Water Woes Among Topics for 8 Governors in Vegas

by Ken Ritter

Facing dwindling water supplies, Western states are struggling to capture every drop with dam and diversion projects that some think could erode regional cooperation crucial to managing the scarce resource.

Against that backdrop, eight Western governors meeting in Las Vegas this weekend will address regional water issues, and water managers from seven states arrive next week to work on ways to ensure 40 million people in the parched Colorado River basin don’t go thirsty.

Gary Wockner, a conservationist with the Denver-based advocacy group Save the Colorado, said there’s already jostling amid the fear of empty buckets. “Everyone is trying to get the last legal drop of water,” he said.

Colorado River Water Users Association representatives deny there’s discord at their table.

“Fifteen years of drought has tightened everything. But I don’t see this as people are getting ready to fight,” said Jeff Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. That agency is dealing with a double-whammy ? drought on the Colorado River and in the Sierra Nevada and Northern California.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval will host Western Governors’ Association counterparts from Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming this weekend to consider several issues, including water. Two days of drought workshops follow.

“The motto is: We save the system as a whole,” said Pat Mulroy, longtime general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority in Las Vegas and now a senior policy fellow with the Brookings Institution.

“If we get into, ‘I’m going to win,’ and, ‘You’re going to lose,’ there won’t be a winner,” Mulroy said.

But Wockner said Colorado, Wyoming and Utah are considering dams and diversions in the mountains to capture water they’re entitled to before it reaches the Colorado and flows to the deserts.

New Mexico has plans to divert and store water from the Gila River for cities and farms before it flows into Arizona and empties into the Colorado River near the Mexico border.

“Diversions extract water from the system,” said Jack Schmidt, professor of watershed sciences at Utah State University. He just completed three years studying the Grand Canyon for the U.S. Geological Survey. “More water use and more water retention in the upper basin means less water flowing through the Grand Canyon to the lower basin.”

Schmidt referred to the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and agreements with Mexico that promise about 16.5 million acre-feet of water annually from a river system that has historically taken in about 15 million acre-feet from rainfall and snowmelt. But that amount has diminished during almost 15 years of drought. One acre-foot of water is about enough to serve two average Las Vegas homes for a year.

“You could say that we decided how to divide the pie, but the pie is smaller than anybody thought,” Schmidt said. “With climate change, it is even smaller than that.”

In Las Vegas, which virtually relies on water from Lake Mead, officials are making plans to add a $650 million pumping facility to draw from the reservoir even if levels drop below 1,000 feet above sea level. That’s the line at which Hoover Dam’s hydroelectric turbines would be idled.

The Southern Nevada Water Authority already is drilling an $800 million tunnel to tap water from the bottom of the lake, at 860 feet above sea level.

At 900 feet ? so-called “dead pool” ? the river would end at Hoover Dam. Nothing would flow downstream.

The lake reached its high water mark in 1983 at 1,225 feet.

The Metropolitan Water District’s Kightlinger said the seven basin states ? Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico upstream and California, Arizona and Nevada downstream ? have a history of cooperating, and they have forged several landmark agreements.

A 2012 amendment to a 70-year-old treaty between the U.S. and Mexico has the river flowing south of the border again.

Last summer, water agencies in Denver, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix began an $11 million pilot program with the federal government to pay farmers, cities and industries to cut use of Colorado River water.

The goal is to prop up Lake Mead, which stood Friday at 1,084 feet above sea level ? just 9 feet above the crucial 1,075 level that would trigger cuts to Arizona, Nevada and California.

The federal Bureau of Reclamation this week projected a better than 50 percent chance that it will declare such a shortage in January 2017.

The Central Arizona Project would face the first cutbacks, and farmers would be hit hardest, agency chief David Modeer said.

“Hoping for snowpack is not sufficient to solve this,” Modeer said. “It’s going to take cooperation and sacrifice among all of us to stave off disaster in the river.”

Source: ABC News.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Avoid Amazon’s “Cyber Monday,” and buy local

by Jim Hightower

It’s “Cyber Monday” – get out there and buy stuff!

But you don’t actually have to go anywhere, for this gimmicky shop-shop-shop day lures us to consume without leaving home, or even getting out of bed. Concocted by Amazon, the online marketing monopolist, Cyber Monday is a knock-off of Black Friday – just another ploy by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to siphon sales from real stores.

