Water and Wastewater Blog

Keeping the Great Lakes 'Not for Sale'

Sat, 10 May 2008 19:25:17 -0500

In "Great Lakes for Sale: From Whitecaps to Bottlecaps," Dave Dempsey makes a case for a regional effort to make sure these waters are not for sale to or controlled by interests outside the region. While a system holding 18 percent of the world's -- 95 percent of the US -- fresh surface water supply may never be pumped dry, Dempsey worries its water level could be tragically lowered by those who would export to thirsty neighbors, domestic and foreign.

Dempsey comes from Michigan, which he points out is surrounded by three of the Great Lakes. And he sees the lakes as one of the state's greatest treasures. "Michigan's economic future and its health rests on attracting people to live and work here rather than shipping the water to where people now are," Dempsey said in an interview with Dome, the University of Michigan's online magazine.

From Rustbelt to Sunbelt
Dempsey points to Sunbelt governors, including New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson, as covetous of Great Lakes waters for their booming population and economic growth. He sees a zero sum game, where the Rustbelt's Great Lakes treasure is exported to the Sunbelt.

To his credit, Dempsey acknowledges that the Great Lakes watershed is continuously replenished, with the rare exception of a dry year. More critically, however, Dempsey only skims over the fact that the Great Lakes region, with its declining populations, continues to use more water than parched but growing Southwestern states. Those living in an area of abundant water have been far less inclined to conserve water, such as installing toilets that use less water.

A Threat by Bottle, Truck or Pipeline
Dempsey proclaims a passionate belief that Great Lakes waters should be kept in the region. He sees bottling, trucking or pipelining of the water to other states or countries as a violation of 200 hundred years of public trust.

He provides a detailed history of the complicated nature of Great Lakes conservation and economic forces. Sometimes conservationists set the agenda and other times corporate interests do so.

He cites a Nestle Corporation public relations campaign in support of bottling Great Lakes water as an illustration of how corporate interests can reframe the argument for selling Great Lakes water. Somehow what goes out in little Perrier-sized bottles seems less offensive to the public than running a giant aqueduct from Michigan to New Mexico.

Dempsey sees the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as a possible threat to his cherished lakes. Certain provisions could allow the Great Lakes to be considered a commodity in some foreign trade agreements.

According to Dempsey's analysis of legal and political efforts, private interests, whether foreign or national, pose a threat for Great Lakes conservation. So far, they have been unsuccessful but he worries about how long this will be the case.

For Political Junkies
For such a thin book (just 107 pages including end notes), Dempsey devotes an overabundance of space to local Michigan politics.

He joined Democrat Michigan Governor Blanchard's staff in 1983, and he shares the sort of detailed blow-by-blow account of political process that only a political junkie could follow. He also displays an obvious distrust of commerce and places great faith in the protective powers of government.

Is Water the Next Oil?
Dempsey cites a Bloomberg News item from July 3, 2006, which describes how T. Boone Pickens, the Texas hedge fund manager and oilman, spent $50 million for water rights around his 24,000 acre North Texas ranch. "He compared the demand for water to China's purchases of oil fields from Canada to Kazakhstan, saying, ‘I'd be the same about water.'"

So could Michigan and the rest of Great Lakes water basin become the Saudi Arabia of water? That would be Dempsey's worst nightmare.

Don Dunnington

Live Action : Trade Show videos break new ground in industrial equipment news

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:17:49 -0500

Water and Wastewater Dot Com publisher Joe Taylor recently broke new ground for the industrial equipment industry with his “Live Video Interviews” from PTX South in Charlotte, NC.

Over two days, Taylor and his daughter Diana produced and posted 27 video interviews on the sister website Powder and Bulk Dot Com. This online video first almost took place last year right here on the popular video sharing site at Water and Wastewater Dot Com, but a nervous show manager stopped the camera at the last minute.

Joe Taylor reports he is working on getting clearances from the major water and wastewater shows. In the near future you’ll likely be seeing live show videos from events such as the WEFTEC show or the AWWA annual meeting, ACE08. In the meantime I thought you’d like this preview of what you can expect by taking a look at some of the best videos from PTX South. This is a dry materials handling industry show where you’ll find some of the same equipment makers that you're familiar with.

I think you'll find the handheld camerawork by Diana Taylor has an authentic indie film feel that is perfectly in tune with the growing online video medium. I found the best in-booth interviews involved a demonstration of some new piece of equipment. Even for those who attended the show, it’s worth the time to take a look at these unrehearsed live demos, with their up-close views and the opportunity to replay the action as many times as you want.

Following are a few brief samples of some of the videos Joe Taylor said he found of interest:

In an interview at the 3Sigma booth, Scott Dahlgren demonstrates 3Sigma’s GeoMate™ Dry Material Feeder. Dahlgren describes how the feeder has been optimized for batching applications with its “Pulseless” feed and “Instant Off” capabilities.

On a visit to the Young Industries booth, Joe Taylor interviews James Mothersbaugh , who demonstrates a cohesive powder feeder that uses air pressure. Young Industries provides solutions in pneumatic conveying, mixing, blending, size reduction, and air pollution control.

In his interview with Jack Paddock of Atlantic Coast Crushers (see lead photo), we learn that the company posts videos of their customer material tests on a private page on Yahoo! Taylor told me you can do the same on Powder and Bulk Dot Com. When you upload a video to this site, the default is for the video to be “public.” During your video upload, simply select the “private” button. You can then email the video page address to those with whom you want to share your private video.

Joe Taylor says Keith Simpson of Spiroflow was a bit reluctant to do a video, but Taylor thinks it turned out to be one of the best videos. Even Simpson had to admit it was a success. In an email to Taylor, Simpson wrote that he was surprised to find that he “wasn’t as frightening to watch” as he thought it would be.

You can find all 27 videos in the "Trade Shows and Events" channel in the Powder and Bulk Dot Com Video Center

Don Dunnington
Moderator

Colorado Water: 2007 in Review

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:30:36 -0500

The year 2007 left many water watchers breathless. There was activity all over the state. New storage, new plans for storage, riparian habitat success and additions to whitewater recreation. 2007 saw progress on solving Colorado's long term water outlook through the basin roundtable process and tough negotiations coupled with a view towards statewide cooperation. Changes in weather patterns and runoff worried many.

There are many potential demands on Colorado's remaining water, unbridled growth in some communities, agriculture, renewable energy, potential oil shale development, recreation, oil and gas and the water requirements traditional from coal fired generation. All are contributing to future shortage forecasts. For farmers along the South Platte River and Republican River more well shutdowns loomed while the San Luis Valley hoped to avoid involuntary shutdowns with engineering and cooperation. Coloradans started planning for a possible call on the Colorado River from the lower basin states. Douglas County started looking at collecting rainwater for sprinkling needs. We mourned the passing of Anthony Williams, W.D. Farr, Bob Hite and John D. Brown. Nolan Doesken won a 2007 Environmental Hero award from the NOAA for founding the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network.

Arsenic Mitigation in India

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:59:06 -0500

In rural West Bengal, India, life is tenuous for millions of people. Desperate poverty, hunger, and disease are a daily reality. To make matters worse, their water is killing them. With every drink of water and every meal they eat, hundreds of thousands of people are being slowly poisoned by the very water they need to survive.

Residents in eight of this region’s 19 districts are drinking and cooking with groundwater contaminated with naturally occurring, highly toxic arsenic. Tasteless and colorless, the arsenic has slowly seeped into their water sources and then into their bodies. The result: chronic arsenic poisoning of hundreds of thousands of West Bengalis, with many more at risk.

