Goodbye Pools, Lawns and a Whole Lot More: Why Life in the Southwest as We Know it Will Be History

Goodbye Pools, Lawns and a Whole Lot More: Why Life in the Southwest as We Know it Will Be History
By Alex Steffen, Worldchanging
August 10, 2009 Link to full article below

This piece first appeared in Worldchanging.

It is likely to be a source of unhappiness for us that we have taken natural bounty for granted in designing our civilization. But it is likely to prove tragic that we have assumed not only the indestructibility of nature (heck, some fossils still argue that climate change is impossible because it is not within human abilities to wreck the climate), but also that the particularly beneficial circumstances of the 20th century are what is ecologically "normal." Nowhere is this more evident than in arid regions, and nowhere is it better studied than in the American Southwest.

There, in the deserts and mountains, we Americans have built huge cities, farms and ranches, and one of the world's leading tourism industries (think Vegas) predicated on the reliability of cheap, plentiful water. This was a mistake. Water in the very near future will be neither cheap nor plentiful, and much of the Southwest is destined for real trouble.

To read the full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/141887/

******************************************************
If you enjoyed this, would you please make a donation?
Even $1 or $5 helps us to serve you.

Out West, Catching Raindrops Can Make You an Outlaw

Out West, Catching Raindrops Can Make You an Outlaw
By STEPHANIE SIMON
stephanie.simon@wsj.com
MARCH 25, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123794222413232887.html

DENVER -- Every raincloud that passes over her eastern Colorado ranch tempts state Rep. Marsha Looper to break the law.

A long, hard drought has settled across the land, and on those rare occasions when the sky opens, Ms. Looper longs to set out some rain barrels to collect the bounty for future use. She'd like to use the rain to grow hothouse tomatoes. But she refrains.

"I don't want to get thrown in jail," she explains.

It is, in fact, illegal in Colorado to collect rainwater. State law is vague about the penalties, except to say that violators can be taken to court and ordered to pay damages. The state lacks the resources for vigorous enforcement and fines are extremely rare, officials say. Still, the law is the law -- and so Ms. Looper has set out to change it. This might just be her year.

Colorado, like most Western states, lives by a rigid and byzantine knot of water laws. Vast quantities of river water are made available, free of charge, to a variety of public and private interests, including oil companies, ski resorts, fire districts and breweries. The international food conglomerate Nestlé has applied for a permit to draw water from a Colorado aquifer and sell it in plastic bottles under its Arrowhead brand.

Those appropriations are made under a seniority system based on first-come first-serve claims staked out as far back as the 1850s. Colorado law explicitly states that every drop of moisture suspended in the atmosphere must be divvied up according to those claims. That means each drop must be allowed to hit the ground and seep through the watershed into distant rivers, where it can be doled out to claimants ranging from alfalfa farmers to ExxonMobil.

Ms. Looper, a Republican, thinks that's nuts. "They own every raindrop that falls out of the sky? Just ridiculous," she says.

With drought widespread across the West, many cities outside Colorado are encouraging rain harvesting through tax credits, rain-barrel subsidies, even building codes that require rain-catching cisterns in new developments. The membership of the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association -- a trade group that represents any company or individual interested in the practice -- has jumped from less than 100 to nearly 600 in just two years.

But in Colorado and Utah, the only other state with a blanket ban on rain harvest, powerful forces are determined to continue limiting access to precipitation.

Setting a barrel on the lawn to recycle rain "sounds nice and efficient, but in my opinion, under Colorado law, that is theft," says Glenn Porzak, a lawyer who specializes in water-rights claims. "That rainwater is spoken for."

True, most people who store rain water will eventually dump it on lawns and gardens -- exactly where it would have fallen in the first place. But they are likely to do that during dry seasons when thirsty plants suck up most of the water, and very little is left to work its way through the water basin and into rivers.
[Map]

A hydrology study commissioned in 2007 by several Colorado water districts found that just 3% of the rain falling on undeveloped land makes it back into the stream system in a dry year, compared with 15% in a wet year. (In developed areas, those percentages are typically much higher, because the rain washes into storm drains, which often dump into streams.)

A ban on rainwater harvesting "makes no sense to people, because rain seems ubiquitous," says Mo McBroom, policy director of the Washington Environmental Council. "They're like, 'Do I have to have an air right to breathe?' " Ms. McBroom responds that one rain barrel won't hurt anyone -- but hundreds of thousands of 5,000-gallon cisterns could threaten the livelihoods of all who depend on the West's mighty rivers.

Farmers rely on rain-fed river water to grow food; utilities need it to produce electricity; industries need it to run factories -- and cities need it to provide drinking water to residents. Fish need healthy rivers, too, of course. Some environmentalists fear that diverting downpours to cisterns would threaten aquatic habitats.

Washington allows rainwater harvesting only in a few areas, including Seattle and the San Juan Islands, where some residents have spent $50,000 or more on 10,000-gallon rain storage tanks and filtration systems. Efforts to expand the practice statewide have failed several years in a row because the varied interests can't agree on how much precipitation individuals should be allowed to store. A bid to lift the ban in Utah died in the legislature this month. In Colorado, however, Ms. Looper and a fellow rain rebel, Democratic state Sen. Chris Romer, have crafted bills so modest in scope that they have gained widespread support.

One bill would let rural residents not served by a municipal water system store rain for fire protection, livestock feed and household uses. A second bill authorizes several new developments to capture and reuse rain, so long as the builders track how much water they divert from the state's natural waterways.

Ms. Looper acknowledges that her bills still keep rain harvesting off limits to the majority of Colorado residents. But she says it's the best she can hope for in a state that adheres faithfully to the old adage of Western life: "Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting."

Population Growth, Climate Change Sparking Water Crisis

Dry Cycle
Population growth, climate change sparking water crisis: U.N.
11 Mar 2009

http://www.grist.org/cgi-bin/printthis.pl?uri=/news/2009/03/11/water/index.html
http://www.grist.org/news/2009/03/11/water/index.html?source=daily

PARIS -- Surging population growth, climate change, reckless irrigation and chronic waste are placing the world's water supplies at threat, a landmark U.N. report said on Thursday.

Compiled by 24 U.N. agencies, the 348-page document gave a grim assessment of the state of the planet's freshwater, especially in developing countries, and described the outlook for coming generations as deeply worrying.

Water is part of the complex web of factors that determine prosperity and stability, it said.

Lack of access to water helps drive poverty and deprivation and breeds the potential for unrest and conflict, it warned.

"Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies and prices, and troubled financial markets," the third World Water Development Report said.

"Unless their links with water are addressed and water crises around the world are resolved, these other crises may intensify and local water crises may worsen, converging into a global water crisis and leading to political insecurity at various levels."

The report pointed to a double squeeze on fresh water.

On one side was human impact. There were six billion humans in 2000, a tally that has already risen to 6.5 billion and could scale nine billion by 2050.

Population growth, especially in cities in poor countries, is driving explosive demand for water, prompting rivers in thirsty countries to be tapped for nearly every drop and driving governments to pump out so-called fossil water, the report said.

These are aquifers that are hundreds of thousands of years old and whose extraction is not being replenished by rainfall. Mining them for water today means depriving future generations of liquid treasure.

Fuelling this is misuse or abuse of water, through pollution, unbridled irrigation, pipe leakage and growing of water-craving crops in deserts.

Applying pressure from the other side is climate change, said the report.

Shifts to weather systems, unleashed by man-made global warming, will alter rainfall patterns and reduce snow melt, scientists say.

The water report was first issued in 2003 and is updated every three years.

The latest issue, entitled "Water in a Changing World," is published ahead of the fifth World Water Forum, taking place in Istanbul from March 16 to 22.

The mammoth document made these points:

-- DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH is boosting water stress in developing countries, where hydrological resources are often meager. The global population is growing by 80 million people a year, 90 percent of it in poorer countries. Demand for water is growing by 64 billion cubic metres (2.2 trillion cubic feet) per year, roughly equivalent to Egypt's annual water demand today.

-- In the past 50 years, EXTRACTION from rivers, lakes and aquifers has tripled to help meet population growth and demands for water-intensive food such as rice, cotton, dairy and meat products. Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of the withdrawals, a figure that reaches more than 90 percent in some developing countries.

-- ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION from water pollution and excessive extraction now costs many billions of dollars. Damage in the Middle East and North Africa, the world's most water-stressed region, amounts to some $9 billion a year, or between 2.1-7.4 percent of GDP.

-- The outlook is mixed for key UN MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, which in 2000 set the deadline of 2015 for halving the number of people without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. The target on drinking water is on track but the tally of people without improved sanitation will have decreased only slightly by 2015, from 2.5 billion to 2.4 billion.

-- Water stress, amplified by climate change, will pose a mounting SECURITY CHALLENGE. The struggle for water could threaten fragile states and drive regional rivalry.

"Conflicts about water can occur at all scales," the report warned, adding: "Hydrologic shocks that may occur through climate change increase the risk of major national and international security threats, especially in unstable areas."

-- Between $92.4 billion and $148 billion are needed annually in INVESTMENT to build and maintain water supply systems, sanitation and irrigation. China and developed countries in Asia alone face financial needs of $38.2-51.4 billion each year.

-- CONSERVATION and reuse of water, including recycled sewage, are the watchwords of the future. The report also stressed sustainable water management, with realistic PRICING to curb waste. It gave the example of India where free or almost-free water had led to huge waste in irrigation, causing soils to be waterlogged and salt-ridden.

Purifying the Business of Selling Water

INNOVATION: Purifying the Business of Selling Water
By Astrid M. Krogstad

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4493&printview&imagesoff
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4493

In 2004, Jonathan Ritchey and Rick Howard joined forces to address the loss of one of the world’s most precious resources: water. The majority of the planet is covered with water (326 million cubic miles), yet only 3% is fresh water and even less is accessible to humans. Element Four is Ritchey and Howard’s answer—a company devoted to easing the global fresh-water shortage. Their product, the WaterMill, converts air into potable water through condensation followed by antimicrobial processes. The water then travels to various “points-of-use systems” such as home faucets and refrigerators. Ideally, the WaterMill will produce 3.2 gallons of water per day—enough to meet the needs of a family of six. And at an average operating cost of 35 cents per day, it far surpasses in cost-effectiveness the price of bottled water. The point is to alleviate the environmental burden of bottled water, while placing control of fresh water sources into the hands
of consumers.

The WaterMill is at the intersection of technology, environmentalism and philanthropy. Though the company’s target demographic will initially consist of suburbanites, Howard and Ritchey envision adapting the product for worldwide use. “With a minimum relative humidity, the WaterMill can be of benefit to any consumer in almost any environment, and this is where Element Four can have a global impact on the water crisis,” says Howard. Available in February, it is the first in an upcoming line of products that will include a solar-powered version of the WaterMill as well as the WaterWall, a large-scale adaptation for use on an industrial scale.

Want to impress your boss? Suggest these simple ways to save money and the planet - at work...

Need to Impress Your Boss
Suggest These Simple Ways to Save Money (and the Planet) at Work
January 2009

It can be hard to get back into the swing of things at work after the cheer of the holiday season. But we have some tips that might help get your creative juices flowing again during the dark, cold weeks of winter. You can become a new office hero by suggesting ways for your employer to save money while helping out the planet.

In today's tough economy, every penny saved can help keep folks employed. Plus, it can't hurt your reputation in the boardroom if you are the one to show your boss how he or she can trim expenses.

Businesses use a tremendous amount of water, energy, paper and other products, and reducing waste saves money, as well as valuable resources. Here are some suggestions to get you started:

1. Turn the Heat Down

Office spaces and other places of work require enormous amounts of energy to maintain an even temperature, whether it's the heating or cooling season doing the work. While this can be a tricky subject among coworkers, who may have different body types, metabolisms, expectations and preferences for temperature, by talking things through you may be able to encourage your building manager to set a more eco-friendly temperature. He or she may not know that the air around your desk feels like a summer night in Alabama, even if it's snowing outside. Or perhaps your team can agree to try out lowering the thermostat by just a few degrees, and avoid wearing short sleeves for a while. The savings can be substantial, especially if you suggest that temperature is lowered at night, or other times when few folks will be present.

2. Suggest Energy-Efficient Lighting

You've probably heard that you can save money by switching to fluorescent lighting. But maybe no one at your office got the green memo. Also, are there times when you can raise blinds and turn down the lights? Does everyone remember to shut off unneeded lights when they leave at night?

3. Turn Off Those Computers!

If your office is like many others, people leave their computers on all the time, even when they aren't using them! However, you can tell your boss that every worker who shuts his or her machine down before heading out each night saves an average of $90 worth of electricity a year. That adds up! The Department of Energy recommends shutting off your monitor if you aren't going to use it for more than 20 minutes, and the whole system if you're not going to use it for more than two hours. The agency says time spent off extends your machine’s life—tell that to the IT guys!

4. Just Say “No” to Water Bottles

A lot of companies provide employees and clients with bottled water. That's a nice thought, but carting around all those plastic bottles isn't doing the environment any favors. Suggest a cheaper filter system instead. You'll even have a talking point to impress those clients when they need a little refreshment.

5. Encourage Car Pooling and Biking

Ask around and see if some of your coworkers might be interested in doing some car pooling. Not only can everyone save on gas, but you'll also reduce emissions and build camaraderie among your team. Point out to your bosses that the company can save on maintenance and security of parking lots, and in a number of areas may qualify for valuable incentives from city governments. Does your company have a bulletin board, either virtual or the kind with actual thumbtacks? Ask your boss if you can post a sign-up sheet for those who might be interested in participating. Similarly, does your work place have bike racks? Those who bike to work also tend to be healthier, and more fit employees are sick less often and require less health care. Aren't you smart for thinking of that?

6. Save on Printing

As anyone who has ever owned an inkjet or laser printer knows, replacement cartridges are mighty pricey, and soon eclipse the original cost of the device. You can save your company a pile of cash if you help encourage people to print black and white as much as possible, to use draft settings, and to only print when needed. For draft copies recommend that people print on both sides (it's easy!), and definitely suggest that your company recycle if they don't already!

7. Provide Reusable Mugs and Dishes

Put out ceramic mugs and plates instead of paper or Styrofoam and people will use them. Tell people to clean up after themselves, and they'll also develop a greater sense of pride in their surroundings, instead of just tossing things away after a single use.

8. Green the Chow Hall

If your company has a cafeteria, suggest that it also provide reusable utensils, and minimize packaging. Suggest that food buyers look for local and seasonal ingredients, as well as plenty of meatless options, which are greener and generally cheaper.

