Unaccounted for water, also known as the leak . . . that scourge of the water purveyor; that water-bill gremlin hiding in the homeowner’s monthly bill; that cumulative cancer that rusts pipes, trashes water pressure, and accounts to 7 billion gallons of water lost per day in the US. When we lose enough water to supply 70 million people a day with drinking water, when the US experiences 240,000 water main breaks a year and only one in four leaks ever reaches the earth’s surface, you have to wonder: How far can we go if we only focus on use and demand when every day we’re losing enough water to supply a megacity with enough water for all its inhabitants?
This week, the book Water Matters hit my desk. A collection of essays and reports from the water resource management frontlines, the book in many ways serves as a primer on the world water crisis. With contributions on everything from industrial agriculture to dams, to conservation and public outreach, the book is a good starting point for anyone interested in zooming out from the narrow focus of your particular water resource concern in order to see the big picture.
One essay in particular—“Saving Our Water Infrastructure” by Elizabeth Royte—neatly lays out the cause and effect of our nation’s aging infrastructure. Based on insights initially gained from her blog—“Bad Water” (www.royte.com/blog/?cat=10)—Royte offers up the following facts that most of us are aware of (either anecdotally or from real-world experience), but not necessarily cognizant of on a daily basis:
“In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure a grade of D-.”
* The low-pressure that results from leaky pipes not only makes treating and pumping water more expensive, it allows contaminants—like disease-causing bacteria, fertilizer, and pesticides—into the drinking water.
* Urban areas dealing with large storms or, alternately, prolonged drought can end up dealing with ruptured storm drains and an increased dependence on groundwater
* According to the EPA, infrastructure repairs are currently estimated at about \According to the EPA, infrastructure repairs are currently estimated at about \•35 billion over the next 20 years.35 billion over the next 20 years.
In addition to summarizing the problem, Royte also highlights some of the more viable solutions. For example, some funding can be expected to trickle in based on government grants: In the 70s, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Water Drinking act opened up the door to federal funding, a trend continued through the 80s and 90s via the State Revolving Fund that provided low-interest loans to utilities—many located in rural areas—for infrastructure improvements. As the third part of a funding trifecta that includes federal clean water trust funds and the establishment of a federal water infrastructure bank is “full cost pricing”—raising the water rates of all customers in order to reflect the real cost of water. The benefits of real cost pricing include the ability of water utilities to independently fund their systems and their infrastructure projects, but raising rates can also lead to conservation among end users who may be more sensitive to the constraints of their pocketbook than pleas from their provider.
Royte ends her essay wondering, “perhaps even more important than where we’ll find the $335 billion over the next two decades is how that money will be spent? Will we continue to build large-scale, centralized projects that encourage communities to use water once before sending it ‘away’? Or will we replace outdated pipes and plants with more holistic systems that use nature to retain and clean water?”
So what do you think? Is Royte asking the right questions when it comes to infrastructure funding and where the money should go? Should local control trump centralized delivery? Is patching and repairing our current conveyance system sustainable over the long haul, or does it make sense to explore—and fund—other alternatives like wetland reclamation, reuse, and rainwater catchment? And could we use the ancillary benefits of an improved and efficient infrastructure—jobs, business opportunities, improved public health, increased property values, and energy savings—as an incentive and inspiration for change?