Thankfully, village-by-village, simple, locally developed solutions are making a change for the better. These solutions are providing much more than safe water. They are empowering communities and contributing to local economies by creating new business and job opportunities.

Where did the arsenic come from?

Arsenic is a naturally occurring semi-metallic compound found in groundwater around the world—including those in Bangladesh, Taiwan, Japan, Mexico, parts of the United States and India. Some argue that the increasing occurrence of arsenic in groundwater might be the result of the rapid and significant drawdown of aquifers as we struggle to meet our water demands.

While arsenic may be tasteless and odorless, the human impact is deadly evident. Early indications appear in the form of dark spots on the chest, back, limbs and gums; then in the more advanced stages, wart-like skin eruptions on the hands, feet, and torso. Continuing exposure can result in enlargement of the liver, kidneys, and spleen, developing into malignant tumors and even disorders of the gastrointestinal, circulatory, and nervous systems.

The arsenic problem hasn’t always been present in West Bengal. It is actually the result of efforts to solve microbiological contamination of surface water during the 1970s and 1980s when tube wells were installed throughout the region. The switch to groundwater came with a deadly price and awareness of the issue was slow to come. Because of the extreme poverty of the region, affected people often hesitated to seek medical care. By then, the damage was done. It was in the late 1980s that scientists began to find evidence of arsenic contamination in the groundwater, and by the 1990s the extent of the health impact became widely known.

Partnering for simple, locally developed sustainable solutions

Water For People began working in India in 1996. Its initial effort was a small pilot program designed to help eliminate the health threats of arsenic in rural village water supplies. Soon Water For People partnered with Bengal Engineering & Science University to develop a local, sustainable solution.

After pursuing a number of options, the university developed a simple arsenic-removal filter for use at community wellheads, incorporating activated alumina.

The wellhead unit consists of a 12-inch diameter, seven-foot, two-inch-tall stainless steel column. Water flows through a 51-inch layer of activated alumina and then through an eight-inch layer of gravel. Every eight to 12 months the filter media is regenerated and the waste safely contained. One wellhead unit can serve up to 300 families and is expected to last for 10 to 15 years, with little maintenance required.

The filter incorporates a simple, highly effective technology, is locally manufactured, easy to operate (no electricity required), easy to maintain, and relatively inexpensive—approximately $2,000 for each wellhead unit. Most important, the technology is sustainable, offering effective protection for years to come.

Working with the local villages, water committees were formed to help implement the installations and encourage ongoing local input and control. To date, Water For People has helped finance the installation of 110 of these units providing safe, arsenic-free water for more than 33,000 people in multiple villages across West Bengal.

Healthy results

In villages where wellhead units have been installed, the incidence of arsenic poisoning has dropped dramatically. People are reporting living healthier and more productive lives.

The difference according to one woman indicates a variety of positive changes. “I used to have indigestion and chronic dysentery. Now all these problems are gone, and I have an appetite. I used to spend 150 rupees (US$3.43) each month on medicine, and now I save this money.”

Sustainable solutions that provide safe water and economic opportunity.

Dipak Das churns the pedals of his three-wheeled bike earnestly, eyes straight ahead. He’s focused on safely navigating the endless maze of bumps, holes, oncoming traffic, pedestrians, and blowing dust. Immediately behind him packed tightly on the flat platform that’s wedged between the two rear wheels rest 20-or-so jiggling jugs of his most precious cargo—safe, filtered arsenic-free drinking water from the wellhead.

Dipak delivers filtered water to 45 families that depend on the arsenic-free water he delivers. The 2,800 rupees (US $70) he earns each month is a good living by Indian standards. Before, he ran a roadside tea shop, worked longer hours and made less money. Now, his deliveries require only four hours a day giving him time to pursue other business opportunities.

For Nirmal De and his family, their sole source of income is work that is related to the arsenic filter in Daharthuba Village, where they live. He used to work in a plastic toy factory that has since closed. He started out by delivering water to three families. Now that has grown to 50. On every delivery he attempts to sell the service to other families along his route.

Sumitra, his wife, is the paid caretaker for the filter. She spends four hours every morning and three hours every evening operating the pump. She must periodically backwash the filter to ensure its effectiveness. She also keeps the platform clean throughout the day. The pump station has become the center of the community and even has a television to entertain women as they wait. Sumitra tries to make sure that women don’t get too absorbed in their television viewing and lose their place in line. Their older son, Sudip, also helps out at the filtration station and with deliveries.

Besides the water delivery, a variety of other business enterprises often emerge around the arsenic filters. There are vendors who sell jerry cans for carrying the water. Others sell food and snacks at the wellhead. And at every station, an individual—like Sumitra—earns a salary to collect and record water payments from villagers.

Day-by-day, village-by-village

Water For People makes it a point to support our partners in West Bengal, who in turn work closely with communities. The goal is to obtain commitment to each project from community members, enabling them to take ownership of its long-term operation. In 2006, Water for People opened an office in Kolkata with a full-time country coordinator, Rajashi Mukherjee, to facilitate the work in the region.

In the second most populous country in the world, Water For People is committed to help meet the most basic water and sanitation needs of thousands of India’s poorest. By partnering with local government entities, nongovernmental organizations, the local private sector and others, success will come, day-by-day, village-by-village.

by David Stevenson

About Water For People

Founded in 1991, Water For People is a Denver-based private, nonprofit international development organization that supports safe drinking water and sanitation projects in developing countries. Water For People partners with communities and other nongovernmental organizations to help people improve their quality of life by supporting sustainable drinking water, sanitation, and health and hygiene projects.

More information is available at http://www.waterforpeople.org/

Water Sustainability: A Looming Global Challenge

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:26:55 -0500

The future of water is anything but clear. We face a future world fraught with water challenges – too much, too little, too contaminated or inaccessible to meet our needs.

We live in a rapidly changing world in which many of our expectations about natural resources may no longer be met. The seeming abundance of safe, low-cost water may falsely lead us to assume perpetual easy access to all the low-cost, high-quality water we want, when we want it.

The water industry today must examine these assumptions. Although water covers 70 percent of our planet’s surface, less than one-half percent is freshwater available for our use. Most of our planet’s water is in oceans and too salty for many uses. Much of the remainder is locked in frozen glaciers, is remote from population centers or circulating in our atmosphere. So this seemingly abundant resource is actually quite constrained.

What’s changing?

Three factors are having an impact on our freshwater resources:

Population growth – The world’s population is 6.6 billion and growing. As a result, humans are demanding more of the earth’s resources to sustain life and economic activity. Science and engineering have been developing and implementing technologies to alleviate some of this burden. However, there is a limit beyond which little can be done. It appears probable that we are nearing this limit.

Economic growth – Economic growth in water scarce regions increases water demand. Last year the planet’s urban population exceeded the rural population for the first time in history. Fifty percent of the world’s population resides in metropolitan areas, increasing demands on water systems.

Climate change – Planning and design criteria based on historic records may no longer be applicable in a world where water resources are heavily impacted by drought, flooding and/or an increase in mean sea level. As a result, facilities may be found to be at significant risk in the face of rapid climate change.

Then and now

Previous generations had the luxury of the earth’s excess natural “bio-capacity.” The capacity of the natural systems and cycles that renew our “wastes” and enable the conditions to support our human and ecological environments was far greater than the demands of the world’s population.

Currently, however, the growing demand for earth’s natural resources, like water, is creating an imbalance between the earth’s bio-capacity and its inhabitants’ desired standard of living.

