In a new report: "Water Sector Governance in Africa," the African Development Bank (AfDB) claims that the only way to solve the water and sanitation crisis, which has plagued the African continent for over half a century, is by making people pay. But history warns that charging people for water could lead Africa into another water war.

 

The water sources of Africa are erratically placed throughout the vast land, and with a lack of solid infrastructure to properly distribute and regulate the safety of the water; many people are forced to walk miles to obtain unsafe drinking water. Because of these sparse and unregulated water sources, 2,000 African children die from diarrhea everyday. In fact, diarrhea has become the number one killer of children in Africa, and although these deaths are entirely preventable, the AfDB states that new investors and paying customers are the only ways to make water infrastructure and services sustainable.

 

The AfDB states: "Over 25 years have passed since the water decade and the truth remains that adequate cost recovery is still one of the major obstacles to maintenance and expansion of drinking water supply in developing countries,"

 

The AfDB estimates that an annual $45 billion to $60 billion is needed to improve Africa's water infrastructure. But national budgets and financing from the Official Development Assistance (ODA) is not enough to bridge this multi-million dollar gap in funding. To fill the monetary gap the AfDB is turning to a greater user contribution as well as commercial financing and contributions from private foundations. 

 

Many feel that charging a fee for water goes against the UN's ruling earlier this year, which states access to clean water and sanitation as a human right. But the AfDB contends that it is a misconception to believe "that rights entitle people to free water; instead, water and sanitation should be clean, accessible and affordable for all. People are expected to contribute financially or otherwise to the extent that they can do so." The bank goes on to say that providing clean water and sanitation free of charge distorts the customers understanding of its value, and leads to waste.

 

Environmental activist and author Vandana Shiva argues that the people's value of water is not based on its price. "Women who walk 10 miles for water do not waste a drop, even though their water is not provided through market transactions." Others believe that the privatization of water will separate the rich from the poor. Richard Maholo, leader of the South African Crisis Water Committee, is calling the privatization of water "a new kind of apartheid."

 

Earlier attempts to privatize the water and sanitation services throughout Africa have led to full-scale and violent water wars. As well, in 2000, a cholera epidemic broke out in South Africa due to a system of prepaid water meters that were previously put in place. Since citizens could not afford to pay the meters fee for water, they were forced to search out water in polluted rivers and canals. These diseased filled water sources caused the epidemic, which infected 120,000 people and killed 265.

 

With half of the African countries being off-track to meet the Millennium Development Goals for clean drinking water set by the UN global action plan, it is obvious that a solution needs to be found for this mounting water crisis in Africa. But it is more then likely that another attempt to privatize water will only conjure the same results as past attempts, and leave Africa in further turmoil.

Photo: Water pump ACF, Julien Harneis from Flickr used under Creative Commons Copyright.

As we learned from Venice Tap Water Campaign a Success, Italy is the top consumer of bottled water per person in the world.  Each person drinks 55 gallons of it per year, resulting in an enormous amount of waste.  Only about 35% of plastic is recycled in the country, leaving most to settle in overflowing landfills.  Additionally, water is often trucked huge distances from its original source before it reaches consumers, tacking fuel consumption and CO2 emissions onto its already fouled environmental record.

Italy took a step to change all that when its largest retailer CO-OP supermarket launched an ad campaign that urges consumers to stop buying bottled water, or at least purchase water that comes from local sources.  The company anticipates a reduction in bottled water sales of 140 million dollars in the coming year and contributes about a half of that to its own ad campaign.

 

"We did a life-cycle analysis of mineral water in bottle and we discovered strongest impact is made by the transportation," explains social policy director of CO-OP Marisa Parmigiani. This led to the decision to display maps in their stores for each brand of bottled water sold, explaining how far the product had to travel before reaching its destination.  The most local brand of water also happens to be the store brand.  However, they have also changed their suppliers in an attempt to reduce travel distances and therefore pollution.

 

The company hopes to spark the population's interest in the environmental concerns behind bottled water and switch them to tap.  Their ad campaign created to do the job portrays an Italian comedian filling up a glass of water in a stream and carrying it through the polluted streets before reaching home and filling up a new glass of fresh tap water.

