Wow, it’s already Week 5 of Food & Water Watch’s Water Challenge! Searching for new ways to save water, I started taking inventory of the items in my house where I have already saved a substantial amount of water.

While most of the appliances in my home are water-efficient, one remains that is not—the toilet. Although I have been keeping a bucket of water in my shower and using that to flush, there are times that I have to resort to water from the 5-gallon tank. Since this isn’t terribly efficient, I decided to research some ways to make the act of flushing less wasteful.

I found that displacing water in my tank is a great way of reducing the amount of water that it takes to flush. I grabbed two plastic one-gallon milk jugs, filled them up with water, and slowly lowered them into my tank. Due to a lapse in judgment, the first attempt created a surge of water that swooshed out of the tank. Yeah, displacement—get it? You’d think that I would have known better. Anyway, I found that the trick was to keep the handle partially pressed down as I slowly put the jugs in the tank to equalize the water level. Once both of them were in place, I noticed two things. The first was that the tank fills much faster because there is less tank to actually fill. The second was a faster flush time, due once again to the fact that there’s less water to actually flush. Now instead of expending between four and five gallons of water per flush, I am down to about two-and-a-half to three gallons of water! Great yet another way that I am saving water in my household.

So lets recap: I wash my dishes by hand, rinse in a dishpan, and use the grey water on plants and my garden. I have replaced my showerhead with a low-flow option. I had all the leaky pipes in my house replaced. I filter my tap water, as opposed to buying bottled water from the store. I take shorter showers, and do not leave the sink running while I brush my teeth or shave. I use run-off from the shower to flush my toilet. I have displaced water in my toilet to save additional water on flushes, and I have helped raised awareness of water conservation through my contributions to this blog!

You see-- small changes really do add up. I would love to hear your comments or stories of how water conservation has changed your life.

-- Jon Brown

If you’re wondering how to use art to discuss water issues, look no further than the Minneapolis arts community. While in town last week for the opening of the film “No Impact Man,”  I spent a day meeting with local artists there to learn about their work to use the visual and aural arts as a means of illustrating the social and political issues surrounding water. ‘Turns out there’s a lot to see.

I kicked things off over breakfast with Liz Dodson and Marilyn Cuneo, organizers of "Women and Water Rights," which opens at the University of Minnesota’s Nash Gallery next spring. The month-long exhibit will feature American and international female artists whose work focuses water rights.

Afterward, I took a spin out to the charming Minnesota Landscape Arboretum to catch the tail end of “Waterosity,” a collection of 10 juried art installations exploring the “gifts of water.” There, landscape designers Debra Ensteness and Sheila Hawthonrne met me to discuss their instillation, “Take Back the Tap: Protect Our Environment”. The giant walk-through water bottle was constructed with 7,500 discarded bottles and incorporates facts about the detrimental effects of bottled water in order to illustrate its blight on the environment and your wallet. 

Next, I visited the Perpich School for Arts Education to learn about teacher and composer Janika Vandervelde’s work to help a dozen young composers create choral music exploring the importance of water.  I gave a talk on water privatization, and students discussed their compositions, which will be performed in a concert themed around water.

Finally, any account of the interplay of water and art in Minneapolis must not overlook the amazing “In the Heart of the Beast Puppet and Mask Theatre”, which has been running water-themed programs for years. These folks continue to keep it real with edgy visuals and a great message.

Interested in using art to educate your community about water? Get started now by hosting a film screening.

Reading this article in the San Francisco Chronicle , I was reminded of my five year old twins. Sometimes when they get mad at each other, they stomp their feet and threaten to throw their toys. Its behavior that I’m sure they’ll grow out of…at least I hope.

But, those hopes were dampened a little when I read about the implicit threat coming from Governor Schwarzenegger to veto all 700 + bills sitting on his desk if the legislature does not reach an agreement with him on a water package by Friday. As we saw towards the end of the session, a package acceptable to the Governor must include more surface storage (or “dams” as you and I might call them), and the package discussed last month included legislation that would facilitate the construction of a costly and environmentally damaging peripheral canal.

The Governor made a similar threat last month, and then retaliated by vetoing a bill that would have honored Vietnam Veterans .

These are not trivial issues, and there are several important bills pending before the governor, including legislation that would establish a human right to water for all Californians.  AB 1242 (Ruskin) would establish clean, affordable water as a human right for all Californians. Agreement on this principle is critical to any comprehensive water solution as there are over 150,000 Californians who currently lack access to safe affordable water.

There are other bills pending that address a wide range of important issues from renewable energy to voting rights, education to health care. Rather than threatening to veto these bills, Governor Schwarzenegger should do what Governor’s are supposed to do: review the substance of the legislation and sign or veto based on their merits.

Our state water issues desperately need to be resolved, but not at the expense of the other issues facing our state. Californians can take action by urging their state legislators to not sign off on a bad water package just because the Governor is throwing a tantrum.

