extensive and in many cases excessive use of groundwater creates the long-term potential for loss of water supplies in many jurisdictions.  Determining groundwater availability involves more than calculating the volume of groundwater within any given aquifer:  it requires a consideration of recharge, water quality, the economics of recovery or of poor quality, interconnectedness with the hydrologic system and ecosystem/user demands.  Rarely is a consultant paid to determine that sustainable water supplies are not available.  The result is the potential for aquifer drawdown that are accompanied by aquifer mining and land subsidence.  The result is declining water levels in aquifers.

Confounding the situation are confined aquifers that are disconnected for localized recharge and often have overestimated recharge.  The common practice to evaluate aquifer productivity is pump wells that have a significant drawdown for only a few hours each day, allowing an extended period for the aquifer to recover.  Reilly et al, 2009 estimates that the pumpage of fresh ground water in the United States is approximately 83 billion gallons per day (Hutson et al, 2004), which is about 8 percent of the estimated 1 trillion gallons per day of natural recharge to the Nation’s ground-water systems (Nace, 1960), which sounds like it is not a serious issue.  However, Reilly et al, 2009 found that the loss of groundwater supplies in many areas will be catastrophic, affecting economic viability of communities and potentially disrupting lives and ecological viability.

Drilling deeper is not a solution.  Deeper waters tend to have poorer water quality as a result of having been in contact with the rock formation longer and dissolving the minerals in the rock into the water. Additional power will be required to further treat limited, lower quality supplies.  Therefore, while some deep aquifers may be prolific, the quality of water obtained from a well may not be desirable or even usable for drinking water without substantial amounts of treatment.  In addition, most deeper aquifers are confined and therefore do not recharge significantly locally.  The withdrawal of water may appear to be a permanent loss of the resource in the long-term. For example, portions of the aquifer in eastern North and South Carolina were virtually denuded in due to pumpage because there is no local recharge.  As a result the aquifer was mined, exceeding its safe yield, and the large utilities converted to surface water. Likewise, most of the aquifer use in the western states of the U.S. are poised similarly since they have minimal potential for recharge.  In parts of the western plains state and Great Basin, the aquifers have dropped hundreds of feet, but with an average of 13-18 inches per year of rainfall, and high evaporation rates throughout the summer, little of this water has potential to recharge the aquifer (Bloetscher and Muniz, 2008).

 

Rarely will permit writers or consultants tell you there is no more water available, but if groundwater levels keep declining, clearly the groundwater is over allocated.  It also appears that we have misjudged recharge to most confined aquifers.  They simply do not recharge at the rates estimated creating a long-term decline.  In some cases, maybe many cases, recapturing the water needed to recharge the aquifer will not happen in our lifetimes without specific capital to do otherwise.  Nature just doesn’t recharge confined aquifers quickly.  One reason we like them for water supply.
So the questions are these:

Are many confined aquifers better suited to be drought protection, backup supplies to surface supplies, as opposed to primary water supplies?

  • What is the solution for agricultural operations and utilities where groundwater is quickly diminishing?
  • When can we start the dialogue to manage groundwater resources better in the US without all the legal and political constraints that currently work against protecting our nation’s groundwater supplies?

Clearly we won’t make everyone happy, and may make a lot of people very unhappy.  But better to make those decisions now, than in 20 or 30 years when the groundwater runs out?

What About Climate Change?

July 5, 2012
Climate, Environment, infrastructure, management, water sewer management
Leave a comment

There may be few topics that raise more discussion in the US than climate change. Whether arguing it is catastrophic to the other end of the spectrum that is it all nonsense, the discourse masks the real question:  Is there a concern for the utility industry?  Interesting the answer seems to depend on where you are.  The focus here is to discuss why and where it matters, and why for many of us, it may not.

