Archive for the 'water conservation' Category

Desal or Not?- Big Meets Small in the Nexus with the Future Up for Grabs

Published on 03/19/2013 in climate change, desalination, drought, energy, graywater, management, policy, tap water, water conservation, water filtering, water rights and water shortage. 0 Comments

Retrieved from Centerpeace.org

 

Desal or Not?- Big Meets Small in the Nexus with the Future Up for Grabs

by Miles Ten Brinke

Miles, Peak Water columnist and avowed Hydrophilic energy-head, has found his way to Britain where he’s lost his California perma-tan and is studying an Energy Policy MSc at the University of Exeter on a Fulbright.

Desalinisation is a fascinating expression of the water-energy nexus, and its inherent contention. Though there are many technical approaches to actually achieving the desired results, the idea is simply to produce fresh water from salt water. Depending upon your perspective, this technology and it likely approach to water management can generally be one of two things- a brilliant technical fix or a socio-environmental nightmare.

Regardless of one’s positionality, there is a strong backing (powerful stakeholders some of whom have access to lots of capital) for desalinisation and the problem it purports to solve will only spread out and increase in intensity over time. Should it prove technically feasible at some signifiant scale, we may see more than just demonstration plants in the next ten years and increasing commercialisation by 2050. An interesting question for folks considered about more than just security of supply is the sustainability of desal technologies. One interesting prospect for instance is the potential for solar powered desalination.

This past month has been incredibly busy for me, in no small way due to progress on my pursuit of a PhD. As I’ve moved through the application process the project has been refined and my ideas polished. My focus will be on arid case studies, places with scarcity of both energy and water (a major hypothesis being that there’s cross causality there). The conditions that make desal look viable, its potential impacts and the socio-technical system itself all exemplify this. As a part of a centralised resource management plan, desal would include both energy for water (the desalinisation process itself is extremely energy intensive, and so is moving around all that water from points of production to its diffused consumption)  and water for energy (centralised power which is usually produced using large thermal electricity plants which consume fuels such as coal, gas and uranium often use water as their primary coolant). Desalinisation in many ways represents a central dualism in socio-environmental policymaking, one I hope to explore at length in my research.

That is, between two broad scales of technology and governance structures- technocratic centralisation vs. democratised dispersion (for those of you familiar with energy policy, its essentially Amory Lovin’s Road Not Taken- Hard Path vs. Soft Path, with more socio-political considerations added in). Briefly now let me tool this apart before going back to Desal and a specific case. On one hand you have the technology on a continuum of degree of centralisation (really just big vs. small). Think nuclear power plant versus solar panel. On the other you have decision making, and how it’s concentrated. In a strong technocratic system, its an unelected elite of experts making all the calls with little or no transparency and access by other stakeholders. The opposite of that would be a system with very diffuse decision-making with non-experts and regular folks having a lot of input in a very open system. Its your classic top-down versus bottom-up divide. Even with water and the Nexus itself I often relate things back to this thinking. To keep it simple lets just think of it as big vs. small (both in tech and governance).

Near the end of February, the New York Times published a piece on the development of a $1 billion desalinisation plant in Carlasbad, California which began construction in late 2012. The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) has agreed to purchase 48,000 acre-feet of water (one of the main units of measure in water policy, one acre-foot being equivalent to about 326,000 American gallons) per year at $2,000 an acre-foot. This will supply 7% of total water supplies for 30 years.

Beyond of the socio-environmental considerations of this reverse-osmosis plant the central debate in the area is on cost. Both the firm building the plant, Poseidon Resources and the SDCWA are betting on a continuation and acceleration of the trend in rising water demand.  In its scenario calculations the SDCWA estimates that this may be cheaper than status quo cost projections by 2024. They currently get their water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for about $1000 per acre-foot. Its a gamble, but both the agency, the firm and their backers argue that in a time of dwindling fresh water supplies and growth demand will inevitably rise. Critics, both from environmental NGOs and independent research institute argue strongly that not only will this raise consumer water bills but also electricity as more energy is needed to power the plant, and that there’s no guarantee on the development of the region’s shifting thirst. Their proposed alternative is greater investment in demand side management (DSM), that there isn’t a need for a supply-driven drive to forge a new market for desal plants to solve our water crisis.

This is a classic case of big vs. small. Right now there’s only one other commercial scale desal plant in the US- in Tampa Bay, Florida. It’s not been a dramatic success for the burgeoning industry, lots of costly mistakes. That goes with the territory, risks are always higher at the opening of a market. Over time the costs may go down and with the right governmental support there very well may be a boom. The problem is that even should one accept it as a viable and acceptable approach, desalinisation will in all likelihood dis-incentivise water conservation & reuse and investment in efficiency. Think about it, you invest all this money and sign a contract for guaranteed supply. If you can reach a point where this becomes the new cheap option, why go back to sorting out your demand?

It really does matter where you start. From a supply orientation (big) you have a shortage that needs to be plugged by any means necessary and using economies of scale. Demand orientation (little) means focusing on using what’s already available more effectively and working to change the conditions that caused the shortage to begin with. The former generally does little to curb demand growth and is resource inefficient, but the latter risks supply insecurity if DSM isn’t effective enough.

I’m going to leave you all with a rather unfair quandary now, a dichotomy (of sorts) to revisit soon. No matter what we decide, we set ourselves down a trajectory which may not be easy to change further down the line. This is infrastructure we’re talking about, decisions made at one moment will shape decades to come.

Question is, which do we bet our money on?

~ Miles on Water

 

 

milesonwater

The Folks Behind the PGC- Coalitions, Mixed Markets and People Power

Published on 02/19/2013 in climate change, energy, management, policy, solutions and outreach and water conservation. 0 Comments

Retrieved from Water.ca.gov

 

The Folks Behind the PGC- Coalitions, Mixed Markets and People Power

by Miles Ten Brinke

Miles, Peak Water columnist and avowed Hydrophilic energy-head, has found his way to Britain where he’s lost his California perma-tan and is studying an Energy Policy MSc at the University of Exeter on a Fulbright.

California is a like a nation-state unto itself with particular brand of policymaking and political culture. In every major arena there is a multitude of different actors and institution contending for the greatest influence over the shape and direction of policy. Coalitions are formed and broken in a landscape sometimes defined by cooperation, sometimes competition or contention. Its a place rife with endless acronyms, inspiring the most inebriating of drinking games. Let’s delve in shall we.

There are three main groups of actors involved in historical and ongoing development of the PGC: regulatory and policy agencies, the utilities (public and private) and the governors of the state (not just the legislature and executive but the voters themselves).  That is, so far as I’ve found now.

Both the electricity and water retail markets in California have a mixed structure, between Public Owned Utilities (POUs) and Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs). Although an early pioneer in privatisation of electricity in the 90s the state has moved to a more mixed ownership and management paradigm. In fact the water and electricity markets are inverse of one another, with electricity 80%-private 20% public and water 20% private- 80% public.

Though there are many, six key agencies dominate the water-energy nexus: the Air Resources Board (ARB), Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Energy Commission (CEC), Natural Resource Agency (CNRA), Department of Water Resources (DWR)  and Water-Energy Team of the Climate Action Team (WetCat).

The first two are most important; the ARB through its regulation of air emissions in California spearheads climate change mitigation and the CPUC regulates all water and energy utilities. The next most important agencies deal directly with energy and water respectively- the CEC and DWR. All energy-water-climate change nexus policymaking, whether interconnected or in silo, flows from and through these groups. The last one is a coalition of folks from local, state and federal agencies charged  by the ARB through its 2008 Scoping Plan to develop and implement the most effective climate change policy at their disposal. WetCat itself is the cornerstone of efforts to develop truly strategic nexus policy, ensuring the smooth exchange of information and inter-agency cooperation.

The proportion that stood out most to me when I was doing my research is that 80% of water in California is public owned. Its surprisingly high in an era of ever increasing public goods privatisation. Most of the water is managed municipally, a subject I’m sure my Peak Water colleagues can speak to in great detail. My personal experience is limited to having paid the water bill to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) at my flat in Berkeley. Ideally this means that the resource is managed there in the interest of the public rather than shareholder returns while maintaining the efficiencies of a mixed market (assuming of course that state run enterprises are less efficient, which is open to contention). The key to the PGC is that it could operate as a price signal for water conservation in this semi-privatised market and provide a steady source of funding for sustainable water management.

The electricity market is dominated by three large companies which on their own account for nearly all that 80% private market share- San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE).  On a side note, the Big 3 have made interesting progress on renewables procurement  in 2012 with 20.3%, 19.3% and 20.6% of total electricity generation respectively. Though still nowhere near where it should be to avoid the worst effect of climate change, compare that to only 11.7% in the UK at the end of 2012. Food for thought, though of course comparing apples and oranges (but still, SCE is nearly double the UK!). Though this market is heavily dominated by these three firms, there are many other smaller companies and a fair share of POUs still operating. As with water, most of them are municipal.

Finally, you have the decision makers. The role of the legislature is obvious, the impact of the executive much less so. Both the current state governor, Jerry Brown, and his predecessor (Arnold Schwarzenegger) have been champions of climate change mitigation. When in 2011 the state legislature failed to renew the electricity PGC as it passed its sunset mark Governor Brown sent an official letter to the CPUC asking that it use its mandate to ensure that the vital programs funded by the PGC continue into 2012, to find new funding for the year (which the CPUC did). As is common with American politicians he framed the issue around job creation and clean energy.

The most intriguing category of actors in the state to me however has to be the electorate. Its a very imperfect system, heavily influenced by big money and special interests but the California referendum system has been and will continue to be full of promise and potential. In California if you get enough signatures and the right funding your initiative can get onto the ballot in any local or statewide election. Ideally the sheer weight of multitudinous ballot propositions will create a more informed and engaged electorate. The jury’s still out.

Democracy is messy and chaotic, no more so than when the people themselves have a direct say on how they are to be governed. When done right though, there is nothing more democratically legitimate than a policy the people themselves have voted into effect. Or in the case of 2010′s Proposition 23, when the people overwhelming vote a proposition down. Its a particularly proud moment in my career, being a part of the massive grassroots campaign to refuse a ballot initiative which would have smothered California’s climate policy in its cradle. People power is a beautiful thing.

Today you can watch another movement unfold, as around the United States students are rising up to demand that their universities divest from fossil fuels. In fact this spread across the country beyond universities to cities and a national campaign modelled on Apartheid divestment in the 80s. Its with particular pride I can point to the efforts at my alma matter, where the Cal student senate has voted to divest its $3 million investment portfolio with pressures mounting to convince the UC Regents to divest the whole UC system. Nexus policymaking will have to contend with this people power as it evolves, hopefully channelling the most constructive elements into truly sustainable resource management.

Perhaps in the near future these coalitions, mixed markets and active state residents will come together to forge a new suite of Energy-Water PGCs.

~ Miles on Water

milesonwater

Nigeria: UN Unveils Platform for Global Water Management

Published on 02/14/2013 in agriculture, aquatic ecosystems, climate change, contaminated water, displacement of people, drought, groundwater, hydrology, management, peak water, policy, privatization, rivers, tap water, water conservation, water wars and world water supply. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Photo retrieved from: www.asme.org

“Each year brings new pressures on water. One-third of the world’s people already live in countries with moderate to high water stress. Competition is growing between farmers and herders; industry and agriculture; town and country. Upstream and downstream, and across borders, we need to cooperate for the benefit of all – now and in the future,” “he added.

The General Assembly proclaimed 2013 International Year for Water Cooperation in 2010, following a proposal from Tajikistan. The Year will serve to raise awareness and prompt action on the multiple dimensions of water cooperation, such as sustainable and economic development, climate change and food security.

“Over-exploitation, management, financing of water resources, all of these aspects are incredibly important and cooperation at different levels is therefore critical,” UNESCO Science Specialist Ms. Ana Persic, said during a media briefing to mark the start of the Year at UN Headquarters in New York, USA.

Persic added that the benefits of intensifying cooperation include poverty reduction, equity, economic growth, and the protection of the environment.” “We know water is critical for human life, but it is also critical for life on Earth if we want to protect and sustainably manage the planet we have.”

Read more: All Africa

 

lily victoria

The California Public Goods Charge- A Tantalising First Glimpse of Policy Success?

Published on 02/07/2013 in climate change, drought, energy, management, peak water, policy, solutions and outreach, water conservation, water rights and water technology. 0 Comments

Retrieved from Water.ca.gov

 

The California Public Goods Charge- A Tantalising First Glimpse of Policy Success?

by Miles Ten Brinke

Miles, Peak Water columnist and avowed Hydrophilic energy-head, has found his way to Britain where he’s lost his California perma-tan and is studying an Energy Policy

Today, I’ll be writing about a fascinating Nexus case-study I’ve recently come across in my research. That is, of the California policy programme around a Public Goods Charge (PGC). Basically this is a charge added to consumer utility bills which both potentially serves as a price signal for conservation and provides funding for public interest projects related to that utility (there’s a more technical and perhaps more accurate definition but that’s the main gist of it).

Currently there is no PGC in California, but there was one previously and the potential for one specifically built around the Water-Energy Nexus. From about 1996-2011, California had a PGC on electricity but the state legislature failed to renew it and so the policy ended 1st January 2012. There are however efforts to reinstate the kWh PGC, and perhaps even more interestingly to implement a new water PGC.

In this entry I’m going to lay out the basics- how the CA PGC regime came about and what it entails. Later on I’ll cover who’s involved and what’s been done (some details on the policy mechanisms). After that, a longer-form entry making an initial policy analysis.

The original PGC was born out of an era in California policymaking history I’m not all that keen for but which has shaped the very face of its contemporary development- deregulation and market liberalisation during the mid 90s into the early 2000s. A PGC is indelibly a market mechanism, an approach which over the past 40 years has come to dominate policy thinking around the world (to my estimation, especially in the US and UK). Much has been written about the market liberalisation of western economies since the 70s, of the Thatcherite years in the UK and US Reagonomics among  many other examples. California, especially its energy sector, was heavily shaped over this period of largely neoliberal governance.

In my early, and yes I very well may not only revise but entirely reverse my position as I learn more, estimation however the 1996-2011 PGC is actually a successful mixed command-and-control/market mechanism instrument (and the same is probably true of those proposed PGCs). For better or worse, its been described as a green tax, with consumers bearing the cost. In a subsequent entry I’ll delve more into the political economics, but it seems thus far that it was not (and likely will not be) an undue burden with public benefit far outweighing costs. This is arguably so even for the consumers paying it. So far as I’ve read through the grey literature (fun catchall term for governmental, regulatory, policy analysis and media coverage of policies) I’m liking what I see.

An energy and/or water PGC increases the cost of consumption and can provide funding for nexus public interest programs. When the kWh one was still around it brought money to the state’s energy efficiency, renewables generation, renewables R&D and low-income assistance efforts with a prioritisation of energy efficiency and low-income assistance. It was relatively low-cost. A water PGC would most likely help to fund Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs) primarily for water conservation and efficiency. The great potential utility of linking this into IRWMPs is the principles of subsidiarity and localism- that you should govern at the most effective scale for the issue and that in the case of water resource management this is at the regional and local levels.

Really this all comes back to down to climate change, and California’s mitigation legislation AB 32 and the Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan. That is, to achieve a reduction by 2050 of 80% 1990 level emissions and by 2020 of 30% 1990 level emissions. One of the state’s primary strategies towards achieving this is energy and water efficiency, of explicitly thinking about the Nexus.  From desalinisation to water treatment and simply pumping the resource from place to place water is very energy intensive.  At the same time, from petrol to power stations the energy system too consumes a lot of water. The destructive impacts not only can be minimised but must be, for the general socio-natural welfare and not just emissions targets. The PGC regime has the potential to play a very important and dynamic role in ensuring the coalition of actors engaged in this endeavour come through successfully.

More to come on this fascinating subject, stay tuned!

~ Miles on Water

milesonwater

Defense and Security Companies Are Planning to Cash in on Climate Change and Environmental Collapse

Published on 12/31/2012 in climate change, hydrology, oceans, peak water, policy, rivers, tap water, tar sands, water conservation and world water supply. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Photo retrieved from: www.energydigital.com

“It is not just the coercive industries that are positioning themselves to profit from fears about the future. The commodities upon which life depends are being woven into new security narratives based on fears about scarcity, overpopulation and inequality. Increasing importance is attached to ‘food security’, ‘energy security’, ‘water security’ and so on, with little analysis of exactly what is being secured for whom, and at whose expense? But when perceived food insecurity in South Korea and Saudi Arabia is fuelling land grabs and exploitation in Africa, and rising food prices are causing widespread social unrest, alarm bells should be ringing.

The climate security discourse takes these outcomes for granted. It is predicated on winners and losers – the secure and the damned – and based on a vision of ‘security’ so warped by the ‘war on terror’ that it essentially envisages disposable people in place of the international solidarity so obviously required to face the future in a just and collaborative way.

To confront this ever creeping securitisation of our future, we must of course continue to fight to end our fossil fuel addiction as urgently as possible, joining movements like those fighting tar sands developments in North America and forming broad civic alliances that pressure towns, states and governments to transition their economies to a low-carbon footing. We can not stop climate change – it is already happening – but we can still prevent the worst effects.”

Read more: Alternet

lily victoria

Congo-Kinshasa: UNEP Launches Pioneering Water Initiative in DRC to Protect the Supply of Safe Water to Kinshasa

Published on 12/19/2012 in aquatic ecosystems, management, policy, rivers, water conservation and water technology. 0 Comments Tags: .

Photo retrieved from: www.unep.org

“UNEP has initiated a water scheme in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that aims to protect the Lukaya river basin that supplies almost 380,000 Kinshasa residents with safe drinking water.

The project builds on the recommendations of UNEP’s Post Conflict Environmental Assessment (PCEA) of the DRC – the full version of which was made available online in November 2012 – that identified 13 major “hot spots” of environmental degradation in and around urban centers in the country. Much of the environmental pressure is due to rapid population growth and unplanned development in urban areas that are also extremely poor and have inadequate basic infrastructure and local services.

The innovation of the pilot project – that will implement a practice called Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) – lies in the fact that it is the communities themselves who will lead the dialogue and coordination process, assess and reconcile water needs and set the priorities for effective water management accordingly. State and local authorities will also be engaged to help build capacity and disseminate the experience in other parts of the country.”

Read more: All Africa

 

lily victoria

Africa: Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan Agree On Water Co-operation

Published on 11/13/2012 in peak water, policy, rivers and water conservation. 0 Comments Tags: .

Cairo. Photo retrieved from: www.africareview.com

“Addis Ababa — Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan have agreed to resume their tripartite cooperation under the Eastern Nile Basin.

The three nations had devised a joint institutional framework and been working together on Nile waters conservation and utilization since 1999.

Water resources ministers of the three nations have endorsed a resolution by their technical experts for the resumption of the operations of the Eastern Nile Technical Regional Office (ENTRO) which had not been functional for a period of time. Representatives of the Republic of South Sudan were also present during the agreement.

The Ministers also agreed on the occasion to discuss and approve in the near future South Sudan’s membership to ENTRO.

In a joint press briefing they gave after the meeting, the Ministers highlighted the pivotal role of the accord for conservation and utilization the Nile waters.”

Read more: All Africa

 

lily victoria

NYT: Laos Presses Ahead With Mekong Dam Project

Published on 11/10/2012 in agriculture, aquatic ecosystems, climate change, dam removal, dams, displacement of people, floods, hydrology, hydropower, management, policy, rivers, water conservation, water diversions, water rights, water shortage, water technology, water wars and world water supply. 0 Comments

Retrieved From: International Rivers

BANGKOK — Ignoring criticism that a huge hydroelectric dam could irreparably damage the ecology of the Mekong River, the government of Laos said on Tuesday that it was pushing ahead with the multibillion-dollar project, the first dam to be built on the lower portion of the iconic river.

“I would say I’m 100 percent sure it’s going ahead,” Daovong Phonekeo, deputy director general of the Laotian Department of Electricity, said by telephone on Tuesday.

Laotian government officials and executives of a Thai construction company that is to build the dam are to officially inaugurate the project at a ceremony on Wednesday in Xayaburi, the remote province in northwestern Laos where the dam is to be situated.

The electricity from the project will be sold to Thailand and will provide billions of dollars of revenue to Laos, one of the poorest countries in Asia. But the project has been criticized by scientists who are concerned that the dam may disturb spawning patterns and lead to the extinction of many species of fish that have for centuries been the main source of protein for millions of people along the river’s banks.

Read More: New York Times

 

jenna cavelle

Beyond Big Dams: Turning to Grass Roots Solutions on Water

Published on 09/14/2012 in agriculture, climate change, dams, drought, hydrology, hydropower, peak water, policy, rivers, solutions and outreach, tar sands, water conservation, water diversions, water shortage, water technology, water wars and world water supply. 0 Comments

Photo retrieved from: www.360.yale.edu

“Cheap pumps and new ways of powering them are transforming farming and boosting income all over Africa and Asia,” says Meredith Giordano, lead author of a three-year research project looking at how smallholder farmers are turning their backs on governments and finding their own solutions to water problems.

“We were amazed at the scale of what is going on,” Giordano says. Indian farmers have an estimated 20 million pumps at work watering their fields. As many as 200 million Africans benefit from the crops they water. And in addition to pumps, she notes, “simple tools for drilling wells and capturing rainwater have enabled many farmers to produce more crops in the dry season, hugely boosting their incomes.”

Read more: Yale Environment 360

lily victoria

A 12 Step Program to Stopping Drought and Desertification

Published on 08/03/2012 in agriculture, desertification, drought, erosion, groundwater, management, peak water, solutions and outreach, water conservation, water shortage and world water supply. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Photo retrieved from: www.greenprophet.com

“Soaring temperatures and low precipitation could not occur at a worse time for many farmers in the United States, and around the world. Intensifying drought conditions are affecting corn and soybean crops throughout the Midwest, raising grain prices as well as concerns about future food prices.

The US Drought Monitor reports that 88 percent of this year’s corn crop and 77 percent of the soybean crop are now affected by the most severe drought since 1988. In response the Worldwatch Institutelaunched a 12 step guide to combatting drought and desertification. These tips can be used by policy makers around the world and in dry climates in the Middle East. Read on for the list.

1. Agroforestry: Planting trees in and around farms reduces soil erosion by providing a natural barrier against strong winds and rainfall. Tree roots also stabilize and nourish soils. The 1990 Farm Bill established the USDA National Agroforestry Center with the expressed aim of encouraging farmers to grow trees as windbreaks or as part of combined forage and livestock production, among other uses. See Green Prophet’s feature on the Nabateans to see how this idea can be applied in the Middle East.

2. Soil management: Alternating crop species allows soil periods of rest, restores nutrients, and also controls pests. Soil amendments, such as biochar, help soils retain moisture near the surface by providing a direct source of water and nutrients to plant roots, even in times of drought.”

Read more: Green Prophet

 

lily victoria