Seems innocent enough, but behind Amazon’s online convenience and discounted prices is a predatory business model based on exploitation of workers, bullying of suppliers, dodging of taxes, and use of crude anti-competitive force against America’s Main Street businesses. A clue into Amazon’s ethics came when Bezos instructed his staff to get ever-cheaper prices from small-business suppliers by stalking them “the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle.”

Jeff Crandall, who owns Old Town Bike Shop in Colorado Springs, is one who’s under attack. He offers fair prices, provides good jobs, pays rent and taxes, lives in and supports the community. But he has noticed that more and more shoppers come in to try out bikes and get advice, yet not buy anything. Instead, their smartphones scan the barcode of the bike they want, then they go online to purchase it from Amazon – cheaper than Crandall’s wholesale price. You see, the Cheetah is a mulitibillion-dollar a year beast that can sell that bike at a loss, then make up the loss on sales of the thousands of other products it peddles.

This amounts to corporate murder of small business – and, yes, it’s illegal, but Amazon is doing it every day in practically every community. So, on this Cyber Monday, let’s pledge to buy from local businesses that support our communities. For information, go to American Independent Business Alliance: www.amiba.net.

Source: “Amazon’s ruthless practices are crushing Main Street–and threatening the vitality of our communities,” www.hightowerlowdwon.org, September 2014.

Radon In Water:  How it gets there and How to Get Rid of It

 Radon is one of the more perplexing and misunderstood issues in home water treatment.  The material below is excerpted from several sources, especially from an excellent Penn State University Extension services publication.

Radon is a colorless, tasteless, odorless, radioactive gas. It is formed from the decay of radium in soil, rock, and water and can be found worldwide.

The radon in the air in your home generally comes from two sources: the soil or the water supply.  It escapes from the earth’s crust through cracks and crevices in bedrock, and either seeps through foundation cracks or through poorly sealed areas into basements and homes, or it dissolves in the groundwater. Radon can be trapped in buildings where it can increase to dangerous levels. Radon entering your home’s air supply through the soil is typically a much larger risk than the amount of radon   In general, radon is of much greater danger when it enters through the soil than when it enters via the water supply.

Radon can be inhaled from the air or ingested from water. Inhalation of radon increases the chances of lung cancer and this risk is much larger than the risk of stomach cancer from swallowing water with a high radon concentration. Generally, ingested waterborne radon is not a major cause for concern. The extent of the effects and the risk estimates involved are difficult to determine. According to the EPA’s 2003 Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes, radon is estimated to cause about 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year. The National Research Council’s report, Risk Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water, estimates that radon in drinking water causes about 160 cancer deaths per year due to inhalation and 20 stomach cancer deaths per year due to ingestion.

Radon in water usually originates in water wells that are drilled into bedrock containing radon gas. Radon usually does not occur in significant concentrations in surface waters.

Dissolved radon in groundwater will escape into indoor air during showering, laundering, and dish washing. Estimates are that indoor air concentrations increase by approximately 1 pCi/L for every 10,000 pCi/L in water. For example, a water well containing 2,000 pCi/L of radon would be expected to contribute 0.2 pCi/L to the indoor air radon concentration. Based on the potential for cancer, the EPA suggests that indoor air should not exceed 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L).

EPA and various states have recommended drinking water standards for radon in water ranging from 300 to 10,000 pCi/L but no standard currently exists. One study of radon present in over 900 Pennsylvania water wells found that 78% exceeded 300 pCi/L, 52% exceeded 1,000 pCi/L and 10% exceeded 5,000 pCi/L.

Since most exposure to radon is from air, testing of indoor air is the simplest method to determine the overall risk of radon in your home. Test kits for indoor air radon are inexpensive and readily available at most home supply stores.

Testing for radon in water is also inexpensive but requires special sampling and laboratory analysis techniques that measure its presence before it escapes from the sample. Test kits are available from various private testing labs

The presence of waterborne radon indicates that radon is probably also entering the house through the soil into the basement which is generally the predominant source. Therefore, treating the water without reducing other sources of incoming airborne radon probably will not eliminate the radon threat. Therefore, you should also test the air in your home for radon.

Treating Radon in Water

The main objective of water treatment is removing radon from water before the radon can become airborne. Most water treatment, therefore, focuses on “point of entry” rather than “point of use.”

