Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: You have so much clean water that you shit in it?

  1. #1

    Default You have so much clean water that you shit in it?



    With that aside, I remember studying environmental science and how we once discussed how absurd it was that people wash their cars and flush their toilets with the same water they drink. However, the solution to this waste would be to develop parallel water systems: one for drinking and another for general purposes like toilets. Basically, doubling all of the pipes in the developed world.

    Yet it's also possible to deliver substantial savings by recycling wastewater for our drinking supply. In fact, it's relatively cheap. The only issue is it requires taking chemicals/filters to develop drinking water, then using more chemicals/filters to recycle some portion of it. Basically, we're doubling down on the chemical processes to make more water drinkable.

    In a growing world with limited natural freshwater supplies, one has to think about the long term. Does anyone think developing dual water systems -- IE digging up every pipe in the Western world -- is a better solution to wide-scale wastewater recycling? I feel like I can go either way.

    WSJ article about recycling that got me thinking about this:

    Essay | August 24, 2012, 7:49 p.m. ET

    You Are Drinking What?
    With water in short supply across the country, it's time to take a serious look at recycling sewage
    By PAUL KIX

    Almost 60% of the continental U.S. is now living through drought conditions, and half of all counties have been declared disaster areas. From coast to coast, cities and towns are placing restrictions on water consumption. With the nation so hot and dry and no end in sight, some are calling for a drastic solution: drinking our own wastewater—that is, what we usually flush down our toilets.

    Not directly, of course. But drinking recycled wastewater is a relatively cheap and effective means of obtaining a lot of water. If all the wastewater dumped into waterways or the ocean were recycled instead, the U.S. would increase its water supply by as much as 27%, according to a report released earlier this year by the National Academy of Sciences. Nationally, that amounts to 12 billion gallons.

    The process for recycling wastewater is more rigorous than for "regular" tap water, with stronger filtration. As the NAS report noted, "With recent advances in technology and treatment design, potable reuse can reduce the concentration of chemical and microbial contaminants to levels comparable to or lower than those present in many drinking water supplies."

    Recycled wastewater is also cheaper than other alternatives. Desalination—turning seawater into drinking water—sounds more palatable, but estimated costs can run one-half to two-thirds more than for a recycled wastewater facility. That is largely due to the amount of filtration required: Wastewater has roughly 1,000 parts per million of salt, but seawater has roughly 35,000 parts per million. Desalination is also, of course, limited to states near seawater.

    But the idea of recycled wastewater still disturbs many people, which is why it hasn't caught on. Wade Miller, executive director of the Water ReUse Assocation, a national advocacy group, estimates that only 7% of municipalities across the country recycle wastewater—and that figure liberally interprets reuse, including water for agriculture and golf courses. Only a handful of communities actually drink recycled wastewater, Mr. Miller says, including El Paso, parts of Los Angeles County, and Orange County, Calif.

    Where the programs exist, they are born out of desperation—which is precisely how the idea got its start.

    It began in the tiny capsule of the Mercury rocket, on May 5, 1961, with Alan Shepard looking out his periscope viewer at the morning clouds. It was 15 minutes before his launch, before he was to become the first American sent into space, and he was nervous, according to "Moon Shot," the book that he later co-wrote. The launch director came on and told Mr. Shepard that there was an electrical glitch; the flight would have to wait.

    Another problem emerged during the nearly 90-minute delay: "Man, I got to pee," Mr. Shepard told astronaut Gordon Cooper, who was in ground control. The flight was only supposed to last 15 minutes, and the rocket wasn't equipped with a toilet. Mr. Shepard was told to hold it.

    "Gordo, I've got to relieve myself," Mr. Shepard said, getting angrier. "Tell 'em I'm going to let it go in my suit." But Mr. Shepard had electronic biosensors up and down his legs. Mr. Cooper said, "The medics say you'll short-circuit all their medical leads."

    "Tell 'em to turn the power off," Mr. Shepard said.

    And so the medical team did. A short while later, Mr. Shepard was launched into his suborbital flight, a brave, relieved man.