The good news is that we never destroy water. The earth’s water supplies are fixed: what we had yesterday is the same as what we’ll have tomorrow. Though many of the resources needed for economic development are being depleted, water – at least in terms of quantity – is a constant.

The problem is the location, timing and distribution of rainfall. Our industry’s challenge is to help communities ensure that water is always where we need it, when we need it, which is not necessarily where it falls to the earth as rain.

Water, water everywhere, but…

Competition for available water is increasing because water is not distributed evenly over the globe. Nine countries possess 60 percent of the world’s available fresh water: Brazil, Russia, China, Canada, Indonesia, the United States, India, Columbia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, local variations of population distribution and freshwater supply are highly significant. Many communities, once water-rich, are facing a new challenge as water supply and demand are now imbalanced.

In most European cities with more than 100,000 people, groundwater is being used at a faster rate than it can be replenished. Available water costs more and more to capture or draw from aquifers. Large cities like Mexico City, Bangkok, Manila, Beijing, Madras and Shanghai have experienced significant aquifer drops of between 10 to 50 meters.

Other water scarcity examples include the Yangtze River Basin in China; Australia, now in its 10th year of a record drought; the Colorado River basin, also in the midst of a long-term drought of historic proportions; and parts of the Southeast United States, especially northern Georgia.

Droughts or increased flooding may not be the only unfortunate consequence of changing rainfall patterns. These changes may also result in storm sewers and drainage systems that are inadequate to handle current and future needs because they were built on past assumptions that may now be invalid.

Preparing for an uncertain future

We are moving from what has been viewed as a time of certainty within our industry to a time of great uncertainty; we’re being driven by the forces of change in our climate – and in the water business.

The challenge for key global water industry players, like Black & Veatch, and for our clients around the globe is to develop and implement sustainable solutions that will better manage the entire water cycle and help their customers and communities prepare for an uncertain future.

These solutions will focus on how best to protect water at its source, treat it to the highest standards, deliver it to homes and businesses, and then collect and again treat the wastewater before reintroducing it safely back into the environment. We also seek methods of sourcing “new water” through reuse, aquifer storage and recovery or desalination of water, for example.

Political leaders at all levels and the general public want to know what their utility leaders are doing to prepare for these challenges. They realize that water suppliers, regulators and customers can’t simply discuss or debate the future as it arrives; they must plan and take action today to minimize uncertainty and risk. All stakeholders must work together to craft robust long-term strategies and implement cost-effective solutions for mitigating and, if necessary, adapting to the potential impacts of climate change.

Taking the long view

The water industry must focus on the long view when facing the challenges of rapid population and economic growth, along with supply deficiencies or wet weather problems. And added to those trends are other pressing issues, like aging water infrastructure, degradation of water quality, changes in water rights and tightening regulations.

That’s why Black & Veatch and other leaders in the global water industry are working to develop innovative solutions to address climate change, water scarcity and sustainability planning. We are seeking triple-bottom-line solutions that meet our clients’ social, economic and environmental goals; are sustainable; and are politically and commercially viable.

Just as in the 1990s, when decision making shifted from capital costs to life-cycle costs, now in the early part of this century, the importance of triple-bottom-line decision making is being recognized and emphasized during all stages of planning.

Managing the future

The ultimate stakeholders in this debate are yet to be born. One thing is certain: coming generations will not take water for granted. Because the future of water is dynamically bound to the present, now is the time for far-sighted leaders to act.

Sustainable planning is no longer an isolated challenge; regional solutions require integrated planning among municipal, industrial and agricultural water users. Proactive watershed management is key to helping a community optimize its water opportunities.

A holistic water review should examine the best combination of solutions for a community – conservation, non-potable reuse, indirect potable reuse, impaired waters from brackish or contaminated waters, desalination or water sharing among adjacent communities. These are not easy decisions – but they must be addressed.

Dan McCarthy
Black & Veatch
http://www.bv.com/

About our author: Dan McCarthy is President and CEO of Black & Veatch’s global water business, with headquarters in Kansas City, Mo.

Pricing your water: Is there a smart way to do it?

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:31:12 -0500

“For anything worth having, one must pay the price…..”
John Burrows - an American author, 1837-1921.

Droplet 10: The issue

A recent National Water Commission (NWC) stock take reveals an amazing array of charging regimes for household water use. The stock take of 57 of Australia’s urban supply systems found that

• 25 set a fixed service charge and then add an “inclining block” charging regime on top of this fixed charge that increases the charge per kilolitre (Kl) in a number of steps;
• 4 use an “inclining block” regime without a fixed service charge;
• 1 uses a “declining” block regime; and
• 24 use a “two part” tariff regime that superimposes a volumetric charge on a fixed service charge; and
• 3 apply a service charge only and don’t charge for the amount of water used.

The record for the maximum number of “inclining blocks” goes to Busselton Water with an eight block regime. You pay $0.48/Kl for the first 150 Kl, $0.62 for the next 150 Kl, etc. Over 1,950 Kl per annum, you pay $2.53/Kl. Busselton, however, does not set a fixed service charge. Lower Murray Water is the only water supplier with a seasonal charge. Water is cheaper in winter.

Given the state of our water supply systems, what is the best way to charge for and ration household water use? Have any water suppliers of the 57 supply systems got it right or have they all got it wrong?

Clarification of objectives

Unfortunately, governments tend to use water pricing regimes to achieve equity, environmental, revenue and economic efficiency objectives simultaneously. This approach violates a golden rule in policy development, to avoid conflicts – use a separate instrument to achieve every objective and, once an instrument is assigned to one objective, don’t try to use it to achieve another objective.

Economic efficiency when there’s lots of water

What we pay influences what we do and what we buy. If water is abundant, then the efficient price to set is the long-run marginal cost of supplying one more kilolitre – including management costs, the costs of being the supplier of last resort and providing a return on capital.

The next step in pursuing efficiency is to charge according to the actual costs of delivering water to each suburb in each season. In regions where delivery costs vary significantly, this means that postage stamp pricing arrangements need to be replaced with city or town by town pricing arrangements.

Further, it is also necessary for the cost of upstream environmental and other externalities to be reflected in your water supply bill. To encourage you to manage for downstream externalities, however, these need to be charged separately and in proportion to their extent.

Once built, the cost of maintaining and depreciating all infrastructure becomes part of the long-run marginal cost of water supply. The more supply reliability you want, the more you have to pay per kilolitre. Desalination plants, for example, are expensive and, once built, have to be paid for. Great when there a water shortage but an expensive white elephant if there is lots of water around.

Economic efficiency when water is scarce

When it unexpectedly gets or stays dry, water supplies have to be rationed. There are two ways to ration water use. One way is to introduce water restrictions which impose indirect costs on many people. The other way is to increase the price.

Economic research keeps on pointing to the fact that water users respond to price increases. Pragmatic as ever, Quentin Grafton recommends that the best way to set a scarcity price is to estimate the amount of water in storage every quarter and charge accordingly. As dam storage goes down, the price goes up. To drive home the scarcity message, meters need to be read and bills sent, at least, quarterly. In the USA, many utilities read every meter every month.

As outlined in Droplet 5, another way of achieving the same outcome, is to allow urban water trading. Set the maximum amount of water that an average household can use in a quarter and let those who really want water buy it from those prepared to sell.

In times of scarcity, the water supplier collects more money than is needed to cover costs. Some people think that this money should be returned to users, others think it should be used to finance new infrastructure. Either way, it is quite clear that there is a need to change the way we charge for water.

Equity

Many people think that water, especially non-discretionary water (water used inside houses), should be supplied at an “affordable” price. This is why there is so much interest in inclining block tariff regimes. “Affordable” is code for not having to pay for the full cost of the water delivered. The idea is that the first amount of water you use should be cheap. Those who use lots of “discretionary” water (gardens, pools, etc) should have to pay more for it. The result is a cross-subsidy from large water using households to small water using ones. At first glance, this may seem reasonable.

But when you dig a bit deeper, it becomes clear that inclining block tariff regimes transfer money from disadvantaged households to richer ones which, as a result of the block regime, gain access to cheap water. Concerned that inclining block systems are inequitable, John Quiggin has shown that if you want to help disadvantaged households, it is better to set a uniform charge and then pay rebates to every-one or only to those in need. In short, use separate policy instrument to chase each objective you are interested in. Remember, however, that a typical person uses around 46 kilolitres per year. At current prices, the cost of water used per person is less than the cost of running an old fridge in your garage.

Inclining block tariffs are inequitable also because most of them are implemented on top of a fixed service charge. For the 25 NWC’s water supplier utilities who combine an inclining block tariff with a fixed service charge, the average fixed service charge is $124 per household. If you use of 100 kilolitres per year and are charged $0.50 per kilolitres for this first block of water, the real cost per kilolitre delivered to you is $1.74/ kilolitres. This is not cheap water.

Revenue

The real reason water supply utilities set fixed charges is that this guarantees them a revenue base. These utilities are monopolies but it is hard to argue that they should not be subject to the same pricing disciplines as other businesses. In summary, inclining block tariff systems represent a clumsy attempt to achieve efficiency and equity objectives simultaneously. We believe they should not be used.

Where to from here

With all these arrangements in place and if we leave sewage connection charging arrangements for another day, several guidelines for household water pricing emerge.

1. Send an efficient price signal to everyone by charging them the same for every kilolitre of water they use.
2. Send a scarcity signal to all water users. Read meters and send out a bill quarterly. Expect un-metered apartments to start applying for meters.
3. Inclining block tariff systems should be phased out – they are very inequitable.
4. Fixed water service charges should be phased out – for a monopoly, revenue protection is unnecessary.
5. Only help those in need and use targeted programs to do this. Consider increasing Centrelink and pension payments instead.
6. In times of abundance, supply water at the long run marginal cost of securing an additional unit of water. Plan well but recognise that the cost of building excess supply capacity can be high. Take some risk and use scarcity pricing and/or trading to get out of short-term trouble.
7. In times of scarcity, change the price every quarter according to a formula or use an independent price regulator to do the same thing or give households the option to trade water.
8. Keep water restrictions to a minimum and contemplate using them only after the scarcity price has risen by several orders of magnitude.

Mike Young, The University of Adelaide, Email: Mike.Young@adelaide.edu.au
Jim McColl, CSIRO Land and Water, Email: Jim.McColl@csiro.au

Acknowledgements
Comments made on earlier drafts of this Droplet by Neil Byron, Lin Crase, Graham, Quentin Grafton, Neil Palmer, John Quiggin, John Ringham and our Steering Committee are acknowledged with appreciation.

References
NWC urban water stock take: http://www.nwc.gov.au/nwi/docs/UrbanWaterChargingStocktake_Feb%2021.pdf
John Quiggin on rebates:
http://ceda.com.au/nnx/doc/quiggin_water_ace_200702.pdf
Quentin Grafton on scarcity pricing: http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/degrees/idec/working_papers/IDEC06-10.pdf

Interview Tips & Techniques #2: Don't Try to Hide Your Employment History

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:49:34 -0500

Previously I discussed the importance of education verification. Now let's turn our attention to employment verification.

Most verification companies will stay away from contacting your current employer as not to jeopardize your employment. They will however contact past employers provided on your resume. It is important to note that with the advent of the internet along with verification services data housed through the work number or any other verification line will be returned and entered into the report, providing even more data to the prospective employer. Keeping this in mind, it is important that you provide all of the places where you have been employed, even for just a short time.

You may choose to provide employment dates on your resume that have been exaggerated so as to not show a gap in employment. This will also come to light during the employment verification process. It is important not to have gaps in employment, but employers understand that from time to time this may occur. If it does, it is up to you to be honest and upfront about the reasons why, not to try and hide it. People leave employers for a number of reasons: layoffs occur, company closures, as do family/personal reasons. People also get terminated, though most hope this never happens to them.

When writing your resume, it is important to be upfront and honest. Employers want to know the circumstances surrounding your reasons for leaving. If it is due to termination, let them know; if it is to better your self, let them know. Most employers like to see a steady trend of improvement in your career. If you are no longer employed because the company closed, it's always a good idea to supply the employer with a reference that could verify your position. It is important not to have too many employers showing that you have jumped from job to job. This puts up a red flag to an employer who may think you are not the type of person to stay in one place for too long.

Also, concerns potentially arise if you have been at your same employer in the same position for 15+ years. Employers are looking for people that are motivated to better themselves, and being stuck in one place for a long time does not portray that type of person. When providing information regarding your current or past compensation it is important to provide the correct amount. More and more, employers are requesting a copy of your W-2 to verify that the compensation you have reported is correct.

Now I realize that there are many times that you have sent your resume in for a specific position, knowing full well you are capable of doing the job but never getting an interview. I understand how frustrating it is, but this should not cause you to lie on your resume or exaggerate the truth. It is better to be upfront and honest, then to get hired under false pretenses only to get terminated a short time later because you have misrepresented yourself.

Employment is the most important part of any person. Unless you are a self-made millionaire and do not need to work like the rest of us, you need a job. Your employment history is just as important as your credit report. In order to secure a better position with better income, your past employment needs to show that you are worth the risk. Even if you have had issues in the past, it's never too late to correct them for the future. J ust know that with more and more companies conducting background screens, it's important to provide this potential new employer with an honest look of your background. If anything comes back, that you have omitted or stretched the truth, it may be a red flag to the employer as to your integrity.

With each and every finalist candidate that we present to our clients, we also provide a complete background check. Our background checks are provided by our parent company, BackTrack Inc. All reports provided include employment verification, education verification, social security trace report, motor vehicle report, reference checking and criminal records searches.

Come back often to view more interview tips and techniques that will assist you in your interviewing process.

About our author: Lisa Sprowls is a Filtration Recruiter. She works on many sales, engineering, executive and management level positions serving the search and recruitment needs of both large and small manufacturers and distributors in the Filtration, Water & Wastewater, Separations and Environmental Industries.

To learn more about Recruiter Solutions International, visit http://www.rsipeople.com/filtration or contact Lisa at 800-992-3875 ext. 313.

Interview Tips & Techniques: Education Verification

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:10:59 -0500

My name is Lisa Sprowls and I am a Filtration Recruiter. I work on many sales, engineering, executive and management level positions serving the search and recruitment needs of both large and small manufacturers and distributors in the Filtration, Water & Wastewater, Separations and Environmental Industries.

With each and every finalist candidate that we present to our clients, we also provide a complete background check. Our background checks are provided by our parent company, BackTrack Inc., http://www.backtracker.com/. All reports provided include employment verification, education verification, social security trace report, motor vehicle report, reference checking and criminal records searches.

Today, more than any other time in our industry, more and more employers are requesting completed background checks prior to extending an offer to a potential candidate. With this in mind, it is very important that you, the candidate, provide a very clear and honest picture of your background to a potential new employer.

As with many situations, preparation is the key to success. The job market is very competitive and you probably will not be the only qualified candidate for a position. The deciding factor may simply be your background check. One minor exaggeration are dates of employment or degree, may remove you from the running. As a Filtration Recruiter, I have seen candidates not be considered for positions by what has been verified or not verified on their background check.