 

One Italian environmental group Legambiente's spokeperson Viviana Valentini says that many Italians think bottled water is superior simply because of advertising campaigns and that in fact, tap water is monitored far more closely than bottled.  Hopefully a riposte in a similar style of advertising will help even the score and bring one home for the tap water team.

 

Check out the original Italian ad below:

Governor David Paterson has taken the middle ground on the issue of fracking until more of the science and groundwater effects are documented.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a technique used to access natural gas by drilling into rock formations and injecting a slew of chemicals, water, and sand.  Many environmental groups argue that this process can be extremely hazardous in polluting groundwater sources, since companies are not obligated to disclose the types of chemicals that they use.  There are two types of fracking: lateral and horizontal. While lateral is the most common, horizontal fracking is the more worrisome of the two. After drilling deep into the ground, they proceeds horizontally, reaching more surface area, which has a higher risk of contaminating the water table with chemicals and gas.

 

Paterson vetoed a bill that would have curbed fracking, and instead issued a moratorium on "high-volume, horizontal hydraulic fracking."  While the moratorium is set for a longer period (July 1, 2011) than the original bill's May 15, 2011 expiration date, it only applies to certain kinds of  horizontal fracking, that are less common. The vetoed bill would have applied to all fracking activity. 

 

Executive Director Brad Gill of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York is "pleased" on the governor's decision and agrees with Paterson's statement that the bill was "well intentioned, [but] would have a serious impact on our state if signed into law," including job losses.

 

However, not everyone is so contented with the outcome.  Watershed program director Craig Michaels of Riverkeeper, a New York based environmental group, worries that companies will abuse this partial moratorium.  "The environmental community will be watching closely to assure that industry does not side-step environmental review by conducting an onslaught of vertical drilling and then converting those vertical wells to horizontal wells."

 

Governor Paterson is not the only decision-maker on the topic of fracking, though.  The Delaware River Basin Commission, which oversees the Delaware River watershed is moving to allow fracking, which will affect parts of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.  Paterson objected to these proposed rules, stating that it would only cause "confusion, duplication, redundant regulatory fee assessments, differing regulations in different locations, and possible mismanagement."

 

The EPA is investigating the potential effects of ground water pollution while Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is debating forcing gas companies to disclose the chemical concoction they inject into the ground during hydraulic fracturing.

Photo Credit: PGH2 10, Marcellus Protest from Flickr used under Creative Commons Copyright.

In the past decade the fast paced lifestyle of the American population has caused us to reflexively become dedicated patrons of the bottled water industry. It is estimated that Americans alone buy 29.8 billion plastic water bottles per year, and most of us can rattle off the names of at least 10 different bottled water companies. Yet, besides the short time we spend with each bottle of water we consume, how much knowledge do we really have concerning the birth, life, and death of the plastic water bottle?

 

The Birth:

 

Most plastic bottles are made from polyethylene terephthalate plastics, also known as PET. PET plastics are made by extracting hydrocarbons from crude oil and mixing them with other chemical catalysts to create plastic pellets that are later formed into the bottles used by bottled water companies. Over 17 million barrels of oil are used in our yearly production of bottled water, which is enough fuel to run an astonishing 1 million cars for an entire year. As well, it takes 3 times the amount of water to produce the plastic bottle as it does to fill it. Yet PET plastic bottle production still continues because it is so cost effective.

 

The most common alternative to PET plastic bottles is bioplastics. Bioplastics are seen by many to be a clear alternative to PET bottles because they do not require crude oil (a non-renewable resource) in their production. However, bioplastics are not as clear as a solution as you may think. The production of bioplastics require a large amount of farmland to produce the crops that make up the bio-bottles. These crops then require large quantities of water, fuel and other resources to successfully produce enough of a yield for a successful production. Other downfalls of bioplastics include the high price of production and its tendency to decompose too rapidly.

 

The Life:

 

The actual useful life span of the common plastic water bottle is short lived to say the least.  After a month or so on a store shelf, the purchased bottle of water is useful only for the amount of time it takes to quench your thirst. Once the bottle is discarded it faces only three fates: to be recycled, reused, or thrown away.