 

The scientific literature provides strong evidence that global climate change is affecting the world’s water resources (Karl et al, 2009; UNEP, 2009; IPCC, 2007), including ocean acidification, global temperature rise (Figure 1), receding ice caps, melting glaciers, changing precipitation patterns, and sea level rise (IARU, 2009; Karl et al, 2009; USEPA, 2008; IPCC, 2007). These effects may result in more severe drought or flooding, varying stream flow patterns, rising sea levels along the coasts, and contamination of freshwater aquifers and coastal water bodies as a result (IPCC, 2007).  Eleven of the 12 years between 1995 and 2006 rank among the warmest years in the instrumental record of global temperature data (i.e., since 1850) (IPCC, 2007). The global average sea level has risen at 3.1 ± 0.70 mm/year since 1993 (Cazenave, 2008), which is more than the 2.1 mm/yr for most of the 20th century. The rise in atmospheric and water temperatures may result in greater uncertainty in the amount, intensity and timing of precipitation. Much of the precipitation effect across the United States will likely be manifested by changes in the magnitude of rainfall during existing seasons, such that most regions will likely see wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons (P. Gleick, 2008; Tebaldi et al, 2006; Groisman et al, 2005).

 

The reality is that if you have lived for 40 or more years, your perception that the summers seem less severe and the summers hotter, is a correct reality.  And most people perceive this.  So how does this affect utilities and should everyone be concerned?  Well it depends…..

 

The first utilities focusing on climate impacts on waters supplies were in the Pacific northwest.  Why?  Because many of these utilities rely on glaciers to store water for raw water supplies.  For years the glaciers have melted slowly after the winter, providing water supplies consistently throughout the summer months, only to be regenerated in the winter again.  But many of these utilities noted that the glaciers were getting smaller and projecting ahead, there might not be any glaciers in 50-100 years.  That’s like having your reservoir go dry and no precipitation to refill it.  This is a problem, and given the location, significant planning efforts are required to address the problem.

 

Utilities in the Rocky Mountain states noted that winters were warmer and often less snowy.  The current beetle problem is indicative of the loss of the weather-related stressors that controlled the beetles (cold and wet).  The mountains hold heavy snow for summer built environments, that are expanding rapidly.  Less snow to fill reservoirs is a similar concern to loss of glacial material.  Summer of dry right now in Colorado.

 

Along the eastern seaboard, planners have noted that sea level has risen 9 inches since the 1929 vertical datum survey.  The sea level rise appears to have accelerated recently.  Ocean temperatures area reported by NOAA to be higher, which means that sea level rise may be driven by thermal expansion f the ocean (basic heat equation form chemistry), and glacial melt is reported to be a contributing factor.  Sea level rise is troubling for coastal communities and may threaten local water supplies.

 

In southeast Florida, the geography is different – the land actually slopes downward as you go inland.  50+% of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, over 4 million people, live on land below 5 feet above the 1929 sea level.  The South Florida Water Management District reports that they have lost 15% of the drainage capacity of the canal system already and could lose 70% with another 9 inches of sea level rise.  Huge problem is you live at elevation 3.  Moving is an obvious, but unrealistic solution.  I mentioned over 4 million people.  How about over $3 trillion in property and $300 billion/yr in economic activity?  That would be a catastrophic disruption for the state.  Hence sea level rise is an action item for the area, but gains no traction state-wide.

 

In each of these areas, the focus has been strategies that utilities and planners should pursue for adaptation to se level rise.  Heimlich et al (2009) suggested a milestone approach – when you hit a certain milestone in the climate change scenario, you should have completed certain armoring activities and be poised for another set.  That relives local officials of the problem of not planning ahead, while preventing the premature expenditure of funds.  The key is adaptation solutions to protect the current conditions.  And most of the infrastructure needed is local, so expect local funding to be the impetus for local armoring, not federal or state funds.

 

But why isn’t everyone concerned and is this purely a political issue – “red” vs “blue” states?  In a recent paper I published (Bloetscher, 2012) I noted that much of the state of Florida is unconcerned with the issue, and while very much a “red” area, the issue may not be completely politically motivated.  The same is true of much of the heartland of the US.  Their impacts may be less rainfall that today, but given limited rainfall now, how much difference will that make?  It may be that in these areas, the heat, and power demands created by higher summer temperatures may be a far more critical factors, and one that only tangentially impacts the water industry as a result of competition for cooling water.

 

So is there a concern for the utility industry with respect to climate variation or change?  The answer is it depends on where you are, and where is matters, efforts should be ongoing to deal with the long term problem.  For the rest, maybe not so much.  Where we really may see a problem is with power demands and water, another subject for another day.

BLOG 2 Unfunded Mandates or Stuff we should be doing anyway?

June 22, 2012
Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, management, water sewer management
2 Comments

In the prior blog, the theme of It’s All One Water was discussed.  Our industry has operated with the concept that potable water, wastewater, storm water, runoff, navigable waters, etc are distinct from one another and are somehow different, creating a silo effect. The silo effect obfuscates the current program of drawing water from rivers, streams and lakes, and discharging our wastes to those same rivers, streams and lakes, downstream of our withdrawal point of course.  Our local perceptions generally to not allow us to acknowledge that our uses affect other users, one reason that conflicts occur in water basins.  Instead the focus is “unfunded mandates” from political circles, whereby utilities are required to meet increasing standards for water, wastewater and storm water treatment.  Much of the regulatory focus is on utilities because they are perceived to have deep pockets due to the populations they serve.  If everyone pays a little, then it won’t hurt is much is the philosophy.  But the reality is that treatment of dilute source waters is often made more difficult as a result of upstream releases.  It is easier to treat water before it gets released.  The solution to pollution is apparently not dilution.  So who should treating these waters?

Perhaps the question is better framed a different way.  The concept in the legislation is to have polluters pay the cost for their pollutions, but reality is that the urban users pay the bulk of the costs.  Agriculture may create a downstream impact of nutrients, pesticides and herbicides, but controlling runoff is a difficult issue, especially if there are heavy rains just after application of chemicals.  It is unclear how you cool water for cooling without extensive energy costs, which would increase energy demands further.  And of course rainfall creates runoff as a contribution form the natural system (mostly in the form of turbidity).  There is nothing much that utilities can do to control these issues aside from acquiring large tracts of land to control the source.  But that does not solve the regulatory needs.

So the responsibility for public health falls on us.  As we evaluate regulations, we need to think about responsibility and cause (not costs).  The public health issues is much clearer with wastewater plants, where discharge of wastewater could impact both aquatic species and downstream water users.   In this case, there are no unfunded mandates – it is local responsibility to insure that the public health is protected near and farfield.

With water plants, well it all depends on the raw water.  So cleaner upstream water and less adverse users are better, but most utilities don’t fully control their source basins.  So then the key is whether the regulatory mandates meet the public health tests, which may depend on who you ask.  Ask this question to women with kids:  How much arsenic in your water is ok?  You rarely get any answer other than “none.”  Why?  The public health perception.  Cost is rarely the issue, but public health always is a concern.  The public expects their utility to do what is needed to clean up the water and places that responsibility on us.  Hence there are no real unfunded mandates, although that sounds great to deflect the need for rate increases to other agencies.

So then the question is whether all this discussion of unfounded mandates is an abdication of our public health responsibility.  The perception might be reality.  If your customers think that meeting regulations or treatment upgrades are being forced on you by others, does that create the question “Is the utility is really putting public health first?”  Does it beg the question  “why isn’t our utility already doing this?”  While every region will be different, how your customers may view your responsibilities is good question to ponder….

Thoughts?

It’s all one water…

June 4, 2012
Environment, water sewer management
2 Comments

It’s All One Water was the byline when this blog was announced.  As noted the point of the blog is to discuss water industry issues with the hope of developing new ways to approach industry problems as time develops.  Our industry has operated with the concept that potable water, wastewater, storm water, runoff, navigable waters, etc are distinct from one another and are somehow different.  Most utilities have separate departments, let’s call the silos, that separate these different waters.  One of the issues that arises when the silos are in place, is that within larger organizations is the all-to-common perception that “never should these different waters touch,” that they should always be kept separate.  From a public health perspective that has worked for the industry relatively well, to the point that over any given 25 year period, the number of waterborne disease outbreaks has been relatively consistent since 1950 (640 or so affecting 150,000 people, with the 1993 Milwaukee incident being the outlier).

But does this work from a water quantity perspective?  For many parts of theUSandCanada, water quantity is the big driver, or limitation of growth and development.  Throughout history, civilizations grew where sufficient quantities of healthful water could be secured, and the “dirty” water removed.  This cut disease outbreaks and allows people to be more productive (in part because they can work more).  The same holds today, although the advances in technology have allowed us to develop far more water sources than our ancestors.  We can mine water from deep aquifers in the desert and treat ocean water for drinking purposes for example.

So we have aquifer systems that are being “managed” to produce water for 50 or 100 years in the west (the aquifers are used because surface waters are either limited or unreliable), with limited consideration of what happens when the system is fully managed to depletion.  Where will the new supplies come from and how much time, effort and expense will be used to develop new sources?  There is an assumption that we can drill deeper, but that is not an option for many locales, according to USGS.  Their Circular 1323 paints a painful picture that groundwater is simply not sustainable.  So when the water runs dry, what is the local impact of the economy?  Industry?  Population?  Many of these water stressed areas are hubs for intense agricultural cultivation.  Without water…well, there simply is no answer for this problem as yet in too many places that are currently water limited.

The reality is that as we try to improve the sustainability of our water systems, new sources must be developed.  The costs for new water supplies is significant, so looking forward, the recapture of water sources that otherwise may be released, assuming there is not a regulatory requirement for return flows, provides utilities with opportunities to expand the size of the water “pie.”  Instead of relying only on the water sources, diversification to the “other” water sources permits increased self reliance and control.  This was one of the concepts of the integrated water resources planning activities in vogue by the American Water Works Association starting in the mid 1990s.

Aquifer recharge, stream augmentation, and storage projects will become more prevalent in the future.  Those who pursue these options early are likely to position themselves for longer term, sustainable development. Orange County,CAhas been using alternative technologies to capture and use waters of impaired quality like wastewater and storm water, for treatment and replenishment of the local aquifers, given new life to depleted systems.  The ability ofOrangeCountyleaders to demonstrate to the public the safety of recharge, the reliability of treatment and the long term benefits/sustainability of their aquifer recharge project has armored the areas water supply.  They have drawn down the silos.

Compare to southeastFlorida. Southeast Floridagets 60 inches per year of rainfall, 70% in the summer. The area is flat, has high evaporation rates, saltwater intrusion caused by drainage canals, $3.7 trillion in property values, a $300 billion/year economy and 5.5 million people.  Water supply would not appear to be a problem, but the drainage system moves over 25% of the precipitation to tides.  And the water is well siloed.  The silo effect limits our ability to persuade the public of the benefits of, or need for, ideas like wastewater for irrigation of lawns, wastewater treatment to potable standards for drinking, and the capture of dewatering activities for raw water supplies in many areas.Southeast Floridahas investigated used for reclaimed water for irrigation and targeted potable reuse, but both meet resistance form communities who object to the “yuck” factor.  Future impacts of sea level rise, will require storm water utilities to pump groundwater 24/7, but despite no permits in place for the discharge, and no obvious outlets, the use of these wellpoint systems as a potable source has yet to be considered. Southeast Florida’s long-term issue is too much water.  But at least there is money to be spent.

Compare to the Plains states and the west.  Limited water.  Limited precipitation.  Flat land.  Ground water with limited recharge. Limited population so reuse options are limited.  Agriculture uses the vast majority of water.  And when it runs out?  The need for reservoirs, runoff capture and treatment, revised agriculture practices, and more are costly considerations that agriculture is unlikely to afford, and impact downstream utilities.  The need to develop ideas to expand the water supply “pie” are needed.

Water supplies are storm water runoff and wastewater discharges.  Wastewater is used potable water from the built environment and groundwater infiltration.  Storm water washes the land, often carrying pollutants with it.  Agriculture uses the water for irrigation, but precipitation carries nutrients, fertilizers and animal husbandry wastes offsite.  Power heats the water.  And throughout, the natural environment relies on specific timing, quantity and quality parameters to provide natural resources and economic stimuli.  The key is how to manage these water options form a holistic perspective to meet the needs of all users, while insuring that current activities do not limit the future.  It’s all one water.

thoughts?