saving water

Setting higher prices for water where possible is therefore near the top of my prescription list. It makes a lot of sense in developed nations, particularly in large cities and industrial areas, and more and more in developing ones as well. Higher water prices can, for instance, spur the adoption of measures such as the systematic reuse of used water (so-called gray water) for nonpotable applications. It can also encourage water agencies to build recycling and reclamation systems.

Raising prices can in addition convince municipalities and others to reduce water losses by improving maintenance of water-delivery systems. One of the major consequences of pricing water too low is that insufficient funds are generated for future development and preventive upkeep. In 2002 the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that many domestic water utilities defer infrastructure maintenance so that they can remain within their limited operating budgets. Rather than avoiding major failures by detecting leaks early on, they usually wait until water mains break before fixing them.

The cost of repairing and modernizing the water infrastructures of the U.S. and Canada to reduce losses and ensure continued operation will be high, however. The consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton has projected that the two countries will need to spend $3.6 trillion combined on their water systems over the next 25 years.

When the goal is to save water, another key strategy should be to focus on the largest consumers. That approach places irrigated agriculture in the bull’s-eye: compared with any other single activity, conserving irrigation flows would conserve dramatically more freshwater. To meet world food requirements in 2050 without any technological improvements to irrigated agriculture methods, farmers will need a substantial rise in irrigation water supplies (an increase from the current 2,700 to 4,000 km3), according to the IWMI study.

On the other hand, even a modest 10 percent rise in irrigation efficiency would free up more water than is evaporated off by all other users. This goal could be achieved by stopping up leaks in the water-delivery infrastructure and by implementing low-loss storage of water as well as more efficient application of water to farm crops.
An agreement between municipal water suppliers in southern California and nearby irrigators in the Imperial Irrigation District illustrates one creative conservation effort. The municipal group is paying to line leaky irrigation canals with waterproof materials, and the water that is saved will go to municipal needs.

This is, of course, exactly what has happened in Miami Springs. For the better part of twenty years maintenance of the Water and Sewer system was postponed, not done.

water reclamation

South Florida counties dump 300 million gallons of lightly treated sewage into the Bay every day, and have been for decades. Officials say its too expensive to clean or reclaim the dirty water.

Its true that it IS expensive to do, as estimates of the cost of building a facility to clean, sanitize, redirect, and reuse the water starts at 3 billion. Even by today's standards, that is serious money.

To generate that kind of cash S Fla governments- and by extension, its residents- are going to have to rethink how we think about water.Many of us think nothing of paying $2 for bottled water but balk at paying the same amount for 1,000 gallons of water from our tap at home.

A bill making its way thru the Legislature (CS/SB 1302) would make it mandatory for water utilities to clean up the waste water now discharged into the ocean by 2019 and eliminate all sewage dumping by 2025. It would require a massive retooling of our water policies and physical plants. Population growth alone will require, coincidentally, 300 million gallons of water per day by 2028.

In order to meet these standards elected officials would have to educate the residents regarding the true costs of our water.The current $35 a month will go up dramatically, perhaps two-or-threefold. Officials need to start the education process now.

Also, water managers must begin the task of redirecting and reclaiming water that is now lost to the sea. Changing the eastward flow to the sea of the canal water is an ambitious and long term project that may very well be beyond the local governments abilities and will probably require support form the State and the Federal authorities. (Miami Herald, Editorial, page 2L, April 6, 2008)

Florida International University's North campus has used reclaimed water for over 25 years to irrigate their campus. It cost $250,000 initially to run the pipes to the campus from the water treatment plant 1/2 mile away. The water is treated down to five parts per billion and retains some of its nutrients, which makes it a perfect fertilizer for the soil. Drinking water is 0-1 parts per billion. Watering is done at night or other times to reduce the chances of anyone being around to drink it and signs warn those who may be tempted to take a gulp.

The last numbers I have heard reflect 56 million gallons of reclaimed water being used per day by FIU and savings of over $100,000 a year. Also, FIU wants to expand their campus and are asking for ALL the reclaimed water they can get, up to 80 million gallons per day, and more during the rainy season.

This reclaimed water can be used to water our school campuses, golf courses, parks, and farm fields, saving the drinking water for drinking. In addition, the reclaimed water could be used at Turkey Point in their cooling towers, as they require HUGE amounts of water daily.

Its a win-win situation, where the environment wins because it get all the water and nutrients it needs; we win because it saves us money, nurtures our vegetation, and preserves the drinking water for drinking.