worldwaterandmore

As 2012 drips to a close, water scarcity was a hot topic amongst our writers here at TriplePundit. Whether we flushed out the details over emerging toilet technologies and challenges or questioned whether frackingwas a safe energy option in the long run, the stubborn fact persists that water is now a huge business and human rights issue. More companies are placing a strong emphasis on water stewardship on their corporate social responsibility and sustainability agendas as the soaring thirst for water confronts rich and poor countries alike.

To that end, dare I present the top 10 water issues of 2012:

It’s in the toilet: Can this Victoria-era invention, which really has not changed much over the past 150 years, score a more sustainable makeover? Sanitation has emerged as a human rights issue and toilets are at the core of this challenge. The Gates Foundation sponsored a toilet competition to find a new solution for the 2.5 billion people who do not have access to this simple contraption. Companies such as Unilever realize that increasing access to toilets is a both a business and philanthropic opportunity. As dire as the situation is, the payoff is huge: UNICEF has calculated that for every $1 spent on sanitation, the end result is $5.50 in economic productivity.

Slash that water waste in your supply chain: PepsiCo is a leading example of how companies can achieve both monetary savings and improve their environmental stewardship record when focusing on water within the supply chain. Brewing companies such as AB InBev are no slouch either. Trouble can brew in towns that are confronting diminishing water supplies, as Coca-Cola experienced earlier this year in a New England town.

Droughts: Extreme weather, most recently Hurricane Sandy, has shaken the planet often this year. The drought in America’s Midwest and Texas this year has raised a bevy of questions, from its effects on hydropower to, of course, the wisdom of biofuels and whether water efficiency measures were enough. Remember how technology companies struggled with their supply chains after 2011’s floods in Thailand? Watch for food companies to face similar issues and devise new long term scenario plans in the coming years.

Biofuels: As more countries seek biofuels as part of their energy portfolios, questions over whether the consumption of water needed to grow these crops make them a viable alternative. But in regions where soil quality has suffered because of irrigation or excessive use of fertilizers, including the San Joaquin Valley, the cultivation of resilient crops such as sugar beets could make biofuels a more sustainable option.

Land rights: The demand for reliable access to food has spurred a global rush for land that will not dissipate anytime soon. This global “land grab” has endangered the livelihoods of countless small farmers across the world as they increasingly lose access to safe supplies of water. For companies seeking to expand into new emerging markets, such as Africa, both land and water rights will have to become a priority as they ensure their products are produced ethically and safely.

Fracking: On one hand, the natural gas boom has led to a decrease in the demand for coal. But there is a cost and plenty of controversy, depending on your perspective on fracking. TriplePundit writer RP Siegel has covered fracking extensively as the Obama administration has aggressively pursued an “all of the above” energy policy centered on natural gas. Concerns over fracking’s long-term impact on groundwater supplies have spurred states like New York to severely restrict fracking despite unrelenting pressure. Could new technologies make fracking safer? Watch us to cover fracking with a continued laser-like focus in 2013.

The Middle East as an emerging water technology lab: The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have the money and interest in finding new water technologies other than energy-hogging desalination. As with the case of clean energy, do not be surprised if the Gulf region becomes a “blue technology” hotbed: after all, they have to quench the thirst of a growing population, and of course, these countries have the funds to underwrite such research and development.

Textiles becoming dryer: The textile industry, partly because of the growth of water-intensive crops such as cotton and the production of materials such as polyester, has a massive effect on water supplies across the world. Then, there is the huge amount of water needed to keep these clothes clean after purchase. But, between the farm and the household laundry room, exciting new developments have emerged. Athletic companies such as Nike, Adidas and Puma are experimenting with waterless dying and other processes that will slash water use throughout their operations. Some of the newest water innovations are coming from apparel companies that were once known more for labor controversies than sustainable technologies.

Improved water access for the poor: Stop digging wells. NGOs are increasingly partnering with businesses to find market-based solutions to help the world’s poor gain access to safe water. Water.org has launched programs including funding taps into municipal piped water.

Can bottled water be sustainable? We are not exactly bottled water-friendly territory here; Gina-Marie Cheeseman, for example, has brought attention to the bottled water industry’s obnoxious and absurd campaign against tap water. But, at least some companies such as Nestle are taking (slow) steps to address all that waste. Ford Motor is one company that is doing something with those plastic bottles; the automaker has partnered with a textile company to use upholstery made out of PET in its cars.

DENVER — Communities across the West are demanding limits on oil shale drilling along the Colorado River over concerns the thirst for oil could lead to polluted water supplies for millions of people. The worries have prompted proposals to limit acreage available for leasing. Officials in Nevada and Arizona sent letters to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar expressing concerns about the need to protect Colorado River water quality and quantity. Others back a Bureau of Land Management proposal to sharply reduce acreage available for possible leasing in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Chris Treese, spokesman for the Colorado River Water Conservation District, said the concerns are overblown.
“They’re not going to see any change in their water quality – none,” said Treese, whose group is in western Colorado.

