While the issues involved here are legally and environmentally complex, they all point to the larger reality facing water users throughout the world: our supply of fresh water is limited, and the demands on it are many. Whatever the court decides with regard to the Colorado River accord, its tenets may not hold in the coming decades regardless. The combination of a booming global population (and the food and fiber demands that accompany that growth) and climate change will lead to a certain outcome. All water users, whether urban dwellers or farmers, will have to learn to do more with less.

Ms. Kauffman’s article talks about the role Levi Strauss & Co. is playing in educating and supporting cotton growers throughout the world about how to make the most of their limited water resources. I had the privilege of attending a small event at the company two weeks ago, where the fabulous Michael Kobori (aka, Levi’s Vice-President of Supply Chain Social and Environmental Sustainability) celebrated its efforts and those of other cotton retailers that joined Levi Strauss in its participation in the Better Cotton Initiative.

The vast majority of the world’s cotton comes from China, the Indus Valley (India and Pakistan), and the United States. With this kind of concentration in production, it only takes one regional flood or drought to cause world cotton prices to skyrocket, as they have in recent years. Taking steps to use known technology to irrigate crops saves money and resources and reduces cotton farmers’ vulnerability to the whims of nature.

Every drop of water saved through efficient irrigation adds a drop of drinking water back into the world’s communal cup. And less water spent on growing fiber – like cotton – leaves more water to irrigate food crops. Because whether we like it or not, the pressures of increasing droughts, floods, and populations are together pushing us toward a world in which efficient use of water is no longer a choice. It is at our peril that we delay investments to improve agricultural water efficiency.

Bond funds through the Water Board are made available to local governments throughout the state to fund water and wastewater infrastructure retrofits. Allowable improvements under Proposition 2 funds would include both conservation and flood control projects, two areas of infrastructure that in many parts of the state are long overdue.

Proposition 2 currently enjoys widespread support among constituencies ranging from the state’s business community to environmental advocates. If the constitutional amendment passes, it will serve as a beacon to water utilities throughout the nation as an example of how to invest in water infrastructure.

As I saw when I was General Manager of a major water utility in the West, the public understands that ensuring the availability of fresh drinking water and the proper treatment of wastewater is a necessity, not a luxury. With an annual national investment shortfall of $20 million in wastewater infrastructure alone, I’d say it’s high time utilities around the country started paying attention to how Texas has built public support for this investment in its water future.

We are fortunate in the United States to have strict regulations that ensure proper wastewater disposal. Even though we understand the water cycle of evaporation-condensation and precipitation that we learned in school, sometimes we forget that all water is recycled. That means that whatever toxins go into our wastewater will one day end up in our drinking water. Like with so many things in life, prevention is the best medicine when it comes to keeping water clean.

As we celebrate this 39th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, let’s all remember to do what we can to keep our global shared resource of fresh water clean and free of toxins. It also means being willing to pay for upgraded wastewater treatment infrastructure. Because whether or not the Cuyahoga catches on fire again, some portion of the water flowing down that river will one day end up in your drinking glass.

Although alternatives are quickly being developed for fossil fuels, there is no alternative to fresh, clean water. Global demands on our finite water supply are increasing thanks to a booming population and changes in precipitation patterns brought on by climate change. There is an urgent need to develop innovative policies around water use and wastewater treatment, and yet, there is surprisingly little being done to address these challenges.

Join water utility expert and co-author of Running Out of Water, Susan Leal, and bestselling author Alex Prud’homme, who has a forthcoming book about water, for a lively discussion about what can – and must – be done to increase our long-term water security. The conversation will be moderated by journalist Jesse Kornbluth, frequent contributor to Vanity Fair, the New Yorker and the New York Times, who has edited the online cultural concierge service HeadButler.com since 2004.

A Conversation on Water
November 16, 2010
8 am
Council of the Americas
680 Park Avenue
NY, NY

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/science/earth/29sewage.html?ref=water

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/greenlife/2010/08/book-roundup-wednesday-water-reads.html

Over recent months, we’ve been bombarded with images of the explosion of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. In telling that story, countless news shows focused on “beach closed” signs throughout the Southeast. But the reality is that beach closings are not limited to the Gulf coast. The TV networks could have easily taken their camera footage of those same “beach closed” signs in Rhode Island, Michigan and several other states.

Unlike the catastrophe in the Gulf, however, these beach closings occur year in and year out. Lakefront and ocean beaches are closed regularly because improperly treated wastewater has been dumped into our waterways simply because utilities do not have the capacity to treat it properly. Federal laws have been on the books for more than 30 years to make sure our residential and industrial sewage is adequately cleaned up before being discharged into lakes, rivers or oceans. Still, we see an annual wave of beach closures throughout the United States.

Even in developed countries like the United States, outbreaks of illness occur due to poorly treated wastewater. Based on data collected between 2002 and 2004, the Academy of Pediatrics reported that Milwaukee city hospitals experienced a significant increase in emergency room visits to treat diarrhea after partially treated sewage flowed into Lake Michigan. Worst of all, these hospitalizations could have easily been prevented. The problems are not limited to the Great Lakes. According to U. S. government estimates, from 1.8 to 3.5 million Americans become ill every year from recreational contact with contaminated waterways.

In the Gulf, we’ve seen a continual scramble to find the right technology to stem the flow of oil. The solutions to the more common beach closures are already known and readily available.

In most cases, pollution is caused by greed or political inertia. Many industries regularly dump waste without proper treatment. Some of the prime culprits have been large animal farms and meat processing plants.

But by far the most common cause of wastewater pollution is a lack of leadership. Elected leaders of city, regional or state governments fail to maintain sewer treatment plants to meet the needs of growing populations or industries. Most political leaders fail to act because infrastructure improvements cost money and asking their constituents for money might make them unpopular and vulnerable at the next election.

As a former elected official, I get it. No one wants to talk about what happens to our sewer water, never mind pay higher rates or taxes to repair or upgrade a sewer system.

And after decades of neglect, our country’s water infrastructure is in desperate need of upgrade. According to the General Accounting Office, we under-invest in our wastewater systems to the tune of $20 billion a year.

The good news is that we already know how to solve this dilemma. When elected leaders find the courage to share the consequences of failing to act with their constituents, investment in infrastructure typically increases. Consumers become willing to pay more in order to protect public health and the environment once they understand the problem.

The vast majority of “beach closed” signs could be a thing of the past. We would all benefit from healthier waters – not to mention cleaner beaches on hot summer days.

Take a look and let me know what you think.

Susan

Susan Leal speaks with Green-Talk

Way back in 1889, the town of Cambridge decided to develop its own drinking water source. And, nine years ago, Cambridge decided to invest over $40 million to upgrade its water treatment system and maintain water independence for its 101, 000 residents. Cambridge also had the foresight to develop a back up plan, just in case their primary water system fails. Smart move? Yep!

So, while Boston businesses were shuttered and residents were clamoring for bottled water, Cambridge basked in being an oasis in every sense of word.

Smarter? They may be…