-Mark Schlosberg

As promised, I made a video blog for this week's entry.  Because I'm vain, I feel the need to make the following disclaimers:  My voice actually DOES match my lips in real life, but for some reason it didn't in the very beginning of this video.  Also, it was really hot in the bathroom when we were installing the new shower head.  So look for me to be glistening in that scene.  With that, please take a look at my video, and see how it incredibly easy (and cheap) it is to replace an aging, inefficient shower head!

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported on the unfortunate story of a 22 year-old woman who became paralyzed due to a reaction to E.coli that she contracted from a hamburger.  Even though preventable food-borne illnesses like this one continue to occur, not enough is being done to ensure safe food for consumers.

In 2008, USDA tested ground beef at processing facilities it regulates and found deadly E. coli contamination 54 times.  USDA already found it 31 times this year. But what happened after that? You might assume that the agency tried to find all the product in those batches that were tested so that it could be removed from store shelves before it could harm the public. That’s where you’d be wrong.

We don’t know exactly what happens because USDA refuses to explain it to the public and has blocked our attempts to use the Freedom of Information Act to determine it by looking at their records.  Just last week, USDA officials reneged on their promise for a 2009 meeting to explain exactly what actions the government takes when it finds the deadly E. coli  O157:H7 pathogen in products that have left meat plants. 

What we do know is that most testing is done at the smallest plants, so positive tests often reveal only the tips of the iceberg of how much product might be involved, especially because these small plants often buy scraps of beef from other larger companies to process into ground beef.  After government health departments link illnesses to particular product, all efforts are made to identify the rest of the “iceberg” and recall as much contaminated product as possible.  But, until someone gets sick, even confirmed E. coli 0157:H7 tests in ground beef, lead to a much milder response by USDA. If there are no illnesses and USDA has only a test showing contamination, it will check company paperwork at the slaughterhouses that supplied the beef to the processor and will likely collect one or more samples of current production to see if it is contaminated.  This will indicate nothing about the specific production lot from which the positive test came and will do nothing to alert consumers to the potentially deadly beef that is still in the market, if not already in their freezers.

How many more lives have to be sacrificed before changes are made in the food safety system?  Real action must be taken to prevent more senseless tragedies like this one from occurring. USDA needs to update their E. coli testing and response policies. 

– Felicia Nestor

This Tuesday, Food & Water Watch applauded as two separate lawsuits where filed in Florida, challenging the legality of a recently finalized program known as catch shares that would privatize access to tilefish and grouper – public fish stocks – in the Gulf of Mexico.

One challenge came from the 90,000 member-strong Coastal Conservation Association, a recreational fishing group based in Texas. The other came from an independent small-scale commercial fisherman with a strong backbone named Brian Lewis, based in Clearwater, FL. Both legal complaints cite the unfair (and likely illegal) process used to develop and finalize the privatization plan, and the unfair intended outcome: creating a program that makes a "free market" tradeable commodity of the ability to catch fish – principally to enable a handful of businesses to control public fish resources.

Titled the Amendment 29 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, the plan was approved by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) despite glaring problems – including the failure to conduct a social impact assessment; the awarding of the bulk of the catch shares to fishermen who use a gear type known as longlines, which might not even be allowed in the Gulf in the future due to the fact that they are suspected of killing ten times the number of sea turtles allowed; and a sham referendum that excluded 70 percent of commercial fishermen whose jobs were at stake if the plan passed.

In June 2009, Food & Water Watch provided NMFS with an 18-page comment letter outlining problems with the plan, including the privatization aspect and violation of the national and international laws.  Food & Water Watch also conducted its own re-referendum surveying the fishermen who were excluded from the initial vote and found that the nearly 90 percent of respondents opposed the privatization plan. Had these fishermen been included in the initial vote, it is questionable whether the plan would have passed the referendum hurdle. Still, NMFS proceeded to approve the plan seemingly without regard for this clear opposition and the risk of massive job loss.

The legal challenges by Brian Lewis and the CCA will hopefully result in an end to fishery privatization in the Gulf. Food & Water Watch is opposed to privatization of public resources and is calling for Congressional oversight hearings to raise the matter to a national level.

See our Fair Fish campaign and fact sheet for more information on the issue and on ways to help protect our oceans and give fish and fishermen a fair chance.

Over the past several weeks, water conservation has really taken on a new meaning for me. This past week I thought of ways to conserve water, but tried to look at the bigger picture as far as how water is being misused. The comment on my last blog entry, which I had originally taken as a sarcastic one, was really eye-opening when I discovered that it was a fairly accurate statement. 90 percent of water waste comes from large agriculture companies. Some five percent comes from municipal golf courses (really amazing, I feel a little disgusted now as an avid golf fan and golf course-frequenter). The remaining five percent is used by people like you and me.  How then, can we actually make a difference?

The difference is in the small things—the seemingly minor adjustments we can make actually do have an impact. As Alex mentioned on Wednesday, we went to a screening of "No Impact Man" last week, and after the movie we took questions. Following the question-and-answer period that followed the film, a nice lady approached me just to say, "thanks, for getting this message out there!" She also told me that I’m making a difference, which made me feel a little bit better about this whole experiment. So while it’s great that I am making a difference, I wonder what else I can do.