9. Invest in Some Plants

If you had success with the proceeding steps, we salute you! If you're feeling a little ambitious, you might try suggesting that your company provide a few house plants, which help clean the air, leading to more comfortable, and productive, employees. Plants also can improve the mood of employees and guests. At the least, ask that your boss consider reversing a ban on plants, if you work in one of the unfortunate places with such a strict policy.

What Happens When We Run Out Of Drinking Water?

What Happens When We Run Out of Drinking Water? - Audio
By , National Radio Project
January 15, 2009

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/119935
http://www.alternet.org/story/119935/

From Australia to Arizona, it's become clear that humans are using water at an unsustainable rate. Many communities only respond with water restrictions during droughts, and in most cases development continues, making things worse.

On this edition, we'll take a look at three growing communities facing water shortages along with the pressure to grow. We'll hear their different approaches to finding solutions -- including denial

= = =

Comments:

Posted by: EinMD on Jan 15, 2009 8:41 AM

We all die.

Not a complicated question, really.

Though, there are ways to continue. Apparently there's a product called the Dragon-Fly that can distill up to 8 gallons of distilled, sanitized water a day from the air. So I suppose anyone can become a scruffy nerf herding moisture farmer for just $1400!

Price Price Price!

Posted by: davidzet on Jan 15, 2009 9:38 AM

EVERYONE can have enough water if drinking water is free BUT water for lawns, driveways, etc. is expensive. Developers should pay the FULL cost of hookups AND mitigate water demand elsewhere...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Price Price Price!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davidzet on Jan 15, 2009 9:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EVERYONE can have enough water if drinking water is free BUT water for lawns, driveways, etc. is expensive. Developers should pay the FULL cost of hookups AND mitigate water demand elsewhere...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Conservation isn't enough
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 15, 2009 6:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even with the most strict conservation efforts, even those that significantly reduce the the quality of life, we will still run out of drinking water, if we leave the making of it to nature.

But when you put a nuclear reactor on the coast, a byproduct of the process is the conversion of salt water to clean drinking water.

Imagine carbon-free electricity, and new rivers of clean water while getting rid of all that radioactive waste we currently have (by using it as fuel), all at the same time.

3 major problems with one stone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Simple, you learn the old native Indian methods of trapping water.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 16, 2009 1:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember that episode in that old kids show Mr. Wizards World.

New Years Resolution: Live on 13 Gallons of Water a Day

New Years Resolution: Live on 13 Gallons of Water a Day
By Abigail Brown, Water For The Ages
January 5, 2009

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/117557/
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/117557/?type=blog
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://waterfortheages.wordpress.com//117557/

Recently, someone asked me "Do you track your water use?" I thought thoroughly about my reply to that question. In many ways I conserve water: only flushing the toilet when necessary, turning off the faucet during hand washing and teeth brushing, taking short showers, limiting outdoor watering, and only washing full loads of clothes and dishes. But, do I track my water use -- in detail -- gallon by gallon?

Well, our three-person (two-unit) household does keep track of monthly water use through our utility bills. On average, our household uses 216.92 gallons per day. That equals 72.3 gallons per person each day. Now, I´m ashamed to say this is higher than the average in my town of 66 gallons per person each day. So, where are we going wrong? I´m a water-conscious person, but my house and the attached mother-in-law unit are still exceeding the municipal average.

This new year, I´ve decided to make two important resolutions:

1. Conduct a Household Water Audit
2. Live for One Week on a Human Right Allocation of Water

It is my hope that these actions will reduce my water consumption and raise my awareness about the importance of access to water. Read on to follow my endeavors in the new year.

Conduct a Household Water Audit

Today, I conducted something called a water audit. A water audit is method to evaluate the efficiency of a water system and estimate daily water use. First, I checked and changed all of the water faucets in my home to low-flow water faucets that only use 1 gallon per minute. Then, I changed my showerhead to a low-flow showerhead that only uses 1.6 gallons per minute.

dscf1619

Luckily, I already have a low-flow toilet that uses 1.6 gallons per flush. Next, I checked my municipal water meter to see if it was recording leaks. Then, I used a bit of food coloring to check my toilet for leaks.

Cheap Leak Check

Finally, I made signs to identify the amount of water necessary for all of my fixtures and appliances. It is my hope this last step will serve as a reminder for myself and my housemates. If you are interested in completing a water audit on your home, there are several step-by-steps available. Try this audit or this audit or this audit.

Water Use Totals for Fixtures and Appliances

Live for One Week on a Human Right Allocation of Water

I´ve been interested in the idea of water as a human right for a while. Declaring water a human right will require that a certain amount of water will always be available for free to humans. This measure is to ensure that those without money still have access to water. Obviously, access to water is important because water is necessary for life. As posted recently on Water Wired, in 1996 Peter Gleick suggested a human right allocation of water at 50 liters (13 gallons) each day for basic human needs such as bathing, sanitation, and drinking. The Constitution of South Africa also acknowledges water as a human right, and courts declared this amount to be 50 liters each day. So, I wonder, how does it feel to live on 50 liters (13 gallons) each day? Well, there´s only one way to find out.

For one week, I will live on this amount estimated as a basic human right. This means, I will count every toilet flush, every hand wash, and probably miss most showers. I will live on this human right allocation at home, at work, and everywhere. Tomorrow, I will begin. My journal of this undertaking will be posted to Water for the Ages. Stay tuned.

Abigail Brown manages water resources in Washington State.

= = =

Comment:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/117557/#comments

A thesis of the obvious...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 5, 2009 10:26 PM

Next, I checked my municipal water meter to see if it was recording leaks.

Check meter. Don't run water for six hours. Did it move? Then your meter is "equipped for leak recordings".

I´ve been interested in the idea of water as a human right for a while.

It's not a matter of unavailable H20. It's a matter of potability and deliverability in extreme circumstances. Pulling a gallon of water out your back yard pond doesn't affect the grobul wadurh supply anymore than buying a gallon off the shelf at wal-wart does.

All told though, I liked the article. It pointed out some things that otherwise duhmb induhviduals could do to live less ignorantly...

....unfortunately...

....so that others might, cheaply.

How the West's Energy Boom Could Threaten Drinking Water for 1 in 12 Americans

How the West's Energy Boom Could Threaten Drinking Water for 1 in 12 Americans
By Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica
December 26, 2008

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/115017
http://www.alternet.org/water/115017/
http://www.alternet.org/story/115017/

This story was co-published with the San Diego Union-Tribune and also appears in that newspaper's Dec. 21, 2008 issue.

The Colorado River, the life vein of the Southwestern United States, is in trouble.

The river's water is hoarded the moment it trickles out of the mountains of Wyoming and Colorado and begins its 1,450-mile journey to Mexico's border. It runs south through seven states and the Grand Canyon, delivering water to Phoenix, Los Angeles and San Diego. Along the way, it powers homes for 3 million people, nourishes 15 percent of the nation's crops and provides drinking water to one in 12 Americans.

Now a rush to develop domestic oil, gas and uranium deposits along the river and its tributaries threatens its future.

The region could contain more oil than Alaska's National Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It has the richest natural gas fields in the country. And nuclear energy, viewed as a key solution to the nation's dependence on foreign energy, could use the uranium deposits held there.

But getting those resources would suck up vast quantities of the river's water and could pollute what is left. That's why those most concerned are water managers in places like Los Angeles and San Diego. They have the most to lose.

The river is already so beleaguered by drought and climate change that one environmental study called it the nation's "most endangered" waterway. Researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography warn the river's reservoirs could dry up in 13 years.

The industrial push has already begun.

In the eight years George W. Bush has been in office, the Colorado River watershed has seen more oil and gas drilling than at any time in the past 25 years. Uranium claims have reached a 10-year high. Last week the departing administration auctioned off an additional 148,598 acres of federal land for gas drilling projects outside Moab, Utah.

As still more land is leased for drilling and a last-minute change in federal rules has paved the way for water-intensive oil shale mining, politicians and water managers are now being forced to ask which is more valuable: energy or water.

"The decisions we are making today will be dictating how we will be living the rest of our lives," said Jim Pokrandt, a spokesman with the Colorado River Conservation District, a state-run policy agency. "We may have reached mutually exclusive demands on our water supply."

Some experts and officials say the economic and ecological importance of the Colorado is just as vital to American security as the natural resources that can be extracted from around it.

"Without (the Colorado), there is no Western United States," said Jim Baca, who directed the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, in the Clinton administration and says the agency's current policy is narrow-sighted. "If it becomes unusable, you move the entire Western United States out of any sort of economic position for growth."

Balancing that risk with the need for energy is complicated, because scientific understanding of the Colorado is limited and no single agency manages the river as a national resource.

The Interior Department, which includes the BLM, oversees where the water goes, but not how it is kept clean. The EPA is charged with maintaining water quality, but it can't control who uses it and doesn't conduct its own research. Furthermore, the EPA delegates much of its authority to the states that the river runs through, and the federal, state and local authorities in charge of separate aspects of the river don't always coordinate or cooperate.

"I don't know that there is, quite honestly, anyone that looks at an entire overview impact statement of the Colorado River," said Robert Walsh, a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation, which governs the allocation and flow of the southern part of the waterway.

Desolation Canyon, Utah. (Ray Bloxham/SUWA)
Oil and natural gas drilling in Colorado already require so much water that if its annual demand were satisfied all at once, it would be the equivalent of shutting off most of Southern California's water for five days. If Colorado's oil shale is mined, it would turn off the spigot for 79 days.

Although company executives insist they adhere to environmental laws, natural gas drilling has led to numerous toxic spills across the West. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mining has contaminated four out of 10 streams and rivers in the West. Similarly, mining has topped the government's list of the most polluting industries for the past decade, and new mine problems continue to arise today.

Industry representatives and the Bush administration say breaking America's dependence on foreign oil makes using all available energy resources here at home a priority.

"I believe this country needs to offer domestic resources to be energy independent," said Tim Spisak, a senior official who heads the BLM's oil and gas development group. "The way to do that is to responsibly develop public resources on our lands."

Critics of Bush's energy policies said they favor business interests at a time when climate change demands a fundamental shift in the way the nation values water. They also complain that the administration doesn't grasp the West's looming water problem.

"When Lake Mead goes dry, you cut off supply to the fifth largest economy in the world," said Patricia Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, referring to the reservoir that sits behind the Hoover Dam and controls water flow to the Southwest's cities. She points out that while some dispute the timing of Lake Mead's demise, no one says it won't happen.

"We've ignored the need to adapt," Mulroy said. "We've never looked at what the secondary impact of, say, an energy decision is."

Both the U.S. House and Senate are considering bills that would require better management of the nation's water quality and water assets. But the bills focus more on the threat of climate change than the threat of industrial development. A growing number of water professionals say even a congressional act isn't enough to clarify the government's responsibility. They want the president to appoint a new national water authority -- or even a cabinet-level water czar.

"If you are really going to deal with water, the nation needs to deal with it in a far more comprehensive manner," said Brad Udall, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's water assessment program at the University of Colorado. "We can't afford to play around with potentially damaging activities."

The Southern Nevada Water Authority, the state of Arizona and the Metropolitan Water District, which governs the water supply to Los Angeles and San Diego, have implored Bush's Interior to proceed with caution as it races in these last days to develop mining, gas and oil near the river.

"We have other sources of power," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, MWD's General Manager. "We don't have other sources of water."

Hot Water

One of those alternative sources of energy is uranium, which is essential to the production of nuclear energy. In the last six years, new uranium mining claims within five miles of the river have nearly tripled, from 395 to 1,195, according to a review of BLM records by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based policy organization.

Although few of those claims will actually be mined, mining has a track record of contamination that alarms water officials dependant on the river. The Metropolitan Water District points to a 16 million ton pile of radioactive waste near Moab as a warning of what can happen when mining isn’t carefully controlled.

The pile sits on the banks of the Colorado at the site of a mill that once processed uranium for nuclear warheads. The plant closed in 1984, but the Grand Canyon Trust estimates 110,000 gallons of radioactive groundwater still seep into the river there each day. The U.S. Department of Energy decided in 2000 to move the pile away from the river. But the planning was so complicated and the cost so high -- estimates top $1 billion -- that the first loads of waste won't be hauled off until next year.

The mill site in Moab, Utah (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
The industry says the Moab case is an outdated blight from the distant past.

"What gets my ire up is when we get compared to stuff that happened in the 60s. There is no argument from us now about being careful... with an eye to preserving the environment," said Peter Farmer, CEO of Denison Mines, a Canadian company that operates seven U.S. mines as well as the nation's only operating uranium mill in Blanding, Utah.

Denison recently spent more than $5 million to triple-line a waste pit and outfit it with leak detection sensors. It's cheaper to pay up front, Farmer says, than to clean up later.

Roger Haskins, a specialist in mining law at the BLM, agrees that concerns over mining are overblown. He says landmark environmental regulations in the 1970s prepared the industry for the 21st century. While it's still easy to stake a mining claim, projects must now undergo extensive environmental review before they can be turned into mines.

"Whatever happens out there is thoroughly manageable in today's regulatory environment," Haskins said.

Scientists say some degree of pollution is inevitable, because mining sometimes uses toxic chemicals like cyanide. It also exposes naturally toxic metals that would otherwise remain deep underground.

Drilling for uranium creates pathways where raw, radioactive material can migrate into underground aquifers that drain into the river. Surface water can seep into the drill holes and mine shafts, picking up traces of uranium and then percolating into underground water sources. The milling process itself creates six pounds of radioactive and toxic waste -- including ammonia, arsenic, lead and mercury -- for every ounce of uranium produced.

"There has to be some impact to downstream water. Whether or not we can measure -- that is the question," said David Naftz, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Salt Lake City who studies uranium mining.

Naftz has documented dangerous levels of uranium near waste dumps at more than 50 separate test sites in Utah. While much of the mining happens in high, dry places where contaminants don't easily seep into surface water, he says periodic storms can still wash them into the river.

"What we've done is kind of upset the geochemical equilibriums in these basins by taking these ores and exposing them to conditions on the surface," he said. "The question is, how long is it going to take to transport them down to water systems?"

Pollution problems with gold, copper and other mines also challenge the assertion that technology and better regulation have eliminated the environmental risks.

One study compared the EPA's environmental impact statements for 25 sites to what really happened after mining took place. Water at three quarters of the mines was found to be contaminated, even though the mines used technology and techniques that the EPA had said would keep the environment clean, according to the research done for the Earthworks by Jim Kuipers, an environmental engineer in Butte, Mont. and Ann Maest in Boulder, Colo.

At least four large mines that operated as recently as the 1990s -- long after new regulatory standards were put in place -- have caused so much contamination that the EPA designated them as priority Superfund cleanup sites. One rendered a 20-mile stretch of a Colorado River tributary completely dead.

"Promises are made and promises are broken," said Roger Clark, who is director of the Grand Canyon Trust's air and energy program and has been monitoring the rise in mining claims near the Grand Canyon. "This is not something we can sit back and take industry's word for."

Clark, who explored the Colorado River as a Boy Scout and later as a river guide, already has seen signs of the park's decline. On a recent hike along the Grand Canyon's rim, he passed a stream whose water he drank freely as a boy. Now it's marked with a sign saying, "Drinking and bathing in these waters is not advisable." The Park Service posted the same warning along five other canyon streams that feed into the Colorado, because high concentrations of uranium have leached into the water, likely from old mines.

In June, the House Natural Resources Committee invoked a rarely-used authority to force the Bush administration to make one million acres of public land adjacent to the park ineligible for exploration. Two months later, though, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne allowed some 20 new claims in the area by deciding that the committee's move violated executive authority.

Secret Chemicals

In the last decade, a pattern of contamination has also emerged in places where natural gas drilling has intensified. If drilling increases substantially across Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, it could also imperil the river.

A waste pit at a natural gas drilling site (Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)
Most wells rely on a process called

hydraulic fracturing

, which requires as much as two million gallons of water plus small amounts of often-toxic chemicals for a single well. The waste water then sits in open pits until it is treated, recycled or disposed of.

In February a waste pit high on a mesa overlooking the town of Parachute, Colo. sprang a leak, allowing some 1.6 million gallons of fluid to soak into the arid earth. According to state records, the spill migrated underground until it seeped from a cliff side and froze into a gray pillar of ice more than 200 feet tall. When it melted, the fluids dripped into the torrid currents of Parachute Creek and finally dumped into the Colorado River.

Although the number of gas drilling accidents in the upper Colorado River watershed is small relative to the amount of drilling, they have begun adding up. Colorado state records show that of some 1,500 spills in drilling areas since 2003, more than 300 have seeped into water. In one case last summer a truck carrying drilling fluids crashed into the Colorado, where it remained partially submerged for more than three weeks.

In neighboring Wyoming, the BLM found a 28-mile-long plume of benzene contamination in an aquifer beneath a gigantic gas field. The aquifer is near a tributary to the Green River, which in turn flows into the Colorado.

Doug Hock, a spokesman for the Canadian gas company Encana, which drills in Colorado and Wyoming, says that while there will always be spills, the fears of pollution are exaggerated. Encana uses steel and concrete casing around its drill pipes, lines its waste pits and, increasingly, cleans its waste water and re-uses it inside its wells.

"We have put in place safeguards to protect the water," Hock said. "There is always a balance -- this country has a great demand for energy."

But because the energy industry has been exempted from so many federal environmental regulations during the Bush administration, it's difficult to assess the industry's true impact on the river.

The mix of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing is held as proprietary competitive information by the industry and kept secret from even the EPA. Scientists say that without knowing the specific ingredients in the mix, they don't know what compounds to test for after a spill and can't check to see if they've reached the river.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Also exempted from federal control and water protection laws are the drilling industry's construction activities, including the sediments and dust produced from thousands of miles of road building, site grading and the drilling itself, even though that debris often ends up in waterways.

"We have seen an explosion in drilling, and at the same time we have seen a weakening of the federal standards under which drilling occurs," said Dusty Horwitt, an analyst with the Environmental Working Group.

Given the relaxation in regulatory authority, the development may be out-pacing scientists' ability to measure the implications.

In August drilling companies bid on 55,000 acres of federal parcels atop the Roan Plateau, a cherished wilderness area in central Colorado that drains into the Colorado River. A September report from the University of Colorado Denver predicted that in 15 years Garfield County, a western drilling area bisected by the river, will have 23,000 wells, six times what is has now, based on permit applications already filed with the state.

The push to drill continued last week, when the BLM opened 148,598 more acres of federal land near Moab to drilling. Quarterly lease sales in that area during the last two years were typically about 75,000 acres.

"It seems reckless," said Bill Hedden, director of the Grand Canyon Trust. Near his home outside Moab, natural gas drilling rigs may soon be visible through Delicate Arch, the wind-hewn bridge of rock at Arches National Park that graces Utah's license plate.

"We Americans have tried to export a lot of our problems off to the boondocks -- but in this case the boondocks is the watershed and the problem is coming right back to us," Hedden said.

According to Spisak, the BLM official in charge of drilling, the Maob sale is the result of "pent up build-up" in the cue of requests the agency is handling. Companies that want to drill on federal land ask the BLM to consider listing that land for a future lease sale. Over the past few years, Spisak said, environmental organizations have challenged some of the listings the BLM approved, delaying their sale. Now the agency is catching up.

"We are required to push them forward," Spisak said. "It's due to pressures of prices and industry, and we are responding to the market demand."

An Unprecedented Demand

Colorado River (Flickr User: WisDoc)
No project poses a greater threat to the Colorado River -- or better represents the choice between water and energy -- than mining for oil shale.

In mid November the BLM quietly approved a rule change that paved the way for extracting oil from rock deposits in Colorado and Utah, smack in the heart of the river's watershed. If the vast deposits are mined to their potential -- and it could be a decade before any of the projects go forward -- the reserves could help the United States make a significant leap towards energy independence.

Getting oil from the shale, if researchers can find a reliable way to do it on a large scale, would be astronomically expensive. It might also require more water than the Colorado River can provide.

A recent study for the state of Colorado estimates that if the oil shale industry takes off in northwest Colorado, the region's energy industry will need at least 15 times as much water as it uses now. In 30 years, the report predicts, the energy industry in the upper Colorado River basin would stop the river's entire flow for nearly six weeks if it used the water all at once.

"It would take every bit of water rights that we currently have plus more," said Scott Ruppe, general manager of Uintah Water Conservancy District in northeastern Utah.

Counties across the Western states are apportioned a limited quota of water rights that can be used for industry, farming, or municipal use, he explained. Using Colorado River water for oil shale means less water for urban growth, agriculture and personal use. It means trading fresh fruit and vegetables – not to mention green lawns -- for energy.

"It just comes down to how needy the nation is for energy," he said. "If energy is short then some of the other concerns might get pushed aside."

These stark choices have driven Congress to begin examining the water problem in the absence of leadership from the White House. One of the bills that has been written would, if passed, direct the Interior Department to undertake the kind of comprehensive inventory of the nation's water quality and supply that critics say is missing.

It will be up to the Obama administration, though, to ultimately decide the nation's priorities. The appointment of Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar to head the Interior Department will inject a unique understanding of western water issues into Washington politics. Salazar is a long-time rancher and a former water attorney.

The new administration could temper some of Bush's decisions by limiting mining claims in sensitive areas, refusing to finalize leases sales that haven't been signed, and rigorously enforcing existing environmental regulations. It also could try to reverse some of the rules the Bush administration has issued to speed development, although that will be difficult.

Obama's greatest opportunity to address the conflict between water and energy may lie not in undoing policies from the past, but in looking to the future.

"The administration has an opportunity to start thinking about water as a national resource," said Nevada's Mulroy. "We have no rear view mirrors anymore."

Abrahm Lustgarten is a former staff writer and contributor for Fortune, and has written for Salon, Esquire, the Washington Post and the New York Times since receiving his master's in journalism from Columbia University in 2003.

water filters buying guide

Water Filters Buying Guide

source:
http://www.thegreenguide.com/products/print_pr.mhtml?id=169
http://www.thegreenguide.com/products/Kitchen/Water_Filters?source=email_gg_20081001&email=gg&EID=

What To Look For

Filters only reduce selected contaminants. Therefore, be sure you know which pollutants you're targeting before purchase, and select a filter certified by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), as all the above filters are. When a product effectively reduces at least 93 percent of a particular contaminant, NSF certifies the filter for reduction of that contaminant.

Following are basic criteria to use when choosing a water filter:

Type

Carafe: Portable pour-through carafes are the simplest and cheapest filtration option. They use carbon filters, and most models require a filter change about every two months. For basic filtering and taste improvement, Brita pitchers work fine. Pur filters remove a wider variety of contaminants, but they've been found to clog easily. However, in areas with herbicides or other chemical contaminants that Brita filters can't remove, Pur is the least costly option.

Faucet Mount: Faucet mounted filtration systems also use carbon filters but eliminate the wait-time associated with carafes. The filter cartridges should be changed every three months.

Counter Top: Counter-top models are either manual-fill units, or they're filled via a tube connected to your faucet. They generally use either carbon filters or distillation.

Under Counter: Under-counter systems attach to the water pipes under your sink and provide hot or cold filtered water through your existing tap or a separate faucet (filter units requiring a separate faucet usually have high installation costs). The water flow with these systems tends to be better than with faucet-mounted systems, and filters generally only need changing twice a year.

Whole House: Whole house systems filter all household water, whether used for bathing, washing or drinking, before it comes into the home. When sediment in water is a problem, whole house systems can in fact prolong the life of major appliances, but they usually are ineffective at removing lead, chloroform, pesticides, and bacteria.

Portable Filters: Some reusable water bottles come equipped with a filtration system inside the bottle. Most remove chlorine, bad tastes and odors, as well as an assortment of heavy metals including lead, mercury, and copper.

Filtration Method

Carbon: These use activated carbon to adsorb lead, chlorine byproducts, certain parasites, radon, solvents, some pesticides and herbicides, and some organic chemicals as well as odors and bad tastes. They won't remove heavy metals, arsenic, nitrites, bacteria or microbes.

Distiller: Distillers boil water into steam, then condense it back into water in a separate chamber, leaving behind particles and total dissolved solids. Since water is heated, distillers kill microbes. They eliminate many other pollutants including trivalent arsenic, fluoride, lead and mercury , but not volatile organic chemicals and chlorine, which are usually removed by an accompanying carbon filter. Upfront costs for distillers are steep, between $200 and $1500. They also use considerable amounts of energy: It takes one kilowatt-hour to produce one liter of distilled water. Because the average person uses 100 gallons of water per day, a whole-house distiller can increase daily home energy use by 378 kWh. If heavy metals are a problem, consider a counter top distiller for your drinking water only. Distilled water contains less dissolved oxygen, and many find that the water tastes flat.

Reverse Osmosis: Reverse-osmosis systems, typically expensive and difficult to install, operate by pushing water through a membrane, then flushing away a few gallons of contaminant-containing water for every gallon purified. These systems are the only filters that remove nitrates and perchlorate. They also remove industrial chemicals, heavy metals, chlorine byproducts, arsenic and asbestos but not radon or 100 percent of pesticides, which can be removed by an additional carbon filter. (As these filters waste enormous amounts of water and flush contaminants back into the water supply, they should be considered a solution to water contamination only if nitrates and perchlorate are problems in your area). The membrane generally needs to be replaced every two to three years.

Ceramic: Ceramic filters, often combined with carbon filters, will remove bacteria, parasites, asbestos and sediments. As water passes through the pores of the ceramic, particles as small as .2 microns are trapped. When the water flow is reduced, the filter requires a light scrub under running water. Ceramic filters are available in both counter-top and under the counter models, and are often combined with another filtration method.

UV: These use a 60-watt ultraviolet light bulb to kill giardia, E.coli, and Cryptosporidium, and are currently the only systems certified by the NSF to do so. Although the bulb is continuously lit, UV systems are more energy-efficient than distillers and are available in under the counter models and whole house units. UV purifiers are not certified to remove pathogens uncommon to North America such as toxoplasma and entamoeba and should be used in conjunction with another filtration method.

Contaminants Removed

Contaminants vary for each water supply, but those most frequently found include:

2,4-D: a common herbicide and suspected hormone disruptor

Arsenic: a heavy metal that has been linked bladder, lung, kidney, prostate and skin cancer in animal tests, heart and nervous system damage and skin problems; can enter water through natural soil deposits or industrial and agricultural pollution. Very low levels of arsenic have also been found to disrupt hormone functions.

Atrazine: an herbicide used on corn; short-term exposure leads to lung, kidney and heart congestion while long-term exposure may cause cardiovascular disease. Atrazine is a suspected hormone disruptor.

Chloramine: a chlorine-ammonia compound used as a disinfectant in 29 percent of U.S. water utilities; has been associated with asthma, rashes and fainting

Coliform bacteria: Not harmful in themselves, they may indicate the presence of dangerous microbes such as Cryptosporidium, which can be life-threatening to people with weak immune systems.

Cysts: microorganisms including Cryptosporidium and Giardia that are carried by animal and human waste and linked to gastrointestinal illness. Crypto can be life-threatening for those with weakened immune systems.

E.coli: a type of fecal coliform bacteria that can cause gastrointestinal illness; about 2 to 7 percent of E.coli of infections lead to kidney failure.

Lead: a brain-damaging and neurotoxic heavy metal that can enter water via decaying pipes and taps; "Every homeowner, especially if they have children under six, should have their water tested for lead," warns Erik Olson, a senior attorney specializing in drinking water at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Lindane: used as an insecticide and in prescription medications for head and body lice; a known hormone disruptor

Mercury: a brain-damaging heavy metal that can also cause kidney damage

Misc. heavy metals: Carcinogenic chromium can also cause upset stomach, ulcers, kidney and liver damage and death. Short term exposure to selenium, cadmium and copper can nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and long term exposure to cadmium and copper can cause kidney disease.

MTBE: The gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) leaks into groundwater from underground fuel storage, spills and storm-water runoff and is a possible carcinogen. MTBE has been banned in many but not all states.

Nitrates: come from animal waste on cattle farms, on feedlots and in dairies, and can cause "blue-baby syndrome," which prevents blood from holding oxygen.

Perchlorate: contaminant derived from rocket fuel; causes thyroid damage and is a possible carcinogen

Perchloroethylene (PERC)/tetrachloroethylene: PERC, also commonly listed as tetrachloroethylene, is the main solvent used in most dry-cleaning processes. It is a known carcinogen that can cause neurological, kidney and liver effects, and has been associated with reproductive effects such as spontaneous abortion.

Simazine: a common pesticide; long-term exposure may lead to liver and kidney damage

Trihalomethanes (THMs): Chemicals formed when chlorine used to disinfect water reacts with organic matter, such as animal waste, treated sewage or leaves and soil. They can increase the risk of cancer and may damage the liver, kidneys and nervous system, and increase rates of miscarriage and birth defects.

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): inorganic salts, such as calcium, sodium and sulfates, and small amounts of organic matter that are dissolved in water; the concentration of TDS in water is not a health hazard but can cause water to be corrosive or salty in taste and may lead to mineral build-up.

Toxaphene: a now-banned insecticide that breaks down slowly in the environment and is an EPA-classified probable carcinogen; high level exposure could damage the lungs, nervous system and kidneys.

VOCs: Including benzene, which can cause cancer and birth defects and toluene, which can cause nausea, weakness, confusion and hearing and vision loss.

Annual Filter Cost

The dollar amount refers to the cost of replacing filters for one year.

Shopping and Usage Tips

To ensure that the filter you buy is effective, find out which contaminants are specific to your water supply before you start shopping.

If you draw from a municipal supply, obtain a copy of your water quality report. Water utilities are required to send these to customers by July 1st of each year. If you have not received a copy, request it from your local supplier or the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791), or you can view it online at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm.

If your water source is a private well, check with your local health department to find out which contaminants are common where you live. The EPA recommends that you have it tested annually by a state-certified lab for nitrate and coliform bacteria, total dissolved solids and pH levels. Also, test for radon if that's a problem in your area (call 800-SOS-RADON to see if it's an issue) and for pesticides, if you live near a farm where crops are sprayed frequently. National Testing Labs can test for 95 contaminants, including 20 pesticides, by mail (www.ntllabs.com, 800-458-3330). For more information, call the Water Systems Council hotline (www.wellcarehotline.org, 888-395-1033).

Check for lead in your building's pipes. The NSF certifies reverse osmosis systems, carbon filters and distillers for the removal of lead, a neurotoxic heavy metal that gets into water as pipes decay. It's not present in all pipes, so find out if it's a problem before spending money on a costly filter. You can get the name of a state-certified laboratory from www.epa.gov/safewater/labs/index.html.

Usage Tips

Change the filter on time to ensure that water is being cleared of contaminants. If need be, mark a reminder on your calendar.

Continue to monitor your water reports or test your well water for contamination, especially in the event of unexplained illnesses, a chemical or fuel spill nearby, or if there is a change in water taste, odor, color or clarity.

Weigh in with your water utility and local environmental groups to urge better protection against industrial and agricultural contamination of your city's water source. Campaign to limit development around reservoir watersheds, and buy organic food to support farming methods that prevent pesticides from entering water. The cleaner your watershed, the less you have to rely on filters.

Product Comparisons

While America's drinking water supplies are tightly regulated and are among the healthiest in the world, health-threatening contaminants may occasionally enter drinking water from old pipes, wells or municipal water treatment disruptions. The filters below have been independently certified to remove major contaminants, so there are no worries about getting those requisite eight glasses of water a day.

Wondering what these table headings mean? They're the criteria we used to choose and evaluate the products in the chart below. Learn more about their importance in What To Look For.

Name Type Filtration Method Contaminants Removed Annual Filter Cost MSRP Purchasing Information Reader Rating
Shaklee Perfect Pitcher Carafe Carbon 4 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor $90 $17 www.shaklee.com, 925-924-2000
Avg. Rating
Pur 2 Stage 7 Cup Oval Pitcher CR6000 Carafe Carbon 19 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, 2-4D, atrazine, VOCs, cadmium, copper, cysts, lindane, mercury, MTBE, simazene,tetrachloroethylene, toxaphene, TTHM $82 $30 www.purwaterfilter.com, 800-787-5463
Avg. Rating
Brita Super Saver Carafe Carbon 8 including chlorine, taste, odor, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead*, benzene* $54 $22.99 www.brita.com, 800-24-BRITA
Avg. Rating
Pur Horizontal FM 9400 Faucet Mount Carbon 30 including chlorine, particulates, tastes and odor, 2,4-D, atrazine, VOCs, cysts, lead, lindane, MTBE, mercury, simazene, TTHM, tetrachloroethylene, toxaphene $80 $40 www.purwaterfilter.com, 800-787-5463
Avg. Rating
GE Smartwater GXFM03C Faucet Mount Carbon 8 including atrazine, cysts, lead, lindane, mercury, turbidity, chlorine*, particulates* $64 $20 www.geappliances.com, 800-626-2005
Avg. Rating
Brita Disposable CKFF-100 Faucet Mount Carbon 13 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, atrazine, benzene, cysts, lead, mercury, toxaphene $0 $40 www.brita.com, 800-24-BRITA
Avg. Rating
Shaklee Best Water MTS2000 Counter Top Carbon 8 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, VOCs $105 $255 www.shaklee.com, 925-924-2000
Avg. Rating
Culligan CT-2 Counter Top Carbon 9 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, mercury $75 $50 www.culligan.com, 800-CULLIGAN
Avg. Rating
Sylvan Source Automatic Fill Distillation System M-600 Counter Top Distiller 10 including arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, TDS $0 $38 www.sylvansource.com, 800-640-0469
Avg. Rating
Aqua Pure by Cuno AP-DWS1000 Under Counter Carbon 10 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, MTBE, VOCs, pesticides* $180 $350 www.cuno.com, 800-22-7880
Avg. Rating
GE Smartwater GXSV65F Under Counter Carbon 13 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, atrazine, cysts, lead, lindane, mercury, VOCs, rust* $80 $150 www.geappliances.com, 800-626-2005
Avg. Rating
Everpure H-300 Under Counter Carbon 14 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead, VOCs, chloramine*, mold and algae*, oxidised iron*, manganese sulfides* $95 $300 www.everpure.com
Avg. Rating
Doulton Ultracarb IP200UC Under Counter Ceramic/carbon 7 including chlorine, particulates, taste and odor, cysts, lead est. $40 $319 www.doultonusa.com, 888-664-3336
Avg. Rating
Kenmore Elite 38556 Under Counter Reverse Osmosis 13 including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cysts, lead, nitrates, selenium, TDS $80 $300 www.kenmore.com, 800-349-4358
Avg. Rating
Culligan Aqua-Cleer Good Water Machine AC-30 Under Counter Reverse Osmosis 10 including arsenic, cadmium, copper, cysts, fluoride, chromium, lead, radium, selenium, TDS $50 $900 www.culligan.com, 800-CULLIGAN
Avg. Rating
Whirlpool WHCF-DWHV Whole House Carbon particulates $24 $35 www.whirlpool.com, 866-698-2538
Avg. Rating
TrojanUVMax Pro 20 Whole House UV 5 including E.coli, giardia, cryptosporidium $0 est. $1,600 www.trojanuvmax.com, 888-220-6118
Avg. Rating
*Manufacturer claims the filter removes this contaminant, although the filter has not been certified by NSF to do so.
The Backstory

Many of us rely on our state and local officials to ensure that the water coming out of our taps is clean and safe. They test water quarterly for synthetic organic chemicals and hundreds of times a month for bacteria, and municipal testing is actually more stringent than that required for bottled water, which is only tested annually. Nevertheless, a few localized problems with municipal supplies cast doubt on the entire nation's, leading consumers to opt for bottled water. Popular also because it's more convenient and may taste better, bottled water still costs 1,000 times more per gallon than tap, isn't as closely regulated and contributes to a host of environmental hazards.

Environmental Issues

Bottled water consumes 1.5 million barrels of oil annually in the production of convenient, disposable, petroleum-based plastics. Even though most plastic water bottles are recyclable, they're usually thrown out. The Container Recycling Institute estimates that each day, more than 60 million plastic bottles are incinerated or tossed in landfills.

Meanwhile, the contents of those bottles may be no different than the water coming out of your tap. As much as 40 percent of bottled water is actually drawn from municipal water supplies. PepsiCo has recently admitted as much by labeling it's Aquafina as coming from "a public water source" and then shipped cross-country, spewing greenhouse gases and burning more non-renewable oil in the process.

Water filters themselves create solid waste in the form of disposed plastic cartridges, which add to landfill problems. Unfortunately, water filters aren't recyclable and manufacturers currently don't have take-back programs designed to keep used water filters out of landfills.

Personal Health

People often turn to bottles because of threats to municipal supplies, the greatest of which is development, whether agricultural or urban, around reservoirs. Urban development seals green spaces under impervious roadways and parking lots, resulting in increased pollution from topsoil, lawn pesticides and fertilizers, animal and human waste (especially if septic systems fail), roadway oil, soot, landfill run-off and salt. Additionally, agricultural run-off carries pesticides into water supplies. A February 2007 U.S. Geological Survey survey of 51 "hydrological systems" found that one or more pesticides have been detected in 97 percent of U.S. streams in urban and farming areas, and five percent of shallow wells that provide drinking water in urban areas have pesticide concentrations above EPA human-health benchmarks.

Aside from industrial and agricultural pollution, chemicals not removed from wastewater treatment plants can infiltrate water supplies as well. A May 2002 USGS study of the nation's stream water discovered chemicals found in drugs, detergents, disinfectants, insect repellents, plastics and personal care products, including 33 suspected hormone disruptors. Non-prescription drugs were detected more frequently than almost all other organic wastewater contaminants, and those drugs have been detected in drinking-water supplies in Montana and New Jersey.

The EPA reported in 1998 that 6 percent of the country's water systems had violated health standards for at least one of 90 regulated contaminants that year. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an estimated seven million Americans are made sick annually by contaminated tap water; in some rare cases, this results in death. One study published in the 2006 Journal of Water and Health found that, between 1991 and 2002, 4,400 people were hospitalized and 50 died from exposure to pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and E.coli in tap water.

Related Articles

From the Green Guide:

"Lead, Straight From the Tap," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/ask/leadwater

"American Waters: What Hurts, What Helps," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/121/water

"Three Simple Steps to Clean, Safe Drinking Water," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/101/threesteps

"Message in the Bottle: Drink Tap," www.thegreenguide.com/doc/101/watershed

From Outside Sources:

Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water: www.safe-drinking-water.org, 202-895-0432 x135

Clean Water Lead Testing Inc. provides lead testing for $24: www.leadtesting.org, 828-251-6800

EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline: www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm, 800-426-4791

National Drinking Water Clearinghouse: www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/ndwc_index.htm, 800-624-8301

National Testing Labs: www.ntlabs.com, 800-458-3330

National Sanitation Foundation: www.nsf.org, 800-673-6275

Radon Hotline: 800-SOS-RADON

Water Systems Council: www.wellcarehotline.org, 888-395-1033

"Making Sense out of Drinking Water 'Right to Know' Reports." www.safe-drinking-water.org/rtk.html

New York City residents can order free lead tests through the city's Department of Environmental Protection, 311.

Olson, Erik D. "Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?" Natural Resources Defense Council. 1999. www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/exesum.asp

"Protecting Groundwater from Pesticides: A Clean Water Action Guide." Friends of the Earth. www.foe.org/safefood/groundwater

Starbucks wasting more than 6 million gallons of water a day

Starbucks Wasting More Than 6 Million Gallons of Water a Day
Amount of Water Lost Is Enough to Fill an Olympic Pool Every 83 Minutes
BY PHILIP VICTOR
LONDON, Oct. 6, 2008

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/SmartHome/Story?id=5964908
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=5964908

[Read comments:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/SmartHome/comments?type=story&id=5964908 ]

American coffee giant Starbucks became the target of conservationists today after an investigation by the U.K. newspaper The Sun estimated that the company wasted up to 6 million gallons of water every day, enough to quell the thirst of a small African nation.

As part of a company policy aimed at preventing germ buildup in its taps, Starbucks stores are directed to keep water running constantly into a sink, called a dipper well, to clean utensils and wash away food residue, The Sun reported.

As a result of running water all day, every day at each of the company's 10,000 worldwide coffee emporiums, Starbucks wastes water in an amount The Sun estimated to be "enough daily water for the entire 2 million strong population of drought-hit Namibia in Africa or fill an Olympic pool every 83 minutes."

The investigation was launched after a couple who spotted a running tap at a U.K. Starbucks were told by a store employee that it was left on to clean the pipes. They contacted Starbucks head office to find out more and later received a letter confirming that it was company policy to keep water constantly running into the dipper wells.

The Sun investigation spanned several Starbucks locations in the United Kingdom, including stores in London, Manchester and Birmingham, as well as in New York, Los Angeles, Beijing and Sydney. The practice of leaving taps on during operating hours was consistent in every location; The Sun reported that staff members were banned from turning the water off.

In a statement to ABC News, the company confirmed that "the dipper well system currently in use in Starbucks retail stores ensures that we meet or exceed our own and local health standards."

"Starbucks' challenge is to balance water conservation with the need for customer safety," the statement said.

So does leaving the water on actually make germ buildup less likely?

"They don't need to keep the tap on all the time. & A couple of minutes of running water should [clean the tap]," Jacob Tompkins of Waterwise, a nonprofit organization that focuses on decreasing U.K. water consumption, told ABCNews.com. "You don't keep the water running at home."

The water wastage seems an anomaly for a company that prides itself on its environmental record. In its mission statement posted on the company's Web site, Starbucks claims that it has a commitment to "understand environmental issues, to strive to buy, sell and use environmentally-friendly products, and to instill environmental responsibility as a corporate value."

Apart from the wastage itself, there are potentially other environmental effects. Tompkins said the energy used to pump water from the ground and treat it increases the carbon footprint of the entire operation.

While the company states it is in compliance with the World Health Organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and European Union standards, Starbucks admitted that "the opportunity exists to reduce our total water usage."

Tompkins said, "It's really good that they have customer health in mind," but he added that there are other ways to ensure cleanliness and hygiene in its stores.

Tompkins said the aim of his organization is to "reduce waste, not restrict use" and noted that Starbucks deserved credit for its "really good customer health record."

But he also offered some advice on how Starbucks could reduce its water waste and still ensure its stated commitment to customer safety.

He said the company could cut water use when the stores are not extremely busy and also look into ways of "lowering the flow" of water, such as aerating nozzles.

"They can do a water audit and discuss [it] with their staff," he said.

In the statement to ABC News, Starbucks said it has tested more environmentally-friendly ways to maintain its hygiene, including using an ice bath and eliminating spoons altogether.

"Neither of these alternatives was successful," the statement said.

Starbucks stated that other methods are "currently under consideration," including using dishwashers to clean their utensils.

"We continue to routinely re-evaluate our equipment, store design and training opportunities to reduce our overall water use with the goal of ultimately reducing our environmental footprint," the company said.