All posts by Steve

No Water Grabs!

ISSUES

Georgia is home to more than 70,000 miles of rivers and streams, but with a population of 9.8 million people these abundant water resources are being strained, especially in Metro Atlanta where more than 4 million of Georgia’s citizens reside. Unfortunately, Georgia’s largest metropolitan area sits in North Georgia near the state’s mountains where several of Georgia’s rivers begin, and where water is less abundant.

For example, each day on average, about 1.6 billion gallons of water flows by the City of Atlanta in the Chattahoochee River—the area’s primary drinking water source. By contrast, about 4.5 billion gallons flow by the City of Augusta in the Savannah, more than 3 billion gallons flow by Columbus in the Chattahoochee and some 4.4 billion gallons flow by Rome in the Coosa.

Because Georgia’s residents are not where Georgia’s water is, some special interests want to pipe or transfer the abundant water resources of Georgia’s smaller cities to Metro Atlanta to support that region’s continued economic growth. This process is usually referred to as “interbasin transfer” because water is moved from one river basin to another and not returned.

Interbasin transfers create conflicts between communities because water removed from a river and not returned is no longer available to sustain the economies of downstream communities or protect the health of the river and the wildlife that depend upon it.

Interbasin transfers currently take place in many parts of the state but most notably on the Chattahoochee and Coosa rivers. In 2008, the Chattahoochee lost 46.7 million gallons each day (MGD) while the Flint lost 11.7 MGD and the Coosa lost 9.7 MGD.

However, recent proposals for meeting Metro Atlanta’s water demands include the transfer of up to 150 MGD from the Savannah River system, 200 MGD from the Tennessee River system and even 200 MGD from South Georgia wells.

Such massive transfers could significantly impact the economic future of Georgia’s smaller communities and threaten our state’s natural resources.

Georgia needs to regulate interbasin transfers to protect our rivers and the future of all Georgia communities.

The state’s current laws regulating interbasin transfers are weak and should be strengthened.

Click Below

Say No

Mission Plastiki—Catching Wind, Storing Rain:

EFFICIENCY, INNOVATIONS

David de Rothschild’s Quest for Pacific Plastic

Click on the link above to read the whole interview from circle of Blue Waternews

You mentioned the Plastiki as its own ecosystem in the middle of the ocean. Fresh water is a tiny percentage on this plant, tell me what you have learned about using fresh water in a closed ecosystem in similarities between living on Plastiki and living on Earth.

David de Rothschild: Water has been one of the most topical points of conversation on the boat from the very moment we began this project. One of the things we obviously wanted to do was work within our limit—mainly our energy limit. When we first started looking at different systems one of the first systems that was proposed to us was a very smart system that was based on the Namibian desert beetle. The system looks at evaporation and the differential in temperature to create condensation that then can be collected. We went through a number of trials and we discussed this with a number of experts. Michael Pawlyn, who is the concept architect and is a big advocate of this, is doing a big project on this called the Sahara Forest project, which is looking at this Namibian desert beetle for influence for the irrigation systems that they’re setting up. We went through to a number of different call-outs to various smart brain trusts on these issues, and to be honest with you, we came up with a blank in finding a very compact and suitable way of generating freshwater without huge amount of energy. If you start getting into things like reverse osmosis you really are talking about vast amounts of energy that are required, at least today.

David de Rothschild

One of the things we went for was just good, old-fashioned rainwater collection. We designed the cabin to be a one great water catcher, so the cabin roof is hooked up with four outlets. Every time there’s a downpour we fill up our tanks. And it becomes a real moment of the day. You will see every crew member take their clothes off and run outside and have a freshwater shower and make the most of those precious drops. Sometimes the school lasts a minute, and you can’t wash the soap off. And sometimes we’re getting showers lasting almost day to a day-and-a-half of solid rain that fills our tanks up—it is quite an extraordinary story on the first leg. We realized our limitation with the water. We had to make a few decisions; one of them was the garden. Halfway across from Christmas Island we had to decide whether the water was going to be for us, or the water was going to be for the garden. Obviously we chose us, which meant the garden suffered. This is one of our big challenges, and the big challenges that we see all over the world. We see communities that have no access to water and it’s very hard for them to make the choices between do I feed myself and or hydrate myself, knowing that without water I will be gone in 15 days. You cannot survive without freshwater. It was quite an extraordinary story, but oddly enough on the first leg it only rained one day and along with the rain I should make clear that we also had big bladder bags where we stored our water and had an allowance each day of three liters a day per person. It really became a mind strain because we really did start to go through our water and you know the wind wasn’t in our favor and the first leg was dragging on longer than what we anticipated and when we arrived at Christmas Island we were literally at the bottom of our supplies. I think that had a big psychological effect on me and made me very aware about how incredibly lucky we are in the developed world or in any part of the world where we can just turn a tap on and not even contemplate the journey that water has taken and the process its taken to flow out of our taps so easily. The water issue on board has always been one we contended with whether it was carrying enough water, or whether during re-supplies. It’s really become a big topic of conversation and really does highlight how precious a resource it is. Without water we are really in dire straits.

