Agriculture and ranching consume a substantial amount of potable and pumped water around the country, and to some extent in Northern New Mexico. In some areas of the US, farms and livestock consume up to 60% of overall water use. This water is usually either clean, highly processed potable water or well water pumped from precious underground aquifers. This is not a great use for this water given that a cheaper, better and proven alternative is readily at hand. Rainwater is FREE and sometimes very plentiful even in the arid southwest; it is no wonder its use is growing for agriculture and for ranching purposes. Not only does using rainwater save processing and/or transporting water; it also saves energy and helps the environment.

A question I occasionally get from readers is, - "Is rainwater good for plants". I must admit I take long pause when I get this question. It is as if we have forgotten that our primary water source is the sky. If it were not for rain we would live in a very parched world. My great aunt caught rainwater for use on her summer garden; it has been a source of water for generations for both crops and livestock. My typical response is, - "Would you pour chlorine on your plants?" (Chlorine is used by most water utility companies to purify water before it arrives at your spigot.)

Read entire article

A recent article in the New York Times discusses the impact of Solar Flares.  From this article: 

Occasionally, a large solar storm can rain energy down on the earth, overpowering electrical grids. About once a century, a giant pulse can knock out worldwide power systems for months or even years. It's been 90 years since the last super storm, but scientists say we are on the verge of another period of high solar activity.

This isn't science fiction. Though less frequent than large hurricanes, significant storms have hit earth several times over the last 150 years, most notably in 1859 and 1921. Those occurred before the development of the modern power grid; recovering from a storm that size today would cost up to $2 trillion a year for several years.

So why should this impact a decision to get a rainwater system instead of getting a PV system.  Simple - we can live without electricity, but not water.

Moving, processing and treating water is usually the largest expense for a water utility company.  A power outage of any substantial duration will effect the delivery of water.  Almost all water utilities do have power backup systems, but they are intended for short duration events, not days or weeks.

Having your own water storage onsite is critical to weather these coming storms.

Read the entire NY Times article

The real news is why a 50% rate hike is required - WATER CONSERVATION. Per the story linked below:

=========================

Chambers attributes the "sharp spike" this year to a drop in water use.

"There has been a significant drop in the consumption of water," Chambers said. "When the city asked people to conserve water, people responded and significantly reduced their consumption. When the council did that, we were acutely aware - (Councilman) Doug Crane talked about it often - that would affect the utility itself, and the drop in consumption impacted revenues significantly."

=========================

So the easy net of the story is we pay if we conserve and we pay if we don't.

Well not quite.  Yes it is true that without water conservation the revenues to the water utility would have been the same.  But the conservation really did save water and energy. 

The new rates probably really more closely reflect what the water company should have been charging in the first place. But this is definitely the first time I have seen a water official publicly state that conserving water will drive water rates up.  Though I am not sure I totally buy the argument. Less water used means less water obtained/purchased, less water processed and less transported as well as substantially lower power bills.  It may mean they did not want to cut staff thinking that demand will rise again and they will need these folks when it does. 

Here is a link to the story:

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15548823
 
What do you think?
 

Albuquerque and Santa Fe have had water conservation programs for well over a decade, and both have been very successful. Yet their approaches to saving this precious resource in the arid Southwest are different. . Since 1995, Albuquerque has reduced per capita use by 36%, Santa Fe by 42%. Santa Fe's water use is now substantially less than the US average, while Albuquerque is likely to fall below the US average soon. Both have made tremendous strides in conserving life-giving water. What lessons can we learn by comparing these cities?

This article explores the two cities programs and how much they have saved.  As it shows it is possible to greatly reduce consumption without changing our lifestyle.  And yes, it is possible to go even further.  Read the full article >>

I recently posted an article on my website dealing with Solar Disinfection.  Dr.Anumakonda Jagadeesh was kind enough to allow me to republish this article in full with tables included in the complete article.  An excerpt of this article is below.

One might wonder how Solar Disinfection and Rainwater Harvesting are related.  Through the website I get many, many questions on how to filter rainwater.  These questions come from readers around the world as well as organizations interested in providing low-cost, low maintenance drinking water systems.  Solar Disinfection is one method that has proven to be effective as Dr. Jagadeesh research again shows.  His low-cost design is perfect for locations with lots of sun and do not have access to clean, purified potable water.

Excerpt: 

Every 8 seconds, a child dies from water related disease around the globe. 50% of people in developing countries suffer from one or more water-related diseases. 80% of diseases in the developing countries are caused by contaminated water. Providing safe drinking water to the people has been a major challenge for Governments in developing countries. Conventional technologies used to disinfect water are: ozonation, chlorination and artificial UV radiation.

Treatment to control waterborne microbial contaminants by exposure to sunlight in clear vessels that allows the combined germicidal effects of both UV radiation and heat has been developed and put into practice.  Though 6 bottles were used in the system(each of 1 liter capacity), larger units with up to 100 bottles can be designed. The unit destroyed 99.99% of bacterial coli forms both in well water and waste water samples in 5 hours.

Link to Complete Study

A good article that starts a comparison that is long over due.  Not enough is being said today about comparing the various "green" alternatives.  Today, most press goes to solar panels and PV.  Solar connectors, even though a better investment, gets short mention.  And of course, rainwater hardly gets no mention as a possible good investment.  Hopefully this will be the first of many, many articles comparing the alternatives.

The Advantages of Rainwater Harvesting Over Other Sustainable Options

Sustainable options, green options and renewables - the pressure is on us to do each one of these, and we know we should. However, it all seems so difficult and it is expensive and the return on the investment could be so long. We might not even be alive to see the benefit.

Rainwater harvesting is one of these options and is something we can all understand quite easily. After all, our ancestors were doing it for centuries until mains water arrived, and it is not rocket science. Generally people with gardens have one or two water butts. Rainwater harvesting is just using water butts on a much larger scale and using rainwater for far more than just watering the garden. Fifty percent of the 150 litres of water we use daily does not have to be mains water, that is to say, drinking quality. 30% literally goes down the toilet.

>> For the complete article

Every rainwater harvesting system should incorporate both both passive and active. Most active systems do due to overflow design requirements. However, system design should start with passive and not just end with it.

Will's rainwater catchment system is a great example of this. His completed system comprises both an active and several passive rainwater catchment systems. Uniquely to this design is that the active system can also be used passively.

The house is approximately 1,610 square feet and could possibly capture about 12,000 gallons a year in total (i.e. .623 x 1,610 x 12 inches. Canales typically capture about 75% off a flat roof of the total runoff, or approximately 9,000 gallons a year. In this case, the canales are located on different sides of his existing houses with muture landscaping and small city lot.

Consequently, trenching around the house to install 1 or 2 below ground active rainwater catchment tanks would have been cost prohibitive. A far better design was to use the water in the existing beds near the existing canales. Passive drainage pipes with attractive rain chains and clay pots were used on the most visable sides of his house (i.e. the roof and the rear patio), while on the very back side of the house downspouts feed directly into a passive irrigation system.

Every system and every site is different; however, passive should always be included in every design if at all possible.  To see more details of this site or visit other HarvestH2o projects, visit Will's house.

The rate of uptake of rainwater harvesting (RWH) in the UK has been slow to date, but is expected to gain momentum in the near future. A number of factors have so far contributed to the lack of progress: ambiguity in the financial viability, lack of experience and the absence of well-run demonstration sites. Although some technical guidance is available, the costing information provided is sketchy and there is limited advice on the appropriate system sizing methods to use. However, RWH is now explicitly mentioned in key government documents such as the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method and the Code for Sustainable Homes.

In an article in Water Science and Technology the authors recommend that continuous simulation methods should be adopted, since the simple tools currently used lead to the oversizing of tanks and excessive capital costs.

The authors evaluate the designs of two different new-build RWH systems using three different methods within a modelling tool: (1) a continuous simulation which can utilize daily rainfall and demand time series based on the yield-after-spill approach; (2) a simplified version of the AR/D (catchment area times average rainfall divided by average demand) approach; and (3) a simple rule-of-thumb method recommended by the Environment Agency (EA) which sizes the tank based on a user-defined percentage of average annual rainfall or demand (whichever is the lower).

The two case studies were a university building and a housing development; the RWH systems were shown to meet 46% and 36% of WC demand, respectively. It was found that design methods (2) and (3) overestimated tank sizes. Despite this, it was found that average annual financial savings for method (2) was equivalent to that of method (1). However, payback periods would be significantly longer for method (2) due to the higher capital costs of larger tanks. Continuous simulation (method (1)) therefore provides a better assessment of tank size in terms of cost-benefit analysis for a particular demand. In addition, the authors found that levels of demand met were limited by the catchment area size, which also had implications for financial savings. This indicates not enough consideration is given to the catchment size when designing a RWH system.

Water rates continue to rise.  Lake Tahoe and Clovis, New Mexico lead the current list of large increases at 70% and 65% respectively.

Water has been way too inexpensive for way too long.  But the days of cheap water are ending due to multiple pressures: population growth in areas of little rain or natural water sources (i.e. Phoenix, Las Vegas, Albuquerque); natural drought cycles (i.e. Atlanta, California); and our aging and decaying water infrastructure, 
The bad thing is that rates will continue to increase whether we conserve or not.  If we don't conserve rates will just escalate faster as cities and towns try to solve the ever increasing demand for water by either drilling deeper and deeper more costly wells or by building piping systems to haul water from far away places (e.g. Las Vegas, NV). These both will ensure water price increases for the foreseeable future not just due to the costs of the projects, but also due to the rising rate of electricity which they require.

Even in these harsh economic times, local companies and politicians are approving double digit water rate increases.  That they are willing to do this during these times, shows the real extent of the problem. 

See a small sample of these rate increases for the last few months:

• Sample of May 2010 Water Rate Increases
• Sample of March 2010 Water Rate Increases
• Sample of January 2010 Water Rate Increases
  

The good thing about these increases is that they will drive more and more installations of rainwater catchment.  Money talks and the pain of paying high monthly water bills will drive individuals to consider other alternatives.  It did for me.  I installed my first system due to rising rates over a decade ago when my water bill started hitting $100 a month.  The payback was long then, but has declined substantially since then due to rising water rates.

Today, installing some type of rainwater catchment system, either passive or active, is starting to just make good economic sense!

The most surprising tourist attraction in Portland, Ore., is its storm sewer system. Eco-friendly tourists flock to the city to understand how Portland's innovative system of curbs, gutters, roofs and rain gardens sharply cuts water pollution. When we started this 10 or 12 years ago, there was a lot of skepticism," says Dean Marriott, director of Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services. "Today, many cities are moving in this direction. People want to see how it's done.

About 50,000 homeowners have disconnected their gutter downspouts from the storm-water system -- the cheapest way to improve storm-water quality. The water flows from rooftops into gardens and rain barrels. The city rewards homeowners with signs that say, "I disconnected my downspout for clear rivers." Read Full Article >>