268 Multi-Benefit Resources


Comments on SBx7-7 Urban Technical Methodologies

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


What happens after a bill becomes law? The answer may be more complicated than you think. The Pacific Institute has been involved in determining how the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (California Senate Bill x7-7) will be implemented by participating on both the Agricultural and Urban Stakeholder Committees. The legislation requires that the Department of Water Resources work with these committees to develop policy, guidelines, and regulatory rules that meet the intent of the law. This page provides links to letters submitted or signed onto by Pacific Institute staff and brief summaries of the major issues.

Department of Water Resources Information about Senate Bill x7-7

Senate Bill x7-7 was enacted in November 2009, requiring all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. Below are the highlights of this legislation, divided into two sectors, Urban Water Conservation and Agricultural Water Conservation.

The bill also requires, among other things, that the Department of Water Resources, in consultation with other state agencies, develop a single standardized water use reporting form, which would be used by both urban and agricultural water agencies.

Urban Water Conservation

The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20% by December 31, 2020. The state shall make incremental progress towards this goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10% by December 31, 2015.

Each urban retail water supplier shall develop water use targets and an interim water use target by July 1, 2011.

An urban retail water supplier shall include in its water management plan due July 2011 the baseline daily per capita water use, water use target, interim water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use. The Department of Water resources, through a public process and in consultation with the California Urban Water Conservation Council, shall develop technical methodologies and criteria for the consistent implementation of this part.

The Department of Water Resources shall adopt regulations for implementation of the provisions relating to process water.

A Commercial, Institutional, Industrial (CII) task force is to be established that will develop and implement urban best management practices for statewide water savings.

Effective 2016, urban retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by this bill are not eligible for state water grants or loans.

Agricultural Water Conservation

Agricultural water suppliers shall prepare and adopt agricultural water management plans by December 31, 2012, and update those plans by December 31, 2015, and every 5 years thereafter.

On or before July 31, 2012, agricultural water suppliers shall:

  • Measure the volume of water delivered to customers.
  • The Department of Water Resources shall adopt regulations that provide for a range of options that agricultural water suppliers may use to comply with the measurement requirement.
  • Adopt a pricing structure for water customers based at least in part on quantity delivered.
  • Implement additional efficient management practices.
  • Effective 2013, agricultural water suppliers who do not meet the water management planning requirements established by this bill are not eligible for state water grants or loans.

 

Notes from the Field: Safe Guarding Water Quality – A Concern for All

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


by Dr. John Akudago, Senior Research Associate

Ghana polluted water

At Lamsheigu, a Surburb of Tamale, Ghana, and about 30 km south of Savelugu, there is a surface dam which is being used by people for domestic purposes. Close to the dam is a vehicle washing bay, for the purpose of easy access to water. This dam is polluted from oils and dirt from the surrounding and vehicles that are washed.

Though it was mentioned that the water is used for bathing and cooking, there is not any form of household-level treatment before use according to some women I spoke to. The photo above shows the dirty water in the dam, and the photo below, some water being fetched for domestic consumption. When asked if they had knowledge of any water-related diseases, the answer was “yes,” but no one could give reasons for not treating the water before use. The people might boil the water to kill bacteria but what happens to the film of oily layers on the water is question for which no one has sought the answers.

Ghana domestic water

The vehicle washing bay owner might be earning daily income from his job but little does he think of the harm being caused to the only precious dam that serves a large population at Lamashiegu. It is therefore very important for education to be given to all people staying close to the dam to know the contribution of their actions to polluting the dam.

 

“Climate Change Question and Answer” Fact Sheet

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


Ruskin’s AB 1365 Updates State Planning Priorities

With the threat of climate change growing worse by the day, a historic bill to tackle the issue was passed by the California Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan, 8 to1 vote. Authored by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City), and sponsored by State Controller Steve Westly, the bill (AB 1365) updates the State Planning Priorities to include an additional goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 7% by 2010 and 10% by 2020 based on the 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels.

“From cities in my district to cities across the state and around the globe, we face a serious threat from climate change,” said California Assemblymember Ira Ruskin, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. “It’s well past time to tackle this growing threat by adding a climate change goal to California’s State Planning Priorities. The world’s top scientists have told us that climate change is not only real it is already taking place. The good new is we have solutions, like this bill, that can turn the tide without harming our economy.”

“You can’t argue with solid scientific evidence that Global Warming is a real threat to humanity,” said State Controller Westly. “As the sixth largest economy in the world, we should lead the effort to stop the damaging effects of Global Warming and join other industrialized nations in adopting Kyoto Protocol Standards.”

“After decades of studying climate change, a global consensus has emerged: Climate change is real, has already begun, and poses a grave threat to the United States and the world,” said Dr. Peter H. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute and a 2003 MacArthur Fellow. “The failure of the United States to act means that states must begin the process. This historic bill is a first step in that direction.”

The standards-setting bill will encourage companies, government agencies and individuals to improve efficiency and curtail the pollution that causes climate change without creating onerous new regulation.

Dr. Ron Cohen, UC Berkeley Professor in the Departments of Chemistry and Earth and Planetary Science, said: “Our state has a long tradition of scientific and technical leadership. A proactive stance on greenhouse gas reduction is likely to reinforce ongoing efforts in California’s academic and commercial sectors to develop economically sensible solutions for reducing greenhouse gases. Such developments will further California’s advantage in high technology producing new jobs here while leading the world to a more stable climate.”

“The evidence has never been clearer: Time is running out and immediate action is imperative,” Assemblymember Ruskin concluded.

Along with rising sea levels, more intense storms, and more frequent and intense droughts, climate change may severely affect California’s agricultural industry, its wine-growing regions, and its ski industry. Climate change is also very likely to play havoc with the state’s water supply by changing when and where we get rain, by raising temperatures, and by impacting how quickly our snow pack melts.

AB 1365 is supported by the Sierra Club, California League of Conservation Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Pacific Institute.

 

Questions and Answers about Climate Change

Prepared by the Pacific Institute of Oakland, California, April 22, 2005 in support of California AB1365

 

Question: Is climate change real and is it really happening?

“After decades of studying climate change, a global consensus has emerged: Climate change is real, has already begun, and poses a grave threat to the United States and the world,” said Dr. Peter H. Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on climate change and water resources. Dr. Gleick is President of the Pacific Institute, a member of the United Nations Sigma Xi Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Advisory Group, and a 2003 MacArthur Fellow.

In fact, most of the world’s largest oil companies (Royal Dutch/Shell, British Petroleum, and ChevronTexaco) have all acknowledged that climate change is real, caused in part by humans, and requires action. Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Royal Dutch/Shell, has admitted that the threat of climate change makes him “really very worried for the planet” according to published reports. “No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are pumping out at present… with consequences that we really can’t predict but are probably not good.”

Beyond Theory: Observable Signs of Climate Change

“These phenomena are complex, and there are many uncertainties, but we now have scores of irrefutable observations that show we are already changing the Earth’s climate,” noted Gleick. “These signs include higher global temperatures, losses of snow and ice, increased storm intensity, rising ocean levels, and changing behavior of plants and animals.”

According to a recent study by the British Antarctic Survey: “Most of the glaciers on the Antarctic peninsular are in headlong retreat because of climate change… An in-depth study using aerial photographs spanning the past half century of all 244 marine glaciers on the west side of the finger-like peninsular pointing up to South America found that 87 percent of them were in retreat — and the speed was rising.”

According to Sir David King, the UK government’s chief scientific adviser, climate change is “the most severe problem we face today…”

 

Question: How will climate change affect California?