I find myself looking at the larger picture now like Schindler did at the end of the movie "Schindler's List.” Like, “if I had only done this, then that would have saved 50 gallons of water…” With that type of perspective, I decided to put some pressure on my landlord to actually replace the leaky pipe under my kitchen sink. This has been a constant problem-- a slow drip, which we have been capturing in a small bucket. Every year, billions of gallons of water are wasted in our national water infrastructure. And while towns and states often lack the funding to fix those leaks, the least I can do is repair similar problems in my own home. Why live with a leaky pipe? Isn’t that after all, part of the sleeping dogs mentality that got us to where we are in the first place?

We need to change our mindset from the consumption-oriented one engrained in us since birth, to one that takes the availability of future resources into account. Our new pipe was purchased and installed by the maintenance crew, it took a mere 15 minutes to setup, and wow, no more leak. The repair of that leak was the pinnacle of my realization that we need to change, and that real change starts with us. We each need to do what we can, and together all of those little tasks return big rewards in the future.

So what have I done this week to conserve water? I have continued to reuse my excess shower water to flush the toilet. I have washed my dishes without running the tap. I have reduced water consumption when washing my hands. I have completely stopped buying bottled water, and I have started using a water filter, and I have fixed a leaky pipe under my sink. Ultimately, It’s not that you have to do something new every week, it’s that you need to be consistent with the small changes you have already been committed to over a long period of time.

‘Time to hear from you: what else should I do to save water?

Happy Oktoberfish! Here at Food & Water Watch, we’ve declared October the official month to celebrate sustainable seafood as we work hard to protect our oceans and ensure that consumers have access to delicious, affordable seafood that’s healthy for them and the environment.  With that fall chill in the air, we’re all starting to get excited about festive, food-related occasions, so join Food & Water Watch this month to learn more and get involved in this crucial movement.

We’ve kicked off our month with our Frugal Fish contest, where we’re asking savvy cooks to whip up a sustainable seafood dinner using fish off our Smart Seafood Guide for under $25. We’ve already started receiving entries, and the contest runs until midnight EST on October 16, so if you haven’t already, check it out here!

Also, each week throughout the month we’ll feature the story of a fisherman or someone in the fishing industry who’s working hard to bring good seafood to consumers in a sustainable way. Check out our weekly profiles starting on October 2 and see how you can join crucial fights alongside them.

Stay tuned for more fish fun from Food & Water Watch throughout Oktoberfish, and feel free to post a comment letting us know how you are celebrating sustainable seafood this month!

 – Erica Schuetz

SeafoodSource recently reported that China will be hosting a forum on sustainable seafood production this November, co-sponsored by China’s Ministry of Agriculture and Sea Fare Expositions of Seattle. While any attempt to “go green” and begin to reduce negative environmental impacts should be supported and lauded, the “Sustainable Seafood Forum” in China gives us significant pause. With so many companies now claiming their products are “ecofriendly,” it’s important to watch carefully for greenwashing, the practice of marketing things as being environmentally friendly when they are not.

It just isn’t likely that Chinese aquaculture will become what most of us could consider sustainable very soon, given the huge list of environmental and human health problems often associated with fish farming there. A complete lack of enforcement of food safety regulations and almost no oversight of farming methods, coupled with the farms’ locations in China’s highly polluted waterways, are just some of the problems with many of China’s aquaculture operations. That’s on top of the high usage of antibiotics and pesticides, which can decimate native species and further pollute waters, and the depletion of wild fish to create food for farmed fish.

It’s not just impacts on nature that make most Chinese fish farms troubling; fish from these operations have been associated with serious human health problems as well. There have been numerous food safety scandals both in China and internationally over the last few years involving Chinese seafood, including contamination with melamine, carcinogens, antibiotics and meningitis. In 2006 in Shanghai, Chinese turbot (a type of fish) were tested for the presence of carcinogens—and 100 percent tested positive. The U.S. government—which, as we’ve pointed out, only tests about 2% of imported seafood – is increasingly turning down shipments of seafood from China due to residues of veterinary drugs. In 2006, nearly 60 percent of the imports refused for veterinary drug residues were from China.

We strongly support efforts to make industry more sustainable. But people shouldn’t fall for—or stand for—slick PR campaigns that try to paint a greener picture of a troubled industry.

– Erica Schuetz

Last week, citizens in Florida got a strong commitment from Columbia county officials that no new water bottler on the Santa Fe River would be allowed.  The county’s statement is expected to carry serious weight in whether the Suwannee River Water Management District, which has final say on water permits, gives the bottling facility a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

Part of the success is due to the work of Our Santa Fe River (OSFR), an organization of North Florida citizens working to protect the river.  The group, a strong ally of Food & Water Watch, continues to successfully lead the fight against several dangerous bottling proposals that could harm the river’s ecosystem and contribute to declining water levels in the region.

This latest in a line of zany schemes aims to build a pipeline from Santa Fe Springs to a facility about five miles away.  As always, bottling proponents tout the facility as a job creator.  But these bottling jobs have been found to be low-paying and dangerous.

The craziest part of all, however, is that this is the third bottling facility being sought in a three-mile stretch on the river.  Just a few months ago, the owners of a springhead called Lily Springs asked for a permit to transport water by tanker trucks to an as-yet-to-be-built bottling facility. 

Luckily, OSFR has defeated similar bottling plans in the past.  In February, OSFR won a huge victory against another proposed $25 million facility near Blue Springs.  The fierce public opposition to this plant, which may have had corporate backers, ultimately got the water management district to deny the permit.

 
The 75-mile Santa Fe River, a tributary to the fabled Suwannee River, is well known for its distinct cypress trees and freshwater turtles.  OSFR and citizens in the area plan to keep it that way.

Want to help?  While the Santa Fe Springs permit request is still being submitted, hundreds of letters in opposition to the Lily Springs permit have already reached the local water management district.  Do you live in Florida? You should write one too! 

– Jorge Aguilar

Halfway through Food & Water Watch’s own Water Challenge, Jon and I have finally seen the film that inspired the challenge- No Impact Man.  This past Friday night, the two of us attended the DC premier of the movie.  Actually, maybe “opening” is more accurate- “premier” makes it sound kind of glamorous, which it wasn’t.  While there were no celebrities or red carpets (although I did have my own entourage, consisting of my friends, my sister, my officemate, and girlfriend), it was a lot of fun.  I really enjoyed the movie, and seeing it has made me reconsider some of my feelings about this whole project. 

For one thing, what Colin Beavan and his family did for a whole year really makes our challenge feel a little absurd.  We’re changing our showerheads and not flushing as much; these guys stopped buying anything new and eventually had their power turned off.  Voluntarily.  On purpose.  While most people are clearly not going to go that far (even the No Impact family had their power turned back on at the end of the year), this movie makes you think about what you really do and do not need.  Do we have to use so much packaging?  Do we have to use so much water?  Do we really need to run our air conditioning all summer long? 

When the No Impact family gave up all of that stuff for a year, it helped them see what they really could do without, and they didn’t go back to everything when the year was up.  I’ve been approaching this project with the attitude that I can’t really make a huge difference with personal choices, so I need to work at making changes on a bigger level, like by asking my apartment building’s management to replace aging washing machines with more efficient models.  But now I find myself wondering if that’s enough.  Maybe I should be taking more personal responsibility, and maybe saying, “Well, I have an apartment, so there’s not much I can do” isn’t right. 

If it sounds like participating in this challenge has made me all philosophical about being an environmentalist, I guess it’s because it kind of has.  It’s so hard to know what to do. I think there are probably lots of people out there like me, who want to do more and make positive changes, but aren’t sure which are the best ways to go about that.  After we spoke after the movie Friday night, we took questions from the audience.  I had been feeling pretty good about my idea to replace the washers in my apartment building, but then a woman at the screening asked me if it wasn’t better to keep the old machines, because replacing them would require producing 10 new ones and disposing of 10 old ones. 

I tried to have the woman escorted from the theater, but apparently there was no security(?!), so I was forced to try to come up with an answer.  I realized I really didn’t know.  It’d be nice if there were a trustworthy, comprehensive guide on ways to create the smallest impact possible, but right now it seems as though there’s a ton of information out there, much of it conflicting and much of it (probably intentionally, on the part of greenwashing companies) bad. 

I’m just feeling a little overwhelmed after seeing the movie, now that I realize that there’s probably a lot more I could be doing, and that some of the things I have been doing probably aren’t as helpful as I thought.  So here’s what I’m going to continue to focus on, at least for the remainder of this challenge:  Still letting the yellow mellow (which really does add up), still drinking a lot less beer, eating a lot less meat, replacing my showerhead with a low-flow, and using fewer bags and avoiding packaging (the production of which must require plenty of water, and really, we just use a ridiculous amount of packaging for everything). 

I’m a little behind on replacing my showerhead, but I’m going to before next week and will have a special video blog displaying my ineptitude at installing things.  Sure to be entertaining!  

--Alex Patton

All school children should have access to free, clean water at school. Yet according to an Associated Press investigation released last week, the drinking water at thousands of schools across the country is unsafe to drink, containing “unsafe levels of lead, pesticides, and other toxins.” This situation is unacceptable and requires swift government action.

Much of our water infrastructure in the U.S. was built 100 years ago or more and is starting to break down. Without significant federal investment to upgrade our systems, reports like this will only become more common.

Lacking sufficient funds to improve situations such as this, local governments are turning to bottled water as the answer to their water woes. According to the AP, Baltimore spent some $2.5 million on bottled water over the past six years. Rather than subsidizing an environmentally harmful product , we should instead invest in our future public water resources.

 The AP article cites California’s Central Valley as one of the worst locations in the country for water in schools. This is no surprise to those who have been talking, advocating, and litigating for years about this issue. Right now, over 150,000 Californians lack access to clean, affordable water.

This year a bill, AB 1242 (Ruskin), would establish a state human right to water. It is co-sponsored by Food & Water Watch along with Alliance for Democracy, Community Water Center, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network - CA, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, and Urban Semillas. The law would explicitly provide that every Californian has a right to clean affordable water for basic human needs. The bill passed the California legislature and is now with the Governor. California residents should call Governor Schwarzenegger and ask him to sign AB 1242.

These initiatives alone will not solve all the problems with water quality in schools, but they would be a good start. We also need to address the source of contamination of groundwater that so many of the schools with poor water quality rely on. We need to work towards comprehensive water solutions that address chemical contaminants, agricultural runoff, and private control of water. We need strong state and federal action and we need it soon. The health of our children depends on it.

Fresh on the heels of its defeat by activists in McCloud, Nestlé ramped up its efforts to appear a responsible corporate citizen this week by unveiling plans to use a new, “lightweight” plastic for its bottled water. According to the industry publication Food Production Daily, the new bottle will weigh 9.5 g, down from 12.5g. In the same article, Nestlé Waters North America CEO Kim Jeffries touted the “environmental impacts” of the new bottle: “Lightweighting our bottle is the single biggest impact we can have from an environmental standpoint on our carbon footprint,” said Jeffries.

While we are obviously all for being gentler on the environment, we have an even better idea for Nestlé: stop bottling water for profit altogether.

While plastic consumption is one way in which bottled water is bad for the environment, it is not the only way.

Plastic water bottles are recyclable, but about 86 percent of them end up in landfills, where they hang out indefinitely. Others are incinerated, a process which releases toxic byproducts such as chlorine gas and ash laden with heavy metals into the environment. Bottled water is also shipped great distances in vessels that guzzle large amounts of oil. Much of the time, it is transported in trucks that spew tons of soot and unhealthy chemicals into the air. Finally, some bottled water (including many of Nestlé’s brands) uses water taken from the ground. This water, known as groundwater, makes up about 40 percent of our drinking and agricultural water supply. When groundwater levels run low, more energy is required to extract what remains. In cases of severe groundwater depletion, rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands dry up, and even the land itself can cave in.

Today, our groundwater resources are disappearing in many parts of the country. In some regions, underground water levels are falling because we are pumping water through wells faster than it is naturally replaced by rainfall. This may permanently damage our aquifers’ capacity to hold water, and can have broad consequences for our entire freshwater supply.

Like we’ve said before, there is no such thing as eco-friendly bottled water, and attempts to label it as such are done either out of greenwashing or ignorance. This particular stunt has “greenwashing” written all over it, especially due to the article’s revelation that the change in bottles will deliver “an annual saving of $62m based on market rates in July.” This figure should serve to remind us that, like any corporation, Nestlé is concerned with profits, not the planet.

 Since Nestlé is obviously looking for kudos for reducing the environmental impact of its bottled water, let us extend to them a hearty congratulations for making an unnecessary, wasteful, environmentally destructive product marginally less bad. Nice going, guys. 

Wow, this has been a long week--one that seems will never end. Due to various work-related demands, focusing my energies on the Water Challenge has been especially difficult. I am also discovering the limitations of my own abilities to reasonably cut my water use. Seeing that I rent an apartment and therefore have fewer wasteful habits to begin with, as well as less control over the changes I can enact, I’m finding more and more difficult to find ways to reduce my water use.

Of course, the new shower head is paying off. I am getting used to the lower water pressure, although I do find that I stay in the shower longer in order to compensate for that, so I’m not really sure if that measure is paying off or not.

My list of water conservation tips suggests that I " share water conservation tips with friends and neighbors." So, that is what I tried to do.

Since the best way to reach a large number of people is through email, I considered sending an email to everyone I know telling them how important it is to conserve water. Then I came to the conclusion that everyone already knows that wasting water is bad, and that in most cases water conservation is mostly a matter of taking knowledge and common sense and converting it into action.

Also, pestering your friends to turn off the faucet or not run the dishwasher can sound rather Stalin-esque. So instead of beating the proverbial a dead horse, I thought that instead of telling people about the best ways to conserve water, I would instead create a list of my own—of the worst ways to save water. Consider it my end of the week gift to you. I’ll try to present you with a more serious account of my water conservation adventures next week. 

10 Worst Ways to Conserve Water

1. Take a shower only when it is raining outside
2. Multi-task: take showers with your clothes on. Bring along soap, shampoo and a big bottle of detergent. Not only will this clean you, it will save you the hassle of doing your laundry.
3. Stop buying products that list water as an ingredient.
4. Don’t use your own water resources, borrow from a wealthy neighbor. Then you can run into a McDonalds bathroom with a glass, fill it up with water, run out of the bathroom with the glass held high and proclaim “Its Free,” “Its Free!!!”
5. Install a new low-flow fire sprinkler system in your workplace and then test it out!
6. Convince President Obama to outlaw children's wading pools, fish tanks and acquariums.
7. Speaking of which, you could also use vegetable oil on your Slip ‘n Slide.
8. Convince people that water just isn’t that healthy.
9. Replace your indoor plumbing system with an old-school outhouse.
10. Create new national holiday: Lick An Ice Sculpture Day

I don’t think any oil company deserves to have an environmental rating, but when I saw that Greenopia rates British Petroleum (BP) as #1, I was really outraged.

I guess a huge PR budget and pretending to be post-petroleum works.

As an oil company, BP comes close to being criminal. It has repeatedly skirted the law, most recently in developing the Atlantis project, which has the potential to cause a catastrophic accident that could shut down the oil, fishing and tourism industry in the Gulf of Mexico. The deepest moored semi-submersible oil and gas platform in the world is precariously positioned in “hurricane alley,” 150 miles of the coast of New Orleans. Under the management of Minerals Management Service, lapdog of the oil industry, BP has been allowed to get away with what may end up being murder. Not only is most of the required documentation proving the platform is safe to operate missing, there is evidence that if a hurricane hits the area, an accident bigger than the Exxon Valdez could be the result. But, it shouldn’t be a surprise that BP cuts corners.

BP’s crimes include 15 deaths and hundreds of injuries in the Texas City Oil Refinery explosion of 2005, for which the company paid a $50 million fine as part of a federal felony plea. In Alaska, BP had two major oil spills in 2006—including the largest spill ever to occur on the North Slope—a result of corroded, unmaintained pipelines. In 2002 and 2003, BP was also fined for safety violations and violations of leak detection standards in Alaska. In 2000, it paid $15 million for dumping hazardous materials on the North Slope. This year, BP entered a consent decree for $175 million for violating an earlier Clean Air Act consent decree. In 2007, BP paid $300 million in fines and penalties for its manipulation of the propane market and it was fined in Michigan for leaking underground storage tanks.

Greenopia had better reevaluate its oil page. But, more importantly, Congress needs to hold oversight hearings on how the Minerals Management Service allowed BP to drill for oil and natural gas from the Atlantis before BP submitted the necessary paperwork. This is just one of perhaps many accidents waiting to happen off our coasts. Before the administration approves any additional drilling projects, it must ensure that the existing ones are operating safely and were approved according to regulations.

Support hearings to protect the Gulf from another disaster: Sign the petition.

Wenonah Hauter
Executive Director
Food & Water Watch

With California experiencing a third dry year, we should be looking to conserve all the water we can. Yet every day, millions of us do our laundry or take a shower without recapturing that water and putting it to good use. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported last week, there is an easy, affordable, and now legal way to recapture that water and use it for landscape irrigation.

Landscape irrigation uses up to 40% of urban water use in some California communities. Installing graywater systems, made significantly easier by new regulation, will allow us to recapture water from washing machines and dishwashers and divert it through pipes to gardens for as little as $200, resulting in significant water savings.

The current dry period has sent some communities looking to large expensive projects like desalination to meet future water needs. In Marin, for example, the local water board is moving towards a plant that would cost up to $400 million over 25 years to convert water from the San Francisco Bay into drinking water.

Instead of pursuing large costly projects, consumers are better served by government incentives and regulations that encourage conservation. The new graywater regulations are a good example and a recent report by conservation expert James Fryer noted that if even ten percent of Marin residential consumers adopted graywater systems, they could save 680 acre-feet a year – about half of Marin’s current water supply deficit.

The new graywater standards are welcome news, but we need to do more. Instead of building new costly and energy intensive projects that won’t provide real long-term benefit for consumers, California needs to be doing more like this – encouraging conservation and smart water use. 

-Mark Schlosberg

In my last entry, I wrote about how, because of my current living situation, I’m somewhat limited in the ways in which I can cut back on my water usage.  Renting an apartment means I don’t own any of my own appliances or have a yard, so many of the methods I see on these “ways to save water” lists don’t really apply to me.  I wrote a letter imploring my property management company to replace its antiquated washing machines with new, efficient models, but I’ve yet to hear back from them. 

So this week I thought I’d talk about looking to the future, when I will hopefully own my own place and have a lot more personal choice in how much or how little water I use. This past Saturday afternoon, some friends and I checked out an eco-living tour in a DC neighborhood so we could learn about what some homeowners are doing to save water. As proof, here’s me posing in front of one of the houses we visited.  There were about a dozen open houses showing off solar panels, rain barrels, and other power and water saving devices. 

We visited three of the houses on the tour and chatted with the homeowners at each about how they were using green technology to make their homes more efficient.  At one house, the owner had installed evacuated-tube solar collectors, which absorb solar energy and heat the house’s water.  We got to go up on the roof and check out the tubes.  The tubes themselves weren’t all that exciting, since they were, after all, just a bunch of tubes.  But there was also a friendly lady up there (on a roof deck, not just perched precariously on the roof) making cakes in a solar oven, and she let us have a piece, which was delicious. 
The last house we visited was the coolest, though.  The owners (I’ll call them the Johnsons- I didn’t actually get their names, but repeatedly calling them “homeowners” sounds like I’m writing for a real estate brochure or something) had a beautiful, tiered garden, several soothing fountains, and lots of lovely shade trees in their relatively small backyard, creating a peaceful, idyllic oasis in a crowded urban area.  Best of all, they didn’t waste any water on all the plants, trees, and fountains.  Several large rain barrels, which were connected to the house’s downspouts, collected all the rain that hit the roof, which supplied more than enough water for the Johnsons’ backyard.  Mr. Johnson also told me about a device they hope to get at some point that collects moisture right out of the air and condenses it into high purity water.   

It was great to see people going to such lengths to save water, and touring these houses made me want to buy my own place so that not only will I be able to take more control over my environmental impact, but I’ll also get to create a really cool patio and garden. 

Stay tuned for next week, when I write about my sure-to-be-disastrous attempt to install a water-saving showerhead (which I’m buying with my own money, since my landlord isn’t as nice as Jon’s, apparently). 

--Alex Patton

Last week, the Miss America Organization announced it would embark on a well-intentioned mission to “preserve the planet.” Its chosen method of doing so? Switching to Nature’s Bottles, a so-called “environmentally friendly” brand of bottled water. Although we appreciate the intention, the fact is, there is no such thing as “environmentally friendly” bottled water.

While wasteful, polluting plastic bottles are one reason that bottled water is bad for the environment, they are not the only one. In fact, the recent trend towards packaging water in “environmentally friendly” or “green” bottles is really just a trick on the part of the bottled water industry to distract you from the fact that its product is a destructive waste of money.

What’s almost ironic about Nature’s Bottles is that its website clearly spells out that the water it uses is spring water. It even goes on to explain that:

“Spring water must be collected directly from the spring or from a bore-hole adjacent to the water's natural point of emergence.”

Sounds innocent enough, right?

Not quite. 

The fact is, spring water is actually very often, water that originates from the ground. The practice of extracting water from the ground is actually very controversial and can be bad for the environment. Groundwater accounts for 40 percent of our drinking and agricultural water. Yet due to a combination of factors, we do not know how much groundwater we actually have.

While some people think that rainfall recharges groundwater supplies, in many areas, this does not happen quickly enough. If water is pumped out of the ground (say, by water-bottling operations) faster than it can be replaced, groundwater suffers. Think of it like a bank account. If you spend more money than you make, the cash reserves in your bank account will eventually dwindle.

Like a shrinking bank account, depleted groundwater resources spell trouble on a number of levels. It takes more energy to get to the water that does remain; rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands dry up; the land caves in. Perhaps most importantly, the water that we need in order to live depletes too.

Doesn’t sound very “environmentally friendly,” does it?

The truth is, bottled water is never a pretty thing; and industry claims of environmental sustainability are really an attempt to mask an ugly reality: the exploitation of a vital natural resource for private profit.

So, it’s been a week since my adventure to Target to buy a dishpan.

How’s it working out, you ask?

Well, I have to tell you: I really, really, really wish that I had one of those fancy double-bin sinks. I am happy that my contribution to nature is saving water, but I find that using this dishpan extends my dishwashing time by about 15 minutes every time I wash dishes. Now, with getting the pan ready, washing it to make sure it’s clean, filling it with hot water, and then actually washing my dishes, I am beginning to suspect that this particular water conservation measure may be a waste of time. I think that many of us waste so much water because it’s the convenient thing to do. On the up side, I have saved over 170 gallons of water since my last post.

Since so far, the only change in my life has been the extra time and effort that I am putting into dishes, I referred back to my water conservation checklist  to find other ways to conserve water.

I decided to try #10: For cold drinks keep a pitcher of water in the refrigerator instead of running the tap. This way, every drop goes down you and not the drain.

Ok, so time to get a pitcher. Hmm…glass or plastic?  As I wanted one that will be good for the environment, and being as uneducated as I am in environmental ways I figured glass has got to be better. So I bought a nice big pitcher from my favorite department store. I have been drinking non-bottled water for some time, but I have relied solely on a Brita Tap Filter that works as you run the tap. Now, instead of running the tap each time I need water, I fill my pitcher and put it in the refrigerator.

It seems to be working.

I am reaching for the tap less often. However, when the pitcher is almost empty I find that the “near-empty-milk-carton-syndrome” kicks in, and I tend to leave it there almost empty not wanting to finish it. As a result, I habitually gravitate towards the tap as if it were beckoning me back. Other than that weirdness, which I cannot explain, it’s been a great experience. I figure that by not running the tap for drinking water, I save about 6 gallons a week.

Earlier this week, I noticed that whenever my upstairs neighbor takes a shower, water leaks around the doorframe in my apartment. While it’s not ever fun to see water leaking into your home, it is also a huge waste of water, not to mention a great way of damaging an otherwise good ceiling. I called my landlord, who was so devastated he immediately called a contractor, and as of now, I am staring at the inner-workings of the water pipe system in my unit.

Another new development is that my landlord bought everyone in the building a new showerhead. That also happens to be #16 on the water conservation checklist, which tells us that if your shower fills a one-gallon bucket in less than 20 seconds, you should replace the showerhead with a water-efficient model.

So I now have a new showerhead. The catch is that I had to install it myself. Yep, so without the proper tools I decided to give it a go. Getting the old showerhead off was easy, but the new one required this crazy adapter. With little knowledge of how these things work, it took about five hours of my time to get the showerhead on. Now that it’s installed, I miss the high-pressure showers afforded by the one. The new showerhead is certainly saving water, as evidenced by the trickle of water it creates. The difference is life changing. I’m just not sure if it’s a change for the better.

So over the past week, I have switched to pitchers of water instead of water from the tap, I have a new showerhead, and unfortunately, dishpan hands. I find myself becoming more aware that it’s very difficult to separate myself from my water-wasting ways. Please tell me what you’re doing to save water!

Mexico is a country facing staggering water problems. Pollution, scarcity, and lack of access to safe water throughout the country have united many Mexicans into a broad movement in recent years. Now, residents of Mexico City, such as myself, are seeing a new challenge to our already compromised access to a reliable supply of clean water.

Water scarcity has been in Mexico City’s headlines for several months. Since January of this year, there have been increasing scheduled cutoffs from the Cutzamala system, one of the most important supplies of drinking water for the city. The Cutzamala system is a huge complex of dams, pumps and pipelines that transports 16,000 liters of water per second 1,100 meters up and over the mountains and then 90 miles to the taps of Mexico City.

The main rationale for the scheduled cutoffs is extremely low rainfall in 2008 and now in 2009. In an attempt to raise awareness of the need for water rationing, the city government has launched an extensive campaign in the subway, radio and newspapers that announces: “February 2010: The city may be left without water. Mexico City is living its worst drought in its history. There is water left only for the next 6 months. It is not a warning, it is a reality.” This is, of course, a very serious statement. But the City’s response to date has merely served to increase inequities in water service without addressing the heart of the matter.

Since the alarm has been repeatedly sounded, the “progressive” government of Mexico City has proposed some solutions to manage this crisis, but most of the proposed solutions fail to address the larger problem -- massive mismanagement of the city’s water.

The first proposed solution is the water cutoffs. Many poor neighborhoods now receive water only at certain times of the day, some only every other day or even once a week. It is not only the poor who are affected; increasingly, the rationing is spreading to new areas, including middle class neighborhoods.

The second solution is a wide-spread campaign targeting citizens to “save water,” by practicing conservation in the home. Naturally, water should be used wisely; but if you consider that many people do not have enough water already, the demand to use even less adds insult to injury.

The third solution put forward by the local government is a proposed increase in water tariffs, which will soon come before the city’s legislature for approval.

On a positive note, there are some proposals around rainwater harvesting and repairing leaks. These would be crucial elements in any plan to manage the crisis, given that Mexico City’s pipes suffer a leakage rate between 35 and 40 percent, and the amount of rainwater that is currently collected is next to none.

However, the final proposal is the most disturbing: the recent announcement to increase private participation in the city’s water management.

Since 1993, four companies have held service contracts in water management in four sections of the Federal District. Each of these companies is made up of 51 percent Mexican companies and 49 percent multinationals, such as Veolia Water and Suez Environment. The contracts include responsibility for user registration, metering and billing. 

On August 20th, Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced that there will be further private participation in water management. Although he didn’t provide details, we know that the proposal includes giving bulk water to private companies to distribute and that in addition to their previous responsibilities of metering and billing, the companies will now be responsible for repairing pipes and reducing leakage. However, not all the city’s delegaciones (regional areas that make up the city) will participate in this scheme. The five with the biggest technical and social challenges (most populated, with issues around quality and quantity, subsiding soil, etc.) will remain under the authority of the city government.

What worries water activists most is: 1) the lack of precise information about this proposal, and 2) the empirical experiences in Mexico and the rest of the world that prove that private water management does not bring the promised efficiency. In fact, these companies have been repeatedly incapable of complying with their contracts. Even when companies fail to meet contract obligations, examples from Buenos Aires to Paris to Dar es Salam, Tanzania show that remunicipalization is an incredibly difficult process.

The Coalition of Mexican Organizations for the Right to Water (COMDA) has expressed its concerns regarding this proposal. The many failures of private water management, both national and international, cannot be ignored. Every water struggle is unique, and the struggle here will be complicated by the city’s severe crisis of human-provoked scarcity; but residents of Mexico City need to learn from experiences elsewhere to demand that the local government take real responsibility for meeting the demands of its citizens.

–Claudia Campero