    As space flights became longer, the problem of discarding waste persisted. Neil Armstrong walked the moon in diapers. It wasn't until the era of the International Space Station, with astronauts on six-month missions, that NASA engineers began to think creatively about waste. "We didn't think that we could resupply [the astronauts] with water up there," says Monsi Roman, a microbiologist at the Marshall Space Station, who has worked at NASA for 25 years. "And that's when we began to think about recycling urine for drinking purposes."

    Urine consists of salt, water and contaminants, and on the space station today, the salt and contaminants are distilled and thrown away. The remaining water goes into a processor that burns away any lingering bacteria, and then iodine further cleans it. "It's a closed loop," Mr. Roman says—and an inspiration for wastewater treatment plants back on Earth.

    Orange County's Groundwater Replenishment System, which opened in 2008, produces over 70,000 gallons of water every day. It is modeled to a degree on NASA's space station breakthrough: The wastewater goes through a micro-filtration process and then reverse osmosis (in which chemicals, viruses and pharmaceuticals are removed) before being exposed to high-intensity ultraviolet light to destroy any lingering compounds. Over two-thirds of the county has been served by the recycled water system since it went online four years ago, says Michael Markus, the general manager of the Orange County Water District.

    But it was a long time in coming. Mr. Markus and other water-district employees knew in the early 1990s that the county would soon face a water shortage—and they knew, too, that recycling wastewater would be as much a political challenge as an engineering one. So they hired consultants, polled the public and discovered common concerns. The water officials went to the 19 affected municipalities and gave presentations to their city councils. They then moved on to state and federal officials. Some 1,200 presentations and tours later, the recycled water began to flow from taps. "It tastes like distilled water," Mr. Markus says. "There's actually very little taste to it."

    He believes that every municipality should follow Orange County's example. Because, he says, "you're wasting sewer water if you're not using it."

    —Mr. Kix is an editor at ESPN the Magazine and writes about science for the Boston Globe.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...668861496.html

  2. #2
    Water World?

    Grey water systems wouldn't necessarily require 'doubling all pipes in the developed world'. That can be used on small scales and be pretty effective, if more people participate. Anyone who's spent time in places where water is precious, knows you only flush "solids" down the toilet, can hand-wash a load of dishes in less than a gallon, and never leaves the water running during a shower. Half-a-tub of water can wash three little kids.

    It's not difficult to connect roof downspouts to collect rain water in barrels, for watering a garden or washing a car. Or at least let the downspouts drain directly into the grass or streets, and replenish ground water (instead of being tied to sanitary sewers). Our storm sewers drain directly from streets back into the Susquehanna River. That river feeds our lakes and reservoirs, is cleaned by the water company, and returns through our taps. No filtration or purification needed, great water. We even have a car wash company that re-purposes clean rinse water from drains back into its soapy water jets.

    Water is going to be a most important commodity in the future, even the near future. Before calling up all the geophysicists and engineers, trying to come up with expensive-expansive projects....I'd start with mandatory water conservation. Or designating certain things for grey/cistern/well water only. It's insane that deserts like Arizona are home to so many green golf courses, with irrigated turf. Swampland like Florida and all its green northern grass watered lawns. Swimming pools in millions of backyards.

    We act like our supply of fresh water is endless. We not only shit in it....but generally treat it like shit.

  3. #3
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Actually, Dread, at least in my area we have a problem of people not using enough water. Y'see, if we don't use enough water, the pipes funneling said water suffer from low water currents which means stagnating water which in turn means potential bacteria infestation.

    And this water saving is fine and all - yet, in an area like mine where we actually have more water than we can use, I don't quite see the purpose of reducing water usage even further.

    Which means: For areas with drought problems this is a fine endeavour. For areas with an absolutely abundant supply of water - not so much.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  4. #4
    We use rainwater to "shit in it", when there is few rainfall (usually in winter) the system automatically switches to tab water. Of course this only makes sense if you have enough rain where your house stands.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Actually, Dread, at least in my area we have a problem of people not using enough water. Y'see, if we don't use enough water, the pipes funneling said water suffer from low water currents which means stagnating water which in turn means potential bacteria infestation.

    And this water saving is fine and all - yet, in an area like mine where we actually have more water than we can use, I don't quite see the purpose of reducing water usage even further.

    Which means: For areas with drought problems this is a fine endeavour. For areas with an absolutely abundant supply of water - not so much.
    Couldn't a few fans/turbines keep the water moving around without using it?

    I also live in an area with plenty of water, but consuming more of it doesn't seem like it's the best idea. I'd rather we sell it to those drought areas or just save it in a larger reservoir system.

    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    We use rainwater to "shit in it", when there is few rainfall (usually in winter) the system automatically switches to tab water. Of course this only makes sense if you have enough rain where your house stands.
    Is this system built into your house, or is the whole water system configured this way?

  6. #6
    Tampa already has the dual water system. "pure" for the house and "reclaimed" for the yard.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  7. #7
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Couldn't a few fans/turbines keep the water moving around without using it?

    I also live in an area with plenty of water, but consuming more of it doesn't seem like it's the best idea. I'd rather we sell it to those drought areas or just save it in a larger reservoir system.
    Erm, for turbines you'd need a circulation system - not feasible.

    And we already have a very large reservoir system. I live near the Harz Mountains and they have several huge dams which serve as drink water reservoirs.

    They're so huge that we once had a flood in May because two things happened at once: It had rained quite a bit, so the ground was soaked already. And the dam was close to overflowing thus forcing them to open the dam a bit more than the Oker's capacity (river nearby).
    Which meant as a result that the teachers of my school had to use a Zodiac to get into the school.

    As I said: Around here we have enough water - if we don't use it, they have to open the dams in the mountains anyway. Which means that instead of using it, it just flows down the river uselessly.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  8. #8
    If we gain mastery enough, as long as it's true that energy cannot be created or destroyed then resource waste really will not matter. The only possible context of waste mattering is in the time table it takes us to re-use lost/wasted energy, in this case water. i.e (That time table for water needs to be quicker than the demand)

  9. #9
    Dread: I think that residential greywater systems only make sense in extremely dry regions - e.g. parts of the Southwest, Middle Eastern countries, Australia, etc. There, wasting any potable water is more or less a crime IMO. There are ways to do this on a local level without requiring a whole distribution system, of course, with a simple solution to swap back to tap water if you run out of greywater in your local area (house or group of houses, likely). It's expensive but worth it in dry areas.

    On a much broader scale, though, it makes sense to use treated sewage for non-residential uses of water. There's no reason we should use potable water for the majority of our agriculture (at least near urban areas) - it's far easier to set up a parallel distribution system for the industrial (rather than retail) scale, and otherwise you're pretty much throwing water away. Even in states with ostensibly good supplies of water, they are draining the aquifers dry far faster than they can be replenished (e.g. the Ogallala Aquifer), and it makes sense to use as much recycled wastewater as you can. It's far cheaper to treat it for agriculture than to make it potable, and it greatly reduces the use of freshwater.

    Obviously, though, the biggest use of freshwater (and the biggest waste) is the retail consumer. This is because of overconsumption from free or heavily subsidized water by municipalities and poor infrastructure and education. The simplest solution is to make consumers feel the real cost of getting them freshwater by metering it like any other utility, and charging the market rate for delivery. Combine it with some PSA campaigns and upgrades to local infrastructure, and you start to get real savings.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Is this system built into your house, or is the whole water system configured this way?
    It's built in the house. The water from the roofs gets collected and stored in a tank underground.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    It's built in the house. The water from the roofs gets collected and stored in a tank underground.
    That's pretty sweet. I do think techonlogically we're at a point where water efficiency matters significantly (my other post was more a long-term commentary on the relevancy of water-efficiency).


    I agree with GGT, and others who are saying the two biggest savers are changing people's water usuage habits (we have horrible ones), and using not as highly purified water for certain tasks... Showering, cleaning floors, cleaning cars, watering crops etc...
    Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 08-26-2012 at 10:31 PM.

  12. #12
    There are some states where its illegal to store rainwater. Even if it falls on your roof, its not yours.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Erm, for turbines you'd need a circulation system - not feasible.

    And we already have a very large reservoir system. I live near the Harz Mountains and they have several huge dams which serve as drink water reservoirs.

    They're so huge that we once had a flood in May because two things happened at once: It had rained quite a bit, so the ground was soaked already. And the dam was close to overflowing thus forcing them to open the dam a bit more than the Oker's capacity (river nearby).
    Which meant as a result that the teachers of my school had to use a Zodiac to get into the school.

    As I said: Around here we have enough water - if we don't use it, they have to open the dams in the mountains anyway. Which means that instead of using it, it just flows down the river uselessly.
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Dread: I think that residential greywater systems only make sense in extremely dry regions - e.g. parts of the Southwest, Middle Eastern countries, Australia, etc. There, wasting any potable water is more or less a crime IMO. There are ways to do this on a local level without requiring a whole distribution system, of course, with a simple solution to swap back to tap water if you run out of greywater in your local area (house or group of houses, likely). It's expensive but worth it in dry areas.

    On a much broader scale, though, it makes sense to use treated sewage for non-residential uses of water. There's no reason we should use potable water for the majority of our agriculture (at least near urban areas) - it's far easier to set up a parallel distribution system for the industrial (rather than retail) scale, and otherwise you're pretty much throwing water away. Even in states with ostensibly good supplies of water, they are draining the aquifers dry far faster than they can be replenished (e.g. the Ogallala Aquifer), and it makes sense to use as much recycled wastewater as you can. It's far cheaper to treat it for agriculture than to make it potable, and it greatly reduces the use of freshwater.

    Obviously, though, the biggest use of freshwater (and the biggest waste) is the retail consumer. This is because of overconsumption from free or heavily subsidized water by municipalities and poor infrastructure and education. The simplest solution is to make consumers feel the real cost of getting them freshwater by metering it like any other utility, and charging the market rate for delivery. Combine it with some PSA campaigns and upgrades to local infrastructure, and you start to get real savings.
    I get what you both are saying. I suppose I'm just looking at this issue at a much larger national/international scale. As much as I don't like the idea of people living in arid areas that don't have enough local water sources to support the population, it's not like aqueducts and water systems are really new.

    So my follow-up question would be, doesn't it make sense to do something like construct water carriers from places such as the Harz Mountains and bring/sell it elsewhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    It's built in the house. The water from the roofs gets collected and stored in a tank underground.
    Is it common? Maybe I just didn't see it when I was in Swissland. Or the Swiss Germans are just more efficient than the Swiss French.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I get what you both are saying. I suppose I'm just looking at this issue at a much larger national/international scale. As much as I don't like the idea of people living in arid areas that don't have enough local water sources to support the population, it's not like aqueducts and water systems are really new.

    So my follow-up question would be, doesn't it make sense to do something like construct water carriers from places such as the Harz Mountains and bring/sell it elsewhere?
    I agree that technology has allowed us to live comfortably in places where it did not used to be possible, and I don't begrudge that. The issue I have is when people do not see the costs of their choices (and the negative externalities associated with it) because of government subsidies. It's expensive (and often wasteful) to move water to, say, Las Vegas, so people should pay for it directly. If it inhibits the growth of a city in a dry area (or causes rationing), that's fine by me.

    That being said there are plenty of water diversion projects around - IIRC there was one wacky idea where Israel was going to buy shiploads of water from Turkey a number of years ago (I don't think it ended up happening, but I'm not sure). Essentially, if it's cheaper to transport the water from a water-rich area to a water-poor area than locally produce it (from, say, wastewater treatment, desalinization, or whatever), then obviously it's the optimal solution for that area. But we shouldn't ignore the costs - it's far more expensive than just settling people where there is sufficient water.

    There's a secondary and more subtle concern here. Demand for water is likely to skyrocket in the next few decades. The world population is likely to add another 2-3 billion people by 2050 or so (mostly in water-poor regions), and an ever-increasing share of the world population will have more funds and demand better access to water-intensive products - certain foods, meat, industrial goods, textiles (e.g. cotton), etc. I find it likely that even taking into account reasonable transport of water to drier areas, there's likely to be a significant deficit in many regions of the world. Some more fortunate regions - notably the Great Lakes - will fare better, of course, but even supposedly water-rich areas will face challenges. Most irrigation in the US is not taken from the great lakes but from local aquifers, and those (while abundant) are running dry. Other 'wet' regions and rivers are fed by snowmelt from glaciers in mountainous areas, and those glaciers have been steadily shrinking due to climate change. Rainfall patterns are changing and are likely to exacerbate other problems. Overgrazing and poor farming techniques (along with clearing of forests) is leading to soil erosion, increasing runoff, and desertification, which both changes the quality and quantity of nearby water and increases the needs for further irrigation.

    The point is that water is a precious resource and appropriate management of water resources is challenging and complex. In the rich world, there's a large amount of waste which can be easily fixed by education and market pricing. In the poor world, it makes sense to build new infrastructure in an intelligent manner with an eye towards water conservation, and to control things like grazing, tree clearing, sewage dumping, etc. which can all affect water supplies.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    With that aside, I remember studying environmental science and how we once discussed how absurd it was that people wash their cars and flush their toilets with the same water they drink. However, the solution to this waste would be to develop parallel water systems: one for drinking and another for general purposes like toilets. Basically, doubling all of the pipes in the developed world.
    Unsafe. That toilet water, or let's say the water you use to water the grass with, WILL get in your body. It has to be clean -- if not drinkable at least safe for temporary... consumption and absorption? Recycling and re-using water is best done at a facility where the water literally goes through something like 50,000 filters instead of in your home with 1.


    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin
    The simplest solution is to make consumers feel the real cost of getting them freshwater by metering it like any other utility, and charging the market rate for delivery.
    We already get charged the market rate, and it's metered... the only place where it's often not metered and free is subsidized (eg: "section 8", etc.) housing...

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    We already get charged the market rate, and it's metered... the only place where it's often not metered and free is subsidized (eg: "section 8", etc.) housing...
    I can't speak to your particular situation, but a large number of municipalities in the US do not charge the market price for water to consumers. It's often free, or if not, it's heavily subsidized. Subsidies for agricultural consumers in particular are pretty bad, but even residential consumers get cheap or free water in many areas.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Is it common? Maybe I just didn't see it when I was in Swissland. Or the Swiss Germans are just more efficient than the Swiss French.
    I don't know how common it is, my house is new, so we have several fency things that are not standard. But you don't see anything at all so, it looks like any other house. As I said, the tank is underground.

    The German-Swiss (as we like to call us) are more Green than the Romands.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I can't speak to your particular situation, but a large number of municipalities in the US do not charge the market price for water to consumers. It's often free, or if not, it's heavily subsidized. Subsidies for agricultural consumers in particular are pretty bad, but even residential consumers get cheap or free water in many areas.
    Where is this "free water"? Even "free" well water has the costs of drilling, pumping, and purification. The public water market is often saturated (pun intended) with contracts between states, that can lead to disastrous effects. Just ask Georgia how they feel about diverting water to Alabama or Florida, when they're in drought conditions themselves. Or ask western mountain states like Colorado, fighting wildfires, if they like diverting water to Arizona or New Mexico, in order to grow green grass on desert golf courses.

  19. #19
    Someone pays for the water, GGT, no question. But frequently the end user is not paying the full price (or, for that matter, ANY price) for their water consumption. Even people with their own well water (which is a common source in rural areas) are depleting local aquifers far faster than they can be replenished, so they're exploiting a public good and not paying for the externality. Almost nowhere in the US is water paid for by the end-user at the true market rate.

  20. #20
    The price for water here is pretty expensive in my opinion (we spend about $100-150 a month or something like that -- general ballpark), but on the other hand there is plenty of it because there are several water sources (lakes) in the area. The water company ("water&sewer commission") is generally not subsidized, unless you count the wind turbine they are building (to reduce operation costs, and ostensibly to then reduce water prices) that is paid for with subsidized loans.

  21. #21
    I can't speak to your particular situation, ag, but in general Americans pay far less for water than other rich countries - and it means we consume a lot more, too. There's a lot of variation between municipalities in the US, so it's likely that some are priced at a reasonable level, but most are not. It's hard to know what a 'fair' price is because most water utilities act as monopolies (even the private ones) and their tariff schedules are tightly regulated. There are estimates (the World Bank has one which has a 'break even' point for capital costs and delivery costs), but it's hard to separate it out effectively. The US charges significantly less than a dollar per cubic meter on average, which is unlikely to be able to recoup infrastructure/investment costs in an unsubsidized system. Tariff structures also don't encourage conservation (they are generally flat rather than increasing with consumption).

    The main subsidies are from general funds in some municipalities and from very generous and cheap financing from the federal government. Underinvestment in infrastructure also 'pays' for current low tariffs by neglecting upkeep and expansion.

  22. #22
    Bigger question though is whether we can afford to keep spending water the way we have, in developed nations, both in terms of financial resources and actual water usage for the future. I say: hell yeah, let the good times roll. We'll have rising sea levels cover the deficit ...

  23. #23
    You're joking, right?

  24. #24
    I see no reason to lower health standards just for the lulz!

    A number of western Massachusetts communities with less water than ours conserve water judiciously -- grass watering bans throughout the summer and so forth.

    I think we can still yet cut back on that stuff and maybe other stuff before having to individually re-use our own water with filters that are much lower quality than large water company filters... am I going into crazy land here? Not sure.. doesn't seem that way.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I can't speak to your particular situation, ag, but in general Americans pay far less for water than other rich countries - and it means we consume a lot more, too. There's a lot of variation between municipalities in the US, so it's likely that some are priced at a reasonable level, but most are not. It's hard to know what a 'fair' price is because most water utilities act as monopolies (even the private ones) and their tariff schedules are tightly regulated. There are estimates (the World Bank has one which has a 'break even' point for capital costs and delivery costs), but it's hard to separate it out effectively. The US charges significantly less than a dollar per cubic meter on average, which is unlikely to be able to recoup infrastructure/investment costs in an unsubsidized system. Tariff structures also don't encourage conservation (they are generally flat rather than increasing with consumption).

    The main subsidies are from general funds in some municipalities and from very generous and cheap financing from the federal government. Underinvestment in infrastructure also 'pays' for current low tariffs by neglecting upkeep and expansion.
    It's between €1,20-€2,10 per cubic meter here, including taxes, and water is pretty abundant here so I'm fairly sure your less-than-1$ is far below the real cost. I'm not really sure if our price is fair, but it's definitely not overcharging. And our water here is excellent, comparable or better than bottled water (and no chlorine ). Oh, and one company sold water from the same source (same pumps, even), bottled as mineral water, and made a lot of profit on that, haha.

    I do think that the bigger profits in terms of conserving water are probably industrial and agricultural uses. Easier to implement changes there too, and they are cost conscious and will invest to save money on water. And they do make up about 30% of the market, so there's a lot to be won there. Changing people's lifestyles is hard, so grey water systems and more efficient washing machines etc. are a decent way, but whether it's worth it really depends on where you live.

    Hmm, wikifisting US tap water, seems your situation is kinda screwed. So basically you guys are underpaying, and the quality is pretty bad, and investments in infrastructure aren't done, nor are fines handed out for violations, because they don't want to raise the prices? And water is cheaper in the desert than in Boston, interestingly enough.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    I do think that the bigger profits in terms of conserving water are probably industrial and agricultural uses. Easier to implement changes there too, and they are cost conscious and will invest to save money on water. And they do make up about 30% of the market, so there's a lot to be won there. Changing people's lifestyles is hard, so grey water systems and more efficient washing machines etc. are a decent way, but whether it's worth it really depends on where you live.
    Agriculture is an obvious target, yes, but because of the sheer size of the residential consumer market it also makes sense to push for conservation there. It's a different focus, though - in agriculture the focus should be on using solely treated wastewater and no freshwater, while the focus for the consumer market should be on minimizing use. The US uses FAR more water on average than other rich countries, and a lot of it is because consumers are wasteful. Promoting the use of water efficient appliances, conservation habits (not letting faucets run, shorter showers, etc.), and other simple measures can probably yield significant savings.