1) Climate change is expected to increase sea levels, placing low-lying coastal areas at greater risk of flooding, erosion, and salt-water intrusion

According to a report produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Sea levels along the California coast will likely continue rising over the next century… Consequences could be especially severe during El Niño years, when sea levels and coastal waves along the California coast are already unusually high and winter storms can bring torrential rains. Higher sea levels could also allow saltwater intrusion into aquifers and the rich ecosystems found at the mouths of rivers.”

The report goes on to note that ” San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels, which can increase the risk of storm damage, erosion, and flooding of leveed islands, valuable real estate, and rich wetland eco-systems.”

According to a Pacific Institute report published in 1990, a one meter sea level rise would cost several billion dollars to protect against and that “We think it unlikely that the status quo around the Bay can be maintained under conditions of expected sea-level rise, even with extensive efforts to build protective structures.”

2) Climate change is predicted to play havoc with California’s water supply

According to Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute: “Climate change won’t just result in warmer temperatures. One of the most troubling impacts of unchecked climate change involves California’s water supply. Global warming will change when and where we get snow and rain. If our snow pack melts too quickly or if water that falls as snow turns to rain, we’ll see more flooding in the winter and less water during the summer when we need it most.” Dr. Gleick was lead author of the U.S. National Assessment report for water resources.

According to Professor Lisa Sloan, University of California, Santa Cruz: “With less precipitation falling as snow and more as rain, plus higher temperatures creating increased demand for water, the impacts [of climate change] on our water storage system will be enormous.”

3) California’s agricultural sector, environment and the health of its residents could be seriously affected by Climate Change

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Higher temperatures could also affect California’s leading agricultural products, reducing dairy production and diminishing the quality of wine grapes in all but the coolest grape growing regions.” According to the same report, Climate change may increase the number of heat related deaths in California, unless preventative measures or taken, and, climate change, is likely to alter California’s natural environment significantly.

 

Question: Isn’t climate change a global issue, not a state issue?

Climate change is clearly a global issue – greenhouse gases from around the world combine in the atmosphere. However, there are several reasons California should take the lead among U.S. states: California contributes substantially to greenhouse gas emissions, we are a leader in renewable technology and thus could benefit economically by encourage efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions; and by “leading by example” we would encourage other states and the federal government to act in concert with us.

 

Question: Won’t the costs of responding to climate change hurt our economy?

Responding to climate change could actually help our economy, by stimulating new industries, by taking actions before other states do, and by helping to reduce long-term impacts. California is already a leader in the clean, high-tech industries that create solar installations and develop and build other kinds of renewable technology. The state is home to several of the largest solar system builders in the United States, PowerLight in Berkeley and Pacific Power Management in Auburn.

According to the head of British Petroleum, the oil company is on target to reduce green house gas emissions by 10% below 1990 levels by 2010 – twice the rate set out in the Kyoto treaty. And, even more surprisingly, British Petroleum hit its target at no net economic cost.

 

Question: Do we have the technology to respond to climate change now?

According to Xcel energy CEO Wayne Brunetti, we have the technology to significantly reduce emissions: “Give us a date, tell us how much we need to cut, give us the flexibility to meet the goals, and we’ll get it done.”

Notes from the Field:Need for Water Resource Management and Adequate Sanitation

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


 by Dr. John Akudago, Senior Research Associat

mahama_azundo_photo.jpg“Water is life,” says 60-year-old Mahama Azundo of Gbulung, a community 5 Km East of Savelugu in the Northern Region of Ghana. He explained that with water he could provide enough food for his family, be safe from water borne-diseases, and also get other development projects such as building his mud house and community shea-butter processing accomplished. Mr. Mahama – standing by a hand-dug well that was provided by Adventist Relief Agency (ADRA) over 20 years ago and a dam that was constructed in early 1960s mainly for drinking water – mentioned that in the last eight years, World Vision and its West Africa Water Initiative (WAWI) partners have taught them how to use the water for irrigation, which has brought improvement to their lives including a radio set he now owns (see photo 1).

When asked how they manage the water sources and what the state of sanitation was in the village, he said, “The village chief appointed me as the one responsible for managing the water here.” If anyone including people from outside their village needed to take water for any purpose, he should be informed, and there is no charge for using the water. Though the dam never dries completely, there are times when the water almost gets finished (see photo 2). It has also not been desilted due to lack of funds. The interaction with Mr. Mahama reveals that if the community could contribute toward desilting the dam it will be able to store more water. He also views water as a gift from God rather than a resource that needs to be used and managed cautiously.

gbulung_ag_use.jpg

On the part of sanitation, open defecation was the common practice for most people in the community.  However, they travel a little bit far (over 100 m) to ease themselves so that their waters do not get contaminated with the feces. As for treating the water at the household level before use, he said they drink water from two newly installed hand-pump wells though not enough for everyone. They do drink physically treated water from the dam whenever there is water scarcity. Though Mr Mahama acknowledged that sometimes they get sick from taking the water, Moringa tree is their best medicine and solution to all their malaria, boils, fever, diarrhea and even snake bites.

From this interaction, there is need for proper water resource management and appropriate sanitation facilities such as latrines in Gbulung to reduce water scarcity in the community.

Bottled and Sold: What’s Really in Our Bottled Water

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


My new book on bottled water is out, at last. “Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water” (Island Press, Washington) has apparently (according to reports from my secret field agents) started appearing in book stores. You’ve been able to order it online for a while through Island Press, Amazon, Barnes and Nobles, and other places.

There are some great stories in the book: here is a little one, about what’s sometimes found in our bottled water.

You don’t find what you don’t look for. This maxim holds true for arms control, as Ronald Reagan noted. And it holds true for contaminants in bottled water. One would think and expect that bottled water would be cleaner than our tap water. But is it?

The system for testing and monitoring the quality of bottled water is so flawed that we simply have no comprehensive assessment of actual bottled water quality. Don’t misunderstand me. The inadequacies of U.S. rules for testing bottled water do not mean that bottled-water quality is poor. If bottled water was monitored as consistently, frequently, and accurately as tap water, the evidence might show that it was just as good, or even better on average, than tap water. Given how much consumers pay for it, we certainly have the right to expect it to be better.

But we’re just not looking carefully enough. And the bad news is that when we do actually look, we find evidence that there are potentially serious quality problems with bottled water, lurking just under the cap. Even worse, outside of the U.S. (where sometimes bottled water really needs to be better than tap water) there is growing evidence that bottled water quality can be terrible.

Most of our tap water is completely safe; most of our bottled water is probably completely safe. But to know for sure, we must look carefully. And when we do actually look, we sometimes find more than we bargained for. The most famous example is when Perrier was discovered in 1991 to be contaminated with benzene. But this example is not the only one.

Water Number: More than 100. After months of requests and two Freedom of Information Act requests to the US Food and Drug Administration (which regulates some bottled waters), I got a list of recalls of bottled waters in the U.S. Combined with other research, I ultimately compiled a list of more than 100 bottled water recalls, affecting millions of bottles of water.

This list (posted here) includes a remarkable list of contaminants. In addition to the benzene found in Perrier, bottled water has been found to contain mold, sodium hydroxide, kerosene, styrene, algae, yeast, tetrahydrofuran, sand, fecal coliforms and other forms of bacteria, elevated chlorine, “filth,” glass particles, sanitizer, and in my very favorite example, crickets.

Crickets_are_not_for_bottled_water

Yes, crickets. In 1994, a bottler in Nacogdoches, Texas issued a recall for sparkling water found to be contaminated with crickets. The water was distributed in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia and the recall notice wasn’t issued until seven months after being bottled and distributed, making it unlikely that consumers were notified in time to avoid buying the contaminated bottles. Maybe they thought it was a bonus, like that worm in tequila, or the weird things sometimes found in flavored vodkas.

