Caring for U.S. water on World Water Day
- Jon Devine
- Senior Attorney, Washington, D.C.
- Blog | About
- Posted March 20, 2009 in Curbing Pollution , Health and the Environment
World Water Day is Sunday. Because I work in NRDC's Water Program, my colleague Melanie Nakagawa encouraged me to offer my two drops, as it were, about the domestic fresh water issues on which we focus.
This isn't as easy as it sounds. Faced with the grim facts about people's lack of access to water and sanitation worldwide, it seems trivial to discuss water-related issues in the U.S., where such problems are rare. Over two and a half BILLION-WITH-A-"B" people in the world do not have access to a toilet and nearly a billion people lack safe drinking water. Meanwhile, most people here use toilets that we fill with drinking-quality water before flushing it away. Why would our water issues matter elsewhere?
I guess it's because here in the United States, we have an opportunity to get things right, to treat water as the precious resource that our friends abroad already see it as, and to demonstrate for the world the ways that water can be used responsibly. That is the focus of our domestic work -- ensuring safe and sufficient water for people and ecosystems. Despite the relative plenty and purity of our water resources, there is much to be done.
In the U.S., we waste water in a variety of ways, all of which we need to change. First, we often treat water as a waste product, as we have designed our cities and suburbs to try to move precipitation into concrete pipes and often out of the watershed in which it falls. Second, we routinely pollute or destroy feeder streams and wetlands -- resources that help purify our water supplies and recharge aquifers. Finally, we use way more water than is required in our homes and businesses, or use drinking water when less pure sources would suffice.
Smarter Stormwater
City planners historically treated stormwater as something to get rid of as soon as possible, and constructed sewer systems to whisk water that falls on the built environment away into rivers or out to sea. This strategy causes multiple problems: stormwater picks up pollution and carries it through storm sewers into our water bodies; rivers receiving stormwater discharges often suffer the effects of faster-moving water, like stream bank erosion; and many cities have combined their stormwater and domestic wastewater sewers, so that rain events frequently cause the dual system to overflow and dump untreated sewage into our waterways.
Because of antiquated systems, we have significant pollution problems. Approximately 850 billion gallons of untreated sewage flows into waterways in the U.S. each year, according to EPA. These and other pollution sources have real impacts as well; for each of the last several years, NRDC has documented more than 20,000 closings and advisories at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches in the U.S.
There are ready solutions that address problems caused by stormwater and that turn rain into a resource. We can enhance the resiliency of urban and suburban watersheds using a suite of techniques that we call "green infrastructure." Green infrastructure means placing green roofs, permeable pavement, vegetated buffers and swales, and rain gardens on the landscape, so that rain infiltrates into the ground where it falls. When that happens, biological processes in the soil purify the water, and vegetation absorbs chemical constituents, while the infiltrated water refills underground water supplies.
Decision-makers have started to embrace these ideas. President Obama signed an economic recovery bill dedicating over $1 billion to green infrastructure and other environmentally innovative projects, and the House passed a water infrastructure bill last week that also prioritizes these techniques. Just this week, my colleague Nancy Stoner testified in Congress to suggest strategies to overcome obstacles to the use of green infrastructure.
Smarter Streams and Swamps
As I've written about here, here, and here, the most critical water pollution problem in the U.S. is that two Supreme Court decisions weakened requirements in the Clean Water Act against unregulated pollution so that they no longer clearly apply to many headwater streams and wetlands.
The legal uncertainty particularly affects water bodies that lack a surface connection to others, or flow infrequently, or are remotely located. The potential for harm is hard to overstate; in the continental U.S., there are some 20 million acres of "isolated" wetlands (an area roughly the size of 25 Rhode Islands), and nearly 2 million miles of streams that do not flow year-round (equal to about four round-trips to the moon). More than 110 million people get drinking water from suppliers drawing some water from one or more of these resources.
For this problem, the solution is simple - Congress can pass a bill that would re-establish clear legal protections under the law for all of the Nation's water bodies. Leaders in Congress have been building support for many years for a bill called the Clean Water Restoration Act to make certain that the Clean Water Act applies to all of the water bodies that the law previously kept free from unlicensed industrial discharges, oil spills, sewage dumping, and outright destruction. We expect that they will introduce the bill again soon, and we're especially hopeful about its chances this year, because President Obama indicated on the campaign trail that he would support and sign legislation fixing this problem.
Smarter Sinks, Showers and Sprinklers
Water supplies across the country are stretched. According to the General Accounting Office, "even under normal water conditions, water managers in 36 states anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or statewide" by 2013. As my colleagues in California can tell you, it's really dry there right now. Unfortunately, even though we have these very real constraints, people and businesses use more potable water than they need for basic tasks.
If you have a toilet at home made in 1992 or before, chances are that it uses at least 3 ½ gallons per flush. Newer models can do the same job with much less water - the high-efficiency toilets now use only about 1.3 gallons/flush. Other household fixtures like showerheads and washing machines likewise can hog water, or can be replaced with more efficient models. And landscape irrigation can be done a whole lot better. For a quick overview of some of these ideas, EPA has a great site here.
But replacing these fixtures would only be the start of dealing with the problem. First, before water even gets to where it can be used, a great deal is lost through leaky pipes; systems regularly lose 10 percent or more in the distribution system. Second, it makes no sense for us to use high-quality drinking water in toilets and certain other applications at all; instead, re-using water from sinks and showers in toilets, or using harvested rainwater, would be perfectly fine.
In commercial, industrial, and institutional settings, the same holds true. Businesses, schools, and other operations can use more efficient equipment and substitute re-used water for drinking water in a variety of applications. NRDC published an issue paper (specific to California facilities) on this very topic recently.
Although many of these improvements actually save consumers money over the long run (and can also save energy, a topic NRDC explored here), we believe that incentives to make the initial investments will help spur the widespread use of water-saving measures, so we were delighted to see that water efficiency projects were among those specifically targeted for funding in the recent stimulus bill. But these funds alone won't ensure the full deployment of needed water efficiency equipment and techniques. To do that, we believe that the country needs a suite of strategies - tax incentives for the production and use of efficient appliances, water use efficiency standards for the most water-intensive products, well-recognized and up-to-date green certification programs that reward efficient practices, and performance targets for water suppliers to reduce the per capita usage across their service areas.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.




Comments
Andrea Paulinelli — Mar 21 2009 09:01 AM
Toilets account for approx. 30% of water used indoors. By installing a Dual Flush toilet you can save between 40% and 70% of drinking water being flushed down the toilet, depending how old the toilet is you are going to replace.
If you are serious about saving water, want a toilet that really works and is affordable, I would highly recommend a Caroma Dual Flush toilet. Caroma toilets offer a patented dual flush technology consisting of a 0.8 Gal flush for liquid waste and a 1.6 Gal flush for solids. On an average of 5 uses a day (4 liquid/ 1 solid) a Caroma Dual Flush toilet uses an average of 0.96 gallons per flush. The new Sydney Smart uses only 1.28 and 0.8 gpf, that is an average of 0.89 gallons per flush. This is the lowest water consumption of any toilet available in the US. Caroma, an Australian company set the standard by giving the world its first successful two button dual flush system in the nineteen eighties and has since perfected the technology. Also, with a full 3.5″ trapway, these toilets virtually never clog. All of Caroma’s toilets are on the list of WaterSense labeled HET’s http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pp/find_het.htm and also qualify for several toilet rebate programs available in the US. Please visit my blog http://pottygirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/what-you-should-know-about-toilets/ to learn more or go to http://www.caromausa.com to learn where you can find Caroma toilets locally. Visit http://www.ecotransitions.com/howto.asp to see how we flush potatoes with 0.8 gallons of water, meant for liquids only. Best regards, Andrea Paulinelli, owner ecoTransitions Inc.
Peter Maier — Mar 21 2009 01:31 PM
You write: “I guess it's because here in the United States, we have an opportunity to get things right, to treat water as the precious resource that our friends abroad already see it as, and to demonstrate for the world the ways that water can be used responsibly. That is the focus of our domestic work -- ensuring safe and sufficient water for people and ecosystems. Despite the relative plenty and purity of our water resources, there is much to be done”.
To use water wisely indeed is an individual responsibility, but after water is used in households, it is up to societies, how this wastewater will be collected and how it is returned to nature. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act (CWA) it intended to return the water fully treated (the goal was the elimination of all pollution), but this clearly did not happen. Those in charge of implementing the CWA and sadly also many environmental groups, are now clearly running out of red herrings trying to explain why the water quality in our open water keeps deteriorating. First it was non-point sources (storm water), than farmers over-fertilizing their crops and now watershed development.
The truth is that EPA never implemented the CWA as it, like the rest of the world, used an essential water pollution test incorrectly and by doing so ignored all the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste in municipal sewage, while this waste just like fecal waste not only exerts an oxygen demand, but in all its forms is a fertilizer for algae and therefore is partly responsible for the depletion of oxygen as the result of eutrophication. This eutrophication eventually is causing dead zones, red tides and destruction of coral reefs all over the world.
In 1984 EPA acknowledge the problems with this test, but in stead of correcting this test (so we finally also would have been able to evaluate the true performance of sewage treatment facilities and determine what their effluent waste loadings are on receiving waters), EPA allowed an alternative test and thereby officially lowered the goal of the CWA from 100% treatment to a measly 35% treatment, without even informing Congress. (www.petermaier.net)
Sure the NRDC and other organizations can educate individuals how to use their water wisely, but as long as all their collective wastewater is insufficiently treated, all their efforts will be in vain. Forcing EPA to implement the CWA as intended and promised, would be much more efficient in protecting our open waters.
BeWaterWise Rep — Mar 30 2009 02:05 AM
Being Water Wise is the need of the hour. Especially in Southern California, where the fresh water levels have gone down significantly over the last few years. If you go to http://www.Bewaterwise.com, you’ll see how far our water reserve levels have gone down. They have a gauge on the site that looks like the fuel gauge in your car, but with three-color zones: Blue – good, Yellow - not good, and Red – bad. The needle on this gauge is dropping out of the blue zone and heading into the yellow zone which means Mandatory Conservation. Hence we all gotta take up the responsibility of Water Conservation. These include little things we can do everyday like fixing a leaky sprinkler, watering our lawns only two days a week, etc. The water shortage is not going to improve unless Southern Californians collectively change their actions.