THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 3--LIFE

A common saying is: "you never miss the water until the well goes dry." The plain fact is that life today--all life--would not exist without water. Earth would be barren rock.

Humans, of course, are mainly composed of water. So, water certainly is essential for human life. However, humans also need food to sustain life. Without water, there would be no food. Water is essential to grow crops and to sustain livestock. No water, then no grains, fruit, vegetables, poultry, meat and fish.

Humans cleanse with water. We wash our bodies, our food, our clothes, our dishes, our cars, our houses,etc. with water. Without water, cleansing essentially would not be possible.

Manufacturing is dependent upon water. Our products have some connection with water either in the process of production or in the ingredients. Without water, this would not be possible.

Water is a primary protection against fires. Further, our recreation depends upon water. One cannot swim, fish, go boating without water.

One is reminded that W.H. Auden put it this way: "Thousands have lived without love, not one without water." So, what is the value of water? Essentially, water equals the value of life on Earth. Our planet seems to have been specially deigned for life. The earth, and all living things on it, are fortunate to have water--in all its forms and in all its quantities and locations--sufficient to sustain life as we know it. In that reality, the value of water in invaluable, an unmeasurable, boundless treasure.

Such a conclusion, however, has consequences for humans charged with responsibility to protect water resources so that their value is not diminished by waste, misuse, and ignorance. If we do not show love for our water, we may be treading on life without it.

THE VALUE OF WATER, PART 2--ORIGINS OF LIFE

The story of life is the story of water. As discussed in my recent postings, scientists have derived differing hypotheses as to the origin of water on Earth. They range from ice-bearing asteroids and meteors colliding with Earth to water-bearing cosmic dust particles binding together to form the Earth. However, there does not appear to be any cogent evidence to support these assertions. In point of fact, no one really knows how water was delivered to Earth.

Nevertheless, the fact is that there is water on Earth, in aquifers below the surface; in oceans, lakes, rivers, ponds and puddles on the surface; and in clouds above the surface. And, this water is in all its various forms and states.

So, what does this water mean for us? In the first instance, it appears that animal life on earth originated in water--in seas and oceans. How this happened, again, no one knows for sure. One hypothesis is that life came from rocks. Water, as a solvent, over time eroded certain minerals from rocks, resulting in chemical formation of amino acids from the mineral mix, which in turn resulted eventually in formation of living organisms.

Assertions of chemical evolution, however, were criticized in the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin" by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen. "They showed that attempts to explain the origin of the first living cell from simpler nonliving chemicals had failed and that these theories had specifically failed to explain the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life." (Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt", 2013, p. 341) In other words, chemistry alone could not produce information in DNA leading to life.

The oldest period in Earth history is called pre-Cambrian, perhaps a little over 4 billion years ago. The first forms of life appeared in the pre-Cambrian period, according to fossil records. They appeared in water, in seas and oceans. They were one-celled organisms and sponges, simple soft tissue organisms having few cell types.

After the pre-Cambrian period, the following period was the Cambrian, which began about 540 million years ago. The fossil record reveals that beginning about 530 million years ago, the "Cambrian Explosion" occurred. Literally, this was an explosion of a multitude of many different and complex animal forms in the seas and oceans. They include trilobites, jelly-fish like creatures, worm like things, shrimp like critters and shell bearing animals. Indeed some of the examples looked like something out of a 1950's science fiction movie. These Cambrian sea animals had sophisticated body plans, including such features as compound eyes, legs, outer skeleton, mouth, digestive system, stomach, reproductive organs, skin, wings and anus. In other words, these sea animals were characterized by features that we can expect to see in all forms of contemporary animal life.

The Cambrian Explosion appeared suddenly. There is no fossil record of any evolution or transition from the simple pre-Cambrian organisms to the complex body plans evidenced in the Cambrian fossils. Darwin's basic theory is that animals have evolved through the process of random mutations and natural selection. In his book "Darwin's Doubt", Meyer reviews Darwin's theory as well all of the off-shoots from that theory that have followed. Meyer concludes that Darwin and Neo-Darwin theories of evolution cannot explain how the genetic information and the novel proteins and systems to regulate expression of that information necessary to build the complex Cambrian body plans could arise. He concludes that the only supportable explanation for the source of the necessary genetic information to build the new body plans is "intelligent design."

The Earth is exceptional. It is designed for life. An important component of the design for life is water. And water was the environment for the beginning of animal life and its explosive Cambrian expansion into countless different and complex body plans. Clearly, water has had value.

DROUGHT: CAN GOVERNMENTS LEGISLATE CLIMATE CHANGE?

At an early age, school children probably learn that the age of a tree can be determined by counting rings in a cross section of its trunk. These rings reveal more than just age, however. By their width, they also reveal good years when rainfall enabled expanded growth, and bad years when conditions were less favorable.

Researchers have examined tree rings in Mongolia to study changes in climate as revealed by the rings.* As of the late 12th Century, Mongolia had been experiencing extensive drought. However, in the early 13th Century, the legendary Genghis Khan marched across Asia to establish his huge empire. Analysis of tree rings appears to show that Genghis benefitted a dramatic climate change that facilitated his rapid conquests. The climate change yielded a wet period that produced hearty grasslands for horses and livestock. "Wetter, milder conditions than the previous decades of drought would have given Genghis and his army significant advantages, including a constant supply of horses, increased agricultural production and other resources needed to support a centralized government and large military."**

Interestingly, after many years of favorable climate conditions, beginning in the 1990s, drought has returned to Mongolia. This climate change, in turn, has produced large livestock losses, soil degradation and migration from the countryside to cities.

The climate changes in Mongolia are just one example of the many documented climate changes in the Earth's history. In effect, they appear to be a natural attribute of the Earth, caused without any human activity connection. Whether climate changes are occurring today continues to be debated. If in fact climate changes are occurring, whether they are caused by human activity continues to be debated.

It seems that those who perceive that human activity is causing climate changes propose to change climate by legislation and regulation. Genghis Khan did not change climate to produce conditions favorable to his plans. He benefitted from a climate change that occurred naturally. If historically climate change is a natural phenomenon of Earth. can governments legislate climate change? If they could, that indeed would be climate change caused by human activity.

_______________________________________________

*Juskalian,"Climate and the Khan",Discover,
July/August 2015, p.31

**Id.at p.34-35

DROUGHT: ROUNDING UP THE UNUSUAL SUSPECTS

"But I don't want to go among mad people", Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

----Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

In the 1930s, the center of the United States became the "Dust Bowl" due to prolonged and pervasive drought. The dust was farmland topsoil wind eroded and blown away in dust storms, along with hopes and livelihoods of farm families. As memorialized in John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath", migrant workers and farmers displaced by years of Dust Bowl misery relocated to perceived better times in California.

Now, portions of California and several other western states are experiencing prolonged and pervasive drought which is stressing and displacing lifestyles and livelihoods of residents. Moreover, much of California is naturally dry, and is dependent upon external water sources to sustain population centers and irrigation agriculture. So, the choice now is becoming one of serious reduction in water use or migrating elsewhere, perhaps even back to the center of the country.

The usual approaches to reducing water use have been well publicized, such as
* recycling wastewater
* prohibiting yard watering
* mandating utilities to reduce water deliveries
* mandating reductions in farm irrigation
* requiring installation of low flow water appliances
* adopting inverse rate blocks that rise with volume

These "usual" approaches may produce some success, but perhaps some more "unusual" approaches could also help.

For example, on June 24, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a partnership that would invest millions of dollars to restore the Sierra-Cascade California Headwaters, which is the water source for agriculture and some 25 million residents.

One of the most dramatic periods of conservation in the Unites states was during World War II, when many materials and foods were needed for the war effort, forcing citizens to conserve. Two aspects come to mind: (1) citizens were well educated as to the need to conserve resources; and (2) many items were rationed, a form of mandatory conservation. Could these two aspects be applied to help reduce water demand in drought environments? For example, could a per capital standard of average daily water use be established for households, with high volumetric rates applied to excess monthly use?

Agriculture can pose a more difficult issue. There is a significant difference, obviously, between land that produces annual crops such as corn and land that is used for orchards of fruit and nut trees that take years to mature. Perhaps some land can be taken out of temporary production, with governmental financial assistance. Or, irrigation rights temporarily waived or reduced. However, some farms may have contractual water rights which would likely require mutual consent for reductions.

One unique source of additional water could be human sweat. A Swedish engineer created a device to harvest sweat from clothing and to purify it to drinking water. A sweaty T-shirt is said to have produced two teaspoons of clean water. However, sweaty socks may be more productive. A pair of human feet is said to yield a half-pint of sweat every day. If true, sixteen pairs of socks could yield one gallon a day. Perhaps, here is an opportunity for another government program to establish a sock exchange where people would bring in dripping socks and pick up dry ones.*

Two other solutions may be available. If people in California do not like the drought and water use limitations, they might consider moving to the Midwest, where there has been so much record-breaking rain this year that it is a "Flood Bowl."

Or, if people want to stay in California and want more rain, why not just ask God?

______________________________________________________

* Festa, "Sweat", Discover, July/August,2015, p.98

DROUGHT: WATER UTILITIES CONFRONT CONFLICTING POLICIES

"If you don't know where you are going any road can take you there."

---- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

The photo depicts the arid wonderland of the South Dakota Badlands. They are a drought stricken moonscape that stands in dramatic contrast to the verdant Black Hills 50 miles to the west.

The Badlands once were full of rich vegetation and animal life also. Fossils evidence now extinct critters such as sabre tooth tigers, sheep-like oredonts, rhinos and miniature horse. At another time, the landscape was under water.

Some have asserted that parts of California naturally are arid and subject to drought--where farming must depend upon irrigation and cities on water sources located elsewhere. Whether current drought conditions in California and other states may be due to climate changes or temporary weather conditions, water utilities must deal with drought in some rational manner. Unfortunately, they can confront conflicting policies that make rational solutions difficult. Some of these policy conflicts include the following:

* Legal Duty To Serve vs. Service Restrictions. Generally, water utilities have a monopoly in their given service areas. This is because of the costly infrastructure required to provide water service; rarely are there competing water utilities within the same service are. For their monopoly status, water utilities incur certain obligations: whether by statute or by court decision, water utilities generally are required to satisfy the water demands of customers within their service areas. This obligation likely can be expected to apply to both investor-owned utilities and to municipal-owned utilities.

However, there can be a conflicting policy when, for example, state or local governments seek to impose restrictions on the amount of water utilities may deliver to their customers. The restrictive regulation limiting water delivery can clash with the legal obligation to serve customer water requirements.

* Higher Rates To Force Conservation vs. Cost Of Service Ratemaking. Some have urged dramatic increases in rates, such as inclining rate blocks as volume of water delivered increases, as a way of forcing reductions in water usage. However, while such measures may appear to have merit from the standpoint of objective, they can clash with applicable legal requirements that to be reasonable, rates must be based upon costs of service.

* Higher Rates To Force Conservation vs. Affordability. Some have argued that higher rates will enable "market forces" to naturally enable the desired reductions in water usage, and thus conservation. However, such a policy may well conflict with the notion of affordability of water. While "affordability" is not a precise concept, one can assume that higher water rates will take a larger chunk out of low income earner budgets. Moreover, affluent customers may feel no pain from higher rates and continue to use their typical amounts of water, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the conservation effort.

* Higher Rates To Force Conservation vs. Reductions In Revenue. Assuming that increased rates are successful in creating reductions in usage, the end result of conservation may also be a reduction of needed revenue to the utility as eell as excess treatment and delivery capacity that still must be funded--pushing rates still higher or forcing excess capacity to be abandoned as no longer used and us full.

* Contracts vs. Abrogation Of Contracts. A water utility serves customers pursuant to contract, which includes the tariffs of a regulated utility and ordinances of a municipal utility. However, if a governmental authority imposes service restrictions, does such an action also abrogate the contracts between utility and its customers?

For water utilities in limited source water environments, determining the best road to travel can be perplexing and full of potholes of policy conflicts. Indeed, the best destination may not be clear. It may seem that the only road available could be a circle.

MOVING MOUNTAINS FOR WATER

According to to a recent report, withdrawal of large volumes of groundwater in California's Central Valley is causing nearby mountain ranges to rise and may also be triggering small earthquakes.*

Over the past 150 years, the aquifer in this area has been depleted by about 160 cubic kilometers of groundwater. A concern beyond the loss of such water is that the resulting mountain movement could stress the San Andreas Fault.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports that from 1900 to 2008, U.S. aquifers were depleted by more than twice the volume of water contained in Lake Erie and explains more than 2% of the observed global sea level increase during that period. In the period 2000-2008, the depletion rate averaged 25 cubic kilometers per year. Municipalities in the Gulf Coastal Plain, High Plains, Pacific Northwest and Desert Southwest have experienced declines of groundwater levels up to hundreds of feet. As an example, pumping from the large and important Ogallala aquifer since the 1940s has resulted in a lowering of the water table of up to 160 feet.

According to USGS, use of groundwater in the highly populated Milwaukee-Chicago corridor has reduced groundwater levels by as much as 900 feet. In the last half of the 20th century, Chicago suburbs experienced accelerated growth, with their water systems almost exclusively relying on groundwater. As pumping increased, wells were drilled deeper , not only to get more water but water of higher quality. As growth continued, however, wells became less reliable-- particularly deep wells such at the 1500 foot level or more, which began to mine salt water. Fortunately, for most of these communities eventually Lake Michigan water became available, enabling wells to be retired. Of course, cities away from Lake Michigan do not have Lake water as an option.

Draining of fresh water aquifers is not limited to the United States. It is a global issue. So, what is the point? It should be obvious. If this trend continues unabated by common sense conservation and development of alternative sources of supply, withdrawal of groundwater may not just move mountains--but people everywhere may have to move mountains to find water.
___________________________________________________________

*Science News, June 14, 2014, p.9

WASTE NOT, WANT NOT--BIG TIME

When it comes to governmental regulation, it seems that the focus on water conservation primarily is on ultimate users--particularly homeowners. Thus, in the United States, much regulatory attention has been given to water appliances such as low flow toilets, shower heads and faucets. Water utilities have experienced the effects of such efforts through reduced revenue and the need to increase rates to recover revenue shortfalls--which by itself can be a conservation measure.

However, perhaps water conservation also should be practiced on a broader scale, particularly by governmental entities. For example, drought conditions in California have been well publicized. Notwithstanding, it has been reported that the federal Bureau of Reclamation recently drained reservoirs into two California rivers to help baby salmon more quickly swim to the Pacific ocean. It has been asserted that the some 23 billion gallons water diverted for the benefit of fish would have been sufficient for the annual requirements of a city of 500,000.*

Recently, officials in Portland, Oregon drained a finished water reservoir of 38 million gallons of treated water after it was discovered that a man allegedly urinated into the reservoir. Subsequent test results should no health risk from the water.**

In the latter 19th Century, the Chicago River, which flowed into Lake Michigan, was reversed by diverting Lake water into the river. As the Lake was the water source for the residents of Chicago, it was found that they were coming down with cholera due to sewage that was being discharged into the river and entering the Lake. Today, more than 100 years later, Lake water still is being diverted to keep the river flowing backward, despite chlorination and other water treatment requirements and modern wastewater treatment.

On a smaller scale perhaps, water utilities also can participate in unnecessary loss of water. For example, one continues to see large quantities of water drained during hydrant flushing. And, many utilities continue to experience substantial leakage from their distribution mains.

If clean water is the limited resource that is claimed, then it may be incumbent that every one, including governmental entities and utilities, share in the responsibility to protect it for the benefit of humankind that really needs it.

________________________________________________________________

* "California Drains Reservoirs in the Middle of a Drought", Wall Street Journal,May 24-25, 2014, p. A11

** "Portland Criticized For Flushing Reservoir After Man Urinated In It, Water Online, May 16, 2014

WHERE IS HOME?

Most sources appear to define "home" as the place where a person lives--in effect, "home" means the same as "house" or other dwelling. Other definitions tend to be more metaphysical. For example, home is said to be the place where a person belongs; or is a place of refuge or rest; or to use the classic definition, "home is where the heart is."

Frankly, however, none of these definitions adequately characterize "home" for me. Perhaps the best definition I have found was in a television documentary a few years ago. The film featured a very old man who was living alone in a modest cottage in Siberia. He had occupied that cottage for much of his life. After his wife had passed away, the family repeatedly begged him to leave the cottage for a warmer climate elsewhere. He refused to move. He said he did not want to leave his home. "Why?", he was asked. He explained, "Home is where the trees know you. This is my home."

My mind has churned for some time over his definition of home--"where the trees know you". I know it is profound, but I still do not fully understand it. However, it suggests something greater than longevity. Rather, it suggests that home is where there is a mutual respect and understanding between humankind and nature is a sphere in which both dwell. Without that, perhaps, there is no home.

I would expand that definition, however. "Home also is where the water knows you." Some dwellings in parts of the world do not have access to reliable sources of safe water. The water does not know them. In other parts of the world, persons waste clean water, or use excessive amounts, or abuse rivers and lakes. The water does not know them. But in some areas, persons use water carefully and conservatively, and respect their rivers and lakes. The water is able to know them.

Does your water know you, or do you simply know the water? Are you at home?

DRINKING WATER ENCOUNTERS PERCEIVED CLIMATE CHANGE

It has been like a 1950s science fiction thriller: "THE ATTACK OF THE GIANT POLAR VORTEX!"....Coming to all the theaters near you, for an extended stay. It sends chills up your spine!

As I huddle before my furnace enjoying record high heating bills this endless winter, I squint at three foot plus drifts of snow in the yard and icicles clinging from the roof. News reports echo record snowfalls and record frigid temperatures, and even weather reporters seem to tire of the weather. Both water service lines and the entire Great Lakes are frozen.

Yet, many politicians continue to assert that warming climate change is upon us, and they call for embrace of their proposed regulatory agendas. However, I remain a climate change skeptic--not only because the polar vortex has turned me into a human snowman. As one report has it, the polar vortex has wiped out 95% of the stink bugs in the Washington, DC general area. I am happy that I survive to pay the heating bills.

But, wait there is more. As recently reported in the Wall Street Journal by two professors of atmospheric science: *

" The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts, have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."...

"The models mostly miss warming in the deep atmosphere--from the Earth's surface to 75,000 feet--which is supposed to be one of the real signals of warming caused by carbon dioxide. Here, the consensus ignores the reality of temperature observations of the deep atmosphere collected by satellites and balloons, which have continually shown less than half of the warming shown in the average model forecasts."

Again, this reminds me of the Chicago television weatherman who invented the "Vice President In Charge Of Looking Out The Window" to confirm that reality matched his forecast models.

So, how should water utilities respond to allegations of climate change? The importance of respecting and conserving ground water and surface water sources of supply cannot be overstated and exists today separate and apart from climate change concerns. Accordingly, it really is not a matter of being bullied by panic over climate change assertions. Instead, for water utilities, it should be a matter of continued protection of freshwater resources, through such measures as encouraging use of more efficient water appliances by users, implementation of rate structures that give proper signals, implementation of expanded desalination facilities and recycling, installation of meters where they are not installed, etc. These, and many other, steps are needed, not because of climate change fears but because fresh water is such an essential but limited resource.

I am putting on another sweater and welcoming the return of the polar vortex this week with numb arms and hot chocolate. Then I will look out the window and watch for any melting of snow which has buried the outdoor Christmas lights and decorations, including the smiling Santa face, probably until April or May...if the climate ever changes by then.

__________________________________________________________________

* McNider and Christy, "Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate CHange", February 20, 2014, P. A15

THE POND

I grew up in a house on the edge of a large prairie. About a block from the house into the prairie was "the pond" as all the kids called it. To a young boy, it seemed as large as Lake Michigan. But in reality, it was probably 50 feet by 100 feet, and no more than 2 feet deep at its high water time.

The pond was a natural depression in the ground, It captured storm water from surrounding prairie. In the Spring, rains helped to fill it; but by August heat, it became a mud flat. The Fall rains replenished it, and Winter froze it over.

In the middle of the pond was a huge cottonwood tree about 5 feet in diameter. Its limbs reached out to cradle the pond, as if to protect it from the winds rippling across the prairie. Of course, those same winds then blew endless cottonwood seeds to clog our window and door screens like glue. Surrounding the pond was a stand of wild crabapple and wild cherry trees woven together by wild grape vines. These became our source for hunting cocoons of cecropia moths.

As we approached the pond, we had to enter into a dense jungle of ragweed plants, seemingly 6 feet tall by late summer. These were a bonus. The stalks made great spears to toss at those large flying grasshoppers which would unfold black and yellow "wings" as they escaped. Also, when hollowed, the stalks made great peashooters with which to harass kids in class when the teacher was not alert enough to catch us.

But, it was the frogs that made the pond. We all knew when Spring had arrived when we heard the frogs loud evening serenade all the way at our house. Frogs meant tadpoles. All the kids would dip mason jars into the pond and gather tadpoles to take home and watch them become frogs, one leg at a time.

The pond was a haven for birds and butterflies. Even when it became muddy in August, tiny blues and yellow sulphurs gathered on the mud to seek moisture. But, by then, the frogs were silent and I wondered what happened to them. Also, one had to walk carefully around land crab holes that seemed to pop up. In winter, kids would ice skate on the pond, carefully avoiding collision with the cottonwood.

Today, there is no prairie. There is no pond. The prairie became endless houses. The pond became a paved street serving those houses, with a slight dip in the pavement where the pond had been. The cottonwood is gone; and when it rains, the storm water pools in the street to be flushed into a sewer or into basements. There are no frogs, except what kids might view on their smart phones.

When ponds of our innocent youth evaporate, maybe we lose a lot more than just the water.

ARE WE REALLY POWERLESS?

It was a sunny, quiet Sunday afternoon...or so it seemed. I was sinking into my favorite, no-think chair scanning my favorite no-think newspaper. Suddenly, darkness. I turned on the reading lamp and continued my no-thinkng. Even more suddenly, a vicious wind howled, lightning and thunder came along with torrents of what appeared to be rain but included leaves and branches. And, click...the power went out and darkness without became darkness within.

I think, another electricity outage, one that probably will last for several days again.

I think, since we are on a private well, there will be no flushing of toilets. There will be no showers. There will be no washing of dishes or clothes. There will be no morning coffee or drink of water at the tap.

I think, the stuff in the freezer will melt, the stuff in the refrigerator will spoil and the microwave will not work.

I think, 100 degree days are forecast, and the air conditioning will not work, and I will melt and spoil.

I think, the television will not work and the computer will not work and the powered telephone will not work and my mobile phone will not recharge, and I will not be entertained or communicated.

I think, I will have no reading light for my no-think reading and no light for my evening darkness, which I probably will curse even with a candle.

Ah, I think, I can drive to my local grocery store and buy bottled water. And, I can drive to my local greasy spoon cafe for some greasy spoon food to eat...if they, of course, have electricity, if it really matters.

But...then I think, millions of people in the world would give anything to be in my perceived predicament. Three million people in the world every year die for lack of safe drinking water and safe sanitation disposal. These are the real power outages. Further, millions of people in the world have no indoor plumbing, no showers, no air conditioning, no refrigerators and freezers, no television and computers and no local grocery stores or local cafes.

I think, the United States every year gives billions of dollars of foreign aid to other countries for military purposes. I think, what if a large chunk of that giveaway were for safe drinking water and sanitation facilities. That would be real power...to save.

POLITICIANS, WAKE UP...IT'S THE WATER!

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal described current international concern over alleged "global warming" and energy as "feel-good environmentalism." In the United States, policy-makers' obsession over so-called "green energy" and energy regulation similarly may be masking a far more serious issue: water.

In the United States, as well as in other countries, there appear to be multiple sources of energy available to meet demand, including natural gas, coal, oil,solar, wind, nuclear, wood and even trash. Many of these sources seem nearly unlimited as a practical matter. On the other hand, there are only two sources of fresh drinking water--above ground and below ground--and fresh water is a very small portion of total water on earth.

According to the Journal article, world-wide about 3 million people die annually from lack of access to safe drinking water. In the United States, studies and concerns over sufficiency and quality of drinking water sources are becoming more and more common.

For example, in New Jersey, testing of private water wells by the Department of Environmental Pollution showed one out of eight wells exceeded safe limits for arsenic, alpha, mercury, nitrates or volatile organic compounds. (The Times, Trenton). The article stated that while some contaminants are naturally occurring, many were the ground water pollution result over over-development.

Along similar lines, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has announced the results of its study of New England bedrock ground water. In addition to naturally occurring contaminants, it found sodium, chlorides, nitrates, methyl-tert-butyl ether and chloroform attributable to human activities. (pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5220/)

Beside contamination of water sources of supply, there also is growing concern over sustainability of drinking water supplies. For example, a new study by USGS in conjunction with Maryland state agencies of an aquifer underlying the state is illustrative. The study found that the aquifer water is over a million years old, but is not recharging as fast as wells are pumping water from it.

The USGS Maryland study found that modern pumping rates have lowered water pressure and changed its chemistry, adversely affecting the aquifer's ability to meet fresh water demands. Further, concern over salt water intrusion has caused utilities to move from shallow aquifers to the deep aquifer, resulting in ground water levels to decline. (springerlink.com/content/j08u34jh46r632v4/?MUD=MP)

In Colorado, it was reported that farmers asked the governor to allow ground water wells to pump irrigation water because irrigation ditches are drying and crops were at risk. The governor declined on the ground that he did not have authority. The governor allegedly stated that pumping could adversely affect downstream flows in the South Platte River and owners of senior water rights downstream. Apparently, studies have shown that pumping of ground water in the area depletes river flows. (Greeley Tribune)

Fresh, safe drinking water is a very limited resource. Policy makers, governmental authorities and politicians should make such water--its availability, conservation, safety, and sustainability--an absolute priority. Human health and safety in this country and in the world is more critical than funding bankrupt solar panel manufacturers.

The Badlands of South Dakota are a hot, arid moon landscape. One of their residents is the short-horned lizard. It loves the Badlands because they are hot and there is little or no water there. When the temperature exceeds 100 degrees, the lizards bury themselves under rocks or in the soil to conserve water. Let is hope we will not evolve backwards into short-horned lizards.

WATER CONSERVATION MEETS RATE INCREASE...COMING SOON TO A THEATRE NEAR YOU

No--not another Godzilla movie. Rather, a potential dramatic confrontation that is not fictional.

A hot topic currently in the water industry is water sustainability and, consequently, its conservation. Generally, it appears that efforts to promote conservation of water can be either voluntary or mandatory.

Voluntary conservation can range from educational programs to inform customers how to avoid wasteful water use to financial incentives for installation of more efficient or low flow appliances and to promotion of downspout rain barrels.

Mandatory water conservation can arise through regulatory requirements for the use of low flow toilets, faucets, shower heads, and appliances; irrigation and sprinkling restrictions, and limits on sources of supply. One form of mandatory water conservation can occur when a regulatory agency imposes conservation requirements on a water utility and its end users as well. Such regulation can raise an interesting potential conflict between a utility's legal obligation to serve the demands of its customers and its legal obligation to impose restrictions on those very demands. See, for example, Arizona Water Company v. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 91 F.3rd 990 (AZ 2004).

A customer of a water utility may conclude that if less water is used due to conservation, the water bill should be lower. However, this belief is not necessarily true; and, in point of fact, in the case of a well managed water system, likely will not be true. Water utilities may be finding that conservation is resulting in decreasing system water demand. Lower water sales translates into less revenue to cover fixed costs, debt service and funding of reserves for repairs and replacements. Further, if a utility is compelled to meet tight limits on unaccounted for water, less revenue also makes leak detection, main repair and meter replacement programs more difficult to perform.

As a result, a utility that experiences declining revenue due to conservation will have to increase rates to satisfy its ongoing revenue requirements. And, customers who may be using less water may end up paying more for the water they do use. Again, rates should be sufficient to cover all costs of service.

If conservation results in such a reduction in system demand that system capacity may be viewed as excess, a question can arise as to recovery of costs associated with that excess capacity. That is a question for another day!

ARE WE WATCHING THE WELL GO DRY?

Water sustainability has become a hot issue for utilities and water users. In many areas of the world, including the United States, demand for water is exceeding sources of supply. For example, it appears that ground water use is becoming unsustainable in some locations.

Recently, gravity-monitoring satellites have disclosed that ground water supplies have diminished substantially over the past nine years in many parts of the world, including California's Central Valley. (See Science News, January 14, 2012, p.9). It seems that rapid depletion of ground water particularly is occurring in major aquifers underlying arid regions.

While some reduced recharge may be attributed to climate conditions such as drought, it has been asserted that the largest depletion is due to farming irrigation uses. (Id at p.9).

No doubt, urban development also has been a cause for ground water depletion. For example, rapid housing growth in suburban Chicago resulted in serious mining and reduction of ground water of acceptable quality. Only the availability of Lake Michigan water through pipeline extensions enabled communities to abandon their diminishing wells.

Water sustainability, of course, also is an issue for surface water sources of supply. The same factors of demand and climate create stresses on rivers, lakes and reservoirs.

Concerns over water sustainability are growing. For example, the American Water Works Association is presenting a four day sustainable water management conference March 18-21, 2012, in Portland, Oregon.

Attention to water sustainability by everyone is important. If we simply watch the well go dry, we surely will miss the water...and a lot more.

FRESH WATER: ARE THE OLD GREEN PUMPS DISAPPEARING?

In 1950, my parents purchased a cottage on a small Indiana lake. The house dated to the beginning of the 20th century; and both it and its contents were about as "shabby chic" as possible. An endearing feature was the kitchen. At the old sink was a hand pump. It had been painted green ages ago, but the paint had worn off on the handle due to what must have been thousands of pumps over the years. The pump sat on a well pipe that invaded the kitchen floor. The water was wonderful-cold, crisp and endless- all for a push on the handle. The green hand pump and its water became a central feature of every visit to the cottage, and more satisfying than a fudgesicle from the Royal Blue grocery on a steamy summer day.

After my parents passed away, and before I could secure and sell the cottage, it was vandalized extensively, doors and windows broken, furnishings smashed or stolen. But in all that chaos, the old green hand pump stood like a timeless sentinel, producing wonderful, cold, crisp and endless water.

In the world today, the green hand pumps and the fresh water they make available are becoming scarce commodities, as demand seems to be running away from supply. In the United States, aquifers and water bodies are being depleted in quantity or quality by irrigation, urbanization, mining for natural gas and coal, etc.

Internationally, many countries do not have adequate supplies of safe, fresh water. Water For People is an organization that assists people in developing countries by supporting locally sustainable drinking water resources and sanitation facilities. It estimates that, world-wide, 884 million people do not have safe drinking water; 2.5 billion are without adequate sanitation facilities; and each day 6,000 people, mostly children, die from water related illness.

In the United States, as well as in other countries, there is a growing awareness of the imperative need to conserve fresh water resources. We can expect expanded governmental regulation of water appliance and plumbing related efficiencies; restrictions on water use; higher rates for water and wastewater service; rate structures which discourage demand; and reuse or recycling of wastewater for domestic use. These and other measures are being developed and imposed so as to conserve water and help assure that old green hand pumps continue to flow.