However you feel about crickets, my guess is you don’t want them in your bottled water. (Photo: Steve Jurvetson from Menlo Park, USA)

In addition to bottled-water quality, the book talks about advertising and marketing, weird bottled waters claims, disappearing water fountains, conflicting and weak laws protecting consumers, and the growing revolt against bottled water. I’ll post a few more times in the coming months about some of these issues. But if you want the whole story, get the book!

Peter Gleick 

(posted at the San Francisco Chronicle’s SF GATE, from England, where I’ve been grounded by the volcano)
April 17 2010 at 08:00 AM

Purchase a copy of the book from Island Press.

Bottled Water Recalls Summary Table

Learn more about bottled water.

 

Let’s Start Overcoming Obstacles: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


The Pacific Institute released a report several months ago on the potential for greater agricultural water conservation and efficiency in areas that depend on water either flowing into or being exported out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Each of the four scenarios we analyzed offers the potential to reduce agricultural water withdrawals in the region by 5 to 13 percent. These numbers are hardly radical compared to the experiences of many farmers who have implemented water conservation techniques. Yet these savings represent a lot of water. Moreover, we didn’t look at other practices such as fallowing (which we don’t consider “efficiency” in any sense of the word); new, genetically modified cultivars that use less water; or other new ideas and technologies that are just starting to appear.

We conclude that California can grow more food with less water—this is great news. But potential savings are not real savings until we take action, which is why we provide a lengthy discussion about the very real barriers to making some of these improvements: capital costs, regulatory constraints, unclear or inflexible water rights laws, lack of data and knowledge, and underfunded extension services. We describe the barriers that growers and districts are currently facing and offer some concrete recommendations on overcoming them.

 

While the report received a lot of positive attention from water policy makers, growers, media, and more (including calls from many farmers thanking us for highlighting their work in these areas or asking for help in overcoming the barriers to improving their efficiency), we also received negative responses. Here, we describe four key criticisms:

  1. Our analysis was not “new” – people have been writing about efficiency for decades.
    We don’t argue that the approaches we analyze are new. On the contrary, we went out of our way to assess techniques that many farmers throughout the state are already implementing, and we set out to determine what is working best and how much more can be done. In the face of a third year of drought and water reductions, determining where we can increase water-use efficiency is a critical question for all water users.
  2. The water savings doesn’t exist or we would have found it already.
    This criticism implies that all of water conservation and efficiency measures are already being implemented to their fullest potential, which is highly unlikely given the barriers identified. From the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to the Central Coast to the Imperial Valley, we have met with California farmers, local farm bureaus, and irrigation districts to gather input from the agricultural community. It is clear from the experience of farmers around the state that there still remains a tremendous amount of potential water savings.
  3. On-farm water efficiency does not matter because excess water will be used by someone downstream, making water use on the basin scale extremely efficient.
    This criticism relies on two implied conclusions: (1) there isn’t any water to be saved, and (2) there is no value to reducing unnecessary withdrawals. Both of these are false.In regard to the first implied conclusion, critics argue: “If so much water could be saved, where is it? It must be going somewhere.” It is going somewhere: it is being consumed in unproductive evaporation. It is disappearing in the production of low-valued crops. It is ending up in other vegetation, including weeds and unimportant parts of the crop. It is flowing off fields as contaminated return flows to be shunted off into sinks. And it is ending up in saline groundwater layers that no one else can ever use.In regard to the second implied conclusion, reductions in total water withdrawals (including consumptive and non-consumptive uses) are also important but are not fully appreciated. Every acre-foot of water that is applied must be taken from a stream or groundwater basin. Thus, applying more water than needed can waste energy and money. It also hurts ecosystems and degrades water quality. And while the environmental and water quality impacts are often discounted, these two issues are the major drivers of litigation and regulation of water resources in California. Therefore, if one of our goals is to minimize conflicts between water users in the future, then reducing total water withdrawals can help us achieve that goal.
  4. And finally, most of the thoughtful responses to our assessment have reluctantly concluded: yes, there is water to be saved through efficiency, but we just don’t agree with how much.
    This is a huge step forward. Much like the climate change argument, we need to move beyond the paralysis of arguing about the problem and instead address how to solve it. We need to stop arguing about whether there is additional efficiency potential and start the conversation about the best ways to capture it. Our report never contends that on-farm conservation is the single solution to satisfy all demands. Everyone who struggles with California’s water problems understands that a “portfolio” of solutions is needed – a complex mix of infrastructure and smart management using economic, regulatory, and educational tools. We are going to have to change how we manage our water in every sector.

 

So, let’s quickly adopt the cost-effective options that can help us grow more food with less water. Let’s reduce the barriers to improving efficiency by offering financial incentives for new technology, and by expanding extension services that offer better information on climate and weather factors, soil moisture conditions, crop water demands. Let’s improve markets so that the trend away from water-intensive field crops continues.

The alternative is to let California’s unofficial water policy continue to be hoping next year is wet, and to respond after crises develop rather than before. We don’t believe this is the best thing to do, and we don’t think the agricultural community does either based on the many farmers and irrigation districts that are already trying to do more with less. In the end, not only can we do more with less, but we must.

Read More More with Less: Agricultural Water  Conservation and Efficiency in California A Special Focus on the Delta.

 

Time to Tap into Water-Wise Farmers’ Well of Ideas

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


Water supply constraints have reduced the amount of water available for California this year, causing economic losses and midseason fallowing for many farmers. Independent of what we might want, it is very likely that there will continue to be serious constraints on water available to all California users, including agriculture.

At a recent state Board of Food and Agriculture meeting in Sacramento, Secretary of Agriculture A.G. Kawamura stated that because of changes in the timing and reliability of water supply, “doing nothing is not an option.”

We agree and think it is time for an open and honest discussion about the full range of ways to respond to the water crisis in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and throughout the state. Certainly, new infrastructure for water supply is one option that might be necessary. But it is also critical that farmers explore another promising option: agricultural water conservation and efficiency.

A new Pacific Institute report, “More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California,” does this by looking at what innovative California farmers are already doing and offering ideas to help overcome barriers to further improvements.

We may be facing another drought year. The Old Farmer’s Almanac and the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center are forecasting a third dry winter in a row for California. While they both could be wrong, of course, even most optimists don’t think it likely that there will be more water for agriculture in coming years as population and environmental pressures grow, uncontrolled development in the Central Valley continues, and climate changes get worse.

We thus face two choices: Ignore the possibility of ongoing water reductions and let them randomly destroy farms and communities; or plan to manage changes in agricultural water availability and reliability, and improve the productivity of the water that is available. We prefer the second approach, and our report examines how we can maintain a healthy and profitable agricultural sector into the future.

There is a basic question here: Is there any potential for the agricultural sector to use water more efficiently? Many farmers have responded with a resounding “yes.” Even James O’Banion of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority in a Sept. 15 letter to the Pacific Institute conceded that “there may be some additional gains in some of these areas.” If even a small amount of water could be saved or used more efficiently, then it is worth having a discussion about how to provide the appropriate incentives to achieve these savings.

We offer concrete recommendations for ways to overcome the financial, legal, and institutional barriers that currently inhibit or discourage efficient water use. For instance, we suggest providing rebates to farmers on more efficient irrigation equipment, and property tax exemptions for on-farm improvements that reduce water use. We also suggest the state provide more funding for educational and technical outreach programs such as agricultural extension services, which are not funded to an appropriate level to help deal with water-efficiency challenges. It is time to invest in the many “water-wise” farmers whose efforts bring benefits far beyond the farm gate and to create incentives that encourage other farmers to become more water-wise.