 

The Death:

 

One glimmer of hope in the death of a plastic bottle is its rebirth through recycling. Unfortunately only about 30% of all plastic bottles get recycled, leaving the rest to sit in landfills or as litter. Each year in California alone, 1 billion water bottles fail to be recycled. If recycled, these bottles could have been made into 74 million XL T-shirts, or 74 million square feet of carpet, among other items. 

Many bottles that are not recycled or landfilled end up in the ocean. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area in the Pacific ocean, that by some estimates is twice the size of Texas, is filled with plastic bottles and other garbage.

 

Alternatives?

Bioplastics hold a brighter future within the realm of recycling because they can simply decompose into the soil, returning to their original state. Unfortunately, not until bioplastics become more cost effective and are designed to require less resources will they be a viable replacement for PET plastic bottles.

 

When reviewing the time, money, and resources that must be exhausted in order to produce a plastic or bioplastic water bottle, it seems utterly irresponsible to continue such a means to an end. The reusable water bottle is still the best alternative to our dependence on bottled water. With both environmental and fiscal benefits, it seems to be a "no-brainer."

Photo: Plastic Water Bottles Mountain Ice Hunger Takes Flight KFB, stevendepolo from Flickr used under Creative Commons Copyright.

According to a United Nations report, current carbon dioxide emissions are causing the acidity levels of the world's oceans to rise at the fastest rate in 65 million years. This rapid change in the oceans pH levels is causing irreversible effects to marine life and threatening a food source essential to human survival.

 

Since the Industrial Revolution the acidity of the oceans has grown by 30%, and at current emission rates the acidity could rise by another 150% by the end of the century. The oceans are acting like a large carbon sink by absorbing 25% of the carbon dioxide emissions generated by the burning of fossil fuels,  leaving marine life to suffer the consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels.

 

This acidification has occurred so rapidly in the past 20 years that marine biologists and recreational divers have watched coral reefs die before their eyes. Coral reefs, which are considered the "rainforests of the ocean," cover less than 1% of the ocean floor yet they contain more then 25% of all known marine species.  John Vernon, the former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science warns that the acidification could conceivably wipe out the majority of the worlds already weakened coral reefs within a generation or two.

 

Not only are we destroying some of the most diverse ecosystems in existence, we are damaging one of the worlds largest sources of nourishment. The world's population depends greatly on the ocean to provide a large amount of needed protein. Carol Turley, a senior scientist at Britain's National Oceanography Center, is greatly concerned with the acidifications effects: "We need to start thinking about the risk to food security."

 

If we are not quick to embrace alternative energy sources and break free from our dependence on fossil fuels the future of our oceans are not very bright.

 

"What were once thriving coral gardens that supported the greatest biodiversity of the marine realm will become red-black bacterial slime, and they will stay that way." - U.N. report

Photo: Coral Reef 3, Androfire from Flickr used under Creative Commons Copyright. 

Bottled water versus tap water- This is the debate at the heart of TapIt. And here is another reason to turn you (or your friends) over to the benefits of tap.

 

One of the main differences between bottled and tap is the way in which they're regulated. Tap water must conform to the standards set by the Clean Water Act and Drinking Water Protection Act monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  This federal agency has strict conformities of what is in public drinking water.  Bottled water, however, is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and often has higher amounts of allowed contaminants.  For example, the EPA allows a maximum of 0.01 parts per million (ppm) arsenic in tap water while the FDA allows a maximum of 0.05ppm--five times as much.

 

Additionally, consumers are given testing results on their tap water each year, yet there is no such law requiring bottled water companies to disclose any such contaminant testing information.  Studies have shown that even popular and "high-end" bottled water brands contain contaminants, including pollutants such as caffeine, fertilizer residues, and chemical carcinogens.  Bottled water has many standards that are only voluntarily followed, and many tests have shown brands significantly exceeding these standards.

 

While many bottled water lovers often cite bottled water as being safer and cleaner than common tap water, clearly this is not truly the case.  And to top it all off, this unreliable water source costs you over a thousand times more than tap water. Thinking of making the switch yet?

 

For more information on the public water in your area, check out http://water.epa.gov/drink/local.

