My disappointment last night was the program's wierdly negative orientation, which was utterly off the point and limiting relative to choices we face for the future. Rather than rehearse hackneyed and unenlightening tropes of euro-centric domination over natural resources found in North American aborignal lands, and seeking to impose the usual race-gender-class narratives -- whether they pertain or not -- thereon, if we are to do something sustainable about our use of these resources we have to focus on some very significant useage patterns now as well as means at hand to influence those patterns. Regarding water: It can never be overlooked that globally we are viewed as one of the most ingenious metropolises in history for having reversed the river, raised the grade and thus given ourselves -- at 19th/20th century consumption levels -- a sustainable water system. Certainly this is part of our "Legacy" -- that is, were you to go to a graduate school class in Sao Paulo and ask what's significant about Chicago's water history, this is what would be said. It really was not addressed as such last night. But we should note it is highly likely that all of our vast civil engineering and technological capabilities acquired thereby and since will be vitally important to our next century. Other parts of Legacy that have to do with our "Future," which were not addressed at all: 1. Water has been handled here at the municipal level. That has created a bizarre and expensive patchwork of at least five levels: a) city of Chicago's own sourcing and use(from Lake Michigan) ; b) individual burbs (or counties in some cases) from Lake Michigan; c) individual burbs from the City of Chicago (also, from Lake Michigan); d) individual burbs -- and independent communities as you move out of the 6/7 county region, seeking ground water via wells; e) groupings / partnerships of individual municipalities. One may say this very real Legacy of our approach complicates efforts at rationalization for Future policy, but it eluded our porofessors last night. 2. Pricing has failed to fund capital needs. Here our Legacy, generally low uniform prices for all residential and business customers in a given service area, visits upon our Future a bare cupboard of funds for needed maintenace, replacement, innovation, rationalisation, active controls, etc. etc. (By the way, this pricing model arose from water's status here, despite Professor Worster's railings about 'private solutions,' as a PUBLIC GOOD. One may consult a Monopoly board to learn that water companies are most typically utilities, and public ownership or regulation of such has led to their own unsustainable capital program need overhang -- or underfunding -- whichever you prefer.) 3. Deferred capital spending has significantly increased our near-term capital requirement. Here professor Smith failed to illuminate our current plight in the reflection of our early 1850s solution to failing private companies. they were failing because they could not afford to expand, and capital was basically impossible to come by for them (being rightly perceived as small and elusive concerns in a frontier community). Our regional answer at the time? Organize a public corporation, and float (no pun intended) bonds. East Coast investors were far more interested in buying the bonds of an actual government entity than shares of a possible fly-by-night frontier water company. Result? A city water system. (Which adopted uniform pricing, by the way, specifically so that everyone could have access to the same clean water.) It would have been interesting to hear from professors who could assay our ability to perhaps consolidate water boards here, aggregate their debt obligations, tally remaining capacity and compare that to stated/anticipated needs. I guarantee the Legacy / Future mis-match would make all of us very quezy indeed. Alas, no such insights. 4. Our sanitary v. drinking govenmental structure issue. As a corollary of #1, above, we have regional waste disposal agencies that operate at a very large scale, and some wate water operations at a municipal scale. There are issues related to incorporated and unincorporated areas as well. We will hear from MWRDGC commissioner Shore next time. This municipal water / regional waste bifurcation is a notable Legacy of the river reversal (and the capital needs then (another story)), and the location of most water utilities at the municipal level, all add to our Legacy that ocnstrain's / influences Future policy options. 5. Water authorities here can be sophisticated players in the outsource marketplace, which adds a layer of organizational complexity to our existing stucture, and leavens discusion of new approaches. For nstance, if we aggregate our currently diffused water side, then what should be our policy toward outsourcing operations to a private provider, or even franchising our water operations at a regional level and realizing a considerable present value cash benefit -- one would hope for capital needs. How these Legacy / Future issues eluded the panel should be looked at critically by organizers and sponsors. I enjoy hearing again how we raped this land and subverted nature and ruined everything because of our European hubris and race/class/gender biases and most of all, in the theory of Professor Worster, reliance on private instead of public structures (though not -- as it happens -- in water delivery) as much as the next person. How any of that informs our immediate needs to rationalize the sources of drinking water and the treatment of wastewater for a base planning year of 2040 in which another million or two people will be living here is perhpas best answered by the organizers. Finally, let me note that millions of rural Indian women spend hours per day retrieving water form wells located outside of hamlets. This is not happening because the water cannot be brought to their hamlet. It happens because of the role women play in rural India and a variety of Indian political forces that have given weight to this appaling status quo. There are a hundred water companies that have told the Indian government that for a franchise they will bring water from the wells to the people. They have been rejected because, as Professor Smith so benightedly said, "of course [water] cannot be" a "commercial commodity." I posit that the racial class and gender aspects of this issue here now come down to this: If we do not gather capital for infrastructure and political will for reform, then those at the lower end of the household income spectrum will be paying a disproportionately large percentage of their income to sustain fresh water at the tap and waste water treatment. More missed opportunities for such discussion as last night only hasten the day of that unfortunate outcome. Thanks for the efforts. Chris Robling