In his commentary in The Bee (“Study subtly aimed at getting more water for environment,” Sept. 25, Page B-5), O’Banion made some serious misrepresentations of our report. His comments reflect a knee-jerk response to any suggestions for how farmers might actively address growing concerns over water. There are those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand or attack research findings and recommendations, but this does little to help farmers or to deal with the crisis at hand. We encourage every member of the agricultural community to read the report.

Read the Pacific Institute’s full response to O’Banion’s letter

Peter Gleick, Heather Cooley, and Juliet Christian-Smith are authors of the Pacific Institute new report, More with Less.

Panic Makes for Poor Policy

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


Ignoring a problem tends to make it worse. A worsening problem tends to lead to panic. Panic tends to make for bad public policy. Welcome to 21st century California water policy.

We are experiencing our driest year in more than a decade, and our policymakers are panicking. They are proposing that you and I cough up billions of dollars in new bonds to subsidize new dams and other large infrastructure that, at best, won’t contribute to meeting our needs for decades to come and, at worst, will siphon off precious funds needed for faster and more effective water solutions.

We may need some kind of peripheral canal, an idea that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to reintroduce, but we also need to stop fantasizing that one more $1 billion dam or pipeline will, at long last, solve our water problems. Pushing through these expensive proposals during a crisis doesn’t show “vision.”

Basically, we all need to take a deep breath and come up with a plan. It has been an extremely dry year, but our taps aren’t going dry and our farms aren’t blowing away. We need short-term solutions in case the drought continues next year, long-term thinking for the future and a willingness to tackle the water taboos long neglected in Sacramento: groundwater, water waste, agriculture and prices.

We can meet our needs this year by making smart, careful efforts to ratchet down our wasteful and unnecessary water uses. Taking shorter showers will help, but replacing old toilets, showerheads and washing machines with efficient models can substantially cut our largest indoor water uses permanently. Ironically, our green governor vetoed a water efficiency bill last October that would have freed up enough water to serve 1.5 million new Californians at far lower cost than the new dams he now wants us to buy.

We must also begin implementing longer-term, more permanent responses. We have to stop pretending that groundwater is free, and start monitoring and managing this precious resource. We can acknowledge the progress our cities have made in improving water efficiency, but let’s also admit that much more remains to be done, such as replacing wasteful lawns with low-water using gardens. Water districts must reinvigorate programs to fix leaks and expand the use of recycled and reclaimed water where appropriate. Where the environmental and economic implications are well understood and resolved, desalination plants may have a role to play for high valued uses.

It is also time to stop letting agriculture off the hook.

To date, the agricultural sector has largely failed to take responsibility for its share of our water problems and to participate in implementing real solutions. California growers are responsible for 80 percent of the state’s water consumption, yet they generate only 2 percent of the gross state product. Although some innovative growers have implemented smart water programs, vast quantities of water are still used inefficiently to grow low-value crops in hot climates just because we can, not because we should. Agricultural lobbyists successfully fight to maintain the status quo, hiding behind long-term subsidized federal contracts for low-priced water, or historical water rights assigned when the state’s population was 1 million, not 36 million. These outdated practices are destroying the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, family farms, fisheries and the state’s few remaining healthy rivers.

We should temporarily take some cropland out of rotation, if we have to, and consider permanently retiring poor quality lands, replace flood irrigation with sprinklers and drip systems, eliminate perverse incentives for growing cotton and other high-water crops, and encourage farms to switch to vegetables and other more water efficient or drought-tolerant crops.

California can have a water future. We can take a shower and flush the toilet while simultaneously using less water. We can have a healthy agricultural sector and continue to be the nation’s most important producer of food, while greatly reducing agricultural water use. We can restore needed water to dying fisheries and deltas. But these things will only happen if we demand that our leaders stop offering us 20th century solutions that didn’t work then and won’t work now, and start offering us a sustainable water future.

Lower Colorado River: Proposed Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


On February 15, 2007, the Pacific Institute joined several other NGOs in submitting comments (PDF) on the Bureau of Reclamation’s proposed Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project (for more information on Reclamation’s proposed project, click here). The proposed project would build a total of 8,000 acre-feet of new, re-regulatory storage adjacent to the All-American Canal, just downstream of the turnout of the Coachella Canal.

The purpose of the project is to reduce the volume of water delivered to Mexico at Morelos Dam in excess of the U.S.’s obligations under the 1944 Treaty. To date, these over-deliveries have sustained the remnant Colorado River delta;  reducing these flows could decrease the magnitude of flow below Morelos Dam by a 87%. Using Reclamation’s data, we estimate that had the proposed project been in place, there would have been no flow at all below Morelos Dam for 97% of the days from 2000 through 2004.

While we agree that increasing the efficiency of water deliveries is an important objective, we strongly believe that the invaluable riparian habitat in the Colorado River delta below Morelos Dam must be protected.

We also suggested several interim measures to protect the limitrophe, as we continue to craft long-term solutions to the delta’s pressing need for water.  These interim solutions include:For a large number of reasons described in our comment letter, we believe that Reclamation’s environmental assessment is inadequate and must be redone.

  1. dedicating a portion of the water conserved by the proposed project to instream flows in the limitrophe;
  2. implementing a robust surface and groundwater monitoring program, in conjunction with vegetation and wildlife surveys;
  3. federal and state support for limitrophe restoration projects; and
  4. locating the proposed project in the Laguna Reach of the Colorado River (downstream of Imperial Dam), in conjunction with a restoration of that reach of the river, to minimize evaporative losses and maximize ecological benefits.

SFGate: Flushing Water and Money Down the Drain

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


By Peter Gleick

This essay was originally printed in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 12, 2006.

Exciting developments in the high-efficiency toilet market may sound like an oxymoron. But installing these water-efficient fixtures throughout California could free up more water than any proposed reservoir or water-supply project – with none of the adverse environmental consequences and at a tiny fraction of the economic or political cost. Recognizing this potential, the Assembly and Senate passed AB2496, a bill that would have paved the way in the coming years for the adoption of new, high-efficiency toilets throughout the state. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, vetoed the bill, and in doing so flushed away enough high-quality potable water to meet the needs of millions of Californians.

Inefficient toilets in California waste a tremendous amount of water and money. The Pacific Institute, the institute I co-founded to research and analyze issues on development, environment and security, estimates that replacing existing toilets with high-efficiency models could save California more than 130 billion gallons of water every year. That is more water than we get from Hetch Hetchy reservoir, enough to satisfy the needs of approximately 1.5 million California residents.

The water we are flushing is water that we already capture in reservoirs or draw from rivers, transport across the state and purify to drinking-water standards. Once used, this water must be treated and disposed. These processes are expensive and often energy intensive — 19 percent of California’s electricity is consumed by water systems to pump, clean, heat and treat water — yet we continue to flush unnecessarily precious water down our toilets. Saving water and reducing the generation of wastewater could save consumers hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

California used to be the leader in the area of water conservation and efficiency. More than a decade ago, we pioneered the move toward water-efficient fixtures in our homes and industries. As a result, our population and economy have continued to grow while total water demands have leveled off. Indeed, we use less water today per person in California than we did more than 50 years ago — a fact that most Californians, and indeed most water policymakers, don’t know or appreciate. These improvements in water-use efficiency have eliminated the need for expensive and controversial new supply projects, reduced the damage to our ecosystems, and saved vast sums of money. But we’ve let our lead slip away.

Water use is starting to creep back up because of the failure of our leaders to continue to apply well-understood technologies and policies to reduce wasteful and inefficient uses. The progress we have made will ultimately be overwhelmed by a growing population if efforts are not made to further reduce wasteful practices.

Many state leaders on both sides of the aisle — including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. — still fail to recognize California’s conservation and efficiency potential and regularly call for the construction of new reservoirs or new subsidies for expensive ocean desalination plants. Not only would any new reservoir be costly and environmentally controversial, no proposed reservoir could possibly yield as much water as AB2496 would have freed up. And given desalination’s extremely high operating and electricity costs – to say nothing of its impact on local marine ecosystems – it makes no sense to produce expensive desalinated water just to flush it down inefficient toilets.

In his veto message, the governor stated that we need to study these toilets more. Yet we already know that they are standard in Australia, Japan and other countries. Dozens of models from a wide range of manufacturers have been extensively tested here as well and many of them perform better than toilets already on the market.

A rational water policy requires that we make the best use of the scarce and valuable water we have. That will require that California return to its position of national leadership in the area of water efficiency and conservation, not just in our homes, but in our industries and on our farms. The Pacific Institute has found that California can actually cut its wasteful use of water by 20 percent in the next 25 years with expected population growth, a healthy agricultural sector and a vibrant economy. We won’t get there if the governor vetoes the steps we’re trying to take in that direction.

Peter H. Gleick, Ph.D, is president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, a nonpartisan Oakland-based think tank. He is a MacArthur Fellow.

 

 

Research in India: Smelling Like Petrol

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


 

For three months in 2005-2006, Pacific Institute Program Director Meena Palaniappan will be conducting research in India. This article is part of a series of diary entries in which Palaniappan will elaborate on her experiences abroad.

 

While I am in Chennai working on water issues, I wear the scent of another major problem in Indian cities. I often come home from my research trips in Chennai smelling like a gallon of petrol. Chennai’s air pollution – and air pollution in most cities in India – is bad and getting worse.

Air pollution is on the rise, even in garden city, thanks to two-stroke engines

For many years Chennai was the garden city, greener than most cities and with cleaner air by luck of its location on the seashore. But Chennai’s luck is changing. The growth of population and the spread of the city are certainly huge problems. An even bigger problem is the growth of private transportation. According to Sunita Narain, Director of the Center for Science and Environment, while population in Chennai has increased by 10% in the last decade, it has seen a 108% growth in private vehicles. I can feel the difference in the air, and on my clothes.

The growth in private vehicles has a number of contributing factors. One is the failing public transportation system — cities are not investing enough to keep up existing low capital sources of public transport. Often highly expensive urban rail projects are chosen over replacing and expanding bus service through dedicated lanes. Another factor is increasing incomes. This growing middle class is now getting access to capital through new loan programs, which are making purchases like cars and homes accessible. I think that to protect themselves from the growing air pollution, anyone who is able is purchasing a car, tightly shutting the windows, and turning on the AC. These large, moving, climate-protected rooms roam throughout the city.

Delhi is the worst Indian city for air pollution. Like Los Angeles, it is located in an area unsuitable for dispersing air pollution, causing pollutants to be trapped over the city. But, Delhi is also full of private vehicles – it has more cars than all of the other three major cities combined. The levels of respirable particulate matter in Delhi, or what is called in the U.S. PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in size) are astronomical. In 2000-2001, PM10 levels in Delhi were about 180 micrograms (ug) per cubic meter (m3), over three times the U.S. standard of 50 ug/m3.

Three wheel double-stroke engine “autos,” one of the worst polluters on the roads, puffing out unburned fuel

Some of the worst polluters on urban streets are “autos” and motorbikes. Autos, or small three wheeled taxis, abound in Chennai. Since 1990, the number of autos on Chennai’s streets has doubled, and about 40,000 autos ply Chennai streets. Aside from the sheer number of autos and motorbikes on the road, their two-stroke engines make them major air pollution culprits. The two-stroke engine is a lighter and cheaper engine that requires oil mixed into the petrol for operation. With each revolution of the engine, a cloud of burned and unburned fuel escapes. In Delhi, 35% of particulate matter pollution from vehicles is from two-wheeled motor bikes. The above view from my window is typical: an auto followed by its signature huge cloud of smoke.

There have been some improvements in India’s cities, including requiring pre-mixed low-smoke oil for two- and three-wheelers. Low-sulfur and lead free fuel has also helped. Delhi has done the most in this area, mostly out of necessity. The phase-out of older taxis and autos has seen the addition of nearly 60,000 compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to the road in Delhi. In addition, all diesel buses have been phased out.

The road to clean air in Indian cities will be long and – with the growing number of vehicles – it will be difficult to navigate. But in Chennai, amidst the petrol, you can smell the hope.

Research in India: What Would Gandhi Do?

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


 

For three months in 2005-2006, Pacific Institute Program Director Meena Palaniappan will be conducting research in India. This article is part of a series of diary entries in which Palaniappan will elaborate on her experiences abroad.

 

I am always thoroughly impressed and humbled by the dedication and commitment of my NGO colleagues and concerned residents who are involved in the struggle to make Chennai more sustainable. The city seems chock full of retired engineers and scientists who are making their own homes more sustainable by building comprehensive rainwater harvesting systems, separating out garbage, recycling the greywater (wash water) from their homes, and trying to spread these practices to others.

Every few years I come dashing through Chennai or hereabouts on some environmental project, to learn from and to provide assistance to the NGO community. Yet, each time I come, the same core set of people seem to be tirelessly working on improving things in Chennai. They are getting older and wiser, and they are not giving up. It’s a wonderful, heartening thing to see.

Luckily, some new energy is often inserted into the mix and younger folks are giving new life and new strategies to the old guard. There is definitely a difference in attitude and strategy. Younger ones seem more activist oriented, more suspicious of government and corporates, and less willing to work within the system or accept compromise.

Young, old, rural or urban, there is a phrase that always seems to cause many to pause, “What would Gandhi do?” or what some have shortened to WWGD. More than 50 years since his assassination, the pedestal that the Mahatma occupied has only grown taller. And for those that are engaged in variations of the same social and political battle that Gandhi waged, there is no better model or guide than the original himself.

What would Gandhi do? It is a question that many have wondered about. How would India have been different if we had Gandhi for a few more years? Perhaps he would have provided a counter to the big infrastructure/industrialization bent of our equally revered first Prime Minister Jawarhalal Nehru. Are we living as Gandhi intended? Probably not. Mega cities that only keep growing are not the India of a thousand villages that Gandhi had hoped for. Nor is this race after Western-style development what Gandhi had intended when he envisioned the Third World defining a new path to development.

Yet, these social activist Indians are doing their best to live and to create projects in the Gandhian ethic. Whether it is creating self-reliant villages in tsunami-effected areas, or fighting for decentralized options for basic needs instead of mega-projects, the Gandhian ethic is alive and well in India.

One man I met in Chennai has turned his entire house into a fully water self-sufficient building, using rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse, with disinfected rainwater used for drinking. His family performs tasks in such a way as to not introduce too much food or chemicals into the grey water; for example, the first wash of kitchen dishes is separated to use in the compost. The above picture shows his in-home disinfection system.

Another man I met is a builder with the best reputation in Chennai, earned by building quality apartments and not giving or taking bribes. Years back, he was upset about a letter to the editor accusing apartment developers as being the reason for water shortages in Chennai. He decided to implement systems in his apartment complexes that would save all greywater from bath and washing, treat it, and reuse it for flushing toilets and landscaping. Recently semi-retired, the builder has self-published the book Self Reliance in Water: The Alacrity Experience detailing the specific designs to install rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse systems in the home.

“These designs are not things one can patent, and they are critical for the future of water in our city,” he told me. “So, I thought why not publish this manual and distribute it widely so that everyone will have what they need to solve the city’s water problems.”

To propagate and not patent good ideas—this is what Gandhi would have done. Hopefully with many more like him, a new India can emerge… one that the Mahatma would be proud of.

Research in India: Happy Pongal!

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


Harvest celebrations are a commonality across cultures, a time to think about where our food comes from and give thanks. Pongal is the time for that in Chennai, a major celebration of the harvest that happens in Tamil Nadu the middle of every January. After being deluged (or at least hopefully somewhat blessed) by the northeastern monsoons in the months of October and November, farmers are now ready to bring forth the harvest.

Happy PongalSakkarai Pongal

It took 3 women 2 hours to complete

Like good BBQ in the U.S., the traditional flavor of these dishes comes from cooking them over a wood burning stove. In my uncle’s relatively modern Chennai home, wood stoves were constructed for the occasion, and four pots of rice were put to boil inside the house. You can see how smoky the interior is in this picture of my aunt putting some milk in the Pongal pots.

My aunt putting some milk in the Pongal pots, over a highly polluting indoor wood stove

Unfortunately, burning wood indoors greatly adds to indoor air pollution, a major problem in many developing countries. Billions of people use poorly-ventilated wood burning stoves. This pollution can contribute to numerous respiratory problems, including pneumonia and lung cancer, as well as cataracts and possible blindness. In poor countries worldwide, indoor smoke from solid fuels is the second-greatest environmental risk factor contributing to premature death (the greatest risk factor is what brought me to Chennai: water, sanitation, and hygiene). It is also the second-greatest risk factor in mid-income countries (after occupational risks and just above water, sanitation and hygiene). The World Health Organization found that indoor smoke was responsible for 1.7 million premature deaths in 2000. Thankfully for my uncle’s family, they do not need to rely on these stoves every day.

The last day of Pongal, called Kanu, is meant for meeting friends and family, and the beaches and parks were overflowing with families. On the last day of Pongal I was sitting in the offices of various officials trying to organize speakers and data for an upcoming workshop I will be co-hosting on wastewater treatment. Many of these folks weren’t acting like my friends, but nevertheless…

All in all, a wonderful holiday to celebrate the coming of the new harvest and be thankful for family, friends, and good food.

Research in India: Counting Toilets in the New Millennium

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


 

For three months in 2005-2006, Pacific Institute Program Director Meena Palaniappan will be conducting research in India. This article is part of a series of diary entries in which Palaniappan will elaborate on her experiences abroad.

 

What will it take to prevent the people in the developing world from suffering the ill health of waterborne disease?

Is it greater quantities of safe drinking water?

Is it more toilets?

Is it cheaper water?

The United Nations attempted to answer these questions with a series of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): targets for the international community to achieve in order to improve the health and well being of all people. In 2002, the Johannesburg Summit added specific objectives on sanitation and hygiene to the MDGs. A main sanitation target was to halve the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015.

What is critical about these new sanitation goals is that they address a major imbalance in the funding and priority that has been given to drinking water as opposed to sanitation in the past. Sanitation has always been the forgotten child in the water and sanitation family. In fact, the gap in sanitation coverage grew during the 1980s International Water and Sanitation Decade.

But what does access to basic sanitation mean? And how is access to basic sanitation being measured and reported? Are countries being asked how many toilets they have? Whether there is a toilet within 1 km of a residence? Whether people are actually using these toilets?

Since it is primarily self reported, it seems to be up to the national government to decide how to determine how many people have access to basic sanitation. As might be imagined, countries like India who don’t want to be pointed to as a laggard on the indicator of basic sanitation are going out and building tens of thousands of toilets.

But building and disseminating toilets does not guarantee their use. Or use as intended.

Numerous studies demonstrate that lack of involvement by residents in the construction of toilets often leads to toilets being used for numerous purposes, such as store rooms or simply being filled with dirt. Meanwhile, the intended users are still defecating in the open where they are most comfortable.

Recently, the focus in India has been on “open defecation free” villages. By involving residents in mapping where defecation happens, how this impacts their health, and designing a publicity campaign, numerous agencies are creating the demand for toilets and then working with users to design them. This focus on involving the whole community is critical, as it has been found that even if a few residents continue to defecate in the open, there still exist high rates of waterborne diseases

Despite these important transitions in international thinking and local implementation, critical sanitation questions still go unanswered. What if a peri-urban community created a sewerage system that deposited its collected waste into waterway running nearby? What if septic tanks attached to a community toilet bank are overloaded, leaking, and not properly maintained?

There is no point in asking “What if?” in a city like Chennai. While Chennai reports that 100% of its population is covered by underground sewerage, untreated and undertreated sewage flows freely into the waterways. Most underground aquifers, which supply up to 2/3 of the city’s drinking water needs, are polluted by sewage.

Have we solved the waterborne disease problem yet?

If sanitation is the forgotten child in the water and sanitation family, then wastewater and sewage treatment is an even further neglected cousin. In India and other nations with inadequate water systems, untreated sewage flows in urban waterways, serving as a vector for diseases that run right through the community. This surface water pollution and the leaking of underground sewer pipes and septic tanks pollutes groundwater, which is often the only dependable source of drinking water in many areas.

When we measure how well we are doing in providing access to basic sanitation, we shouldn’t count toilets, or even how close people live to toilets. I would propose a different measure: we should conduct independent testing of surface waterways and groundwater for the presence of E. Coli or intestinal bacteria, which would be the best test for the extent of sewage contamination in water and identify the need for better treatment and disposal of human waste.

Improving health and reducing waterborne disease requires more than just toilet construction. People need to use the newly constructed toilets, and the sewage generated needs to be treated, and in areas where water is in short supply, this treated wastewater can be reused for non-potable purposes. If we want to improve health for those that are most affected, a focus on wastewater treatment will be critical in the next leg of our race toward the Millennium Development Goals.

Research in India: The Holy Grail

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


For three months in 2005-2006, Pacific Institute Program Director Meena Palaniappan will be conducting research in India. This article is part of a series of diary entries in which Palaniappan will elaborate on her experiences abroad.

 

There are passions that drive people. Finding a cure for cancer. Stopping the spread of AIDS. Improving wastewater treatment in India has always been my holy grail (It’s a strange holy grail to be sure. But what is even stranger, I’ve found a small cadre of those who are equally passionate about it).

It must have started in studying Environmental Engineering, when I was taught how to build mega wastewater treatment plants. I learned how far in the U.S. we had come on the cost/benefit curve, how gaining some additional benefit would come with great expense. Engineering degree in hand, I came like a sanitary missionary to the land of my birth. How naïve and passé … I know.

I am not sure if India has yet made it onto the sanitation cost/benefit curve. The costs of waterborne disease in India can be measured in lives lost: waterborne disease claims half a million Indian children every year. Even more starkly, in the eastern state of Orissa waterborne disease kills thirteen infants per hour. On the other hand, the costs of wastewater treatment on a decentralized scale can be as little 1000 rupees ($23) per cubic meter of water. Do we even need to make the cost/benefit calculation?


I worked with NGOs in Chennai in 1995 to develop an Action Plan for Clean Waterways, which was later endorsed by the state government. This Action Plan brought together all the agencies with jurisdiction and responsibility over the waterways to participate in their clean-up. I left feeling self-satisfied…
When I arrived in Chennai in 1995, I found a city badly in need of a functioning wastewater treatment system or really any kind of wastewater treatment at all. For an ingénue in search of a cause, I had certainly found it. The rivers and waterways in much of urban India serve as little more than open sewers. In Chennai, a 1994 study found biological oxygen demand (BOD) levels in three of Chennai’s four waterways to be higher than the BOD level of raw sewage. Even in urban areas where sewerage systems exists, a large portion of human waste goes untreated into the waterways, creating vectors for disease running right through the city. Of the 300 largest cites in India, 30% have little or no sewerage system or sewage treatment. And of the total wastewater generated in metropolitan areas, the great majority, about 70%, goes untreated into water systems.

… only to return a few years later seeing that nothing much had changed.

This frustration led me to conduct research on the history of sanitation in Madras (a.k.a. Chennai) for my Master’s thesis, asking: How is it that when both Madras and London were disgusting places full of excrement and disease in the 1800s, London is now revitalizing the Thames, while Chennai’s rivers are still sewers? In my research I found that colonial governing mentality and decisions in the latter half of the 19th century set the stage for the differential development of sanitary infrastructure between colonial port cities and the colonial capitals. During that time, London, Paris, and U.S. cities began building municipal sanitary infrastructure. Meanwhile, resources in colonial Madras were spent to protect the British Army from disease and on infrastructure to extract raw materials and goods. Colonial governments took little effort to protect the native population from disease or to build municipal sanitary infrastructure.

While this explained a part of the huge divide, my research did not provide a solution. In search of those solutions in 1997, I worked with Auroville’s Center for Scientific Research. This small “village that is a laboratory” has developed and implemented numerous decentralized alternative wastewater treatment systems for communities in Auroville, including reed bed systems and aquatic weed lagoons. I learned a bit of what real engineers do, which is build, test, and then fix and fix … and fix. No fear of turning ideas into cement here.

Now 2005, and I am back in Chennai, full circle in a way, trying to propagate these decentralized solutions for wastewater treatment. What types of solutions will work in such a densely populated urban area? How can we create a cadre of technicians to help troubleshoot backyard or institutional systems to treat wastewater (since we don’t train environmental engineers on how to build something so practical, and too often these systems are never fixed once they fail to work)? I’m working with the Chennai Water Forum, a newly formed network of concerned residents and NGOs, on co-hosting a Waste Water Treatment and Re-Use Conference at the end of January. Hopefully this will at least initiate the desperately needed conversation about how we deal with our sewage.

So the search for the holy grail continues. Wish me (and my colleagues in the search) luck.

Research in India: Water Troubles in Chennai

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


 

For three months in 2005-2006, Pacific Institute Program Director Meena Palaniappan will be conducting research in India. This article is part of a series of diary entries in which Palaniappan will elaborate on her experiences abroad.

 

December 28, 2005 – Chennai, India is a really a city that is a song about water, and a poem in contrasts. When I was here two years ago in 2003, Chennai (formerly called Madras) had gone through a 7 year drought, with the hope of a good rain on everyone’s minds and in many prayers. People spoke of moving back to the villages because there simply was no water in Chennai to meet people’s needs. The water utility had pretty much stopped providing piped supply to residents at this point. Really, it seemed like the city would be abandoned in a few years time–a mega-city that dried up because of drought. It was “thanni cushtaam,” or “water troubles” that were on the tip of everyone’s tongue. Where were people getting water, how salty was it, what if the tanker supply ran out?

In 2005, I arrived in Chennai to weeks of pounding rain. Roads, homes and villages are flooded, sewage runs in the streets, rains have taken lives of many bus riders, trains were derailed, reservoirs overflowing, and lakes being breached. Yet again, water is the main subject of conversation among my relatives in Chennai. Fully one half of the evening news, which we watch daily, is devoted to pictures of overflowing rivers, flooded fields and villages, demolished roads, and interviews with the many affected (including interviews with disappointed cricket fans who have been rained out on numerous occasions). I kid you not, that water has been on the front page in The Hindu newspaper, sometimes in three separate articles, nearly every day I have been here. What is ironic and frustrating is that yet again, Chennai-ites talk of “thanni cushtaam,” yet now it is too much water! People are cursing the endless rains. The last week of November found 7 districts receiving 1000 percent of typical rainfall. Development of housing in flood plains, lack of adequate storm water drainage, lack of sewage treatment all contribute to the problem.

Recently, my relatives are starting to say that since the Tsunami that hit South India hard last year, things are just not the same. Some go even further and say that things are really changing on a global level. They point to the hurricanes that have hit the U.S. (they bemusedly note that the U.S. has even run out of letters to name the hurricanes), and the heavy rains in Tamil Nadu (unseen for 20 years). It was too hard for me to talk about the nature of severe weather patterns in a warming planet in Tamil, so I left that one alone.

There is not only the constant rain and flooding, but there is also a lot of standing water. Which naturally means breeding grounds for mosquitoes. This is a personal bane for me—my one year old daughter Gitanjali has become the favorite feeding ground of Chennai mosquitoes, much to my dismay. After a particularly heavy bout of mosquito bites, and scary television news stories about the prevalence of dengue fever among children here, I took Gitanjali to a pediatrician. I asked if there was anything immediate we could do for dengue fever and malaria (which I didn’t want to give Gitanjali the heavy preventative medication for). He said to me that there were two types of mosquitoes: the mosquitoes that bite at night can cause malaria, those that bite during the day can cause dengue fever. He also let me know that there really wasn’t a lot one could do to prevent this, other than avoid mosquitoes. As you might imagine, this provided me a lot of relief (!!!), considering how successful we’d been at avoiding both night- and day- biting mosquitoes thus far. Nevertheless, Gitanjali is being a wonderful sport, and we are doing our best to douse her in “safe” mosquito repellents.

Pacific Institute Responds to Misleading Commentary by Wayne Lusvardi

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


On Friday February 25th, the Sacramento Bee published an opinion essay by Pacific Institute President Dr. Peter H. Gleick on the pending renewal of heavily subsidized federal contracts associated with the Central Valley Project in California.

On February 28th, a criticism of this essay was posted by Wayne Lusvardi, who describes himself as a libertarian and former employee of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Although we welcome criticism and open debate, Lusvardi’s attack against our essay is characterized by intentional distortions, simple errors, misquotations, misleading logic, and ad hominem attacks.

Ironically, Mr. Lusvardi has in the past gone on record criticizing “government-subsidized water” that allows “farmers to grow rice, cotton, alfalfa and other water-hungry corps that suck up 75 percent of raw water supplies.” In a piece published by the Reason Public Policy Institute Lusvardi says “the most promising solution to the long-term water crisis in California is full-cost pricing” (see “Watering the West” in Volume 28, No. 2 of Privatization Watch of the Reason Public Policy Institute).

Below, we’ve reproduced the Lusvardi piece, with our responses in blue text.


Lusvardi Commentary [and Pacific Institute Response]:

California’s Water War Based on Flawed Images Cadillac Desert or Land Rover Environmentalism? California’s water war between Northern and Southern California is based on flawed images

Written by Wayne Lusvardi and posted to the ChronWatch website on February 28, 2005.

In 1986, Marc Reisner authored a popular book “Cadillac Desert” that mounted an environmental attack against the rice growing industry in California saying rice farmers were growing a “monsoon” crop in the middle of the desert with Federally-subsidized water. [Pacific Institute response: This is a simplistic and inaccurate description of Reisner’s remarkable book on California water history and politics. Regardless of what one thinks of Cadillac Desert, it has nothing to do with our essay and we do not reference it.]

A similar refrain has been recently issued by the Pacific Institute, an environmentalist water think tank in Oakland [the Institute is not an “environmentalist” [sic] group, but an independent, nonpartisan think-tank studying issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security], that has sent out an alarm in California newspapers that a “pending deal being cut behind closed doors, with little or no public input or scrutiny, would undermine California’s water solutions”. The Pacific Institute press release states that for some 50 years, Federal water subsidies have encouraged a small number of rice farmers to use huge quantities of water at the expense of the taxpayers and natural ecosystems. [Our opinion essay never mentions rice farmers, and we did not issue a press release.] 

About 2.2 million acre feet of water is used to grow rice each year in the Sacramento Bay Delta, which equates to about the same amount of water used by 10 million city dwellers in Los Angeles (an acre foot of water is football size field of water one foot high and supports about 2 families per year).

According to the Pacific Institute the original Federal water contracts are pending renewal which will cost the taxpayers a reported $500 million over the next 10 years. [This estimate came from the Congressional Budget Office, not the Pacific Institute, as noted in our essay.] The Institute report proceeds to tell us that 1,000 acre-feet of water produces 900 jobs in the semiconductor industry [Our analysis says that it produces nine thousand jobs in the semiconductor industry, not nine hundred], 2,500 jobs in commercial offices, 35 jobs in grape and wine production, but a mere three jobs growing cotton. We are told that cotton and alfalfa produce only $60 of gross state revenue per acre foot of water compared to $1 million in the semiconductor industry.

We must ask two questions about the above-cited Pacific Institute report. First, what if anything has been left out of the report? And secondly, is the image of California water politics as a Cadillac Desert accurate? [We say nothing about “a Cadillac Desert.” We focus here solely on unsustainable federal water subsidies.] 

What has been left out of the Pacific Institute press release is an awful lot. Firstly, the report fails to tell us that the water in the Sacramento Bay Delta, where most of the rice growing occurs, is not exclusively used for rice farming. [We don’t talk about rice at all. And most of the water subsidized by the Central Valley Project is used for other crops, much of it south of the Delta.] It is used for flood control, for cultivating other irrigated farm crops, as natural habitat for waterfowl and wildlife, for natural water purification, and for public recreation. [This sentence is illogical, and incorrect — how can water be used for flood control? — and also irrelevant to our essay, which talks about inappropriate federal subsidies to a small number of California growers, not about the Sacramento Bay Delta.] If farmers have to fallow land or rice paddies because of the ups and downs of the agricultural market, the water allocated to them remains unused. [We never discuss fallowing, just the removal of harmful subsidies, but the idea that any water not used by humans is “unused” is part of the problem with California water management today. This water has enormous ecological value and use, and if it were used more efficiently parts could be reallocated to other growers, the environment, and California’s urban centers.] 

According to the Audobon Society [Audubon] the rice fields of the Bay Delta are the home of some 40,000 birds. [This number is clearly wrong, but waterfowl populations were certainly much higher before most of the vast Central Valley wetlands were drained for agriculture. Over the past century, Central Valley wetlands area went from over 3 million acres to under 500,000, and waterfowl populations have dropped from over 100 million to under 10 million.] Rice paddies offer wetland habitat to huge number of ducks in a state that is always decrying that it is losing wetlands. [Is Lusvardi arguing that rice paddies are better wetland habitat than the original wetlands? We disagree. We applaud collaborative efforts between rice growers and environmentalists, such as the Ricelands Habitat Partnership, which we describe in our report Sustainable Use of Water: California Success Stories.] And rice paddies serve as natural water filtration systems to break down herbicides used by rice growers. Even Marc Reisner, the author of the book Cadillac Desert, eventually changed his mind about rice farming and called it one of the most “progressive” agricultural enterprises. [Ironically, herbicide contamination from rice farming declined only after regulatory efforts by the State of California provided incentives to farmers, but again this has nothing to do with our original opinion essay.] 

And the illogical notion that using water for rice farming takes more economically productive jobs from the semiconductor industry or commercial economy, as the Pacific Institute report contends, is nonsense. Halting water to rice growers or making them pay the urban retail price for the water won’t produce more semiconductor jobs or vice versa. [This is a cavalcade of deception: As noted earlier, we say nothing about rice farmers; we have never called for farmers to pay the urban retail price for water; and we never claim that farming takes more productive jobs from other sectors. The essay calls for an end to unsustainable federal water subsidies and raises the point that modest reallocations of water could be tremendously beneficial for the State’s economy.] 

We must then ask if all this is so why the Pacific Institute would claim otherwise. What the Pacific Institute left out was that in 2003 irrigation districts in the Sacramento Valley began signing contracts to sell surplus water to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Farmers in the Sacramento Valley say the water sales offer them a safety net if there is a price collapse in the volatile agricultural market. So instead of buying crop insurance, central California farmers can sell their water in a down market to Southern California. This is a win/win deal, not a win/lose deal for Northern and Southern California. [Why should U.S. and California taxpayers give water that Lusvardi admits is “surplus,” and unneeded by farmers, away at hugely subsidized prices to farmers so they can resell it to cities? In fact, the law says only water that is beneficially used can be given to farmers. If it is surplus, the State should allocate it where it is truly needed.]

Environmentalists are suspicious that selling water would provide an incentive for drawing an extra allocation of water merely to make a profit without any intent of using it for agricultural production. But Federal law prevents “paper-trades” of water from occurring. Farmers are expressly forbidden from selling what they cannot use. [If this is the case, then don’t sign CVP contracts for water that farmers cannot prove they will need. Yet these proposed contracts may include substantial amounts of such unneeded water. We repeat our call from our original essay: The federal government should not sign the CVP contacts until this issue has been resolved.]

The not-so hidden agenda of the Pacific Institute apparently has little to do with stopping waste or even preserving the environment as much as it does in stopping population growth and development. It is probably not coincidental that Stanford University professor Dr. Anne H. Erlich, co-author of the infamously wrong 1968 book The Population Bomb, is on the Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute. [Although Dr. Ehrlich does serve on our board she was not a co-author of The Population Bomb. She also had nothing to do with our original essay. In addition, the Institute has not written about population growth and we have no “hidden” agenda — we are open and transparent about the goals we are working towards.

What think tanks in “blue cities” like the Pacific Institute apparently want to do is to stop agricultural enterprises and new housing development from thriving in “red counties” where the population is growing. [Since when is smart water policy “red” or “blue”? This is just an attempt to politicize and polarize the issue of water and has nothing to do with our argument.] What might be called liberal Land Rover environmentalism continues to paint a distorted image of California agricultural water politics as a Cadillac Desert rather than as a horn of plenty for both the economy and the environment. [No one at the Pacific Institute owns a Land Rover and we dispute Mr. Lusvardi’s contention that California agricultural water politics have been a “horn of plenty” for California’s environment. We ask Mr. Lusvardi to correct the errors in his piece and also whether he no longer believes what he wrote for the Reason Institute. If he now supports inappropriate federal subsidies to farmers to inefficiently grow surplus crops, he should go on record with that support. We stand by our argument: Unsustainable federal subsidies are harming California’s ability to fairly allocate and efficiently use water.]

Review: The Skeptical Environmentalist

Author: ()
Geography:
Level of Detail:

Availability:

Water Management Strategies:

Specific Benefits or Trade-offs:


Is the Skeptic All Wet?
The Skeptical Environmentalist
Reviewed by Peter H. Gleick

A recent book challenges some of the fundamental understandings of the environmental science community and argues that instead of deteriorating, the world’s most critical environmental conditions are improving. The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg, is only the latest in a line of similar books, following on the heels of Gregg Easterbrook’s A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism, which followed Julian Lincoln Simon’s The Ultimate Resource and others.

Most of the ideas in Lomborg’s book are not new, and those that are new are not correct. Some environmentalists, environmental scientists, and media do indeed overstate bad news or selectively focus on new or remaining problems rather than the considerable progress that has been made in some areas. And, of course, there is a comparable cohort equally guilty of ignoring, understating, and misrepresenting the environmental problems we face. Healthy skepticism is good—it challenges us to rethink our assumptions and arguments and to re-examine data and priorities. These are important points that are worthy of debate and discussion. If they had been the focus of Lomborg’s book, it would have been worthwhile. […]

Download the full article here.