Let’s begin with education, one of the most commonly misrepresented areas of a resume.

With the advent of the Internet, there has been an explosion in the number of unaccredited or diploma mills schools. With the proliferation of sites on the internet promising “degrees for life experience”, “degrees without setting foot inside of a classroom,” “earn the degree you deserve in six weeks,” and others, it has become easier for people to simply buy a college degree without having the skills or qualifications necessary.

Emails containing these promises arrive daily in your in box. As these “schools” become more prevalent, you may be tempted to sign up, pay the money and receive such a degree as to make your resume appear more creditable. Be leery of these types of schools. In order for a background screening company to verify your degree, it must come from an accredited school not what is called a “diploma mill”.

For more details regarding diploma mills, click here: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html
or http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation.

You may also choose to provide on your resume that you did receive a degree, when in fact you are actually just a few credits short or may still owe funds to the school. When a background check is conducted, the company will contact the school and provide to the employer that you do not have a degree. You may think this is minor, but to an employer, this becomes a red flag as to the type of person you are.

Come back often to view more interview tips and techniques that will assist you in your interviewing process. To learn more about our organization or what positions we may have that you may have an interest in, please contact me at 800-992-3875 ext. 313.

Lisa Sprowls

Filtration Recruiter

Recruiter Solutions International

8850 Tyler Blvd.

Mentor, OH 44060

800-992-3875 ext. 313

lisa@rsipeople.com

www.rsipeople.com

You Can Buy 40 Different Brands of Bottled Water at the Water Works Restaurant

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:26:34 -0500

I recently enjoyed a very good dinner at Philadelphia's Water Works Restaurant, housed in the beautiful and historic Fairmount Water Works. On the menu (in fact it's on a separate menu like a wine list) I found more than 40 varieties of bottled water ranging in price from $8 to more than $50.

This restaurant is housed in one of America's first waterworks, a place tourists from around the world once called "Wondrous to Behold." Back in April 2006, I wrote about the waterworks and asked how we had lost our wonder for - and trust in - the miracle of tap water, turning instead to bottled water.

Philadelphia was the first big American city to undertake delivering safe water as a municipal responsibility. The city's "Watering Committee" chose Frederick Graff to build a waterworks on the eastern bank of the Schuylkill River. Graff's initial design called for steam engines to lift water from the river but by 1822 the river itself powered the pumps. Fairmount Water Works, with its beautiful buildings and grounds wedding nature and technology, became an instant international tourist attraction:

Established in 1801, Philadelphia's water department was the first in America to supply an entire city with drinking water
Philadelphia's Fairmount Water Works was the model for more than 30 other American water delivery systems
Fairmount Park, one of the nation's largest urban parks, was established to protect Philadelphia's drinking water supply

Bottled Water's Environmental Backlash

In a Nov. 3, 2007 article, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer Sandy Bauers pointed out the irony that Philadelphia's Water Works restaurant now claims to be "the nation's largest water bar" with 42 brands from Norway, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa, and Fiji.

"Water is dubbed the new wine in culinary circles, and each has a distinct flavor, a specific food it complements," owner Michael Karloutsos told her. She reported that nearly eight of 10 customers buy bottled water."You don't have to take anybody's keys when he drinks two bottles of water," Karloutsos said.

At our dinner, we had several bottles of the $8 Voss from Norway. Both still and sparkling varieties were delicious and a lot less costly than the wine we had with the meal.

Is Bottled Water the Next Wine?

In Experts say the nuances of bottled water are like wine, an Associated Press article dated Oct. 16, 2007, Michele Kayal discusses the nuances of water as a luxury drink:

Potassium gives water a sweet taste
Silica imparts silkiness
Calcium can give water a lactic taste some people find refreshing.
Others enjoy the cleansing quality of water with a high sodium content.

Kayal writes, "Long a staple of European tables, bottled water was popular in the U.S. during the early 20th century, but vanished during the Great Depression. It resurfaced during the 1970s, when Perrier was photographed in the hands of glitterati.

"During the past five years, consumption surged 59 percent, making it America's favorite beverage after soda. In 2006, Americans quaffed 8.3 billion gallons of bottled water.

"In the United States, consumers can now pick from about 350 varieties of bottled water, ranging from purified tap water (such as Coca-Cola Co.'s Dasani and Pepsi's Aquafina), to waters bottled from particular sources."

For those interested in becoming connoisseurs, the article includes a sidebar, "TIPS for Appreciating Bottled Water."

In Praise of Tap Water

The Illadelph, a weblog about the city of Philadelphia, posted an article, In Praise of Philadelphia's Delicious Tap Water and It's Totally Negative Carbon Footprint:

"If you choose to get your recommended eight glasses a day from bottled water, you could spend up to $1,400 annually. The same amount of tap water would cost about 49 cents…. ABC News crunched the numbers — taking into account mileage and fuel requirements — and found that even before you drink that one-liter (or a 33.8 ounce) bottle of French water in Chicago, you've already consumed roughly 2 ounces of oil. And that doesn't include the oil used to make the plastic."

One estimate shows it takes 1.5 million barrels of oil to make a year's worth of bottles for the $10.9 billion-a-year bottled water industry in the United States.

The Fairmount Water Works Interpretive Center is a neighbor to the Water Works Restaurant and offers its own bottled water - free - labeled "PhillyTap." According to the Philadelphia Inquirer's Bauers, the bottles are distributed by the city water department:

"Philadelphia public water has a bit of an image problem - 20 percent of Philadelphian's still refuse to drink it. Never mind that, in at least 10 years, the Water Department has had no health-based violations. Or that Philadelphia's water ranked 12th among 93 cities in a Conference of Mayors taste test."

Don Dunnington
Blog Moderator

Orange County Register puts reuse on Front Page

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:41:45 -0500

The Orange County Register puts wastewater reuse on the front page today in a big way. Their story here. The reader comments here.

The main deck on the front page reads:

"They’ve overcome squeamishness about the idea and objections to the $480 million cost. Now water engineers are about to turn on what they say is the largest plant of its kind in the world, pumping up to 70 million gallons of drinkable water… Along the way, it will be screened to remove solids, squeezed through reverse-osmosis filters, zapped by ultraviolet light and percolated into the ground."

The mainstream media seems focused on this topic with the NY Times featuring OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System last week. Perhaps a sea-change in attitudes is occuring?

Alec Mackie
Sewer Leaks Blog
"Los Angeles Wastewater News"

Subdivision Wastewater Treatment - The Promise, The Myth, The Reality - a Different Perspective

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:27:26 -0500

As the Developer spars with the county with the engineering designs of its latest subdivision, preparing for ultimate approval by the State’s Department of Environmental Control, it becomes intriguing to analyze the process and what is really happening. It is a unique combination of business entrepreneurship, highly-trained licensed contractors, hard-working government officials, and a host of tangential participants making the approval process one of the more interesting aspects of economic growth in this or any country. Let’s look at what this process is really about.

The Promise:

The process begins with the Developer, whether a local real estate person, attempting his first soiree into the community development arena, or an established company with just another business opportunity facing him. Each, whether small or large, identifies a “business value” for the project. The future is bright, the opportunities great.

The Developer begins organizing his team, putting people in charge of particular aspects of the project. For larger projects, there are many people and companies involved. For smaller projects, the Developer takes many of the interface responsibilities, but in both cases, a team is built. A proper Civil Engineering firm or individually licensed civil engineer becomes part of the team, and the process of providing the background to prove site and project worthiness begins. The promise that is inherent in any development project, begins

The Myth:

The myth is that the schedule originally drawn up, will be met, on time and within budget and will meet all the promises made by the participants.

The Reality:

It would take much more space than this article practically permits, to describe this myth fully. But let’s take a shot at the major reasons. And from the person paying the bills, the Developer, it isn’t pretty.

1) The Process has liabilities like a corporation. In a corporation, the legal process in the country is designed to protect the shareholder. In the Development process, the participants to the process protect the new homeowners. In the corporate world, if the corporation willingly disregards the shareholders, the corporation and its officers and directors can be punished severely.

In a project that goes wrong, everyone involved in the process is investigated, therefore the penalties for messing up your portion is severe. So, just as in corporate life, at least well established corporate life, extra time is required to analyze and make sure that no mistakes are made. And that is the keyword, no “MISTAKES” can be made. And PREVENTING MISTAKES takes time.

2) The process is not built for performance. This relates strictly to how people are compensated for contributing. When the Developer accepts that responsibility, he pays. It is his role to pay. He is the risk-taker. Almost everyone else is paid regardless of what happens. The Civil Engineer firms bill on an hourly basis, and even if they have a fixed price contract, it is front-loaded so they don’t absorb governmental approval delays.

The Governmental agencies reviewing the project have “standards of performance” within their organizations, but they are standards that are defined by them and, understandably, very protective of them. With Government agencies notoriously understaffed, the standards are “employee-friendly” and the incentive to work harder or faster, may seem like a possibility, but, in reality, doesn’t motivate the government employee to act in any way that recognizes that the Developer is paying bank interest every day on land he can do nothing with until wastewater approval is reached. Don’t blame the Government employee, blame the process.

3) The process is highly regulated and licensed. Only licensed people can work in this process - specifically civil engineers and licensed contractors. Thus, in states where development hasn’t previously occurred, it is unlikely that we will have the technical manpower readily available to do a project. With less money, the Developer may pay for inferior, but licensed, help, however the approval process will be delayed by this inexperience. Similar to the world of teaching, tenure and credentials rule - so new, bright and forward-looking talent, can be stifled in the system.

4) All levels of government are involved. That means local, state and federal. Thus, each government bureaucracy has its fair shot at looking at and evaluating the project from it own perspective, perspectives, by the way, that can be at various odds with each other.

The developer and his team, has to satisfy them all before he can do something, and the process of just getting into the first meeting at the lowest level of approval, can be very costly indeed, just for early engineering and site work. And to get into that first meeting and be turned down is devastating to the Developer. So each presentation must be well thought out, completely conforming to all laws, administrative rules, and desires of each governmental agency, and presented in such a way that there will be a minimum of delays in passing approval. It is quite an effort, indeed.

5) Wastewater treatment responsibility is, by default, given to the engineering firms. The engineering firm has its own ideas of what might be best, and plugs in its own wastewater solution, either working with local equipment distributors, or friends they have worked with in the past. It tends to be local, and it tends to be based on movement of hardware to solve a problem, instead of providing a true wastewater treatment interface for the developer.

Remember, the wastewater treatment provider has no way to make money until his equipment is ordered. And, in such a highly complex and regulated process, it is unlikely that an equipment distributor has the knowledge or time to put into the proper sizing and planning for the project. Thus, whether the approved equipment manufacture has the best interest of the Developer at heart, the weakest link, the local sales rep can, without too much effort, make a mess of the wastewater treatment design and installation, promising things he can’t do, and not understanding how he must interact to make the process the best and most cost-effective for the Developer. And, I won’t even mention the unscrupulous reps who gauge the Developer, price-wise, and never really deliver.

6) Intentions are not understood. Each party has his own job in the process. And, these parties are a unique combination of public and private personalities, with different lifestyles, visions, and responsibilities. What is good for the engineering firm is not necessarily good for the County Commission, etc. And there are valid and honest reasons why they may differ.

For example, a county that does not wish to grow may have the greatest project in front of it, but it will change the heart and soul of that environment. So the commissioner will seemingly fight progress, even though, he is truly representing the view of his or her constituents. These types of philosophical disagreements can result in endless delays, more bank interest for the Developer, and emotional frenzies that only work to exacerbate the process and delay it further.

Well, there are many other reasons to beware before entering into the development process, but these are a few. The above listed realities exist in our commercial world and are imbedded in our system. Not all projects exactly fit the profile, and not all projects have each of the characteristics as part of their delays, but most projects are late and over budget because the realities, as listed above, are never quantified properly, especially for new entrepreneurs on their first development project. As I add future comments, I will try to look at each of the above, and others, and come up with recommendations that can be debated and better understood. I hope, that as an outcome, each person’s positions are better understood, and projects move through the cycle much more quickly.

My company has its place in this equation, and you will see that bias in my discussions. But I do believe that projects that can help the community’s economic future, and can make the environment better for having them implemented, should be the cornerstone of our building and development process. And, with the scarcity of water and other major resources, it is time for us to evaluate how we’ve been doing business and see if there is a better way for all of us - the wastewater professionals, the new homeowners, existing residents, taxpayers, legislators, etc.

Claude Smith
CEO/International Wastewater Systems
President/RCC Holdings Corp.

Droplet 9 - New Water for Old: Speeding up the reform process

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 04:20:52 -0500

Forward: This Droplet proposes a pathway for the construction of a water entitlement register that will withstand the test of time.

Droplets explore ideas and propositions which, if developed further, might improve water use. They develop ideas and search for the fundamental concepts and building blocks that one might consider if not constrained by prior decisions.

New water for old: Speeding up the reform process

“The laws relating to the transfer and encumbrance of freehold and other interests in land are complex, cumbrous and unsuited to the requirements of the said inhabitants.” Torrens Title Act, South Australia, 1857-8.

The issue

There is an important relationship among water resource plans, entitlements, and registers. All three are of equal, essential and vital importance. Good registers do not fix bad plans. You can’t have a good plan unless it gives effect to a good entitlement system. Like Romeo and Juliet, plans and entitlements go hand in hand.

Knowing what we know today, to produce a good water resource plan, one would expect the planning process to begin by rigorously identifying the separate bodies or pools of water to be managed, and then establishing the rules for assigning water to each pool. The effect of one pool on another would be defined in a way that has hydrological integrity. Water can be assigned only to one pool at a time.

Entitlements to share access to the water assigned to each pool would then be defined and recorded on a register that guarantees ownership security and, through trade, facilitates efficient use and adjustment.

This is clearly not where we are today. Many entitlements were first issued in a developmental era when water resources were relatively abundant and were not defined to manage scarcity, interconnectivity and climate change. Today, many water allocation systems are under considerable stress. So much so, that some plans have been suspended. Entitlement trade, especially among States, remains cumbersome.

Given the circumstances Australia now finds itself in, we wonder whether or not there may be a need to adjust much more quickly than envisaged when existing water resource plans were put together.

What features would a new planning, entitlement and register system have to have to be deemed future proof? Could it be developed so that most entitlement holders would prefer it?

A way forward

In this Droplet, we explore the proposition that it may be advantageous to consider improving plans, entitlement systems and entitlement registers simultaneously. And, that this could be done in such a way that most water users would be keen to transfer their entitlements into this ‘new’ system.

The approach we have in mind draws upon NSW experience in persuading land holders to convert ‘old’ system land titles into a ‘new’ Torrens Land Title system. Conversion was voluntary and implemented over a number of years. The approach also draws upon experience gained when company share registers were moved from individual State registers to a single National register.

Water resource planning and entitlements

Good plans start by rigorously defining the relationship among the pools of water to be made available for environmental use, consumptive use and system maintenance.

Under the ‘new’ system and consistent with the National Water Initiative, plans and entitlements would be aligned in a manner that guaranteed that the water supply reliability would be a function of climate and nothing else. Entitlements would be defined as shares in the water assigned to each pool. Under this system, whenever one person’s shareholding is increased, another’s must be decreased. The system would have hydrological integrity. Amongst other things, each plan would require the offset of any adverse effects of land-use change or other similar processes on entitlement reliability.

An ‘indefeasible’ register

Good registers define ownership unequivocally. In the past, many of the processes used to issue water entitlements lacked consistency. Typically, entitlements were issued as licences. At the time, no-one envisaged that these licences would be separated from land title and be used to define assets that could be traded across large distances. When licences were first issued, it was always assumed that they could be changed as and when necessary. As a result of this history, even today, some governments remain reluctant to unequivocally guarantee the integrity of their water registers.

One of the most desirable features of the new register would be ‘indefeasibility.’ Whoever is named on the register as the owner of an entitlement is guaranteed to be its owner. The only way that ownership could be transferred to someone else would be to change the entry on the register. To provide for investment security changes are made only with the consent of all registered interests. Anyone who suffers a loss as a result of fraud, administrative error, etc. would be entitled to just compensation.

Financial risk

Throughout the world, banks are required to hold a proportion of their assets in extremely safe asset classes. Moreover, as a general rule, those who offer to mortgage these safer assets can borrow at a lower interest rate than everyone else.

While this may not seem important, if an entitlement register was defined so that it and its underlying assets were of the highest security, then irrigators should be able to use their entitlement to borrow money at cheaper rates than is presently the case. For this level of security, entitlements would need to be defined in a manner that prevented an entitlement from being forfeited or cancelled. There are many to ways to penalise bad water users. The threat of forfeiture of a water entitlement or, more seriously, the actual forfeiture of an entitlement need not be one of them.

Mortgageability and other interests

Well-defined registers record third party interests and guarantee that these interests will be protected. On the ‘new’ register, electronic access could be given to banks and other similar bodies so that they could clear part or all of a mortgage themselves. When loan payments are seriously in arrears, mortgagees (lenders) would have rights to foreclose their registered interest and sell enough entitlements to enable them to recover their interest. Mortgagors (borrowers) would have an equitable right of redemption. A mortgagee would not be able to recover more than that owed to them.

Trading

Imagine a register that provides maximum investment security and facilitates trading at very low cost. If the new register was built from scratch and designed for electronic trade, it should be possible to complete an entitlement trade in a few minutes.

Enter the name of the person to trade to, let the computing system check whether or not the proposed trade is possible, press the confirm button and the deal is done – done irrevocably! Partnerships with the banking system and brokers could be used to make execution conditional upon payment. No trade should cost more than the $60 or so currently charged for the electronic sale of shares in an ASX registered company.

Where to from here

If we had more space, we would add a lot more detail and also point to all the good work that States and the National Water Commission are doing to build state-of-the-art water resource plans, registers and trading systems. We also recognise the reality of the many water sharing plans and the constraints of plan review timelines and commitments among the various States and the Commonwealth.

In a few months, the results of the CSIRO Sustainable Yield Project for the Murray-Darling Basin will become available. One of the aims of this project is to identify over-committed water resource planning areas. One of the reasons for over-commitment is that some plans do not adequately account for ground-surface water interconnectivity and the consequences of a long drought. When the results of this project are considered alongside the impacts of the current drought, for some areas, it may be worth considering simultaneous improvement of the plan, the entitlement and the register system in a way that benefits all.

In areas where simultaneous change might be in the interests of all, an offer could be made to prepare a new resource area plan that properly accounts for system interaction and change, and then offer to issue new entitlements recorded on a new ‘state of the art’ register. Whilst we recognise that States may be reluctant to allow this to occur, we can see merit in letting the new Murray Darling Basin Authority offer to do this, and then invite all those with interests in a water resource planning area to choose between the ‘old’ and the proposed ‘new’ system.

For irrigators, this approach would involve no downside risk. There would, however, be a strong incentive for the Authority to get it right – reputations would depend upon it.

If a majority want the new system then, this process could set the standard for all to follow and provide a pathway for the progressive transfer of all water resource area plans and entitlements in the Murray Darling Basin to a single Basin-wide system.

Authors

Mike Young, The University of Adelaide, Email: Mike.Young@adelaide.edu.au
Jim McColl, CSIRO Land and Water, Email: Jim.McColl@csiro.au

Acknowledgements

Comments made on earlier drafts of this Droplet by Megan Dyson, Alistair Watson, Stephen Carroll, Murray Smith and our Steering Committee are acknowledged with appreciation.

Production of Droplets is supported by Land and Water Australia and CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country. Responsibility for their content remains with the authors.

Biogas Boom Part 2: You've Read the News, Now See the Views on the Video Center

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:01:55 -0500

Here's another way to keep up with the booming biogas markets and technologies: visit our Video Center to view news and demonstrations of innovations like this wastewater plant that turns kitchen grease Into biogas.

This well-produced video from Chevron Energy Solutions, a unit of Chevron Corporation, and the City of Millbrae, California documents Millbrae's Water Pollution Control Plant, which transforms inedible kitchen grease from restaurants into biogas that provides electricity and heat to treat the city's wastewater.

The San Francisco Bay area city spent more than $5.5 million for new equipment and upgrades but the project pays for itself in energy cost savings and fees collected from restaurant waste haulers. This single facility reduces greenhouse gases by 1.2 million pounds a year. It’s a small plant in a huge market for renewable energy sources that actually save taxpayers money. According to the video, US restaurants generate an average of 14 pounds of grease per person per year. That’s 4.2 billion pounds of potential energy that’s largely left untapped and going to landfills where it releases methane into the atmosphere.

When you visit the Video Center, here are some links and keywords that you can use in the site’s search feature:

Keyword search for "cogeneration"

Keyword search for "biogas"

If you have a video about biogas or cogeneration (or other relevant topic) that you’d like to add to this site, see these instructions on how to upload your own video. It's free.

Don Dunnington
Blog Moderator

Follow Booming Biogas Market and More at the Industry News Center

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:12:24 -0500

If you're visiting regularly or subscribed to the RSS feed from our Industry News Center, then you've seen this report on the booming biogas market.

Biogas power plants combine anaerobic digestion systems with electric generators. The electricity they produce is considered renewable or green energy and can be sold into the national grid. In addition to wastewater treatment plants, biogas cogeneration has been employed in industrial processing applications, landfill and agriculture.

According to the Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, "The future increase use of biogas is a strong goal in most countries, not only because is it a renewable energy source but it will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and soil degradation…." The firm's study is the first global inventory of biogas plants in 50 countries, with estimates of market potential and projected developments to 2030.

Keeping up with Biogas and all the industry news is made easier thanks to this site's Industry News Center. Publisher Joe Taylor monitors the full spectrum of industry news and selects only the most salient items for inclusion.

Taylor told me he's seen an increasing number of news stories about the use of biogas as an energy source and a growing number of equipment manufacturers offering biogas/methane cogeneration solutions for wastewater facilities. "About a year ago we added a new section to our Buyers Guide and Industry Directory for Cogeneration using biogas/methane," he said. You can visit this section here. If your company provides equipment and services for cogeneration, you can add your company's link to our directory here.

Don Dunnington
Moderator

Class I Deep Injection Wells

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:22:00 -0500

Forward: I'm hoping the readers of this blog can help.

Too many water treatment facilities simply pipe their liquid waste to a municipal treatment facility or zero liquid discharge installation at great expense.

I'm trying to show the owners of facilities that generate wastewater, which includes brine, RO concentrate, reuse residuals, industrial sewerage, that they consider using deep injection wells to dispose of wastewater. Their wastewater disposal costs could be reduced by an order of magnitude and save them millions of dollars.

The following white paper is an introduction to deep injection wells (DIW's). If you know of any plants in California that might profit by considering this alternative means of wastewater disposal, please send this article to them. -- Derik Howard

Class I Deep Injection Wells
A proven, cost-effective wastewater disposal technology

Introduction

The increasing cost and regulatory complications associated with wastewater disposal is a concern for many industrial facilities in the Central Valley of California.

Large volumes of wastewater, high in total dissolved solids (TDS) and inorganic chemicals can be injected into deep injection wells (DIW) at a fraction of the cost of alternative waste disposal methods, including municipal sewer, evaporation ponds and zero liquid discharge (ZLD) systems. Deep injection well technology has the added benefit of removing potential pollutants from the accessible biosphere and can reduce regulatory compliance burdens.

Many industrial facilities are installing DIWs as a safe, long-term, low cost means of disposing of liquid wastes. With a DIW system, wastewater streams with a wide range of TDS, pH and flow rates can often be economically managed in porous formations at depths of between 2,000 and 10,000 feet below ground.

DIW systems have been implemented at facilities located within the Central Valley that produce less than 100 gallons per minute (SMS Briners, Stockton), to those with a waste stream of more than 2 million gallons a day (Hilmar Cheese). Around the country, rates of 20 to more than 2,000 gpm have been economically managed with DIW systems. The average cost of operating a DIW system, capable of handling a half million to a million gallons of wastewater a day in the Central Valley, is typically projected to be $10,000 to $20,000 a month.

The advantages of DIW systems

The treatment and disposal options available to most industrial facilities that generate wastewater in California appear to be limited to either zero liquid discharge (ZLD) installations or municipal treatment facilities. In the construction of many facilities, DIW technology has been either rejected or ignored as a suitable disposal option by design and project managers because they are not core technologies offered by many wastewater treatment firms.

Although DIW systems must be properly screened for site-specific applicability, proponents of alternative wastewater disposal systems have sometimes erroneously dismissed the application of DIWs as a disposal option based on invalid perceptions. In fact, the following have been proven:

1. The permitting process is readily facilitated by the EPA;
2. Properly sited and designed wells are not particularly vulnerable to seismic events;
3. Significant injection rates are often practical;
4. For proper waste streams, injection zone plugging can be economically avoided;
5. Easy to design and maintain;
6. Little or no treatment infrastructure;
7. High water disposal rates;
8. Knowledge and technology transfer from oil & gas production;
9. Relatively inexpensive construction and operating costs;
11. Indefinite life; and
12 Minimal restriction on the quality of the injectate.

The safety and cost effectiveness of properly sited and designed DIW systems are well understood by the relatively small community of consultants, engineers, DIW owners and regulatory agencies that monitor the installation and operation of DIW systems throughout the USA. Few DIWs have failed, and these have been due to inappropriate application of the technology. The fact that 500 Class I industrial DIWs and more than 100,000 Class II oilfield wells are operating successfully in the USA is testament to the widespread applicability of the technology.

Technical Feasibility

Californian oil and gas companies have demonstrated the technical feasibility of brine injection and have relied on deep injection wells (Class II wells) throughout the Central Valley for decades.

The proper siting of a DIW requires that sufficient sedimentary layers beneath a target property are present, and that they consist of thick permeable formations with a relatively impervious cap-rock. The porous layers should be capable of receiving a sufficient volume of wastewater at a sustained rate for at least 30 years. Based on thousands of oil well logs, many areas within Central California meet this criterion and are geologically suitable for the installation of DIWs.

EPA Permit for DIW's

It requires no more effort to permit a DIW system than most other wastewater treatment systems, including ZLD systems. Class I wells are relatively straightforward to permit for the injection of nonhazardous wastes into zones separated from the lower most underground source of drinking water (USDW), defined by a TDS concentration of <10,000 milligrams per liter.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Underground Injection Control (UIC) program grants permits for the installation of Class I DIWs. Regulations for this program are found in the Federal Code of Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1, Parts 144 and 147 (40 CFR 144-147).

Wastewater Specifications

The non-hazardous liquid waste injected at most industrial and municipal facilities using DIW technology have elevated levels of TDS, nitrates, phosphates, pathogens and/or inorganic chemicals. For the effective operation of a DIW, the wastewater should have relatively low suspended solids concentrations.

Installing a DIW system

The installation of a DIW can be viewed as a six-step process as follows.

1. Feasibility study to evaluate both site geology and waste stream
2. U.S. EPA permit application
3. Injection system design
4. Construction
5. Testing
6. Operation and Maintenance

Monitoring and Reporting

The DIW operator is typically required to submit a sample of the injectate to a state certified laboratory for regular periodic characterization of the operation. Quarterly summary reports of injection volume and pressure are also required. The DIW operation and monitoring can be automated, thereby minimizing labor costs.

Estimated Cost

The average cost of a DIW system consisting of two DIWs, surface treatment and monitoring equipment, is often on the order of two million dollars. Depending on a number of variables including the pre-injection treatment requirements, if any, the operating cost is typically between $10,000 to $20,000 a month.

The above-noted $10,000 to $20,000 per month operation and maintenance cost is consistent with published values as follows. Green, et al. (1999) determined that operation and maintenance costs for a DIW system are about 8 percent of the capital costs, including electric power and treatment chemicals for corrosion and biological growth control.

A study by the University of Texas at El Paso in 2002 indicated that operation and maintenance costs including pumping and maintenance are approximately 4 percent of capital costs. Using these published values, and assuming a capital well cost of $2,000,000, the operation and maintenance costs would be between $ 80,000 and $160,000 per year (i.e., median cost of $10,000 per month). These literature values are also consistent with costs experienced by the team for the operation of disposal wells under similar conditions.

Schedule

Generally, a DIW system can be permitted and installed within two to three years.

-Site-Specific Feasibility Study - 2 to 4 months
-Preparation of the U.S. EPA permit application - 6 to 9 months
-Review of permit application by the U.S. EPA - 9 to 12 months
-DIW construction and testing - 4 to 6 months
-U.S. EPA’s review and issuance of a permit to operate - 3 to 5 months
Total time required - 24 to 36 months

Conclusion

The capital cost of a DIW system for many facilities can be recovered within two to three years. This is primarily due to the low monthly operating costs, which are a fraction of ZLD system operating costs or the costs of disposal to a municipal wastewater treatment facility.

Attractive benefits of the technology include corporate control of dedicated waste management capacity along with reducing plant sensitivity to future regulatory changes that are likely to result in increased disposal costs over time. Additional advantages of DIWs are the low maintenance, longevity, minimal staff oversight requirements, and recognized safety of the technology.

by Derik Howard
DIW Services, LLC
Redlands, CA
Telephone: (909) 307-0270
Email: derik.howard@gmail.com

References

Green, T. S. (1999) Design and costs for a system to reduce chloride levels in the Red River by shallow well collection and deep-well disposal. Environmental Geology, vol. 38, issue 2, p. 141-147.

University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) (2002) Zero Discharge Brine Management for Desalination Plants. Desalination Research and Development Program Report No.89. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.