The BLM said some of the potential impacts will be analyzed as part of the individual leasing authorization process.
Regulators believe the water supply can be protected and any pollution will be diluted by the time it reaches Las Vegas, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (http://tinyurl.com/9qgmnol) reported Monday.

Yet those reassurances have not placated elected officials. “We believe that a comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of oil shale development to the Colorado River basin should be conducted before the BLM considers commercial leasing of public lands,” said a letter signed by Nevada state lawmakers Peggy Pierce and Tick Segerblom; Arizona House Minority Whip Anna Tovar, and Arizona Corporate Commission member Paul Newman. The commission oversees utility and transportation matters.

The writers cited a Government Accountability Office estimate that industrial-scale oil shale development could require water equivalent to the amount used by 750,000 households.
Arizona’s House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, a Democrat, sent a similar letter, as did Democratic Nevada lawmaker Maggie Carlton, Democratic Nevada state Sen. Mark Manendo, and Las Vegas City Council member Bob Coffin.

In addition, Clark County commissioners in southern Nevada also indicated they were trying to adopt a resolution that wouldn’t interfere with sensitive, ongoing interstate negotiations over Colorado River water.

Even residents on the other side of the Continental Divide who rely on Colorado River water have raised concerns about oil shale’s potential impacts on water quality and future availability.

The Front Range Water Council sent a letter to the BLM regarding its draft environmental impact statement analyzing a range of alternatives for how much land should be made available for possible leasing.

The council represents utilities for Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Aurora and other communities that need the water for about 80 percent of the state population.
Jeremy Boak, director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School of Mines, said some companies are trying to find ways to pump oil without coming in contact with groundwater.

Shell is testing a steam process that it says shows promise, cleaning groundwater before it gets to consumers.

Historically, with differing perspectives on the future of water management in California, one of the largest agricultural water districts and a leading environmental organization have completed a joint study that shows how both interests can benefit from operating major storage reservoirs  in conjunction with groundwater basins.

In the view of this study, healthy rivers are not just environmentally valuable, they also are central to ensuring reliable, sustainable water supplies.  That is because water supply systems that work in concert with the environment are less likely to be encumbered by court orders, water rights hearings, and other restrictions that can have drastic effects on water supplies for farming and human needs.

Beginning in 2006, the Glenn Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and the Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) jointly embarked on an investigation of the potential benefits from changing the operations of the two largest reservoirs in California so that they can capture a larger fraction of the annual rainfall and snowmelt.   These are Shasta reservoir, the largest in the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP), and Oroville reservoir, the only water storage facility for the State Water Project. Both reservoirs are located in the Sacramento Valley, and control water flows on the Sacramento River and the Feather River, respectively. 

The study shows that water yield could be increased in these reservoirs by re-operating them to release additional water to meet irrigation demands and for ecosystem enhancement, including salmon runs.  But this creates a risk that the reservoir will not refill during the following winter and spring.  To eliminate this risk, the study looked at the possibility of drawing upon the groundwater aquifers in the Sacramento Valley to supplement the deliveries from the reservoirs. The study found that if this technique had been used during the 82 years during which records have been kept, it would have been necessary to turn to the groundwater system to assure full deliveries in only 4 of these years for the federal reservoir and 6 years for the state reservoir, and that the groundwater levels would have rebounded during the following precipitation season, or soon thereafter. 

According to Gregory Thomas, the CEO of NHI, the environmental partner, “this is surely the most rigorous study to date on the potential for optimizing the operations of existing water infrastructure in California to produce benefits for both the environment and water supply that are complementary rather than competitive.  We know from this study what will work and what may work even better by more fully integrating the management of existing reservoirs and groundwater systems and by physically interconnecting them. This work strongly suggests that alleviating the conflicts in the delta through isolated conveyance could provide substantial improvements in environmental conditions in the upstream rivers as well as within the delta itself. “

STAPLES, TX — The town of Staples, Texas, sits aside the San Marcos River, and that river provides the community’s 250 residents with some of its potable water.

But, the price of water just went up in Staples… by about 9,900% for some residents.

“Water is gold in Texas,” said resident Carol Wester. Wester said when her water company was bought out by Crystal Clear Water Supply 18 months ago, the company mailed residents a notice about the change.

What they didn’t send, Wester said, was the fine print—that on the day of sale, any inactive water meters or accounts with balances still on the books would face a hook-up charge.

Water, always at the core of California’s political and social fabric, is becoming even more precious as the population expands and the infrastructure withers.

 Aging infrastructure – the pipelines, the troughs, the reservoirs, the flumes — tops a long to-do list and carries a price tag that points to bigger water bills for families and business across the state.

