The next committee meeting is this Thurs., Aug. 20, at the Tucson Ass'n of Realtors on Tucson Blvd. just north of Grant Rd. (this is where I will be that evening instead of at the Imagine H2O event in San Fran).
The agenda is posted on the study website as well as the technical paper up for discussion this week - covering the "Cost of Growth". It's all about what our water and sewer utilities are doing to separate operation and maintenance costs (associated with their existing infrastructure) from costs of expanding their systems (building new infrastructure to accommodate growth). People around here have been clamoring that "growth needs to pay for itself!" And I generally agree. You don't want existing water customers paying the cost of acquiring new water supplies or for conservation measures that are intended to provide enough water for the people who might move here in the next 20 years. But as with most things, what seems like a simple proposition on its face is far more complicated when you get into the nitty-gritty. It should make for an interesting discussion. I'll post more after the meeting.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
A chance to profit from your water conservation ideas
I received an email this week from someone representing Imagine H2O, a "San Francisco based not-for-profit organization committed to enabling water entrepreneurship." They are organizing an event in San Francisco later this week (yeah I probably won't make it either) to launch a new initiative to promote entrepreneurial ideas in water conservation, or as they described it to me:
Here's some more info on the contest they are sponsoring:
I was provided with two names and contact info if you are interested in learning more than can be gleaned from the websites:
Jared Dunnmon, jdunnmon@gmail.com, or
Director of Operations Aaron Schwartz, as@imagineh2o.org
If you think you have a great idea for fostering water conservation and efficiency this could be your big break. Certainly seems worth looking into.
... on Thursday August 20th we are hosting what we hope will be a uniquely productive evening for identifying water customers’ needs, brainstorming ideas and building teams in anticipation of the upcoming launch of the inaugural Imagine H2O Prize. More information on this event can be found at the event website (http://waterefficiency.eventbrite.com).
Imagine H2O hopes to positively affect the world’s water problems by forming a dynamic environment for water entrepreneurship. You can view our media page at (www.imagineh2o.org/media) for more information on the organization ...
Here's some more info on the contest they are sponsoring:
The topic for the 2009-10 competition is Water Efficiency. Competitors will provide solutions that reduce the demand or use of water in either agriculture, commercial and industrial, or residential applications. This could be done via demand response, recycling, reuse, or through any other smart management ideas. Total prizes given in 2009-10 will be $50,000. Winners will receive cash, in-depth business incubation including introductions to financiers, potential beta customers and go-to-market partners, and reduced-rate or free office space.
I was provided with two names and contact info if you are interested in learning more than can be gleaned from the websites:
Jared Dunnmon, jdunnmon@gmail.com, or
Director of Operations Aaron Schwartz, as@imagineh2o.org
If you think you have a great idea for fostering water conservation and efficiency this could be your big break. Certainly seems worth looking into.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
overdue - some discussion of the link between water and growth from the Joint City/County Water Study
Finally found some time to post on this. The committee discussed the report "Integrating Land Use Planning with Water Resources and Infrastructure Technical Paper" that can be downloaded here. My comments to the committee on the paper are also available on the study website, but I'll briefly discuss them here as well.
My two main points of discussion on the paper were in regards to the concerns expressed over operation of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) and their discussion of the Interim Water Service Policy established by the city manager in late 2007.
On the CAGRD, there has been extensive discussion recently about the physical disconnect between the replenishment activities of the District (whereby they recharge renewable water supplies to offset pumping by water utilities or subdivisions that are enrolled in the district) and the actual groundwater pumping that leads to the replenishment obligation. The point I wanted to make is that, in the way the CAGRD was created it was not really meant to replace pumped water in an aquifer with recharged, renewable water. As with much of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act (GMA), it was a water accounting system designed to ensure that accounts remain in balance within each Active Management Area (AMA). Without going into whether this was a good or bad thing, it is what our legislators decided to do to accommodate population growth and further development within AMAs. The problem we have encountered with it is not that the pumping is occurring far away from the recharge, but that the program has been much more popular than many originally envisioned, so the quantities of water being pumped have become pretty large, resulting in considerable water level drawdown in some locations. Here's what I said in my comments to the committee:
While doing more to use recharge for mitigation of pumping effects is a good idea in theory, I think it's pretty difficult to implement in practice.
As for the "interim water service policy" my opinions on this have been explored in the blog in the past (see this post). I really have a problem with this being referred to as a policy:
I also reiterated my earlier statement that one of the criteria for agreeing to serve a new development should be a requirement that the effluent from that development be available to the city to augment our reclaimed water supplies.
The future linkage between water supplies and growth is a critically important issue for the future of Tucson and other cities like it that have seen their available water supplies stretched almost to the physical limits by rapid growth in the recent past. There should be more exciting discussion on this issue when the committee tries to reach agreement on this portion of the Phase II report.
My two main points of discussion on the paper were in regards to the concerns expressed over operation of the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) and their discussion of the Interim Water Service Policy established by the city manager in late 2007.
On the CAGRD, there has been extensive discussion recently about the physical disconnect between the replenishment activities of the District (whereby they recharge renewable water supplies to offset pumping by water utilities or subdivisions that are enrolled in the district) and the actual groundwater pumping that leads to the replenishment obligation. The point I wanted to make is that, in the way the CAGRD was created it was not really meant to replace pumped water in an aquifer with recharged, renewable water. As with much of the Arizona Groundwater Management Act (GMA), it was a water accounting system designed to ensure that accounts remain in balance within each Active Management Area (AMA). Without going into whether this was a good or bad thing, it is what our legislators decided to do to accommodate population growth and further development within AMAs. The problem we have encountered with it is not that the pumping is occurring far away from the recharge, but that the program has been much more popular than many originally envisioned, so the quantities of water being pumped have become pretty large, resulting in considerable water level drawdown in some locations. Here's what I said in my comments to the committee:
Due to constraints on land availability, complexity of hydrogeology, and cost considerations in implementing recharge that directly mitigates effects of pumping it will prove to be very difficult in practice.
... seeking to routinely and effectively mitigate pumping effects by suitable location of recharge will result in many situations where it would simply make more sense to utilize the renewable supplies for the new development, rather than enroll in the CAGRD, because the renewable supply will be brought close enough to make its use economical vs. the cost of recharge. If such policies were strongly pursued the need for the CAGRD would be virtually eliminated, but at considerable cost.
While doing more to use recharge for mitigation of pumping effects is a good idea in theory, I think it's pretty difficult to implement in practice.
As for the "interim water service policy" my opinions on this have been explored in the blog in the past (see this post). I really have a problem with this being referred to as a policy:
I believe it is overly optimistic to refer to this as a “policy” when in reality it is more of an acknowledgment that no policy has ever existed. The former city manager acknowledged as much in an interview published in the Daily Star last October. Until there is an actual policy to evaluate requests for extending water service to new development the City is entirely at the whim of outside forces that will determine how water is supplied to new developments outside of the obligated service area.
I also reiterated my earlier statement that one of the criteria for agreeing to serve a new development should be a requirement that the effluent from that development be available to the city to augment our reclaimed water supplies.
The future linkage between water supplies and growth is a critically important issue for the future of Tucson and other cities like it that have seen their available water supplies stretched almost to the physical limits by rapid growth in the recent past. There should be more exciting discussion on this issue when the committee tries to reach agreement on this portion of the Phase II report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)