Presidential Pipeline
|
The Public Rust Doctrine In celebration of a new year, here's a new phrase for a long-standing (and I hope eventually crumbling) water policy syndrome: "the Public Rust Doctrine". What It Is and Isn't I define the PRD as "principles and teachings that water and wastewater infrastructure systems should only be owned, operated and maintained by public entities supplied with public funds as long as possible and that efforts to change this dynamic should be resisted, at least until systems rust, decay, or approach catastrophic collapse." Don't confuse it with the Public Trust Doctrine. That's the well-established legal principle, enshrined in some state statutes and constitutions, that says essentially: You can't give or sell to a private party certain natural resource rights that are held in trust by the government for the general public. Even if a legislature chooses to grant private entities a degree of control over water, the private parties will be required to use the water in accordance with the public's best interest. Legal scholars such as Joseph Sax and environmental lawyers such as Nicholas Maxwell have described the origin and expansion of the doctrine from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1883 Illinois Central Railroad Co vs. Illinois case involving shoreline and tidal property rights up through the 1983 California case, National Audubon Society vs. Superior Court regarding Mono Lake water levels, Los Angeles' water needs, and the Prior Appropriations Doctrine, so I won't here but the basic point is this: Certain aspects of water are to be held by the government for public benefit rather than private gain. Of course, it can lead to some confusion and uncertainty, particularly as advocates and litigators wrestle over boundaries and expansions involving the meaning of "public interest" in areas beyond navigation, commerce, and fishing. The Public Trust Doctrine has gained steam over time and will continue to be an important, limited constraint on unlimited water and energy development. It's hard to argue with the notion that water, air, land and wildlife should be enjoyed by all rather than just a few and that some form of governmental oversight, even ownership, is needed. But when it comes to water infrastructure, including the collection, treatment, distribution, reclamation, and reuse of water, too many of us still think the private sector should be kept out of the big picture. Fortunately, there's a growing consensus, in my view, that some amount of clean water is a basic human right, but that the costs and complications of collecting, treating, and delivering the elixir of life require partnerships between public and private entities as not all can or should be done and funded through governmental solutions and agencies. Perhaps that explains why there have been more than $150 billion in capital committed to infrastructure via privately managed infrastructure funds over the past 5 years, according to Debra Coy, a leading analyst and consultant on the business of water. Perhaps that's also why nearly 2,000 water and wastewater entities in the U.S. have already seen the value in partnering with the private sector to design, build, and operate their public systems. Why It's Important The gap between needs and funds is growing. At a December hearing of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA's longtime expert and water warrior, Jim Hanlon, testified about the staggering level of needs over the next twenty years--$335 billion for drinking water infrastructure and $300 billion for wastewater infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineer's report on the cost of not investing in water infrastructure, also released in December, re-enforced the testimony and tallied a telling new number: $9.4 billion more is needed each year to avoid $21 billion per year in costs to households and businesses (think disrupted services, lost jobs, and contaminated watersheds). What to Do Major organizations and trade associations, including American Water Works Association, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, and Water Environment Federation, are joining in support of additional public funding approaches involving Treasury loan guarantees, as well as continued funding of existing State Revolving Funds but more emphasis is needed for private sector finance and management. Jeff Sterba, the President & CEO of American Water, and Debra Coy have also been preaching the gospel of infrastructure investment and innovative finance. The need is great and the money is there, at least in the billions of dollars in the private sector; it's a question of how to remove barriers to get the money where it's needed. One of the barriers--the Internal Revenue Code's state volume cap on private activity bonds--is getting a lot of bipartisan attention and that's a good thing. My view, like a lot of other individuals and organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors: Remove the cap and level the playing field with municipal tax-exempt bonds to boost public-private partnerships. Clean Water America Alliance's Business Advisory Council, chaired by Steve Maxwell, also knows the dynamic needs to change. It's exploring not only the value and pricing of water but the range of opportunities for innovative financing and private-public management of water systems. According to Michael Deane of the National Association of Water Companies, nearly $180 billion of private capital and infrastructure funds are looking to invest their money in American (or else Chinese) infrastructure projects. Water utilities and their rate payers should "occupy" Wall Street. That's where a lot of the new money is and that's also where many of the largely untapped opportunities can be found. (There's also a lot of opportunity with large institutional public investors such as state and local pension funds and university endowments.) It's time to talk details about how, not whether, to broaden the investment portfolio. It's time to get serious about fostering more public private partnerships that are innovative and accountable to the public and able to build trust, maintain pipes, and bust rusty paradigms and dated doctrines, such as PRD. What do you think? Let me know your views.
bgrumbles@cwaa.us
A Call to Farms As we celebrate the bounty of the season, pitchforks and storm clouds are gathering throughout the country and the nation's capital over agriculture and water policy and the potential collisions between the two. On the water quantity side, some of the fresh wrangling is over subsidies that distort the real cost of water, ground water mining that depletes ancient aquifer fossil water, and water footprints of certain agriculturally-related biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol. Some of these are long simmering, with dire consequences for local and regional ecosystems and economies, but they're gaining steam in a climate of increasing budget constraints and environmental/climate-related stressors. Even with the finger-pointing, there's also hand-clapping for individual acts of stewardship and widespread deployment of promising technologies. Drip and center-pivot (big wheel) irrigation, hi-tech laser leveling of fields, and in-place soil moisture sensors are all helping to save more and waste less. Crop selection and biotechnology are also making progress in the quest to reduce water and energy needs. With respect to water conservation practices, I saw a wide range on the range in Arizona when I was Director of Water Quality and working closely with the state's Agriculture Department. Some farmers and ranchers, growing commodities such as cotton, cattle, and citrus, were using their water allocations sparingly and looking for ways to cut costs and impacts on ecosystems (while also facing fair questions such as "Why are you choosing to produce such water-intensive crops in such dry places in the first place?") I also saw sincere efforts to balance competing interests, such as saving water vs. using water for dust suppression and air quality protection. It underscored the need for alternative, non-water solutions to keep dust from flying. On the water quality side, issues and confrontations are gaining greater intensity. Many municipal and environmental groups and agencies are pointing to agriculture and calling for significant progress on nutrient pollution under the Clean Water Act and a "fairer sharing" of the regulatory load. Soon to surface: a detailed report with an urban water perspective on controlling nitrogen and phosphorus. The report, being prepared by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies with support from the Turner Foundation and the Water Environment Federation, will argue that controls on agricultural sources of nutrients are more effective and cost-effective than current strategies focused primarily on just municipal point sources. This will add to the other, previous reports advocating for progress on agricultural, suburban, and urban sources of nutrient pollution into great waterbodies such as the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake, Everglades, Mississippi River/Gulf, Colorado River, Bay/Delta, Puget Sound, and beyond. There's also ongoing policy work on a broader, national and global level. Solutions from the Land (SFL), www.sfldialogue.net, a nonprofit educational organization, is developing recommendations for more sustainable farming, forestry, and land use with a long term, 2050 view. It's co-chaired by A.G. Kawamura, former Secretary of California Food and Agriculture, and Tom Lovejoy of the Heinz Center and includes a wide collection of representatives from agriculture, academia, NGOs (including yours truly from the Clean Water America Alliance), and industry. It's striving for more integrated and holistic approaches to meeting human and ecosystem requirements. A hungry planet, with 7 billion people today, and 9.6 billion expected in 2050, will need to squeeze out "more crop per drop" and no doubt, more "profit per crop" as Steve Maxwell points out in his book, "The Future of Water". Water makes
the world go 'round but food, feed, fiber, and fuel keep
it growing and smiling. I'm giving thanks for that and
hoping the connections between sustainable water and
agriculture continue to strengthen. Clean Water America
Alliance will do its part to connect the two and shed
light on policies and actions that can put food on the
table while protecting our water supplies today,
tomorrow, and beyond.
Soft and Salty The topic is water softeners, not baked pretzels, although both share some similarities. Hard water isn't a new challenge. It's as old as dirt and rocks. Some areas of the country, particularly the arid Southwest, have been confronting the problem for many years given the realities of the land and climate. Hard water, loaded with calcium and magnesium, needs softening or conditioning to work well for residents and businesses and the fixtures, appliances, and lifestyles to which they're accustomed. As one who has lived in Phoenix and Scottsdale, I know first-hand that dishwashers don't wash and toilets don't flush if hardness takes hold and scaling sets in. Studies have also shown that hot water heaters lose energy efficiency too, increasing our carbon footprint, when water is harder than softer. EPA estimates 6-10 million residential cation exchange water softeners, also known as self regenerating water softeners (SRWS), are installed in the U.S. Many existing water softeners are inefficient, using large volumes (25 gallons or more per day) during the regeneration process and regenerating more frequently than necessary. Extra water consumption isn't the only issue: Most of the devices add lots of salt as part of the chemistry of softening and that means more salts to sewers and ultimately the environment. In fact, some estimate the SRWS add 1 pound of salt to the waste stream from a home each day. Multiply the individual loadings by thousands across communities and you can see why some water and wastewater treatment and water reuse facilities are concerned about the "cumulative assault" on their assets and ability to comply downstream. Pitched battles have ensued over local bans on softeners, Clean Water Act NPDES permit violations for salt loadings, and the large number of total maximum daily loads (pollution diets) for waters impaired by chlorides and total dissolved solids. There's a new twist, however, involving some well-intended efforts of EPA. In November 2010, EPA's voluntary water efficiency labeling program, WaterSense, issued a "notice of intent" to develop water efficiency and performance specifications, which under some scenarios could lead to water savings nationally of 700 million to 1 billion gallons per year. EPA cited the need to promote efficiency and recent advances in technology to reduce consumption by using demand-initiated regeneration. The agency also identified other environmental impacts of water softeners that may be improved upon through performance requirements. It was a good move but not good enough, according to several national and regional water and environmental organizations that wanted more focus on the water quality aspects, beyond the water efficiency features. They recommended EPA evaluate and compare salt and non-salt discharging appliances and include water-less, non-salt discharging softeners in the WaterSense specification. They called for a more integrated approach to reduce reliance on existing, salt-using technologies and to promote salt-less, water-less technologies. For various reasons, including the controversy over salts and water-less devices, EPA announced in August 2011 it was putting the effort "on pause" to gather more data and sift through the policy options. Turns out that policymaking on water softening, like pretzel baking, has some twists and turns. I'm encouraged EPA wants to develop a thoughtful and successful WaterSense specification for water-efficient devices and is taking some extra time to sort through the interrelated water quality complexities. I hope they don't keep the effort on hold for too long but find a way to forge ahead with a more integrated solution, one which may involve program changes to WaterSense, as well as reliance on other agency programs and tools. Some good next steps would include: detailed briefings on the emerging technologies that don't use water or salt, development of a robust research agenda, and a possible national workshop on data gaps, available tools, and policy choices. It's the type of issue we live for at Clean Water America Alliance: sorting through water quality and quantity issues in search of more integrated, sustainable solutions. That's why we've become involved in the matter, along with our partner the Alliance for Water Efficiency, and are urging EPA and others to take the time to find a path forward. Through collaboration, we can find ways to soften the water, lessen the salt, and connect the dots.
Gargoyles and Gorillas Not to mix religion and politics, but the fantastic fixtures on cathedrals and other buildings are speaking a lot to me these days (so far only figuratively), as green infrastructure cheerleaders and EPA critics gear up for a politically-bruising battle over stormwater regulations. We should all look up from time to time in our search for progress and common ground--from the curb and the fence line to the gutters and rooftops, to the forest canopies and landscapes beyond the big box. Look up the word "gargoyle" and you'll find Latin and French roots meaning "throat" and "gullet". Think of gargle and spew. If all goes well, the artful spouts channel both rain water and evil spirits away from the building. Today's important issues over stormwater have evolved into complex technical, financial, legal, policy, and political choices, and much of the drama is playing out on the national stage with EPA's upcoming Clean Water Act (CWA) stormwater regulations. Art, skill, luck, and good will are needed to find the right mix at the right level. Understandably, there's concern about potential costs and constraints imposed by strangers with big hammers (or gorillas with federal badges, so to speak). Home builders, property owners, and policymakers are asking some legitimate questions about legal authority and fiscal austerity surrounding potential EPA CWA post-construction standards and property retrofit requirements. But there are also great opportunities to drive green infrastructure locally and regionally with thoughtful, flexible standards. With that in mind, the Clean Water America Alliance teamed up with American Rivers to identify principles for successful green infrastructure strategies and stormwater regulations. You can read the entire statement at HERE but here are some of the basics: "Widespread adoption of green infrastructure can: improve the health and livability of our communities; expand employment opportunities; reduce municipal expenses; and improve the safety, security, and sustainability of our water resources and ecosystems." "EPA's upcoming stormwater rule should include clear, achievable, and flexible standards and provisions that encourage the adoption and use of green infrastructure practices and help advance a broader green infrastructure strategy, combining regulatory and non-regulatory tools such as financial, technical, and research-related assistance." More specific provisions within the statement delve into the relevance of the new rule to wet-weather permits and consent decrees. The Clean Water America Alliance is also providing green infrastructure insight through its Urban Water Sustainability Council, chaired by Kevin Shafer of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Department. The Council is convening a first-class leadership conference in world water hub, Milwaukee Wisconsin, October 3-5, with unique opportunities to share ideas and learn from multi-disciplinary teams from 5 cities. One is Los Angeles, a leader in green infrastructure and a winner of the 2011 U.S. Water Prize. You can learn more about LA's green and integrated water resources works, as well as plans for the 2012 U.S. Water Prize competition, during a free one-hour webinar on August 31, hosted by the Clean Water America Alliance and Water & Wastes Digest of Scranton Gillette Communications. Learn more and register for the webinar HERE. These days, most gargoyles are simply ornamental
grotesques and there's nothing wrong with that. However,
the need for high performing tools and systems, beyond
individual barrels and gardens, grows greater every day
in watersheds across the country. Success is achieved
and maintained through voluntary, collaborative efforts
but well-crafted regulatory drivers are also needed,
whether at the local, state, or federal level and
whether you call them gorillas, enforcers, or green
cheese. When you find the right mix at the right level,
it's not only fantastic but functional too.
Blue Waves of Cooperation What's the proper balance of power between federal and state water agencies? It seems to ebb and flow over time. The Clean Water America Alliance hasn't taken a position on recent House-passed legislation amending the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), but here's my personal take on the controversy, as well as suggestions for meaningful progress on federal-state relations and environmental results. H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, is a strategic and significant shift in the balance of power between EPA and states under the CWA. In my view, the current version goes too far, too fast, and with too many questionable impacts on downstream states, communities, and ecosystems. It does, however, raise legitimate issues and, if channeled properly, may allow better partnerships to spring forth. For starters, I admire the "strategic" drafting of the bill. It uses the "cooperative federalism" theme, a core principle under the CWA, as a way to revisit fed-state power sharing in the midst of several raging, highly relevant controversies. It uses a sharp scalpel to effectively remove or slice up EPA authority under a few very important Clean Water programs--largely in response to outrage over, among other things, EPA's recent action on Florida's phosphorus criteria and standards and recent veto of a previously-issued permit for mountain top removal mining of coal in West Virginia. EPA and state water pollution control administrators continue to work on nutrient pollution strategies. Agriculture is also weighing in to find solutions. Many local utilities, developers, businesses, agricultural producers, and others, however, fear EPA has gone too far in its efforts to push state development of scientifically and legally defensible numeric criteria for nutrients. On behalf of the Agency in early 2009, I made the legal determination that Florida's efforts on phosphorus were insufficient under the CWA and that EPA needed to step in and begin the process of developing criteria. The key, of course, is how to move forward cooperatively and find the way as soon as possible to turn the keys back over to a highly sophisticated state agency fully capable of charting its own course. States are also concerned about prescriptive EPA pollution diets on permitted and diffuse sources. The concern is understandable. It's also hard work, expensive, and politically difficult for states to make progress in controlling nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, a leading cause of water quality impairment, without some assistance from EPA. To make progress, we need solid, enforceable numeric criteria, preferably set by states, to drive results and also create markets for trading and water quality upgrading. Perhaps one of the best results would be to keep EPA's hammer on the table, allowing the federal agency to step in and promulgate standards in lieu of a state's, but only when necessary, to further a strong federal interest, and consistent with a state-friendly protocol. Of course, none of that is new; it's more a question of how to define the conditions and build the trust along the way without violating the letter or spirit of the CWA. To prevent EPA from being able to step in and take action, however, would violate the spirit of the original CWA, in my view. On wetlands, EPA's use of the section 404(c) veto, a powerful tool, has been reserved for only the most extreme situations. It's been used 13 times in the 39 year history of the CWA. On behalf of EPA, in 2008, I signed the 12th veto, to prevent the construction of the Yazoo Pumps flood control project in Mississippi. Hardworking state and local agencies strongly supported the project but EPA concluded it would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the environment. The decision, which was made only after an extensive, deliberative, public process, saved some of the richest wetlands and aquatic resources in the nation as well as millions of federal taxpayer dollars. Perhaps a better approach to removing, or significantly weakening, the CWA federal veto is to increase state assumption of federal permitting programs. To date, only Michigan and New Jersey have assumed the controversial section 404 authority, with all other states resisting due, in part, to federal barriers, inadequate funding, and the risk of political headaches and controversies. Again, this isn't a new idea. For decades, policy makers have asked how to increase the role of states and tribes, considering money, regulatory barriers, and staff training. The good news: after over a year of collaboration, the Environmental Council of the States and the Association of State Wetland Managers, in collaboration with EPA, have developed a detailed handbook for state and tribal assumption with improved protection of wetland resources. The compilation has many good ideas for federal, state, and tribal policymakers and regulators. Sometimes, it's better to keep and refine collaboration tools than to throw them away. There's also a need for an interstate umpire to step in from time to time to protect downstream interests and regional ecosystems. What do you think?
Muddy Waters of the United States Seekers of regulatory certainty are still singing the blues after the Supreme Court muddied the waters of jurisdiction under the federal Clean Water Act in 2001 and 2006 but don't blame the Supremes and don't expect a harmonious solution any time soon. Sometimes we forget but wetlands are at the heart of our country's natural heritage and are central to a healthy, beautiful, and productive future. These green infrastructure systems deliver benefits to American communities and ecosystems, coastal and inland, serving as food factories, wildlife nurseries, water treatment plants, flood basins, carbon banks, playgrounds, and more. They need to be conserved, enjoyed, utilized, and protected. But while all wetlands and waters have value, not all are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act. It's important for clear lines to be drawn between what's in and what's out when defining what the term "waters of the U.S.," means. The Clean Water America Alliance doesn't have an official position on the April 27, 2011 guidance of the Obama Administration or on related proposals pending in Congress. We are, however, uniquely positioned to bring stakeholders and policymakers together on complex topics, particularly those critical to green infrastructure such as wetlands, bioswales, and stormwater basins. We also see an important and growing role for states to help broker a policy compromise on waters of the United States. They can encompass local and regional concerns, while side-stepping some of the political controversies over expanded federal jurisdiction. Perhaps now is a good time to renew the debate over whether and how to encourage state delegation (beyond the two states currently authorized) for federal permitting authorities under Clean Water Act section 404. Now is definitely the time for leadership from state and local water agencies, NGOs, and private sector leaders, ranging from agricultural producers to wetland mitigation bankers and duck habitat protectors. A broad scope of stakeholders works best because this is about more than just the section 404 permitting program. It's about section 402 NPDES permitting, section 311 oil spills, and section 303 water quality standards too. Key areas to watch over the coming months: whether the EPA-Corps guidance continues to define "significant nexus" in a way to include an aggregation of certain "similarly situated" waters the previous guidance did not include and whether the guidance allows for possible inclusion of so-called (a)(3) isolated waters and wetlands on a case by case, ecological basis. Another good question: whether the EPA and Corps actually move forward with and remain committed to issuing a regulation based on the April guidance. With elections looming and litigators preparing for a fight, one has to wonder. Even if the Administration chooses not to move
forward with a regulation, they should offer to convene
a bipartisan forum, or lend support to a bicameral
congressional forum, to find common ground on the
toughest issues. It may not lead to a legislative
success in the near future, but it could help build good
will, better understanding, and even a few bridges over
troubled waters of the U.S.. That will go a long way
towards the best solution in an ideal world: a
bipartisan amendment to the Clean Water Act that
improves protection and increases understanding well
into the future.
Drill, Maybe, Drill! The friction over “fracking” (specifically hydraulic fracturing for natural gas) underscores the growing need for energy security and environmental sustainability to be in balance rather than in battle and to keep water in mind through it all. Most agree natural gas has a bright future as a "bridge" fuel to cleaner, renewable energy. It makes sense to develop home-grown energy, such as natural gas, particularly when it has a smaller carbon footprint than imported oil or coal (although debated by some) and it's in large supplies under our feet, although sometimes 5,000 to 9,000 feet under our feet. But the "Shale Rush," prompted by technology breakthroughs in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing over the last decade or so, can raise significant questions about the drilling boom's large footprint on the landscape and the cumulative impact of operations on air, water, wildlife, and public health. Water is a particular concern since as much as 5 million gallons may be used at each site to fracture the organic-rich, tightly-compacted shale to recover valuable natural gas. Large amounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, and injected under intense pressure (10,000 psi), can mean potential issues down under, downstream, or downwind. The Marcellus Shale, the Saudia Arabia of natural gas to some, exists under much of southern New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, eastern Ohio, western Maryland, and even a portion of western and southwestern Virginia. USGS estimates the shale rock could include as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. A recent Pennsylvania State University study reports the Marcellus gas industry generated $3.9 billion in total value added revenue, more than 44,000 jobs, and $389 million in state and local taxes. For 2011, the estimated potential is more than $10 billion in total value added revenue, 100,000 jobs, and nearly $1 billion in state and local tax revenues in Pennsylvania. EPA is no stranger to fracking and its legal and environmental issues. A 1997 court in Alabama ruled for the first time that EPA should be regulating coal bed methane fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground Injection Control program. This created legal uncertainty. EPA then sought to reduce scientific uncertainty, overseeing a study on potential risks of fracking to ground water. A commission of experts, including several from industry, reviewed existing literature and concluded in the final 2004 report that fracking presented “little or no risk” to underground drinking water. As EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water at the time, I signed off on the report and testified to Congress about the findings. EPA, however, never intended for the report to be interpreted as a perpetual clean bill of health for fracking or to justify a broad statutory exemption from any future regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In 2005, Congress cited the report in justifying a fairly broad statutory exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act's underground injection control regulatory program. The exemption does not include a sunset or “recapture clause.” It does, however, stipulate that diesel fluids not be used in the process. This has prompted a lively debate over exactly what type of chemicals and propping agents go into the fracking fluids and what are the proper boundaries and differences between a community’s right to know and a competitor’s right to know the special ingredients of a fracking company’s product. A lot has happened since 2005 and, in my view, it makes sense to review the Safe Drinking Water Act landscape as well as the relevance of Clean Water Act programs. Political and legal battles have been growing in state and federal courts and agencies, with particular attention to fracking for shale gas, which is different from fracking for coal bed methane, the primary subject of EPA’s 2004 report. EPA is now developing a more complete, up-to-date study on fracking risks to ground water and seeking upfront input from its Science Advisory Board. An expanded, scientific review is important as much more information exists, including complaints about methane migration and contaminated water supplies. The Agency is also reviewing surface water impacts, such as from total dissolved solids (salts and minerals) and naturally occurring radioactive materials. EPA is probing current and potential new Clean Water Act requirements for onsite pre-treatment and permitting responsibilities at publicly owned treatment works and centralized waste treatment facilities, including the testing and handling of biosolids from facilities treating frack water. States and interstate organizations in Shale Gas regions are also stepping up efforts to study, regulate, and monitor the impacts of natural gas drilling and fracking and the management of "flowback" fracking fluids. Salts, bromides, radionuclides, and biosolids seem to be getting some of the greatest attention, in addition to the “federalism” question of whether EPA regulations are needed if state agencies are acting to oversee the industry and protect the public. It’s hard to know where all of this is going, as the debate intensifies and the Administration and Congressional committees take differing sides on environmental, energy, and economic impacts. Nonetheless, here are some easy predictions to make: more disclosure to the public and/or regulators of previously undisclosed chemicals in fracking fluids (e.g. www.fracfocus.org), increased onsite recycling of the frack water by industry, and more detailed monitoring by drinking water and wastewater officials of frack water and biosolids, especially radioactive constituents. These are all good steps in my view. The Clean Water America Alliance does not have a pro-frack or anti-frack view or official position and nothing I write in this column should be construed as such. We are, however, well-positioned to bring facts and policy choices to the table and use collaboration to keep watersheds and communities healthy into the future. In
my view, "drill, maybe, drill" means more review along a
more thoughtful path, one that can include fracking,
even in large amounts, but in the right place, at the
right time, with the right amount of government
oversight, and with water running through the
policymaking from beginning to end.
Water is embedded in just about every product and practice on the blue planet. Professor John Anthony Allan, winner of the 2008 Stockholm Water Prize, and pioneer in "virtual water," boosted global efforts to see, or at least appreciate, the invisible water running through every day goods and services--from hamburgers to power lines. Two of my visits to national companies, both dealing in chips, plus some recent research on a global clothing company, confirm corporate sustainability is alive and well and needs to be tapped into even more aggressively. It's where we'll find a lot of the innovation and motivation to change old habits and paradigms. Chips Frito-Lay has a history with resource recovery and water conservation. They've been recovering starch from potato-washing water since 1979 to reduce downstream treatment costs (a good example of pollution prevention and beneficial reuse). In 2001, they started recycling potato process water at their facilities, resulting in a 570 million gallon water savings in 2007 alone. The Casa Grande company is also shrinking its carbon footprint, as well, putting in solar panels and reducing fuel use in its truck fleets with anti-idling technologies. The chipmakers take packaging seriously, too, reusing cardboard boxes for shipping as many as 10 times and putting on the market the world's first 100 percent compostable snack bag. The water footprint of computer chips is just as important, in the quest for water sustainability, particularly in today's digital, IT world. Intel is winning awards for its water-smart chip making and washing facilities. I toured the Ocotillo plant in Arizona a few years ago and saw first-hand their efforts to increase water use efficiency, reclaim water at the plant, and treat it to ultra-clean levels to remove nano-impurities to reduce chip production costs. They also support the community by reusing water from the Chandler reclamation facility for nonpotable uses such as irrigation and landscaping but also by treating process water to such levels that it can then be injected underground to replenish and recharge the area's aquifer, one of the state's most important unseen resources. Jeans Business Advisory Council The Clean Water America Alliance recognizes the
leadership role private sector companies and
entrepreneurs can play and that's why we want to grow
our Business Advisory Council. Manufacturers, equipment
and service providers, and other sectors have an
important voice in shaping water policy. The true "blue
chip" companies are the ones walking the walk for water
sustainability, whether they're making snack or computer
"chips" with less water or "Water<Less Jeans". They need
to be at the table to shape urban and rural water policy
and the Clean Water America Alliance is ready, willing,
and able to help.
Whirled Water Day March 22 marks another World Water Day, the special day designated by the United Nations General Assembly in 1992 as a time to underscore the value and vulnerability of clean and safe water locally and globally. The heart-wrenching disaster in Japan is a painful reminder of the power of water to flatten neighborhoods. The collapse of infrastructure and lack of water to cool nuclear fuel rods sends a poignant message about the importance of location, planning, and response. "Sustainability" and "resiliency" go hand-in-hand, whether your community is on the coast, in a floodplain, along a fault line, up a tornado alley, within the snow belt, or beside a nuclear power plant. The perfect storm isn't as far-fetched as some would like to believe. So on this particular World Water Day, I'm thinking about water's whirling and hurling nature- -the hurricanes, cyclones, and tsunamis that can ravage and decimate families, towns, and ecosystems. As climate change increases precipitation and storm intensity in some areas and regions, water resource managers and emergency responders will need to focus on contingency planning, worst case scenarios, and adaptation. This should include the future citing and design of infrastructure, as well as opportunities for cost-effective retrofits. Additionally, as World Water Day's website suggests, if we’ve learned one thing in the previous decade, it’s that pipes and concrete can't do it alone; people and communities must join in. Taking an integrated watershed management approach that encourages community collaboration adds to our sustainability and resiliency. We need models for integrating, innovating and educating the public. That’s why I was happy to be on the selection committee for the Stockholm Water Prize and have supported the creation of the Clean Water America Alliance’s U.S. Water Prize. We need to celebrate leaders like 2011 Stockholm Water Prize Laureate Stephen R. Carpenter, Professor of zoology and Limnology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is using scientific tools to build a better framework for watershed protection. His work is helping the world connect land use, climate change, watershed health, and biology. And, while making those connections, let’s collaborate like the models provided through the U.S. Water Prize winners. They include the City of Los Angeles, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Milwaukee Water Council, National Great Rivers Research and Education Center, and the Pacific Institute. All are either promoting or implementing Integrated Watershed Management approaches and raising public awareness on the value of water. Here's to World Water Day and year-round planning for sustainability and resiliency! |
Ben
Grumbles
|