But why urban water conservation for greenhouse gas emissions?

The energy-water nexus has long been established. According to the California Energy Commission, consumption of water in California requires approximately 20 percent of the state’s electricity, 30 percent of its non-power plant natural gas, and 88 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. All of this energy consumption generates a lot of greenhouse gases.

When examining the state’s energy-water balance sheet, urban water usage constitutes more than 70 percent of the electricity associated with water supply and treatment (7,554 gigawatts for urban compared to 3,188 gigawatts for agriculture). Urban water usage also accounts for almost 80 percent of the electricity associated with end-uses of water (27,887 gigawatts for urban end uses to 7,372 gigawatts for agriculture). So it makes sense that if you want to reduce energy use in the state (and associated greenhouse gas emissions), then tackling urban water consumption should be on the agenda. But there are challenges.

Study authors held a one-day workshop in October 2010 to examine barriers to reducing urban water consumption. Participants included Google, Safeway, Walmart, and various energy and water utilities, among others. The group identified four key barriers:

1) Lack of Financial Incentives to Conserve
2) Insufficient Data
3) Lack of Consumer Awareness
4) Lack of Funds for Water Efficiency Measures

The first barrier is a no-brainer and must be fixed. Water rates must be structured so that users pay more as they use more water and conservation measures are rewarded with short payback periods.

Two barriers seem ripe for innovation. The lack of adequate data about water consumption among end users poses a challenge for both policy makers and for consumers themselves. Many consumers are unaware of their water use and the energy savings associated with water conservation in their communities, residences, and businesses.

According to the report, water utilities should provide consumers with relevant real-time information about water use, when feasible. This information could also include users’ consumption patterns and expenses, as well as the aggregate consumption of their similarly situated neighbors or regional consumption averages. It should link consumption patterns with cost and strategies to conserve.

Another recommendation is to make all the data searchable with easy customer access. Interactive calculators and real-time scenarios would help consumers realize that they could reduce water and energy use, along with associated costs and greenhouse gas emissions, through simply lifestyle changes.

Tackling urban water consumption to reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions will not be an easy task. But the first step is educating consumers about how and where they use water, and how that usage compares with their neighbors.

Since 2005, all new hotels in Mauritius are required to accommodate desalination as well as recycling and reuse of water. Some hotels are currently desalinating 800 cubic meters of water per day or roughly 200,000 gallons. In the US, hotels use an average of 209 gallons of water each day per occupied room.

Due to the water crisis, the government has passed regulations restricting the use of potable water to wash vehicles, pavements, buildings, and to water lawns.  Violators could be subject to fines of Rs 200,000 (US$6,800) and up to two years in prison.

Despite plans for two new large water storage projects, the opposition party is also calling for increased desalination noting that the new water sources will not be operational for 10 years. The island nation, located 560 miles east of Madagascar in the middle of the Indian Ocean, has the dubious honor of being the former home of the Dodo bird. Perhaps the descendants of those that drove the Dodo to extinction can learn from the lessons of a changing environment.

According to the California Department of Water Resources, California agriculture irrigates 9.6 million acres using roughly 34 million acre-feet of water (1.1 trillion gallons) diverted from surface waters or pumped from groundwater. This water produces amazing results.

California produces over 250 different crops and leads the nation in production of 75 commodities. California is the sole producer of 12 different commodities including almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, raisins, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes and walnuts. Most of this production would not be possible without irrigation.

But agriculture often gets blamed for the West’s water woes. The notion that Central Valley farmers are receiving, and wasting, cheap subsidized water at the expense of urban users and the environment is commonly held. But many in the agricultural community are demonstrating water leadership and moving California toward more equitable and efficient water management and use.

The Oakland, California based Pacific Institute recently released a new report and video entitled California Farm Water Success Stories, which analyzes successful examples of sustainable water policies and practices.  The report highlights the best practices of several different agricultural commodities across the state.

Review the California Farm Water Success Stories video.
Watch extended video interviews with each grower.
Download the full report (pdf).

Thanks go to The Pacific Institute for their important work, and the agricultural leaders who are helping to demonstrate that we can make progress on water use in California.

Recent guidance from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that “changes in the availability or quality of water…can have material effects on companies,” and therefore must be disclosed, points to a future where the electric power industry will be forced to more fully disclose their water risks, which appear significant.

A new report from Ceres, a national coalition of investors, environmental groups, and other public interest organizations, provides a comprehensive assessment and ranking of water disclosure practices of 100 publicly-traded companies. The report examines eight key sectors exposed to water related risks:  beverage, chemicals, electric power, food, homebuilding, mining, oil and gas, and semiconductors.

Murky Waters: Corporate Reporting on Water Risk was issued in February 2010 and is available for download from the Ceres website. For the electric power industry, study authors highlight significant physical, regulatory, and litigation risks related to water.

• Physical Risks: water scarcity, unpredictability of supply, amount/timing of flows for hydropower, and increased demand for carbon capture and storage.

• Regulatory Risks: cooling water discharge temperature controls, denial of construction permits based on water availability, and wastewater discharge standards.

• Litigation Risks: lawsuits over water withdrawals or inter-state water rights.

Ceres, with data support from Bloomberg and analytical support from UBS Limited, considered five key categories of disclosure: water accounting, risk assessment, direct operations, supply chain, and stakeholder engagement. Thirteen U.S.-based electric power companies were chosen on the basis of the size and water intensity of their generation assets. Companies included:

• AES Corporation
• American Electric Power
• Constellation Energy
• Dominion Resources
• Duke Energy
• Entergy
• Exelon
• Florida Power & Light Group
• NRG Energy
• PG&E
• Pinnacle West/APS
• Southern Company
• Xcel Energy

Findings

The electric power sector showed weak water risk disclosure overall, with an average score of 19 out of 100. Pinnacle West/APS, an Arizona-based utility, achieved the highest level of disclosure in the sector with 38 points; Florida Power & Light  provided the most limited disclosure, receiving eight points.

1. Disclosure of Water Accounting Fewer than half (six out of 13) of the electric power companies reviewed provide data on water withdrawals.

2. Disclosure of Risk Assessment With the exception of NRG Energy, all the electric power companies surveyed disclose some level of physical risk related to water scarcity. All the companies report their exposure to water-related regulatory risks.

3. Disclosure of Direct Operations The electric power companies provide limited disclosure on water-related management systems and policies. Seven of the 13 companies report actions taken to reduce water withdrawals, with PG&E and Southern Company providing the most detailed disclosure. None of the companies disclose quantified targets to reduce contaminants in wastewater discharged from power plants.

4. Disclosure of Supply Chain Only one company – Entergy – provides information on collaboration with its non-fuel suppliers on water management. None of the companies disclose efforts to engage or assess fuel suppliers on water impacts or risks.

5. Disclosure of Stakeholder Engagement Eight out of the 13 electric power companies reviewed report engaging with stakeholders on water management.

The report concludes with several recommendations to the electric power sector:

• Better inclusion of water risks in financial filings
• More detailed risk assessments
• Water accounting data that puts performance in context
• Disclosure of management strategies and systems
• Setting and disclosing reduction targets
• Addressing water risks in the supply chain
• Engaging critical stakeholders
• Seizing opportunities to develop water-related product strategies

While carbon emissions have dominated the environmental disclosures in the recent past, water use, availability, and associated risks are likely to quickly gain center stage.

In early November, prior to the 28,000-person-attended GreenBuild conference in Phoenix, BD&C issued their 2009 white paper, which focuses on the role of water in sustainable design and construction. The editors provide a set of 21 detailed recommendations for consideration by building teams, home builders, developers, and other green building stakeholders.

The paper found that:

1. Virtually every region of the U.S. and parts of most states likely will experience water shortages in the next 10 years. Some are already feeling the effects of water scarcity.

2. More water is consumed outside buildings and homes—for landscape irrigation and cooling towers—than is used inside for toilets, faucets, showers, and the like.

3. Somewhere between 15% and 20% of the nation’s water never makes it from the filtration plant to the property line, thanks to our decaying infrastructure.

4. Manufacturers have significantly improved the efficiency of plumbing, irrigation, and water reuse technologies in recent years, but long-term conservation also depends heavily on how people use these products.

5. There may be limits to water efficiency. In some cases, saving water can lead to “unintended consequences,” such as pipeline drainage problems, health and safety concerns, and negative impacts on the environment.

6. Improvements in water performance can have a bonus: reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

7. The reuse of water may be “the next big thing” in water conservation, efficiency, and performance.

Concerning recommendations, here’s what the editors suggest…

What Building Teams Can Do

1. Design buildings to reduce cooling load.

2. Take advantage of cooling tower management technology.

3. Consider alternatives to cooling towers.

4. Design water and drain lines for optimal performance.

5. Get the landscape architect involved early in the job.

6. Become the expert on water rebates and incentives.

What Building Owners Can Do

7. Engage in water management planning.

8. Conduct water audits.

What Governments Can Do

9. Harmonize plumbing codes for water

10. Consider water-use labeling on sale or transfer.

11. Use the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) green plumbing supplement as a guide.

12. Address the infrastructure problem.

What Water Utilities Can Do

13. Be more creative in pricing water.

14. Provide incentives for water audits.

15. Implement metering innovations.

What Manufacturers Can Do

16. Support research on water performance issues.

17. Support the growth of green plumbing jobs.

What Community Colleges Can Do

18. Create a “pre-apprentice water auditor” certification program.

What the Public Can Do

19. Use less turfgrass, more native landscaping.

20. Irrigate sensibly.

21. Understand the energy cost of water.

On this last recommendation, the general public needs to understand the hidden costs of water. Water requires energy to deliver it to the end user. Water processing and distribution, coupled with sewage treatment, consumes about 4 percent of electricity in the US. In California, water transport and treatment accounts for 19% of electricity used in the state.

What are your strategies for saving water?

On Monday, he signed SBX7-2 at a ceremony at Friant Dam in Fresno County. The $11.14 billion water bond measure must still be approved by voters on the November 2010 ballot.

Where exactly does all that money go? Here’s a breakdown via the Fresno Bee newspaper:

Drought Relief – $455 million

• $190 million to reduce drought impacts and impacts of reduced Delta diversions ($100 million to San Diego County).
• $90 million to disadvantaged and economically stressed areas.
• $75 million to small community wastewater treatment projects.
• $80 million for deposit to Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ($8 million for city of Maywood water supply infrastructure upgrades).
• $20 million for water quality/public health projects on the New River.

Regional Water Supply – $1.4 billion

• $350 million local/regional water conveyance projects.
• $1.05 billion for integrated regional water management projects, distributed as follows:

• North Coast: $45 million
• San Francisco Bay: $132 million
• Central Coast: $58 million
• Los Angeles/Ventura counties subregion: $198 million
• Santa Ana subregion (Santa Ana River watershed and southern Orange County): $128 million
• San Diego County subregion: $87 million
• Sacramento River: $76 million
• San Joaquin River: $64 million
• Tulare/Kern: $70 million
• North/South Lahontan: $51 million
• Colorado River Basin: $47 million
• Mountain Counties Overlay: $44 million
• Interregional: $50 million ($10 million for UC Sierra Nevada Research Institute to analyze water supply impacts on snowpack/runoff)

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Sustainability – $2.25 billion

• $1.5 billion for Bay Delta Conservation Plan ecosystem restoration projects; acquisition of water rights and removal of invasive species; reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Delta soils; reduce mercury contamination.
• $750 million for Delta counties/cities for flood protection; water quality projects, agriculture preservation, and to mitigate the effects of water conveyance and ecosystem restoration (including $50 million to improve wastewater treatment facilities upstream of the Delta; $250 million to assist local government and the farm economy upon loss of farmlands for ecosystem restoration).

