May 28, 2009

No perfect solution for water projects
San Diego just authorized a permit to build the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, promising local, sustainable water supply to wean the region from its dependence on the ailing Sacramento and Colorado rivers. The project is being challenged in court by groups fearing water intake for the plant will destroy marine life. Meanwhile in northern California, the delta’s water shipments to the south have been curtailed since 2007 to protect endangered fish, cutting off water from many agriculture producers. A judge just ruled that the needs of humans must be considered in determining water allocations. In the southeast, disputes over water from the Chattahoochee, Flint and Coosa rivers have been in and out of courts for nearly 20 years, with each state arguing the sustainability of water supplies, fisheries and agriculture are at stake.

Sustainable water supplies, agriculture and wildlife are all considered "environmental" causes, and advocates for each are finding themselves at odds around the country. Yes, a desal plant affects the ecosystem, but so does a new highway. People seem to be more accepting of transportation projects, which impact ecosystems and result in the death of thousands of land animals every year. Is that more tolerable than a water supply project that is necessary to sustain thousands of people? Everything humans do to sustain themselves has some impact on the environment. Desalination definitely affects the environment, but this must be weighed against alternatives. Is it better to tow an iceberg from Antarctica to California or pipe in water from the Great Lakes to parched southwestern states? Is there a win-win-win scenario that meets the needs of people, animals and the environment?

I am of the belief that there is no perfect solution, so there will always be someone on the opposite side — even fellow environmentalists. When it comes to water projects, the challenge should be to study all options with technical and scientific expertise, and to find the one with the least environmental impact that still provides a substantial gain for a region's water supply. What do you think?

May 22, 2009

Note from the close of ACWA
Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters wrapped up the ACWA conference with predictions of more debate, additional studies, and probably no solutions for the state’s water crisis and budget debacle. His observation is that it will take a major change to fix the dysfunctional governance system in Sacramento. He noted that a council in the Bay Area is promoting a new Constitutional Convention — with 400 delegates selected “randomly” all around the state — to meet and decide on a new governance structure and system for the state. Without something that drastic the state will continue to sink, with declines in education, congested roads and dwindling water supplies.

May 20, 2009

Conference attendees march to the capitol
The ACWA conference was kicked off this morning by California State Sen. Darrell Steinberg, fresh from yesterday’s ballot defeats on the budget. He told the audience that he had to brush himself off and get back to work, and that just because the plans to deal with the budget crisis didn't work out it doesn't mean there isn’t a water crisis — because there is. He said they would be putting their heads together to find ways to meet the dual objectives of reliable water supply and environmental protection.

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson also welcomed everyone to Sacramento and  pledged to work to solve the water challenges before us. Richard Roos-Collins from the Natural Heritage Institute added some encouraging words about the need to reach agreements with environmental interests and water entities — and believes it can and will happen.

ACWA President Glen Peterson and Vice President Paul Kelley rallied the troops to participate in the "Walk on the Capitol." They distributed blue shirts and red shirts, both with white letters saying “Action on Water NOW!” People then marched from the Sacramento convention center to the steps of the capitol. It is amazing seeing hundreds of folks flocking to the dome.

If you attended the conference and have thoughts about what you heard and saw, leave a comment and let us know about it.

May 19, 2009

Responsibly planning for change
In just one day we've already gotten a lot of feedback about The Water Cooler. We received an e-mail from a colleague asking if the title of the page means Brown and Caldwell is buying into the "hype" about climate change. We want to clarify that our purpose here is not to debate or persuade water professionals about a particular point of view on the causes and cures for climate variability. Our goal is to provide a venue where we all can see what changes are taking place in different parts of the nation, and learn how water agencies are acting to conserve and protect water resources.

Here in California, we hear a lot of managers say that real changes are happening and affecting water supplies. The record drought on the Colorado River (more than seven years) is one example. Also, earlier runoff from the Sacramento River compared to a few decades ago (which indicates earlier snowmelt) is documented and disrupting supplies. The state of California has issued guidelines regarding the responsibilities of water suppliers to plan for climate change, or climate adaptation as it is sometimes called.

While the reasons for changes in water supplies can be debated, it is our professional responsibility to plan for shifting conditions. That's why we created this resource — to provide a place where water resources leaders can share experiences, successes and lessons learned regarding what's really happening in our watersheds and communities. The opportunity is to move beyond political and philosophical beliefs and land solidly in the land of water resource reliability and sustainability. So please join us, and share your thoughts, ideas and experiences.

May 18, 2009

Conference addresses water supply crisis
This year's Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Spring Conference takes place this week in Sacramento. As the capital city, Sacramento is a timely setting given California's water crisis and the need for legislative action to address critical water supply issues. In fact, the association is sponsoring a rally on May 20 on the capitol steps, calling on policy makers to "Take Action on Water NOW!" Lawmakers and other state leaders are expected to address the crowd.

The issues facing water agencies in the state have never been so urgent. Water professionals know California is experiencing a water infrastructure crisis that is choking the economy and the environment, but the public may not share this perception. Environmental restrictions to protect species and growing pressure on the state’s water storage and delivery system are presenting unprecedented water supply challenges for local water agencies. Three consecutive dry years and the looming effects of climate change compound the problem and add urgency to the situation this year. Infrastructure, Delta conveyance, surface and groundwater storage and ecosystem restoration and protection must be addressed soon. ACWA hopes to build public support for action.

I'll be at the conference along with colleagues Paul Selsky and Grace Chow. Stop by the Brown and Caldwell exhibt or, better yet, join us for dessert from 8 to 11 p.m. May 20 at McCormick and Schmicks', 1111 J Street. You can R.S.V.P. if you're planning to attend. If you're not going to the ACWA conference, check back here for updates. With water agency leaders rallying in the streets, who knows what will happen!

May 17, 2009

Help needed for new gray water solutions
As drought and water shortages sweep the nation, conservation is now a part of everyday conversation. A majority of our water use is in outdoor landscaping, and popular “at home” water conservation measures include drip irrigation and rain barrels. Recycled water for diversification of drinking water supplies is receiving strong support from communities. In fact, the California Department of Water Resources is holding public workshops to introduce draft language for design standards for dual-plumbed buildings for adoption into the California Plumbing Code. 

As recycled water becomes more widely accepted, single-family residences are also looking to help in the conservation effort. The policy on gray water use varies by state, but it is most restrictive in California. Various inspections must be performed by engineers and the health department. The inspections and permits are costly, professional plumbers must do the installation, and all systems must be approved for vector control.  Because the process is so difficult, many cisterns and other gray water systems in California are not permitted. These people are known as “graywater guerillas,” not to be confused with the Greywater Guerillas sustainability group. 

It looks like the cost of doing the right thing — conserving and reusing water — is having the unintended consequence of leading homeowners to skirt code and permit requirements. While this may seem reasonable at first glance, there is a lot at risk should toxins flow from sinks, showers and washing machines into groundwater supplies. Think if it this way — most people wouldn't try and rig up their own solar power system because the cost of complying with health and safety requirements is too high. So why would they want to do so with water? Perhaps it seems less risky, as a power system gone wrong can damage or destroy a home. It is important to remember that much is at stake in residential water quality as well.

One answer is for regulators to help homeowners find gray water solutions — inexpensive, uncomplicated systems that can be installed more or less "off the shelf," similar to alternative energy systems, and that comply with health and safety requirements. It may be that cities and counties have set quality and oversight standards independent of developing any processes and support to help homeowners meet these requirements.     

Or it may be that the demand for gray water systems is not yet large enough for a network of equipment and installation vendors and manufacturers to develop, and we'll just have to wait for people to feel the same kind of pain with their water bills that has caused so many to look for alternatives to buying power from the public grid.

If anyone has examples of communities where gray water capture is allowed and works well, let us know using the comment feature at the end of this post.

May 13, 2009

New era of collaboration over water use
I was in Washington last week where Brown and Caldwell, along with 64 co-recipients, received a Partners in Conservation award from Secratary of the Interior Ken Salazar. The project we represented was the Colorado River Interim Guidelines, a historic agreement in which 65 federal, state and local agencies, tribes and citizen groups came together to find water use solutions rather than stoke rivalries.

It struck me that we may be entering a new era of collaboration — if 65 organizations with competing needs can reach agreement on an issue as divisive as water use in one of the most resource-challenged regions of the country, it can happen anywhere! And Salazar has made cooperation a top priority.

On the topic of cooperation, an attorney attending the ceremony pointed out that his firm has reduced its staff because agencies are settling rather than litigating their way through disagreements. Consider this another data point signalling that collaboration is gaining momentum. If you want to see progress in solving some of the most critical water and wastewater issues facing our communities and our nation, this is great news!

May 4, 2009

Efforts to save salmon may prove futile
During the past two decades the United States has invested billions of dollars rebuilding watersheds, restoring stream flows and reworking dams in an effort to keep salmon from vanishing. A story in the Idaho Statesman explains why those efforts may prove futile, however, as climate change pushes the temperature of waters in the Pacific Northwest higher and higher:

But a new threat is more devastating than the gill nets that sent dozens of salmon runs into extinction. It is more deadly than the hydroelectric turbines that still kill millions of migrating smolts. In fact, it raises doubts about whether salmon will survive in the Northern Pacific at all.

Climate change already has made rivers warmer and spring runoff earlier, disrupting the life cycle of the fish that are an icon of the region.

No matter what actions the world takes to reduce greenhouse gases, river temperatures in more than half of the lower-elevation watersheds may exceed 70 degrees by 2040 — too hot for salmon.

"The only salmon that are going to survive the century mark are the ones in the large populations in the higher elevations that are still going to have snow and cold water," said Jim Martin, a former chief of fisheries for the state of Oregon.

May 1, 2009

An affordable salvation?
In his latest New York Times column, economist Paul Krugman argues the chances of meaningful climate change legislation have improved now that Barack Obama is in the White House. Opponents of a cap-and-trade emissions system say limiting emissions would have a devastating effect on the nation's economy, but Krugman says those concerns are overblown:

Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.

But the best available estimates suggest that the costs of an emissions-limitation program would be modest, as long as it’s implemented gradually. And committing ourselves now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump.