Conservation As A Critically Needed Water Supply Source
AUTHOR: David Kyler
REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2001
Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 26-27, 2001, at the
University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute Ecology,
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Abstract: Despite increasing controversy over water supply and water
quality in Georgia, there is no state-mandated approach to conservation.
Since three sectors (agriculture, power production, and industry)
dominate water demand, using over 80% of the total (billions of gallons
of water a year), even marginal improvements in water efficiency by
these sectors could reap huge economic and environmental benefits.
Yet, the state's emphasis on water conservation promotion is in domestic
use, which has limited potential compared with uses for industry,
agriculture, and power production. The feasibility of achieving such
advancements is unknown, but given the costs and environmental risks of
meeting accelerating water demand, comprehensive exploration and
assessment of conservation alternatives is amply justified. The paper
further develops this argument and proposes policy initiatives for
achieving much needed water conservation measures in Georgia.
Surface water, ground water, and wetlands are interconnected resources
that are vital to our ecosystems. There are many indications that these
water resources are already being overused. For example, on the coast,
by dedicating too much groundwater for one type of user (industry), we
have greatly reduced the capacity of the Upper Floridan aquifer to
provide potable drinking water for continued population growth. This
increases the costs of providing water from other sources needed to
sustain growth, while also jeopardizing aquatic and marine ecosystems
that suffer from the loss of fresh water outflow from artesian wells,
especially during drought.
Similarly, the dominance of power production
as a user of surface water is staggering - at least half of Georgia's
non-agricultural water use is attributable to this single purpose. And
a substantial portion of this amount is 'consumptive' in that it is
converted to steam, most of which is not returned to the same watershed
or aquifer system. Because such huge amounts are pumped for industry and
energy production, if more efficient methods could reduce water use by
just 10%, enough water would be saved to support projected population
growth for years, without over-exploiting water resources, thereby
avoiding risks to aquatic life, as well as the health and jobs of state
citizens.
Further, it is quite likely that the cost of achieving these
conservation improvements would be substantially less than testing,
tapping, and treating water from other sources, like deep aquifers.
Given these facts, the absence of a strong commitment to water
conservation in state policy is conspicuously troubling. Significant
amounts of state funding have been dedicated to needed research on the
Floridan aquifer, developing criteria for surface water pollution
discharge, and other aspects of water resource management. Yet, to
date, state-sponsored conservation efforts have been limited to
education promoting more responsible water use, primarily targeted at
residential (domestic) users, a relatively small segment of total water
demand.
There has been no comprehensive study of water conservation
alternatives, nor any analysis of the feasibility of achieving improved
efficiency in water use by those sectors using the lion's share of our
resources. Investment in even marginally upgraded processes for
agriculture, industry and power producers could conceivably generate
benefits far greater than any comparable policy intended to help meet
growing water demands. Due to their massive combined demand, even modest
improvements in the efficiency of water use in these sectors would
achieve far more effective results than major conservation advancements
by other user groups. Based on the most recent state data available, a
10% advance in efficiency by power companies and industry would be
equivalent to at least a 40% improvement by municipal, residential and
commercial users.
Some Examples Cooling water is needed in large quantities for
conventional power generation methods (fossil and nuclear fuels) and for
many industrial processes. For years, hybrid cooling systems have been
available, which combine water and air to extract waste heat, thereby
reducing water needed for cooling. Also potentially feasible are
multiple-stage water recycling processes that recapture and filter water
after it has been used in industrial operations.
In agriculture, much
progress has been made with drip irrigation, but the type of equipment
used in tilling, planting, and harvesting limits the application of this
method. Like all such technology, new processes with improved water
efficiency can have considerable initial cost for capital and set-up.
The degree to which it is feasible to use such technology depends on
several parameters that are dynamic and often case-specific. Some of
these variables are subject to the influence of public policy, which can
therefore be used to induce or accelerate improvements in the efficiency
of water use.
Consider the following:
- Cost of capital (interest) -
Lower interest rates favor borrowing to invest in new equipment IF
market and public incentives are sufficient.
- Value of water and
aquatic resources -
Placing appropriate priority on the public value of
water resources would justify state incentives for reducing water use.
Tax rebates for conservation or a tax surcharge penalizing excessive use
are just two examples. If policy makers are resolute in their commitment
to improving water-conservation efficiency, they could adopt a
combination of incentives, including outright subsidy through grants, or
a combination of selective grants, loans and tax incentives.
- Lifespan of new equipment -
The longer new equipment will last, the
less the annualized cost of installing it, and the greater its budget
advantage. Due to continually changing technology, however, determining
equipment lifespan may be complicated by the foreseeable emergence of
still newer, better alternatives that, in effect, may make today's
preferred improvements prematurely obsolete. Once again, public policy
could be structured to provide incentives to industry for upgrading when
public benefits justify it, based on routine periodic reassessment of
feasibility.
- Adaptability of existing equipment (retrofitting) -
Some equipment lends itself to being modified to achieve improved water
efficiency at a much lower cost than replacing it altogether. This may
prove to be an acceptable intermediate option to attain improvements
sooner without the cost burden of major investments in complete
retooling. State tax policy, grants, and loans could be used to promote
such conversions.
- Incentives for switching to new processes -
Both
profits and public policies can induce desired results by providing the
means to pay for upgraded technology that reduces water use. But
without appropriate public policy, it is unlikely that management would
give priority to re-investing profits to reduce water use.
- Caution
on water pricing -
Although water pricing could be used to encourage
investment in water conservation, this is an area of policy that could
lead to disastrously undesired outcomes. Unless water use (or
withdrawal) fees are explicitly tied to specific user segments, each
having strictly controlled volume limits, such policy could create
unintended advantage for those having greatest ability to pay, placing
unfair burden on those of modest income.
An Ultimate Solution Based on the experience of other states and
nations, we are amply justified in pushing for aggressive state policy
supporting alternative energy generation methods, which use little if
any water. By replacing steam-generation plants with wind and solar
technology, we could drastically reduce water demand. At the same time,
we would be improving air quality by proportionate reductions in various
pollutants (including mercury and sources of acid rain) as well as
greenhouse gases.
Moreover, this conversion would be a boon for
economic activity, further justifying state policy in its support. In
the meantime, Georgia should adopt a policy of denying permits for
speculative (³merchant²) power plants, which are primarily intended to
serve the energy needs of other states and the profit motives of outside
investors. Such projects use huge amounts of Georgia's increasingly
scarce water resources, pollute our air, and generate only a handful of
jobs.
As a general policy, Georgia must reconsider how it allocates
natural resources to serve the public interest. We can no longer afford
to make erroneous assumptions about the benefits of private investments
without more discerning assessment of their true costs and benefits to
Georgia citizens. Such evaluation is both fiscally and environmentally
responsible, and essential to our state's future.
Conclusions
Until a comprehensive assessment is completed, it is
impossible to accurately predict the potential public benefit that is
feasible by reducing water use in agriculture, industry and energy
production. More investigation must be done to evaluate the technical
alternatives, their costs, and the most effective means to implement the
desired changes though public policy.
At the very least it seems
evident that additional permitting for major water withdrawals should be
withheld until this investigation is carried out. We need to get smarter
about water management in Georgia - sooner rather than later. This
makes good sense for both our environment and economy.
Steps needed to
achieve this include:
- Adopting and enforcing an aggressive water
conservation policy by requiring applicants to demonstrate how they will
improve water-use efficiency through implementation of conservation
plans.*
- Based on the results of a comprehensive statewide
assessment of conservation feasibility by major user group, the state
should adopt tax incentives, loans, and/or grants consistent with
findings.
- We must choose economic development options that are
compatible with our natural environment while preserving our quality of
life within the sustainable capacity of natural systems. To ensure that
this happens we should adopt criteria for investing state loans and
grants for job creation in ways that are environmentally responsible -
as indicated by water use, water protection, and other dimensions of
sustainability.
*Conservation plans are adopted in the 24 counties that use the Floridan
Aquifer, but EPD does not refer to them in making permitting decisions.
|
