"Anyone who can solve the problems of water will be worthy of two Nobel prizes—one for peace and one for science." –John F. Kennedy
Last month, while on my way to the AWWA’s Sustainable Water Resources Conference in Reno, NV, the cover of the in-flight magazine caught my eye: “Annual Green Issue.”
I scanned the table of contents and found a handful of articles touting various “environmentally friendly and sustainable” projects located throughout the country. These projects—a luxury ski resort, a hotel, a college dorm—had all gathered up a nice little pile of accolades: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certifications, National Green Building awards, even EPA acknowledgements. But something was missing: where was the water? I looked a little deeper, but still came up empty handed: nary a mention of a low-flow toilet or a “smart” irrigation system, no discussion about water reuse or treatment. In fact, these projects barely considered water efficiency at all, treating it as a side act rather than a major player.
Which got me to wondering, shouldn’t the green movement be more blue?
In 1998, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) developed the LEED Green Building Rating System. Depending on the points scored, an aspiring project can rate as either Certified (26-32 points), Silver (33-38 points), Gold (39-51 points), or Platinum (52-69 points). Qualified projects earn a LEED label by scoring points in a variety of categories:
- energy and atmosphere (17 points)
- sustainable sites (14 points)
- materials and resources (13 points)
- indoor environmental quality (15 points)
- innovation and design process (5 points)
- water efficiency (five points)
Has the USGBC thought this through? I don’t think so. The marginalization of water efficiency in the above list is telling. And LEED is not the only “green” certification system that treats water this way. All in all, water has been relegated to the fringe of the green building movement, which may have its heart in the right place, but is headed off in the wrong direction. If the goal is to promote sustainability, then water—especially when it relates to energy–cannot continue to be cast aside as a mere element of a larger picture…an element that is less than the distance separating any of the gradations of the rating structure.
The relationship between energy and water is complex. For example, although an often cited statistic states that, nationally, 3% of the nation’s energy resources are tied up to water, that percentage is based on a narrow focus: the water use cycle of collection, treatment, and delivery. When the water cycle is adjusted to include consumer usage, you get a total energy demand amount of almost 20%. And that’s not even counting agriculture, which–in a state like California–accounts for up 75% of total water usage thereby directly and significantly impacting the state’s energy consumption.
Keep in mind that the complicated relationship between energy and water does not stop at supply and demand. Global climate change is an important player, both as an influence on water supply, and as a byproduct of water treatment and delivery. For example, fossil fuel emissions generated from water delivery systems (from both transportation and water utilities) directly impacts local and global air quality. In return, as recent scientific studies continue to show, climate change is responsible for the disruption of water supplies across the globe. And decreasing water supplies result in increasing energy requirements for water collection and distribution.
So what is the solution? To start with, any discussion of climate change, sustainability, or “going green” must include water: our diminishing supply, our increasing demands, and the impact our water needs has on the environment and vice versa. Water efficiency must stand should-to-shoulder with energy efficiency in the national dialogue. Until the USGBC incorporates this understanding into its rating system, LEED certification lies in danger of falling into the same pit as a number of other “feel-good” programs.
While all water conservation efforts should be applauded, it’s not enough to throw in a couple of low-flow toilets and call it a day. What we need is a broader effort, emphasizing the ying and yang of the water/energy relationship.