sooo much water is being consumed by farm raised animals that are bred to be eaten by ... us. of course few people will stop eating meat because its so tasty but it would significantly increase the availability of water if animals were not being bred by the millions for us to eat them. if an animal is going to live, it should be free in a natural environment, rather than in 1'x1' cages. the meat industry is depressingly cruel and unnecessary.

Let's be realistic, there's no law or or "ban" that the United States government can pass about lowering the amount of water people use. On the other hand, we can educate the American people on simple things they can do to help. Start small... Take shorter showers for instance, and be sure to turn the water off while you brush your teeth. Don't use the toilet as a waste bin, just flushing garbage down the drain, wasting gallons of water in the process.

 

PS -- For those having a conversation about how grass isn't too important... what about the animals that feed off grass? and the animals that feed on those animals? Grass's roots secure the topsoil allowing other plants like trees and bushes to take root. Don't suggest we let all of the grass on earth die. That'd just be foolish.

 

Bryce

Well..... i guess I wont be having any more water gun fights this summer.....bummer

maybe we need to ban the little things that we waste water on like for example watering your grass. just a thought.

Katie Legner

Lowering U.S. water consumption is as simple as people getting a clue on how important of a resource it is.  The main problem with over consumption by people of the U.S. is that no one is aware of this problem.  This is due to the fact that some parts of the country thrive with water more than other parts, which also relates to how people that live in the thriving parts are not aware of other people's needs for water.

The only way I can think of is to enforce ways that would make people use less water. A couple of ways would be like:

-dispose of hazardous material properly - this prevents contamination of the water

- Install an aerator- convenient way of faucets and showers using less water

- Collect rainwater

-Insulated water pipes - easy way to get hot water, getting faster hot water, you’ll cut down on the time you have to run your faucet while waiting for water to heat up.

Optional ways to reduce water:

Buy foods close to their natural form and just using less water at homes or anywhere.

The easy answer is that you raise the price of water to reduce the consumption. The poor are always going to be at a disadvantage, I, nor you can do anything about that. The real question is: How bad do you want to solve the problem?

Think about it, people are already purchasing bottles of water for at least one dollar. I believe if you purchased enough to fill up a gallon container it would be the equivalent of eight water bottles. Thus, people are willing to pay eight dollars per gallon for bottled water. If you apply this price to their water they receive from their tap, the cost, at their current consumption rate would be astronomical. Therefore, they would have to reduce the amount of water they use.

For the United States, I feel that it is an awareness issue. People should have the right to all of the water that they want, seeing as how they will be paying for it.  Regardless of price, however, water is something that we, as Americans, have gotten use to taking advantage of. Life is priceless, and we all need water to live; essentially, I think that's something that most of us have forgotten.

I think that forcing people to cut back is the wrong way to go about this.  By putting the information out there, and by setting a positive example, people are going to cut back. 

Maybe we should start with re-prioritizing....if you live in Arizona, for example, you might have to live without a water park. I think the problem is that we always think we can use resources to create the kind of environment we want to live in, as opposed to letting the natural abundance or scarcity of a resource dictate how we live.