Water Supply – $3 billion

• Only for public benefits associated with water storage projects, including: ecosystem and water quality improvements, flood control, emergency response, recreation. Surface or groundwater storage projects selected competitively by the California Water Commission based on the magnitude of public benefits provided. Eligible projects include Sites Reservoir in Colusa County, Temperance Flat Reservoir in Fresno County, and enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County.

Groundwater Protection/Water Quality – $1 billion

• All to Department of Public Health to prevent or reduce groundwater contamination via local grants.

Water Recycling/Conservation – $1.25 billion

• $1 billion for water recycling and advanced treatment projects, including desalination.
• $250 million for urban and agricultural water conservation and efficiency projects.

Conservation/Watershed Protection – $1.785 billion

• $250 million to California Coastal Conservancy, including:

• $40 million for projects in San Diego County ($20 million for San Diego River Conservancy).
• $40 million for Santa Ana River Parkway; $20 million for Bolsa Chica Wetlands.

• $100 million to Wildlife Conservation Board for water rights to benefit migratory birds.
• $215 million to Wildlife Conservation Board to protect watershed lands, rivers, streams that support endangered species, including:

• $25 million to San Joaquin River Conservancy for river parkway projects.
• $20 million for Ventura County watershed projection projects.

• $75 million for San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy.
• $75 million to Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for watershed protection activities in upper Los Angeles River.
• $20 million for Baldwin Hills Conservancy.
• $25 million for Santa Monica Bay watershed projects.
• $50 million for coastal salmon projects.
• $100 million for Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program.
• $20 million to California Farmland Conservancy Program.
• $50 million for projects associated with California River Parkways Act of 2004 (including $20 million for Urban Streams Restoration Program).
• $75 million for Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
• $100 million for Salton Sea restoration.
• $10 million to Natural Resources Agency for watershed protections to address climate change.
• $30 million to state parks for watershed education (including $20 million for education centers in urban areas over 1 million population).
• $10 million for California Waterfowl Habitat Program.
• $100 million to Cal Fire for fuel treatment, forest restoration to protect watersheds tributary to reservoirs; to protect life and property; and for climate change adaptation (including $67 million for grants to public agencies and nonprofits for fuel treatment; $25 million for technical assistance for eligible landowners; $8 million to reimburse Cal Fire costs for pilot projects to use thinned fuels for energy or wood products; and for conservation camp crews).
• $250 million for dam removal in the Klamath River watershed.
• $20 million to Siskiyou County for economic development.
• $50 million to California State University for farm water-related research and education.
• $50 million to Coastal Conservancy for Ocean Protection Act projects.
• $60 million for salmon passage in Sacramento River watershed.
• $50 million to Wildlife Conservation Board to improve effectiveness of infrastructure mitigation.

An important theme of the announcement was the incremental generation potential of the projects. No new dams were being built. Rather, older turbines would be replaced with newer more efficient models.

Barker Dam Construction in Boulder Canyon (1909)

If generated using traditional means, the additional 187,000 MWh/year would cause 110,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide. The equipment change-out was expected to produce only marginal carbon emissions, mainly from equipment production.

As the stimulus funding is designed to create jobs, the announcement highlighted the retention of 40 jobs at Voith Hydro, a turbine manufacturer.

The seven grant projects included:

• Alcoa Inc.’s Tapoca Cheoah Hydro Plant (Robbinsville, NC): Replace four 90-year old turbines to increase generation by 95,000 MWh, a 23% increase ($13 million)
• Alabama Power Coosa River Plants (Mitchell, AL): Upgrade four units at three hydroelectric plants to increase generation by 36,087 MWh annually, a 7.3% increase ($6 million)
• City of Tacoma Public Utilities (Potlatch, WA): Install two additional turbines to generate 23,500 MWh annually, a 14% increase, plus an upstream native fish habitat project ($4.67 million)
• City of Boulder, Colorado: Upgrade 100-year-old Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project by replacing two older turbines with a single, high-efficiency unit to increase generation by 11,000 MWh annually, a 30% increase ($1.18 million)
• Los Alamos, New Mexico: Add a low flow turbine to increase plant capacity and generate an additional 6,462 MWh annually, a 22% increase ($4.56 million)
• Energy Northwest (Packwood, WA): Install a new Pelton Wheel turbine at the Packwood Lake Hydroelectric facility to increase generation by 5,868 MWh annually, a 6% increase ($800,000)
• North Little Rock Electric Department (Little Rock, AR): Install a new automated intake maintenance device to clear debris obstructing the intake and allow operation at peak efficiency ($450,000).

While these grants are small, they demonstrate the incremental improvements that we can make to our aging infrastructure.

It appears that the US and China are moving closer together.

On October 22, President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao spoke on the phone and agreed to “strive to have a successful conference.” Both expressed determination to tackle the issue. At a recent US-China clean energy forum, Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang said that “the Chinese side is ready to strengthen consultation and communication with all the parties, including the American side.”

This comes just two days before the international Climate Day of Action with citizen participation from over 175 nations. Citizens are joining together to “stand for a safe climate future.” They’re also demonstrating to conference attendees that now is the time to act on climate change. One group of attendees is trying to spread the word itself.

Government leaders from the Republic of the Maldives — the smallest country in Asia and one that sits on average only about 5 feet above sea level — held a special meeting last weekend. President Mohammed Nasheed and 13 cabinet members met 20 feet under water to sign a document calling for all countries to cut carbon emissions. Watch the underwater cabinet meeting in action.

Back in March, President Nasheed pledged that the Maldives would be carbon neutral by 2020. According to an article in the Guardian newspaper, the plan includes new renewable electricity generation and transmission infrastructure, rooftop solar panels, a biomass plant burning coconut husks, and battery banks to provide back-up storage.

Similar to the lone polar bear on a melting ice floe, residents of Malé, the capital of the Maldives, may soon find themselves on the cover of Time Magazine, as climate refugees. Let’s hope that the US and China demonstrate leadership in Copenhagen.

Malé, the capital of the Maldives

Hydrachill water dispensing stations can fill bottles of up to 500ml (approx 16 oz) with chilled water for a 20p (approx 30 cent) charge. Concerning the tap’s water quality, the local Drinking Water Inspectorate’s latest water quality report said Thames Water–Britain’s largest privatized water company and the source for the Hydrachill machines–was 99.99% compliant with national and European standards.

Adding further benefits, all proceeds will be donated to Waste Watch, a UK environmental charity working to change the way people use the world’s natural resources. According to the article, of the 13 billion plastic bottles of all types sold in the UK last year, only a third were recycled.

Imagine if Hydrachill-like machines were installed in New York’s subway and San Francisco’s BART stations. Combined with a BPA-free bottle, commuters would have ready access to high quality drinking water at a fraction of the cost and at a  substantially lower carbon footprint to deliver.

YouTube Video: Hydrachill Refilling Station

The ruling highlights the precarious condition of long-term water supplies in California and the West. Previous rulings to restrict water deliveries to protect the delta smelt were challenged in court by local water districts. The latest opinions will likely end up in court according to a spokesperson for the Westlands Water District.

The state itself is examining ways to boost local water supplies through greater stormwater infiltration and capture. A hearing occurred on June 17 in Sacramento to discuss the issue as part of AB32, the state’s climate action law.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (i.e., Stimulus Bill) may also help kick start water recycling projects across the state. The U.S. Department of the Interior announced that 26 California projects will receive more than $130 million in federal funding.  A worthy use of Stimulus funding.

Faced with another year of drought, water agencies around the state are taking steps to reduce water usage by customers. Last month, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power began offering customers a cash incentive to replace their grass lawns with drought-tolerant plants. The Residential Drought Resistant Landscape Incentive Program will credit single-family residential customers $1 for each square foot of turf removed and replaced with drought-tolerant plants, mulch and water-permeable hardscapes.

The current emphasis for greater efficiency for homes and businesses will soon be directed at our taps, I believe.