 

Photo Credit, Water Bottle shaymus 22 used under Creative Commons Copyright.

We are always in support of public water bottle refill stations. That is why it is great to see the launch of the Brita Hydration Station, a super fancy water fountain for schools, corporate campuses, malls and events.

A recent report titled the Overview of Greywater Reuse conducted by the Pacific Institute in Oakland, CA has demonstrated the potential use of gray water systems. Gray water systems reuse excess water created from our showers, washing machines, or sinks and after treating it though a filtration system.  About half of the water used in American homes can actually be reused for jobs such as watering lawns or flushing toilets, potentially reducing our water usage by half.  In a typical home without a gray water system, the water used to do these jobs are as clean as the water flowing from your faucet.  A gray water system offers an alternative that prevents pure water  from being unnecessarily used when recycled water could do just as well.  In essence, we don't need clean drinking water flowing into our toilets.

 

Gray water might just be the step into the future that we need to help staunch the endless need of water in this country.  Pacific Institute's senior research associate Juliet Christian-Smith explained, "The 20th century was dominated by a paradigm of water supply and water extraction which focused on large-scale centralized resources like reservoirs, canals and pipelines that have been very successful at moving water and providing a higher standard of living but also come with social, environmental, energy and economic costs that weren't apparent from the beginning...As we move into the 21st century, we're starting to think about other options ... such as demand management - conservation and efficiency - and to look at new technologies that reuse water."

While there are no federal guidelines for gray water systems and regulations vary from state to state,  most do have some laws concerning how citizens are able to reuse their water.  While some states such as California allow the water to be filtered naturally through the soil, most states require it to be treated before reuse to remove any pollutants.  Many states, including New York, are realizing the benefits of reclaimed wastewater and offering tax credits to install gray water systems.  Interested in helping reduce your water usage? 

Check out New York's Green Building Tax Credit or contact the Department of Environmental Conservation at 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1750 Phone: 518-402-9469 Fax: 518-402-9168.

For information on other states' gray water policies, including California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and others, check out Oasis Design, who gives not only __ but also explains more about the importance and benefits of gray water systems.

Situated on the west side of Sao Paulo in Brazil, this unique office building named Harmonia 57 is a lean, green, water recycling machine.

Completed in 2008, Harmonia 57 has been recognized for its inspired design and just recently won the Built Environment award from the Zumtobel Group. The modernly designed structure of Harmonia 57 is wrapped in an exoskeleton of tubes utilized as an irrigation network for the structures façade of plant life.

The outer wall of Harmonia 57 is wrapped in a porous concrete skin with plants nestled into small depression within its surface. The tubes wrapping the exterior of the building provide a steady source of water for the plant life, encouraging it to grow and spread amongst the surface.

This living wall contains plants that were specifically chosen to help insulate the structure and reduce noise. As well, the irrigation pipework is fused within the buildings design to serve secondary forms of functionality such as railings for staircases.

Harmonia 57's distinctive grass roof collects the rainwater and recycles it throughout the house, providing the water for not only the plants irrigation system but also for internal water needs, such as toilet and tap water. The grass roof also helps to lower heating and cooling costs by regulating the suns heat more efficiently then a standard shingle roof.

The well-devised structure of Harmonia 57 is a great model for the future of architectural design and engineering. The buildings ability to harness the benefits of organic materials as well as maximize the efficient use of natural water sources truly highlights the importance and convenience of sustainable design.

Photo Credit: Inhabitat

A new proposal has entered the Florida State Senate that if passed would add a 6% tax on all bottled water sold within the State. The Proposal, supported by Senator Evelyn Lynn would use these tax dollars to create an environmental trust fund to support new environmental programs.

Florida's environmental community has largely supported efforts to find financial backing for ecosystem restoration programs and clean up efforts, but not all have decided whether or not to back Lynn's taxation proposal. Mike Haridopolos, The Senate President, fated her efforts by stating, "if your piece of legislation raises a tax... I don't like your chances."

Not surprisingly, Nestle Waters of North America, who have a bottling plant stationed in Florida, are against the surcharge claiming it is "a bad idea, period."

But Senator Lynn sees this taxation as a way to fight against the high amounts of plastic waste that is infiltrating Florida's wildlife areas and deteriorating its ecosystems. Addressing her concerns with the bottled water industry Senator Lynn states, "I think it's very important that we protect the environment as much as we can and plastic bottles are creating all sorts of problems with our wildlife."

This is not the first time senator Lynn and other Florida officials have ruffled the feathers of bottled water companies that reside within the state of Florida. In 2009 Governor Charlie Crist proposed a legislation that would charge the bottling companies a per gallon water fee. Although the proposal failed to gain momentum, Lynn feels that these efforts were not in vain.

"I just feel that it's very important and even if it doesn't pass, it will make a statement," Senator Lynn stated in regards to her new surcharge proposal.

Even if the taxation proposal does not prove to be the best course of action for the state of Florida, it is still successful in raising awareness and sparking discussion amongst political figures and citizens on the environmental issues facing us all.

Photo: Sunset Panama City Beach Florida May 2009, Bob Therina from Flickr used under Creative Commons Copyright.

There are several times a day when we have the choice of single-use plastic containers.  Most of the time we choose the reusable option, but now and then you forget to bring your own bag and accept the plastic one.  Or maybe some days you ask yourself why plastic is really all that bad... Well here's a quick reminder of how much plastic escapes from our good intentions and into the open ocean.

Plastic particles in the sea mimic zooplankton, a staple in the diet of many fish and bird species. The particles are ingested by marine life and very often kill them.  Studies have shown that in some areas of the Pacific Ocean, plastic scraps actually outnumber zooplankton by a shocking six to one ratio. Worse yet, no area has been found to be free of the harmful plastic particles.

 

Plastic also accumulates into huge floating masses called gyres. The largest of these, known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" which is found in the center of the Pacific Ocean and is by many estimates, larger than the State of Texas. The gyres include not only discarded fishing nets, but also household items such as toothbrushes, plastic bags, and bottle caps that were thrown away and ended up washing into the ocean.  When plastic is mistakenly ingested by marine life, they  believe that they are getting nutrients from this "food", when in fact it is toxic. Sea creatures of all types are affected and killed by this floating miasma of plastic.

 

So while it's difficult to fully avoid all types of plastic in our busy lives, take a minute to consider your choices and the weight that they carry and always be sure to properly recycle the plastics that you do accumulate. Consult your city or town's website to find what types of plastic are accepted where you live. You can also use the website Earth911.com to find what recycling is available in your area.

Check out the videos below to get an interesting (and scary) overview of the plastic build-up in the Pacific.

 

 

Photo Credit, Kaisei Project

Everyone needs to eat, and with the current world population nearing 7 billion people, it should come to no surprise that this constant rise in the demand for food is creating a need for more efficient and productive agriculture practices.

One of the largest growing threats to the future of agriculture, and ultimately the future of human survival, is the misuse and diminishing amount of fresh water resources. Within the United States, agriculture uses 70% of all surface fresh water.

Recognizing that the worlds freshwater needs are only going to increase in the future, Scientist Dr. Sander Zwart and researchers at the Delft University of technology in the Netherlands have created a new technology that measures water productivity in agriculture by comparing crop yield to the volume of water consumed for its irrigation.

This new technology, utilizing sensors located on satellites, is allowing Dr. Zwart and his team to establish the amount of water needed for farmers to effectively irrigate their crops, and educate agricultural policy makers on efficient water consumption.

These earth observing satellites collect calculations on the minimum and maximum ground temperatures, the amount of available solar energy, and the amount of green vegetation to identify where water is being used efficiently and where it is being wasted. They can then identify the reasons for waste and help to better allocate and conserve their water supply.

Water is a necessity for crop growth. By tradition, farmers tend to use as much water as possible in the belief that this practice will result in higher yields. But contrary to these traditional beliefs, there are a multitude of situations where less water can be consumed without reducing crop yields. Dr. Zwart hopes that this idea of low water productivity will help encourage a "change in the mind-set" amongst farmers. He believes a change in farmers water use could have a significant impact on the preservation of the world's fresh water sources.

Photo: Family Farm, Royal_Broil from Flickr used under Creative Commons Copyright.