    Hmm, wikifisting US tap water, seems your situation is kinda screwed. So basically you guys are underpaying, and the quality is pretty bad, and investments in infrastructure aren't done, nor are fines handed out for violations, because they don't want to raise the prices? And water is cheaper in the desert than in Boston, interestingly enough.
    Yeah, it's a heavily subsidized and screwed up market that encourages waste.

  27. #27
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Habits will be tricky to change, but especially increasing efficiency of appliances is where I think it's easiest to win for now (of course also promoting better water habits, but that will be a slow change). Better washing machines, showers and toilets caused the biggest decrease in water use here, the only increase is due to increased showering. Of course charging a fair price will improve the habits a lot, too.

    Article I found says water use is between 41 gallons p.p.p.y. (Boston) and 211 gallons p.p.p.y. (Fresno, CA). It's about 34 gallons here. Makes me wonder how much is used on gardens etc. in Fresno, I don't see what else would warrant such a big difference in usage? And gardens can definitely be watered with less-then-drinkable water.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Someone pays for the water, GGT, no question. But frequently the end user is not paying the full price (or, for that matter, ANY price) for their water consumption. Even people with their own well water (which is a common source in rural areas) are depleting local aquifers far faster than they can be replenished, so they're exploiting a public good and not paying for the externality. Almost nowhere in the US is water paid for by the end-user at the true market rate.
    Ah, I see what you mean now. The "externality" not being paid for includes future infrastructural upgrades, and/or when water scarcity WILL become more common? My area has decided to sell/trade our water as a commodity, using a regional exchange market (still in developmental stages) to get future capital. That's a totally different scheme than the one used by my previous home state---where they sold water company reservoir land rights to water-front home builders, who then sold to wealthy home buyers. They got millions in new property tax revenue, which meant better schools, and attracting new families who can "buy" their school district. But I'm not sure it did much to improve the reservoir itself, or the water in it. If anything, all the new boaters and shore-line homes added costs they didn't anticipate.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Ah, I see what you mean now. The "externality" not being paid for includes future infrastructural upgrades, and/or when water scarcity WILL become more common? My area has decided to sell/trade our water as a commodity, using a regional exchange market (still in developmental stages) to get future capital. That's a totally different scheme than the one used by my previous home state---where they sold water company reservoir land rights to water-front home builders, who then sold to wealthy home buyers. They got millions in new property tax revenue, which meant better schools, and attracting new families who can "buy" their school district. But I'm not sure it did much to improve the reservoir itself, or the water in it. If anything, all the new boaters and shore-line homes added costs they didn't anticipate.
    As a side note: water (and power, and garbage) trading schemes were proposed (or perhaps during) after Simcity 2000, and you could actually IIRC trade it to neighbors in a few years.. in Simcity 3 or was it 4, but it wasn't very sophisticated. I think the new Simcity game will have it, too, and perhaps a better version of it! Mmm....

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Habits will be tricky to change, but especially increasing efficiency of appliances is where I think it's easiest to win for now (of course also promoting better water habits, but that will be a slow change). Better washing machines, showers and toilets caused the biggest decrease in water use here, the only increase is due to increased showering. Of course charging a fair price will improve the habits a lot, too.

    Article I found says water use is between 41 gallons p.p.p.y. (Boston) and 211 gallons p.p.p.y. (Fresno, CA). It's about 34 gallons here. Makes me wonder how much is used on gardens etc. in Fresno, I don't see what else would warrant such a big difference in usage? And gardens can definitely be watered with less-then-drinkable water.
    Lots of areas in the country really don't bill water correctly here. Smaller areas don't have large-scale, efficient systems. More developed areas have massive water systems, but they are in the grips of broken/politicized water authorities. In NYC, the water authority is the government agency* that other inefficient government agencies laugh at. Our water remains stupendously good, but we are all being undercharged for it. The water authority failed to even bill large chunks of NY for years.


    *The water authority is a quasi-government authority here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •