2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

This is a bit of a divergance from this threads main topic, but the water as oil metaphor can go much farther than the integral nature of both commodities in our economy and their rising prices/demand--both are large sources of carbon dioxide emissions and both need to be used more efficiently. I am an intern at River Network, an NGO here in Portland, where i am assisting in a new program looking at the relationship between water and energy. What we've found is pretty revealing:

California water and wastewater agencies alone spend $500 million per year in energy costs while other water utilities, such as the Southern Nevada Water Authority, see 30-35% of their operating costs going directly towards providing energy to treat and distribute water. In the United States, municipal water and wastewater systems use 75 billion kilowatt hours--between 3-4% of total U.S. electricity consumption. (from http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/edrain/contents.asp) That's not even taking into account the energy associated with end-uses of water, which bring figure up to around 9% of total U.S. electricity consumption.

With the looming crisis of climate change and realization that traditional drinking water systems are a significant source of CO2 emissions, conservation, efficiency and reuse are going to have to play a much larger role in maintaining our water supply. Look at Seattles 1% per year program where per capita water consumption has been declining by 1% per year for the last decade or so, thus foregoing the need for expanded infrastructure. Other cities throughout the country have also shown the feasibility of delaying new water infrastructure through conservation and efficiency: check out this EPA collection of case studies: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/utilityconservation_508.pdf (PDF 500kb)

Although Oregon does not have a statewide plan, a few cities including Portland do have plans (Portland's new plan might still be in draft stage). The best ways we can deal with water scarcity are rain water harvesting, improving end-use efficiency, improving infrastructure efficiency, conservation oriented pricing (increasing-block or seasonal rate), storm/waste/greywater reuse, and low impact development strategies.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context