Energy Efficiency vs. Energy Conservation

EFFICIENCY, ENERGY

By Josh SchellenbergPublished: 02 March 2010 6:05 PM UTC

Posted in: Energy Conservation, Energy Efficiency

From reading comments on EnergyDSM.com and LinkedIn, I get the sense that there is a bit of misunderstanding about energy efficiency and energy conservation.  Here are the explanations that I use.  Please comment on how this compares and contrasts with your understanding of energy efficiency, energy conservation and the difference between the two.

What is Energy Efficiency?

Energy efficiency involves technology that produces the same end product while using less energy.  For example, an energy efficient air conditioner produces the same level of cooling capability while using less energy than the average air conditioner on the market. This technology is always changing because a device that was energy efficient 30 years ago is probably not energy efficient today.

Energy efficiency programs have become increasingly popular as global warming has become more of a threat.  As many people in the industry say, “the cleanest energy is the energy never used.”  For example, consider a business that installs solar panels on its office buildings, but does not replace its inefficient light bulbs and air conditioners.  If the inefficient devices were replaced by efficient ones, there may not have even been a need for the solar panels in the first place.  Clean energy powering dirty devices does the world no good.  For this reason, Barack Obama calls energy efficiency “the cheapest, cleanest, fastest energy source.”

What is Energy Conservation?

Although energy conservation is often confused with energy efficiency, it is quite different.  Both involve a reduction in overall energy use, but achieve that goal in different ways.  Conservation involves cutting waste of energy whereas energy efficiency does not.  For example, I can replace my old air conditioner with an energy efficient one, but can still waste energy by running it while I’m not home.  I may have been able to save more energy by changing my behavior or programming my thermostat as opposed to replacing my air conditioner.

Energy conservation has not been as popular as energy efficiency because it is often associated with sacrifice.  If I do not have my air conditioner on while I’m not home, I might be uncomfortable for a few minutes while the house cools down when I get home and turn it on.  If I buy an energy efficient air conditioner instead, I save energy without changing my behavior.  For utilities, it is also much easier to measure the impact of installing an energy efficient device because the energy savings do not depend on human behavior.

Is Energy Conservation Gaining Popularity?

Fortunately, there are many companies out there that are trying to create interesting solutions so that we can conserve energy without having to change our behavior as much.  Sensors can be used that know when someone is in the room and leaving the room.  In the near future, we should be able to use our phones to control home energy use.  If my home is unbearably hot when I arrive, I will be able to turn on the air conditioner when I’m 15 minutes away.  Once these technologies become more widely available, energy conservation will likely gain popularity.  Just remember… it’s not energy efficiency.  It’s energy conservation.

Josh Schellenberg is a Senior Analyst at Freeman, Sullivan & Co. in San Francisco. To contact Josh directly, send him an email at josh@energydsm.com. The opinions and views expressed at EnergyDSM.com (and any typographical errors) do not represent those of Freeman, Sullivan & Co.

National Geographic Society and Water

INNOVATIONS

By 2050, a third of the people on Earth may lack a clean, secure source of water. Join National Geographic in exploring the local stories and global trends that define the world’s water crisis. Learn about freshwater resources and how they are used to feed, power, and sustain all life. See how the forces of technology, climate, human nature, and policy create challenges and drive solutions for a sustainable planet.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater

Find Water Polluters Near You

ISSUES

From Toxic Waters a NY Times series about the worsening pollution in American water and regulators’ responce.

Across the nation, the system that Congress created to protect the nation’s waters under the Clean Water Act of 1972 today often fails to prevent pollution. The New York Times has compiled data on more than 200,000 facilities that have permits to discharge pollutants and collected responses from states regarding compliance. Information about facilities contained in this database comes from two sources: the Environmental Protection Agency and the California State Water Resources Control Board. The database does not contain information submitted by the states. Full Story »

Washington State DOT held liable for Stormwater Runoff

ISSUES

Washington State Dept of Transportation held liable for Stormwater runoff under CERCLA

Started by Jeffrey Sutton P.E.,M.ASCE, Staff Engineering at Erlandsen & Associates

Federal Court Holds Washington State Liable
Under Superfund Law for Stormwater Runoff
In what may be a first case of its kind, a federal district judge has ruled that the Washington State Department of Transportation is liable for cleanup costs under the superfund law for highway stormwater runoff that contained hazardous substances (United States v. Washington State Dept. of Transportation, W.D. Wash., No. C08-5722, 6/7/10).
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held in a June 7 order granting partial summary judgment to the federal government that the state was liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act because it arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances by designing the drainage systems for three highways—I-5, State Route 705, and State Route 509.
The runoff from the roadways drains into the Thea Foss and Wheeler Osgood waterways, which are located within the Commencement Bay-Nearshore Tideflats superfund site on Puget Sound in Tacoma, Wash.
The state Transportation Department “arranged for disposal of hazardous substances. It is undisputed that [the department] designed the drainage systems at issue,” Bryan wrote. “Designing is an action directed to a specific purpose. The purpose was to discharge the highway runoff into the environment. [The department] had knowledge that the runoff contained hazardous substances, and there was an actual release of the hazardous substances into the environment.”
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commencement Bay-Nearshore Tideflats Superfund Site in Tacoma occupies 12 square miles and includes more than 300 active businesses, with almost 500 sources of contamination (142 DEN A-7, 7/28/09).
Bryan wrote in his order that highway runoff from the three highways contained the following hazardous substances: phthalates, cadmium, lead, zinc, nickel, and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Deborah L. Cade, state assistant attorney general, said the opinion is the first of its kind in using CERCLA to control stormwater runoff.
“There is no evidence in his case that the stormwater runoff is anything other than stormwater runoff. It’s just rainwater that falls on the highway,” The United States brought suit against the state transportation department on Dec. 2, 2008, seeking to recover its costs incurred in response to the releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances to the two waterways, located in Tacoma.
Response Costs Set at $6.8 Million
The United States alleged that, as of June 30, 2008, it had incurred at least $6.8 million in unreimbursed response costs linked to the Thea Foss and Wheeler Osgood Waterways.
Because the court found the department to be an arranger under CERCLA, Bryan wrote that he did not need to address whether the department was an owner or operator of the superfund site.
Arranger liability under CERCLA provides that one who disposes of or treats any hazardous substance will be liable for a subsequent release of such hazardous substance into the environment.
The state agency defended itself against the allegations of the federal government by claiming that it did not fall under one of the classes of responsible parties under the superfund law.
The United States countered that by claiming the department “arranged for disposal by designing, constructing, and operating drainage systems whose sole function was to collect highway runoff and dispose of it into nearby water-bodies,” according to the June 7 decision.

Find Water Polluters Near You

ISSUES

Not in my backyard. Check out your state from the list below

Search data on more than 200,000 facilities around the nation permitted to discharge pollutants.

From an article by the New York Times

Toxic Waters

A series about the worsening pollution in American waters and regulators’ response


Water Efficiency and the EERE

INNOVATIONS

The US Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Department have a great web site for water efficiency, but I never see any references to it in the EERE email blast.

Email  Will Lintner and let him know you want them to start.
Federal Energy Management Program
william.lintner@ee.doe.gov

Check it out. It is great

Water Efficiency

Water is one of our most precious natural resources, and although the United States has an abundant supply, it is not evenly distributed throughout the country. Recent droughts illustrate that many areas are severely undersupplied. Federal facilities have a tremendous opportunity to lead by example within their communities to showcase innovative and cost-effective water efficiency strategies.

Water efficiency is no longer an option. Federal laws and regulations require agencies to implement water efficiency efforts. FEMP considers water efficiency to be an integral part of every comprehensive energy/resource management program. This is because water requires significant energy input for treatment, pumping, heating, and process uses.

Federal agencies have been making tremendous strides in their water efficiency efforts during the past few years. With new Federal directives, Federal agencies must continue to conserve water. FEMP’s mission is to assist agencies in water efficiency and meeting Federal mandates. In this section, energy managers can learn more about water efficiency through:

• Basics: Introduction of Federal water efficiency, including myths and misconceptions surrounding water efficiency and conservation efforts.

• Federal Requirements: Overview of Federal water efficiency requirements as well as and guidance surrounding Federal water management.

• Best Management Practices: Series of 14 Best Management Practices for Federal water efficiency developed by FEMP and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

• Case Studies: Sample Federal water programs aligned with the 14 Best Management Practices for Federal water efficiency.

• Working Group: Information, objectives, and resources surrounding the Federal Water Working Group.

• Resources: Federal, state, and local resources for water efficiency and management, including guidebooks, associations, and related links.

• Contacts: FEMP and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory contacts for Federal water efficiency and management.

Additional information is available in a Water Efficiency Program Prioritization presentation (PDF 203 KB).

Technical Guidance: Stormwater Treatment Credit for RHS in NC

INNOVATIONS, SOLUTIONS

Technical Guidance: Stormwater Treatment Credit for Rainwater Harvesting Systems

North Carolina Division of Water Quality

Revised September 22, 2008


Overview:

It is the policy of the Division of Water Quality to enable and encourage the use of rooftop rainwater harvesting systems (cisterns) to reduce stormwater runoff pollution from an individual site. Collecting and storing rooftop runoff, and providing a consistent, dedicated, and reliable end use, will reduce the volume of runoff and enable the reduction in size of other required stormwater treatment systems on the site. In watersheds requiring nutrient removal from stormwater, dedicated uses of the collected rainwater or proper treatment/infiltration can reduce stormwater nutrient removal requirements. This policy establishes the credit that will be allowed in DWQ permitting programs that consider impervious built upon areas (BUA) and that rely on calculations of runoff volume and peak flow for sizing stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Click here to view the complete document.

What a great way to control stormwater.