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

One method for removing radon from water is with a granular activated carbon (GAC) unit. Although these systems come in a variety of models, types and sizes, they all follow the same principle for removal . The standard radon GAC filter is a tank-style unit that can have either a backwashing control or a simple non-backwashing head. Non-backwashing GAC units must be protected from sediment with a prefilter.  Radon filter sizing depends on the amount of radon present, service flow rates, amount of water treated, the size of the treatment bed and other factors, so each application must be considered separately and radon testing for effectiveness of the filter should be carried out regularly.

Typical setup for a GAC filter treating radon.

Various estimates suggest that GAC should only be used on water supplies with a maximum radon concentration of less than 30,000 pCi/L.  If you do decide to purchase a unit, select a filter size that matches your water use and conditions.  According to EPA, a three-cubic-foot unit can handle as much as 250 gallons of water per day and effectively reduce radon levels. Typical water use in the home ranges from 50 to 100 gallons per person per day.

A major drawback to the use of GAC filters for radon removal is the eventual buildup of radioactivity within the filter. For this reason, the GAC unit should be placed outside the home or  in an isolated part of the basement to minimize exposure. The carbon may also need to be replaced annually to reduce the hazard of accumulated radioactivity. Spent GAC filters used for radon removal may need special disposal.  Disposal of spent carbon should be in compliance with local waste disposal regulations.

GAC treatment units are frequently also installed to remove chlorine, pesticides, petroleum products, and various odors in water. In these cases, the GAC filter may unknowingly be accumulating radioactivity as it removes radon from the water. Radon should always be tested for and considered as a potential hazard with the use of GAC filters.

Aeration

EPA has listed aeration as the best available technology for removing radon from water. Home aeration units physically agitate the water to allow the dissolved radon gas to be collected and vented to the outside. With new technological advancements in home aeration, these units can have radon removal efficiencies of up to 99.9%. Standard aeration treatment units typically cost $3,000 to $5,000 including installation.  Be aware that aeration specifically for radon reduction is not the same as aeration for iron or hydrogen sulfide reduction.  While “closed tank” systems designed for iron and sulfide reduction might help with radon, they are not designed to provide the large ventilation capacity needed to assure release of radon to the atmosphere.

When considering installation of aeration units, other water quality issues must be taken into account, such as levels of iron, manganese and other contaminants. Water with high levels of these types of contaminants may need to be pre-treated in order to prevent clogging the aeration unit. Disinfection equipment may also be recommended since some aeration units can allow bacterial contamination into the water system.

Typical Spray Aeration System Designed  for Radon Reduction in a Private Home

There are several styles of aeration treatment units but all work on the same principle of aerating or agitating the water to allow the radon gas to escape so it can be captured and vented. Each type of unit has advantages and disadvantages. One of the more common styles is a spray aeration unit shown above. In this case, water containing radon is sprayed into a tank using a nozzle. The increased surface area of the sprayed water droplets causes the radon to come out of the water as a gas while the air blower carries the radon gas to a vent outside the home. About 50% of the radon will be removed in the initial spraying so the water must be sprayed several times to increase removal efficiencies. To keep a supply of treated water, a 100-gallon or larger holding tank must be used.

Another common aeration unit is the packed column where water moves through a thin film of inert packing material in a column. The air blower forces radon contaminated air back through the column to an outdoor vent. If the column is high enough, removal efficiencies can reach 95%.

Another type of aeration system uses a shallow tray to contact air and water. Water is sprayed into the tray, and then flows over the tray as air is sprayed up through tiny holes in the tray bottom. The system removes more than 99.9% of the radon and vents it outside the home.  Go here for illustrations of other aeration systems.

See also:  the EPA publication and a list of resources from RadonResources.com.

Main Source:  Penn State University.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Pollution total dumped in lake hits 3.7 billion gallons

by Chad Selwesky

The rain showers of Sunday and Monday created sewage overflows that dumped 79 million gallons into Lake St. Clair, bringing the total pollution this year from sewer systems discharged into the lake to 3.7 billion gallons.

The GWK Drain in Oakland County released 72 million gallons, and the Chapaton sewage basin in St. Clair Shores spilled another 7 million gallons. Both facilities partially treat their discharges by adding chlorine and removing solid waste before releasing them into the waterways.

Brent Avery, operations manager at Chapaton, said the situation could have been worse, as the nearby Martin retention basin and the windy weather also presented concerns.

“We filled to the brim at Martin (basin), but did not discharge” Avery said. “We did not experience a power outage, but it was sure fluctuating.”

The 2014 totals reflect the massive sewage dumping on Aug. 11-12 during the unprecedented flooding experienced across southern Oakland and Macomb counties.

During that time period, the GWK Drain, traditionally known as the Twelve Towns Drain, flushed 2.1 billion gallons of partially treated sewage and rainwater into Macomb County’s Red Run Drain at Dequindre, south of 13 Mile Road. From there, the contaminants flow through residential neighborhoods to the Clinton River and then out to Lake St. Clair.

The Chapaton system, located at 9 Mile Road and Jefferson and operated by the Macomb County Public Works Commissioner’s Office, spewed 166 million gallons when the floodwaters hit.

In addition, the amount of untreated raw sewage dumped into the waters by Macomb County communities during the flood was raised dramatically in the final numbers, from nearly 6 million gallons to 140 million gallons.

At one point earlier this fall, officials estimated that the county’s pollution total would hit 4 billion gallons by the end of the year. Sewage system officials say that the overflows are diluted by rain water and present no danger to the public. At the same time, environmental activists say the E. coli bacteria in the discharges is the main cause of the hundreds of beach closings on Lake St. Clair over the past several years.

Water tainted with E. coli can cause skin rashes, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea and it can lead to exposure to viruses.

The total number of gallons dumped into the lake this year equals the volume of 5,300 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Source: Macomb Daily.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

No Black Friday

Pure Water Products is following its Black Friday closing policy occasioned by a shopping accident sustained during the 2012 shopping season.  Please read details. The company’s retail store in Denton, TX will reopen for business as usual on Saturday December 29.

Gazette Introductory Note:  The lead issue at Brick, New Jersey illustrates a common problem for which “authorities” draw some unrealistic conclusions. The advice to run water for 30 seconds before drinking isn’t really a sustainable alternative to proper treatment for lead.  This is clearly a case where “point of use” treatment is the sensible solution.  The Clean Water Action official’s advice that “most filters on the market won’t properly exclude lead” is essentially true, but what should be added is that many filters, even some very inexpensive ones, do effectively reduce lead.  Reverse osmosis removes lead by its nature, and inexpensive carbon filters can be engineered to remove lead effectively.  It certainly makes a lot more sense to use a “final barrier” drinking water treatment than to continually test your water for lead and scores of other possible contaminants or to trust your fate to running the water for 30 seconds before every glass of water.–Hardly Waite.

BRICK – Township residents are concerned over a recent report that elevated lead levels were found in the water of nearly half the homes tested this summer.

After reading the initial Asbury Park Press story on the issue, resident Michele Richards said she went out and spent over $10 on a lead test. Afterwards, she said she learned she would need to spend at least $30 so a laboratory can analyze the results.

“I pay enough taxes as it is,” Richards said. “I don’t feel like I should have to pay to test my drinking water.”

Water in 16 of the 34 homes tested this summer by the Brick Municipal Utilities Authority was found to have more lead than the maximum amount allowed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

At least one home was found to have a lead level of 184.5 parts per billion, more than 12 times the FDA’s cap of 15 ppb.

State and local officials believe the source of the contamination is the pipes and solder inside residents’ homes, not the drinking water supplied by the authority to approximately 38,000 connections.

If the water was coming into homes dirty, then perhaps the authority or the township might have more of a responsibility to pay for individual lead tests, Mayor John Ducey said.

“Unfortunately, the problem is coming from inside residents’ homes,” Ducey said. “It doesn’t make any sense for the town to pay.”

Three years ago, the last time the authority tested for lead, it found three homes with levels above 15 ppb, according to its report.

One theory floated by the authority is that with superstorm Sandy forcing many people out of their homes and not subsequently running their household pipes, the underutilized water supply’s acidity levels may have increased near the ends of the system. The more acidic water would have then been more prone to eat away at the pipes and solder, releasing the lead.

But according to the authority’s website, their testing last month of the system’s water found a pH level of 7.5, which is not considered acidic.

On the Asbury Park Press’ Facebook page, Brick residents lamented the news and wondered aloud whether to buy filters or bottled water to be safe.

Most filters available on the market will not properly exclude lead from the water, said Amy Goldsmith, New Jersey director of Clean Water Action.

“Filters give people a false sense of security,” Goldsmith said. “Most filters don’t really work for lead.”

Boiling the water could actually make the problem worse, Goldsmith said. Heat will not cause lead, a metal, to vaporize or otherwise leave the water inside a kettle or pot, she said.

Boiling will cause some of the water to evaporate, leaving an even more lead-laden liquid, Goldsmith said.

“The best, easiest method is what Brick is advising residents to do, which is to run their pipes in the morning or after any other period when the water in the house has not been used,” Goldsmith said.

Last week, the authority sent a notice of the test results to every resident in Brick. It advised them to run their pipes for at least 30 seconds before usage, and to only consume cold water.

The authority, which had already begun to add a corrosion inhibitor to its water supply, is now expected to test every six months until the problem is remedied, according to the DEP.

Authority officials could not be reached for comment on whether they will consider paying for residents to test their water for lead.

“I don’t think the residents are getting the help that they need here from the town,” Richards said. “They’re just doing the minimum that they have to do.”

Source:  app.com.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Do you know how many toxic chemicals are in your shampoo, your lipstick, your toothpaste?

Getting Drinking Water from the Sea

by B. Sharper

Pure Water Gazette numerical wizard Bee Sharper rolls out some numbers on production of fresh water by sea water desalination.

Approximate number of desalination plants in the world as of 2013 — 17,200.

Daily production capacity of these plants in gallons — 23 billion.

Percentage of these plants that make potable water from sea water — 59%.

Percentage that make potable water from brackish water — 22%.

Percentage that make potable water from river water and wastewater — 9%.

Total dissolved solids (TDS) count of the saltiest of sea waters (e. g,.the Arabian Gulf) — 50,000 mg/L.

Total dissolved solids (TDS) count of most ocean water — 35,000 mg/L.

Typical chloride content of sea water — 19,000 mg/L.

Typical calcium content of sea water — 400 mg/L.

Typical sodium content of sea water — 10,500 mg/L.

Typical number of viruses present in one drop of sea water — 1,000,000.

Nominal pore size of a reverse osmosis membrane used for desalination — 0.0001 to 0.001 microns.

Nominal pore size of a nanofiltration membrane — 0.001 microns.

Psi equivalent of one bar of pressure — 14.5.

Pressure required to treat sea water by reverse osmosis desalination — 55 to 70 bars (800 psi to 1000 psi).

Pressure required to treat brackish water by reverse osmosis desalination — 15 to 35 bars (220 psi to 500 psi).

Percentage of salts, organics, and microbes that are removed from sea water by high pressure reverse osmosis — 99%+.

Estimated per gallon cost of producing fresh water by desalination with reverse osmosis –1/2 cent.

Desalination plant at Al Khaluf in Oman

Industrial Pollution Is Turning Lakes into “Jelly”

by Rachel Feltman

As Canadian lakes have become more acidic, they’ve become increasingly dominated by jelly-like plankton that are throwing things out of whack, new research suggests. And these gummy invaders aren’t going anywhere. Soon, they could even disrupt the country’s water supply.

Years of industrial pollution have replaced the calcium that should be in Canadian soil with acid. Over time, as the drainage areas that feed the country’s lakes are leeched of their calcium, so are the lakes themselves.

Gummy Invaders are Bad News for Plankton (Click Picture for Larger View)

That’s bad news for the calcium-rich plankton (like the Daphnia water fleas) that used to thrive there. Research published recently in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B suggests that these plankton may be losing their turf to invaders less friendly to human needs.

Daphnia need calcium to build up their exoskeleton. Without it, they’re more vulnerable to predators, and their populations have been dropping. Meanwhile, the researchers report, climate change has caused oxygen levels in the lakes to decline as well. This makes for higher populations of larval midges, which are Daphnia’s main predators.

That’s allowed the opportunistic Holopedium to jump in, and the study authors report that populations of these gelatinous plankton have exploded in the past few decades. They only need a tenth of the calcium that Daphnia do, and are protected by their outer jelly capsules instead of by hard exoskeletons.

According to the researchers, Holopedium have been steadily increasing since around 1850 — around the same time that industrialization began.

Why worry about jelly lakes? The researchers believe that these plankton will continue to increase in number, and will eventually be numerous enough to clog up the extraction of drinking water. They also worry that the plankton will disrupt the food chain, eventually causing changes in the populations of other organisms.

“It may take thousands of years to return to historic lake water calcium concentrations solely from natural weathering of surrounding watersheds,” study co-author Andrew Tanentzap of the University of Cambridge said in a statement. “In the meanwhile, while we’ve stopped acid rain and improved the pH of many of these lakes, we cannot claim complete recovery from acidification. Instead, we may have pushed these lakes into an entirely new ecological state.”

Source: Washington Post.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

According to USGS, National Water Use Is at Lowest Levels Since Before 1970:  Conservation Works

Water use across the country reached its lowest recorded level in nearly 45 years. According to a new USGS report, about 355 billion gallons of water per day (BGD) were withdrawn for use in the entire United States during 2010. This represents a 13-percent reduction of water use from 2005 when about 410 BGD were withdrawn and the lowest level since before 1970. “Reaching this 45-year low shows the positive trends in conservation that stem from improvements in water-use technologies and management,” said Mike Connor, Deputy Secretary of the Interior. “Even as the US population continues to grow, people are learning to be more water conscious and do their part to help sustain the limited freshwater resources in the country.”

In 2010, more than 50 percent of the total withdrawals in the US were accounted for by 12 states, in order of withdrawal amounts: California, Texas, Idaho, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, New York, Alabama and Ohio. California accounted for 11 percent of the total withdrawals for all categories and 10 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for all categories nationwide. Texas accounted for about seven percent of total withdrawals for all categories, predominantly for thermoelectric power, irrigation and public supply. Florida had the largest saline withdrawals, accounting for 18 percent of the total in the country, mostly saline surface-water withdrawals for thermoelectric power. Oklahoma and Texas accounted for about 70 percent of the total saline groundwater withdrawals in the US, mostly for mining. “Since 1950, the USGS has tracked the national water-use statistics,” said Suzette Kimball, acting USGS Director. “By providing data down to the county level, we are able to ensure that water resource managers across the nation have the information necessary to make strong water-use and conservation decisions.”

Water withdrawn for thermoelectric power was the largest use nationally, with the other leading uses being irrigation, public supply and self-supplied industrial water, respectively. Withdrawals declined in each of these categories. Collectively, all of these uses represented 94 percent of total withdrawals from 2005-2010.

— Thermoelectric power declined 20 percent, the largest percent decline.
— Irrigation withdrawals (all freshwater) declined nine percent.
— Public-supply withdrawals declined five percent.
— Self-supplied industrial withdrawals declined 12 percent.

A number of factors can be attributed to the 20-percent decline in thermoelectric-power withdrawals, including an increase in the number of power plants built or converted since the 1970s that use more efficient cooling-system technologies, declines in withdrawals to protect aquatic habitat and environments, power plant closures and a decline in the use of coal to fuel power plants. “Irrigation withdrawals in the United States continued to decline since 2005, and more croplands were reported as using higher-efficiency irrigation systems in 2010,” said Molly Maupin, USGS hydrologist. “Shifts toward more sprinkler and micro-irrigation systems nationally and declining withdrawals in the West have contributed to a drop in the national average application rate from 2.32 acre-feet per acre in 2005 to 2.07 acre-feet per acre in 2010.”

For the first time, withdrawals for public water supply declined between 2005 and 2010, despite a four-percent increase in the nation’s total population. The number of people served by public-supply systems continued to increase and the public-supply per capita use declined to 89 GPD in 2010 from 100 GPD in 2005. Declines in industrial withdrawals can be attributed to factors such as greater efficiencies in industrial processes, more emphasis on water reuse and recycling, and the 2008 US recession, resulting in lower industrial production in major water-using industries.

In a separate report, USGS estimated thermoelectric-power withdrawals and consumptive use for 2010, based on linked heat- and water-budget models that integrated power plant characteristics, cooling system types and data on heat flows into and out of 1,290 power plants in the US. These data include the first national estimates of consumptive use for thermoelectric power since 1995, and the models offer a new approach for nationally consistent estimates.

Source: WCPonline. 

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement