Showing posts with label Water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Water. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

One way to have a drought resistant lawn

Out here in the Western U.S. we have an issue with little amounts of rain.  In Northern California we kind of ignore the real effect of the lack of rain, and continue growing lawns with grass as if we lived out east where it rains all the time.  Regular grass just doesn't make ecological sense here because we don't get rain for most of the year.  Most years the rain starts around November and ends in March and the rest of the year it's blue skies and no rain, except the last couple years the rain hasn't been starting until February (can you say "global warming"?). 

This morning on my walk I saw this:-

In case it's not clear - this yard is full of rocks.  Specifically the smooth rocks often called "river rock". 

Rocks don't need to be watered, meaning that this part of this family's yard does not require any expenditure of water, meaning that it's drought friendly.  Right?

There are other ways to do "drought friendly" of course.  Such as choosing plants that make sense in the local climate, rather than importing plants that make sense for other climates.  I would rather that this yard have drought friendly plants than rocks, because having more plants in the world helps the atmosphere, but at least they're doing their part to have drought friendly landscaping.

By the way the house across the street had a different take on "drought friendly".  Bare dirt.  No grass or other plants, means the yard doesn't require watering, but it's rather sub-optimal.  The yard next to that one had yet another take -- mulch that suppresses plant growth.  Again, a nice way to avoid having to water the lawn but sub-optimal to the preferential method of planting drought friendly plants.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Arizona beginning to look at long term sustainable water use policies

Arizona is a dry place, most of it's a desert. People have lived there for millennia and done so by understanding the environment and how to work with the environment. However westerners (us) in Arizona are flouting the natural ecosystem and it's most obvious in the water use patterns.

This is a good thing - for them to be studying water use on a 100 year time horizon.

Arizona's First Ever Statewide Study Projecting Water Use Praised by Conservation Group

Report Shows Need to Ensure Future Water Supplies, Protect Natural Resources

PHOENIX, Oct. 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The first ever statewide report projecting Arizona's water supplies and demands over the next century is a key first step to "ensure that physical limits to water supplies don't limit Arizona's economic prosperity or the legacy of its natural resources," according to Environmental Defense Fund.

"This is the kind of forward-looking process that is needed for Arizona to ensure that it has secure water supplies for the future of its communities and natural resources, including its desert rivers and streams," said Jocelyn Gibbon, a Phoenix-based water law attorney for the Colorado River program at Environmental Defense Fund. "It also shows the need for a robust, well-funded Department of Water Resources to take a leadership role in developing creative solutions for the future. We need to ensure that physical limits to water supplies don't limit Arizona's economic prosperity or the legacy of natural resources that we leave to our kids."

The report, scheduled to be released today by the state's Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) to the Arizona legislature, projects annual water use in the state could grow steadily from current levels of about 7.1 million acre-feet to between 9.9 to 10.6 million acre-feet per year in 2110, a jump of nearly 40 to 50 percent.

"Water is an essential element to Arizona's prosperity...It is clear that meeting the demand for additional water supplies in the 21st century requires inventive action to be taken and consideration of new ways to expand supplies," the report concludes. "Arizona must develop a broad portfolio of solutions to meet the myriad of challenges that are inherent in this diverse state. Finally, decisions must be made regarding what solutions will be most effective in discrete regions, how those solutions will be funded, and whether implementation of the solutions requires legislative changes."

Last year, the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 2661, which created the WRDC to assess the current and future water needs of Arizona.

The Commission's tasks include:

  1. Considering the projected water needs of each Arizona county in the next 25, 50, and 100 years;
  2. Identifying current and potential future supplies and the legal and technical issues associated with their development;
  3. Identifying possible financing mechanisms for acquisition, treatment and delivery of water supplies; and
  4. Making recommendations regarding further studies and evaluations.

The final report released today includes data and reports from five committees, recommendations related to future studies and evaluations, and the suggestion that the Commission continue to meet.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) praised the Arizona Department of Water Resources and stakeholders for their efforts in developing the report information quickly and cooperatively under a tight deadline. EDF made particular mention of the work of the Environmental Working Group established by the Commission, which mapped and catalogued natural resources in Arizona that are dependent on water.

"The county-by-county inventory of natural resources dependent on water begins to illustrate how much the continued flow of water in rivers, streams, and other natural features means to the state," concluded Gibbon. "Arizona's incredibly rich and diverse ecosystems depend on reliable water supplies, as do communities across the state. We have a lot of work to do to prevent those supplies from being depleted."

The report identifies some next steps that could be taken towards planning for the state's water future, including evaluating the effectiveness of alternative water supply solutions for diverse areas of the state, and incorporating information about water for rivers and natural resources into future planning. The current report does not evaluate risks to these natural resources.

Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Visit us on Twitter @EveryDayFactoid and facebook.com/EnvDefenseFund.

Contacts:Jennifer Witherspoon, (415) 293-6067, Crowley, (202) 550-6524-c, Gibbon, (602) 510-4619-c,

SOURCE Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Defense Fund
Web Site: http://www.edf.org

Friday, September 16, 2011

What the Frack? Poisoning our Water in the Name of Energy Profits | Water | AlterNet

One of the promising sources of natural gas is shale formations. There has been many articles recently claiming our energy problems are solved by shale gas. However this Alternet article points out that shale gas extraction involves piping water into the shale formation. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique that releases natural gas trapped in underground shale formations by injecting water, chemicals, and sand to "frack" the rock structures and release the gas. Often, large quantities of groundwater contaminated by chemicals, radioactive elements, or other minerals are produced in the process. Unless great care is taken, this "produced water" mixed with water used for fracturing can flow to the surface or into groundwater systems and contaminate land, drinking water supplies, and natural waterways. In other words, mining shale gas most likely involves widespread poisoning of water systems.

Original Author: 
reikiman

Faces of Climate Change: Women on the Front Lines - MORE Magazine

Imagine having to walk six hours for a drink of water. Or being surrounded by so much rising water your ancestral homeland is sinking before your eyes. Or that the ice that has literally supported your community for untold generations is cracked, splitting and swallowing your loved ones, along with their way of life.

Original Author: 
reikiman

Friday, June 24, 2011

It's easy to forget the value of clean water until you don't have any

Water is life. Without water we die, within a couple days. Today I was at home working on the book I'm writing, and the landscaper (paid for by the landlord) comes knocking on my door that the water sprinkler system in the back yard was spewing water. One thing led to another and currently the water is entirely cut off at the house and it's unclear when the handyman will come over to fix things. In the meantime I have various gizmos around the house like toilet, kitchen sink, and washing machine that are no longer functioning. It's gifting me an exercise in recognizing the value of clean water.

WAKE UP! One of the things modern society infrastructure has misled us into believing is an infinite supply of clean water. We just go to the faucet, turn the handle, and out comes some water. But what happens when the faucet no longer works? How will we survive?

The faucet will stop working for any of several reasons. A widespread disaster for example will knock the water system out of whack until it can be repaired. Those instances will hopefully be rare, and short lived, but I wonder how many people in Japan are still surviving on bottled water?

Another potential cause is population growth outstripping the water supply system. Or financial collapse rendering governments unable to continue maintaining the water supply systems. Or changing rainfall patterns due to global warming induced climate change rendering water sources unable to provide more water.

It's quite an experience - over 50 years of life during which I could always go to the faucet to get more water, and now the faucet doesn't work.

If this were a real emergency (I live in an earthquake zone, the San Andreas Fault less than 6 miles away) the firehouse across the street would be distributing emergency supplies, and I suppose I might be volunteering to help.

It's the other systemic failures (population growth, climate change, etc) which are the more troublesome. Here in California we don't get rain between April and November, and we rely on snowfall in the mountains being captured in reservoirs then pumped hundreds of mails across the state to reach the cities. Obviously the system could fail for any number of reasons, such as no more fuel to run the pumps. It's clear we can survive short term water supply disruptions but what about longer term ones? Where is California going to get water for the 10's of millions of people living here when climate change enforces a permanent rainfall reduction?

Anyway .. for those worried about me, don't. I know how to go out to the house water connection and turn it on. Turning it on means wasting water in the back yard, so I'll turn the water on in the morning when it's time to flush the toilet and hopefully take a shower. In the meantime I went to the drug store and bought 2 gallons of water.

Here's a conundrum for you about water supply. Flush toilets consume 2-3 gallons of water per flush. How much does that water cost?

With the municipal water you flush with, the cost is too small to worry about. Hence on municipal water we don't have any monetary incentive to be careful with water, and there is a lot of water wastage going on.

The 2 gallons of bottled water I just bought cost $2.18. If it cost you $3.27 per flush for the water, what would you do?

That's kind of the outrageousness of bottled water. Municipal water is extremely good quality, has actual safety standards that are actually enforced, unlike the complete lack of bottled water safety standards and complete lack of enforcement. Yet bottled water costs a zillion times more than municipal water. What's going on? For a wonderful movie on this question see: Tapped, a look at the dangers of bottled water

Also for a blog post about water supplies in post nuclear accident Japan: Panic over water in Japan based on official lies or on official confusion?

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Tapped, a look at the dangers of bottled water

That bottle of water you buy to quench thirst, that you chug down, then toss the bottle. Seems like an innocent act doesn't it? Do you understand the effects of that act? Do you realize that bottled water is more expensive than gasoline and is probably just municipal tap water?

The World Bank has estimated the value of the world water market at $800 billion, which has corporations salivating over their prospects if they can control the market for water. Traditionally water has been a free thing controlled by municipalities and at least in modern western countries municipal water has been very good, a success of modern technology, reduced the disease level which crippled prior generations of humanity, etc.

Tapped is one of many documentaries about water. It focuses on bottled water, and does an excellent job of covering the life cycle impact of that bottle of water. Watching this movie is a thought provoking experience that's likely to make you think a few times before buying your next bottle of water.

Commodities and corporate control of water

The first section of Tapped goes over the corporatization of water.

In the U.S. (and around the world) beverage companies are quietly buying up land and water rights, pumping water, bottling it, and selling it at huge profits. This creates conflict between public needs and corporate needs.

Local communities are sometimes up in arms because "their" water is being taken by these companies, leaving the local community high and dry. In some cases literally dry. The movie discusses several instances where the water bottling company kept on bottling water even during drought conditions when the local municipality was rationing water.

In some parts of the world the municipal water systems are being sold to corporations, with devastating effect. Tapped doesn't touch on this, and in fact this movie doesn't mention any other part of the world than the U.S. except to describe Nestle as a Swiss company.

The movie claims bottled water costs six cents a gallon to produce and bottle, and they charge us $6 a gallon to buy. It's price is 1900 times the cost of tap water, and we Americans buy 16 billion bottles of water a year. The issue is world-wide, however.

"There is enough water for human need, but not for human greed" - Mahatma Ghandi

Representative Kucinich is interviewed with a few choice things to say about the conflict of public need, and corporate greed. He claims that "Water is a basic human right" and that commodifying something as basic as water will lead to huge battles and problems.

Is bottled water healthy? Plastic made from oil?

Another large section of Tapped goes into some health effects of bottled water.

Primarily bottled water is sold in plastic bottles made of PET. PET is recyclable, but that's seeming to be its only redeeming value. PET, or Polyethylene terephthalate, is a thermoplastic polymer resin of the polyester family and is used in synthetic fibers, beverage, food and other liquid containers.

The makers of the movie claim that PET is made from Paraxylene, and spend a lot of time standing outside an oil refinery (Flint Hills) discussing the toxic disaster that oil refineries are. One would come away from this section thinking that the horrid side effects of oil refineries are purely attributable to plastic water bottles. In reality the plastic for water bottles is only one minor product coming from oil refineries, and the whole oil business is a horridly dirty and toxic thing.

In any case, plastic (not just for water bottles) tends to come from petrochemicals. That is, oil. PET is made from many chemicals, not just Paraxylene.

The purchase of plastic is one of the many ways we encourage oil companies to mine oil. If we stop buying plastic and stop other uses of oil, the oil companies will stop mining oil.

Buying plastic encourages mining oil, meaning plastic water bottles contribute to environmental degradation from the use of oil, and often oil industry environmental toxins harm our health. But, wait, that's not all.

Bottled water is not necessarily safe or clean.

Municipal water is tightly regulated by the EPA. Municipal water quality is measured many times a day, with reports publicly available on EPA websites. Productized bottled water is not regulated at all. Period. The agency which would regulate bottled water is the FDA, and they have only one person on the job. Part time.

It's starting to be understood that chemicals in the plastic leech into water. It's especially bad if the plastic gets heated. For example, left in a car trunk on a hot day.

This effect is true not just for water bottles, but any plastic container. What kind of container do YOU use to store left-overs? Do you nuke left-overs in the microwave? How many plastic chemicals go into your food when you do so?

It appears to not be well studied or understood, but Phthalates (Polyethylene terephthalate) easily leach out of plastics and are routinely found in human bodies. It's thought to be an endrocine disrupter and may be complicit in things like obesity.

Some water bottles (like the 5 gallon jugs) are made from Bisphenol A. In September 2010, Canada became the first country to declare BPA as a toxic substance. In the European Union and Canada BPA use is banned in baby bottles.

The movie shows congressional testimony where the FDA is made out to be a major villain covering up a major catastrophic problem about BPA. The FDA apparently only looks at industry scientific studies to determine safety, and has ignored studies from independent scientists, studies that have shown BPA to be incredibly dangerous.

Recycling and the islands of plastic in the ocean

Over the last few years, marine scientists have found great big garbage patches (gyres) floating in the oceans. Discarded plastic doesn't always get recycled. It's estimated that in the U.S. only 20% of water bottles are recycled, despite them being 100% recyclable. The bottles either end up in landfills, or incinerated, and some end up in the ocean.

Plastics in the ocean break down becoming shards of plastic, and the fish are swimming in a soup of plastic. What used to be oceans full of plankton are now filled with plastic, and that plastic is entering the food chain. There's already a risk that by 2050 there will be no fish left in the ocean, and this is one piece in the chain of causation. (see: Why is the world's biggest landfill in the Pacific Ocean? and 'Only 50 years left' for sea fish)

One highly successful program at encouraging recycling is the Container Deposit Systems (or Container Deposit Legislation). This is the fine print on bottles stating that, in certain states, the bottle will earn a five or ten cent fee because of a deposit paid by the manufacturer. This pays for the whole of the recycling system and results in high recycling rates, in states with the system. But the beverage companies fight container deposit legislation, because it costs them money.

Our right to protest

Do we have a right to protest the current state of affairs if we continue to buy bottled water?

The companies selling us this stuff continue doing so because we buy it. If we stop buying it, they'll stop making it. Right?

The laws governing access to water appear to be murky. For example the movie states that surface water (lakes, rivers, oceans) are a "public trust" while sub-surface water is not so carefully governed. In Maine they have a system of "absolute domain" which is described to mean that "he who has the biggest pump wins".

Water is a basic need for life. Humans quickly die without water, and water systems can easily spread disease. Modern water systems were a huge advance for public health. But today we risk corporations gaining control over this basic need.

The movie, Tapped, does a great job at opening ones eyes to the dangers outlined above.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Carbon Nanotube Membrane Elements for Energy Efficient and Low Cost Reverse Osmosis

NanOasis Technologies has received $2 million in DOE funding in the ARPA-E program to develop "Carbon nanotubes for reverse osmosis membranes that require less energy and have many times higher flux. Could dramatically reduce the cost and energy required for desalination to supply fresh water for our crops and communities." Water supplies in most of the world are threatened and finding supplies of fresh clean water is a critical worldwide need.

They are one of several companies pioneering the use of carbon nanotubes in reverse osmosis membranes. They claim their technology "substantially lowers energy use, size and capital requirements for desalination, and other water purification and fluid separations applications." The technology is based on work by Dr. Jason Holt, co-founder of NanOasis, following his work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

NanOasis membranes consist of a thin, dense polymer film having carbon nanotube pores (or holes) atop a highly porous support. The super smooth inside of the nanotubes allow liquids and gases to rapidly flow through, while the tiny pore size can block larger molecules. By filtering out larger molecules it automagically purifies water.

Membranes that have carbon nanotubes as pores could be used in desalination and demineralization. Salt removal from water, commonly performed through reverse osmosis, uses less permeable membranes, requires large amounts of pressure and is quite expensive. However, these more permeable nanotube membranes could reduce the energy costs of desalination by up to 75 percent compared to conventional membranes used in reverse osmosis.

One of the main problems with reverse osmosis desalination tech to date has been that the basic process of pumping water and forcing it through a membrane to separate out the salt is highly energy-intensive, making for a high cost. The energy (electricity primarily) is used to pump water at high pressure through membranes. That electricity accounts for perhaps 44 percent of the cost of reverse osmosis desalination. The LLNL announcement of Dr. Holt's earlier work claims "these more permeable nanotube membranes could reduce the energy costs of desalination by up to 75 percent compared to conventional membranes used in reverse osmosis."

NanOasis Technologies

Nanotube membranes offer possibility of cheaper desalination

Cheap Drinking Water from the Ocean

Beyond Salt: Desalination Startup NanOasis Eyes Wider World of Clean Water

Monday, September 7, 2009

Review: Flow: For Love of Water (2007)

An astonishingly wide-ranging film. An informed and heartfelt examination of the tug of war between public health and private interests. The story is about water supply, and it covers the global scale of this problem. A little-covered problem all around the world is the delivery of fresh clean water to everybody, the overtaxing of existing water systems, etc. Water is a core human need e.g. we die within two days if we do not have water, and there are many diseases that can be carried in water.

The movie builds a case against the growing privatization of the world's dwindling fresh water supply with an unflinching focus on politics, pollution, human rights, and the emergence of a domineering world water cartel. Interviews with scientists and activists intelligently reveal the rapidly building crisis, at both the global and human scale, and the film introduces many of the governmental and corporate culprits behind the water grab, while begging the question 'CAN ANYONE REALLY OWN WATER?'

One of the transformations covered in this movie is the privatization and commercialism of the water system. All around the world local water systems are being bought up by transnational corporations like Vivendi and Nestle, who then find ways to do corporate profiteering on the back of the core human need for water. For example they're demanding the poorest of the poor pay a few cents for each jug of water, money they can't afford to spend. And in many cases as they cannot afford the commercial water they go down to the local river to get water, but the local river is polluted, full of sewage or industrial waste, they get sick and die.

Around the world there are protests against this system and the protesters are portrayed as believing themselves to be in a life or death struggle. For example a village in India is shown where a Coca-Cola plant was in operation across the street, they described their water as "tasting bad" ever since the plant opened, and they conducted a daily protest for two years against the plant. Eventually the plant was forced to be shut down.

Those are the kinds of things the movie shows. On the flip side from those problems a value is repeated over and over - our cultural tradition is that water, like air, cannot be owned.

For example a case in Michigan has Nestle operating a bottling plant where they are pumping ground water from dozens of wells in the area. Over 400,000 gallons per day of water pumped and bottled for sale. As a land owner they have a right, so the movie says, to use the water from their land. But clearly the "right of use" doctrine wasn't conceived to be conducted at such a large scale. The protesters in that case explain "right of use" as not conveying ownership.

The movie has a huge flaw in the form of an unstated corollary problem. Population growth.

Population growth is a large factor in driving the increase in water use. In 1900 the world human population was around 1 billion people, today it's around 6-7 billion people and rapidly growing.

Obviously whatever water purification and delivery system existed in 1900 has to have become overtaxed by the population growth. Of course more water systems have been built in the intervening years. My point is that to accommodate population growth the water purification and delivery systems have to increase in scale to match.

Most of the movie is living with rural farming communities. People who have mechanical pumps and are accustomed to carrying a jug to a river or well to fetch water. With 6.5x the number of people plus all the industrial increases since 1900 obviously the amount of toxics in the water will have increased since 1900. A local community who could adequately get water from their local well in 1900 needs something else today to accommodate increased population and increased need to purify the toxic stuff out of the water.

The movie says nothing about these problems. This makes the movie very interesting, and full of stunning visuals, but very deeply flawed.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

A simple method of water purification - the Watercone

In many parts of the world access to clean water is a key problem. Water purification is the process of removing undesirable chemical and biological contaminants from raw water. The goal is to produce water fit for human consumption or other specific purposes. In general the methods used include physical process such as filtration and sedimentation, biological processes such as slow sand filters or activated sludge, chemical process such as flocculation and chlorination and the use of electromagnetic radiation such as ultraviolet light. The purification process of water may reduce the concentration of particulate matter including suspended particles, parasites, bacteria, algae, viruses, fungi; and a range of dissolved and particulate material derived from the minerals that water may have made contacted after falling as rain.

Water purification can be an energy intensive process and there has been a long quest for effective purification methods. For example boiling water, capturing and condensing the steam, requires an energy input required to boil water. If the energy comes from a fuel like oil or coal there is the addition of carbon emissions from burning the fuel. It also would tie the need for water to consumption of a nonrenewable resource like fossil oil or coal. The Watercone is a very simple way to purify water that uses sunlight as the energy to boil the water.

The cone is placed over a pan containing water. The pan should be black for best heat absorption. The cone has a trough along the inside rim to catch water. Water evaporates from the pan, moves upward, is caught on the inside of the cone, then drips down to the trough. So simple.

The WATERCONE(r) system can be referred to as a one step water condensation process with a 40% effectiveness degree (GTZ Germany). Based on evaporation levels of 8.8 Liters per square meter (average solar irradiation in Casablanca, Morocco), the WATERCONE(r) (with a base diameter of 60 - 80 cm) yields between 1.0 to 1.7 Liters of condensed water per day (24 hours). The salty / brackish Water evaporates by way of solar irradiation and the condensation from that Water appears in the form of droplets on the inner wall of the cone. These droplets trickle down the inner wall into a circular trough at the inner base of the cone.

I like many things about this design. It is simple and easy to understand. However the implementation is made from PVC plastic, and it contributes to more plastic existing in the world. Pondering a different way to implement this design in my mind I see a glass cone rather than a plastic cone and perhaps it can be a little bigger.

External Media

Monday, November 24, 2008

Endless water supplies from ElementFour's WaterMill product

An unrecognized looming crisis is the availability of fresh clean water. Water supply systems are overloaded delivering water to current populations, and in many countries the water simply is not safe. And of course our ancestors also had to deal with unsafe water supplies, it was modern water treatment with all its chemicals that enabled us to have safe clean water available just by twisting the water tap.

In any case ElementFour has developed something cool. The WaterMill is a gadget that draws water directly out of the air. As they say: "The atmosphere contains 4 to 25 grams of water vapor per cubic meter, while the WaterMill can change 10% to 40% of that to liquid. Water vapor is constantly replenished by Earth's natural cycle, so extracting water from the air can continue indefinitely without impacting local ecosystems."

Their current product is meant for home use. It mounts to the outside of a home, and provides up to 13 quarts per day of water. For the future they claim the technology can scale up to larger scale use such as irrigation systems, disaster relief, bottled water production, etc. Oooh... an obvious brand name for a future bottled water company: AirWater ..

Uh... trying that domain name led me to a competitive product: Xziex Atmospheric Water Generator

Both of these companies have a message: One sixth of the worlds population does not have access to clean water, and this kind of product can reduce that number

Maybe so but only if the price is low enough for an indigenous poor person in a primitive rural place can afford to pay for the gadget. The WaterMill is not yet available for purchase, but the XZIEX unit is available right now for $2500. Eek. That price is affordable only by the rich in modern societies where there already is clean water (generally). Perhaps this unit could be popular in India where there are rich people and the water system isn't so clean.

They present an idea that the water in the atmosphere is naturally replenished by the natural ecosystem. This is true, the water in the atmosphere is what we call humidity. Humidity is added from water evaporation from lakes and streams, humidity becomes clouds, and humidity becomes rain. This is the natural ecosystem that ends up producing the fresh water we draw from lakes and rivers.

A question comes to mind is if a gadget like this were to become widespread what disturbance does it make to the natural ecosystem?

The atmosphere already produces the water we drink, through natural means the atmosphere produces rain which produces lakes and rivers. It behooves us to make the best use of that resource, of course. The question I'm pondering is about deploying gadgets that also draw water out of the atmosphere, in addition to the water the ecosystem naturally draws out of the atmosphere. The natural ecosystem produces from the atmosphere the water that feeds lakes and rivers, so gadgets which also produces water from the atmosphere draws water from the same source as what feeds the rivers and lakes.

Of course if there are only a few of these units in use there's nothing to worry about. What if these companies are successful and they deploy billions of these units, and deploy large scale units?

An article in the Gaurdian discusses the WaterMill with statements like ... The demand for water is off the chart. People are looking for freedom from water distribution systems that are shaky and increasingly unreliable. Yeah, there's a big business opportunity here to provide water outside the normal water distribution systems. And there are many places in the world which lack good normal water distribution systems.

Another point: For the environmentally conscious consumer, the WaterMill has an obvious appeal. Bottled water is an ecological catastrophe. In the US alone, about 30bn litres of bottled water is consumed every year at a cost of about $11bn (£7.4bn). Yeah, bottled water is a crazy product especially in countries where adequate clean safe water is available at every tap. And to think of the oil being used to produced those bottles...

There are other methods through this madness.

We can make better use of the water supply we already have. Rather than use the water once and pour it down the drain, what about greywater systems? A grey water system diverts water from being poured down the drain and uses it for irrigation. There are known safe methods and regulations about the use of grey-water.

Direct collection of rainwater is simple in many places and again can be used for many purposes. Rainwater is usually safe clean water, and can certainly obviously be used for irrigation.

External Media

Saturday, July 29, 2006

On the Roof of Peru, Omens in the Ice

On the Roof of Peru, Omens in the Ice: The article concerns itself with Andean glaciers in Peru. They're retreating, like other glaciers around the world. It's a sign of a warming climate. I want to write about this because of a trip I took to the Andes 11 years ago.

In 1995 I was able to take a trip to witness an ancient Quechua ceremony that is performed every year at their Winter Solstice (what is, to us, the summer solstice). The Qu'oyllu'riti festival draws 50,000 or more natives of the Andes, and the year I attended there were only 100 or so foreigners. The festival site is very remote, far up in a valley where there is a glacier at the head of the valley. The story they told me is they're commemorating the site where, shortly after the Spaniards arrived in the 1500's, a small child was seen whom they took as Jesus. There's a story that was told, but later reading about this festival tells me the ceremony has been performed for thousands of years, and this is another instance of Christianity overlaying itself over a native ancient custom.

It is a three day festival where the participants are representatives sent from villiages in the Andes, from Bolivia, and I think even from the Amazon rain forest. Each villiage has performers who perform their version of a common song, each band of performers has their own costuming, and the music they play all follows the same tune but with small differences unique to each group. There are other aspects to the festival, such as fireworks, including a loud cannon that shoots off every minute or so, and a group of people who dress like a certain bear known in the Andes and are charged with keeping peace, order, and the spiritual nature of the event. There is a rather large church of a Catholic style.

But, what is the point of all this, and what about the glaciers? The point of this festival is the glaciers. They see the glaciers as containing the purest of water. The spiritual leaders of this festival go onto the glaciers and do special ceremonies, and this festival is a major initiation time for the Quechua shamanic practitioners. There is special care taken to collect the ice from the glacier, and bring it back to each individuals home villiage for special ceremonies for those who could not leave.

It was clear to me the ecology of that area relied on the glaciers for water throughout the year. They seemed to not get much rain during the summer, and instead had collection of snow and ice on the glaciers that fed the rivers that provided the water they need to live. Oh, and not only is it the water the Andeans need to live, but that same water feeds a large portion of the Amazon basin below them.

The article linked above tells this story with scientific facts. It tells of scientists observating the glaciers retreat, how the nature of the glaciers have changed over the years, and how the local farmers are worried about their future. The article describes how one farmer has shifted his work to growing flowers, and how he is able to earn money that way, but if the water stops running how can he live? He can't drink money.