 “There has been a trend,” says Lisa Lien-Mager of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), “where basically every aspect of delivering safe drinking water is becoming more expensive.”

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the huge wholesaler that through its member agencies supplies some 18 million people with drinking water across the south state, announced in its two-year budget a 5 percent rate increase for the 2012-2013 water year and another in 2013-2014.  In raw dollars, the MWD’s cost of refurbishing and replacing its infrastructure has risen 10-fold in little more than a decade.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, serving 2.4 million people in the Bay Area, has increased water and sewer rates an average of 10 percent for single-family homes and 12 percent for multi-family buildings every year since 2009.

In the state capital, the Department of Utilities’ July rate increase of 10 percent for water and wastewater will be followed by 15 percent and 14 percent increases in the next two years, respectively.

The system of aqueducts, reservoirs, pipes and pumping stations that delivers water throughout California represents a triumph of human engineering over geographic obstacles. It sustains California despite the basic contradiction that California is a state in which most of the rain falls in the north but most of the people live in the south. Indeed, three out of every four gallons of water comes from north of Sacramento, while 80 percent of the consumption of that water occurs in the lower two-thirds of the state.

By one estimate, California’s water infrastructure delivers or controls some 40 million acre-feet of water – an acre-foot is roughly the amount of water a family of four uses in a year, or about 326,000 gallons – and most of the water is used by farmers. The water currently serves some 38 million people — and probably 42 million by the end of the decade.

 Much of this tangled infrastructure is decades old. A comprehensive fix could cost $20 billion, but that is only a partial figure myriad local projects.

And agencies that supply water typically cite the maintenance and upgrade of this infrastructure as the reasons for increasing water bills.

San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission, for instance, is in the middle of a $4.6 billion Water System Improvement Plan, adding safeguards and backups and improving the seismic resilience of its pipelines to make the Bay Area’s water supply more reliable. The money for the renovations comes from a voter-approved bond measure, with the cost ultimately passed on to ratepayers.

To the south, ever-larger slices of the budget are eaten up by the maintenance of existing hydro-engineering works, many of which predate World War II.

 In the MWD’s 2012-2014 budget blueprint, General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger noted that “In fiscal year 1998-99, the district spent $30 million a year — 5 percent of total capital expenditures — to sustain our water system. By comparison, we estimate spending more than $280 million — more than 50 percent of our capital budget — on refurbishment and replacement over the next two years.”

In addition to infrastructure maintenance, a variety of other expenses have been emerging in the conveyance and distribution of water. One is the increasingly stringent purity requirements.

 “A few decades ago, water suppliers had 22 regulated contaminants to monitor and treat for if necessary.” says Mager. “Now there are 90.” Each new contaminant added to the list can cost water agencies millions in initial capital to add new treatment systems, to say nothing of the added annual expenditures to operate them.

Invasive species can also cause problems, as in the case of the quagga mussels and their unfortunate habit of colonizing water intake pipes. The MWD has already spent some $30 million total battling the spread of the mussels, first discovered in a Colorado reservoir in 2007.

Another pricing problem has to do with metering and the fear of shortage.

The limited supply of water has been made more acute by recent environmental concerns in the San Joaquin-Sacramento River delta and elsewhere, where state and federal rules protecting local ecosystems limit the amount of water that can be exported.

The state has also been dry. A series of wet years beginning in 2009 left California’s elaborate system of reservoirs and water banks brimming, but the latest weather cycle has proven much drier than average.

“Last year at this time we still had about 135 percent of average in terms of state-wide reservoir storage” says Jeanine Jones, Interstate Resources Manager for the Department of Water Resources, “this year, we’re going into the new water year with 95 percent, so we’re a little bit behind the curve.”

Jones says that aside from dry-land agriculture, the dry spell has not yet been severe enough to affect most people. Yet because of the potential for water shortage, the consistent refrain across the patchwork of utility departments, water companies, contractors and wholesalers that provide water to California’s homes has been for customers to use less.

 The practice of metering, charging water users by the amount they individually use rather than by a flat rate, was conceived as an attempt to reduce usage.

But metering leads to something of an economic paradox.

 The more ratepayers reduce their water usage, their monthly bills go down and the less money the suppliers collect to service bonds, pay for maintenance and meet other expenses. 

 In order to cover consistent costs with an inconsistent revenue source, rates have to go up. By demanding less water, the cities make it more expensive. Ratepayers, facing bills they often consider exorbitant — $100 monthly tabs are not uncommon — are not happy. 

“It’s a problem,” Mager admits. “The thing is helping people to think about paying for water not just as a bought-and-sold commodity, but as paying in to this much larger system. Even though the cost of delivering high-quality, reliable water is on the rise, we think tap water service is still a great value.”