California Drought, Graywater, and Aussie Bucket Back

Last year, KQED aired an interview with Rebecca Nelson, an Australian research fellow at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment. She described how Australians changed their culture of water use during their 9-year drought. Bucket back is what you get when you haul excess shower water outside to water the garden.

I don't have an elephant around to help me haul water, but then again it is decent exercise for me to carry about a gallon of my own water a short distance on a regular basis.

Inspired by this piece, I have started experimenting with recycling graywater. Graywater is used water from showers, baths, the washing machine, dish washer and kitchen sink that has some soap in it, but is still clean enough to use in the garden or toilet. Here is The Poor Man's (ahem Girl's) Way to Use Gray Water:

Step #1 Obtain a plastic container that is at least 6 inches deep and the correct dimensions for your shower to cover as much of the floor as possible. I bought one like this from Target.

Step #2  Place the container in your shower, and step into it while showering.
Step #3  Pour the shower water into a watering can or other container that allows easy pouring. I have a 2-gallon watering can like this one.

Voila! Graywater recycling!

I have found that with my typical navy shower, I fill up less than my 2-gallon watering can. So far, I have been using this water to flush the toilet (only when it's brown . . .). To do this, I simply turn off the water to my toilet and then dump in shower water to flush it until the gray water runs out.

Are you tired of hearing about my toilet yet? I hope not because this is an endlessly fascinating subject to me since realizing so recently just HOW MUCH DRINKABLE HETCH HETCHY WATER SAN FRANCISCANS ARE FLUSHING DOWN THE TOILET. I think John Muir would turn over in his grave another several times knowing how much of this beautiful water--water that flooded Muir's sacred Hetch Hetchy Valley near Yosemite --gets mindlessly flushed.

As a side note, if you are looking for conservation inspiration, I would recommend Donald Worster's book A Passion For Nature: The Life of John Muir. This book discusses not only Muir's remarkable life, but conservation arguments during his life and also the debate around flooding the Hetch Hetchy Valley to supply water to a burgeoning San Francisco.

I linked to the April 15 KQED Forum discussion entitled "In Drought-Stricken California, how much Water does California Use?" on April 27, but for a repeat dose of criticism of San Franciscans' overuse of Hetch Hetchy water, click here.

As Rebecca Nelson explained, in the last decade, Australians also became accustomed to capturing rainwater and installing dual plumbing systems in new housing. In briefly looking into this, I quickly found various gray water recycling plans that would cost more money and effort to put into place but should be considered when building a new house, remodeling or having the time to install.

Initially, I questioned, "Why is it that no one (I know at least) is talking about plumbing new houses or houses undergoing renovation so that shower water can be used in toilets and perhaps also for laundry or the garden? Why is it that I have not yet heard of city water systems developing ways to recycle graywater?" 

 Then, of course, after searching the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)'s website (my heroes) some more, I discovered that my city is developing a plan! There is actually a "laundry-to-landscape" rebate program that will start up this fall. Additionally, there are technical resources and video of how one system in San Francisco has already been installed. 

I will do this! And I will let you know about it. I will also find out more about soaps and send that information along.

 We need to adjust our water culture. I know from my own little Water Challenge that it is quite easy to use significantly less water simply by thinking about it - being less of a cognitive miser - and measuring the amount of water used. Thank you, SFPUC for making that possible for San Franciscans! I hope to see great new innovative mechanisms from the SFPUC to allow for more efficient use of graywater. I also hope that most if not all water agencies in areas of drought provide great data for subscribers so that conservation becomes more expected and even the norm. 

Like Oprah says, "When you know better, you do better." It is difficult to conserve if you can't keep track of how much water you are using and how (e.g. in toilets, showers, outdoor irrigation).

A Drought Diet for California: Almonds, Steak, Bottled Water and Alfalfa?

 California agriculture consumes 80% of the water available for human consumption, so what we eat every day is an important area in which we can use less water personally and also vote with our grocery bills for sustainable water management in California.

Farmers grow the crops that they know we will buy. But will California farmers' crops have an adequate water supply as we move toward more sustainable management of our water supply - especially groundwater management? Is this question just a case of the cart getting ahead of the horse since Jerry Brown's new groundwater regulations won't require sustainability of "high and medium priority groundwater basins" until 2040? 

What should we be eating in California? What should the farmers be growing? Here is my best answer for now, based upon complex news with few clear conclusions:  

We should consume less, especially imported goods. We should eat much less meat and animal products in favor of more fruits and vegetables. We should not buy bottled water. We should welcome higher prices for water that reflect efforts to sustainably manage our water supply.

The LA Times used UNESCO Institute for Water Education data in an interactive graphic that illustrates how much water is required to produce a variety of foods - but interestingly, nuts are excluded from the discussion. This article singles out beef, pork and lamb as water hogs compared to cabbage, strawberries and onions.

 

The April 15 10am hour of Forum on KQED, titled, "In Drought-Striken California, How Much Water Does Agriculture Use?" gave me more insight. It is an in-depth discussion among 3 water experts and Jared Huffman, California 2nd District Congressman. The issues are complex. Yet, here are some takeaway messages from this discussion:

*  Don't complain about mandatory urban water cuts. Stop flushing the #$%@ toilet! This is the low-hanging fruit. Urban residents can cut water use quite easily with little impact to quality of life. (Check out my Water Challenge!) Farmers are already facing drastic water cuts and are leaving profitable fields fallow.

" . . . how many people are going to have to refinance their home because of a 25 percent cut in their water that they're going to put on their lawn or use in their house. I doubt, anybody. . . . You fill your toilet bowls with cleaner water than I drink here in the valley" - Paul Wenger (President, California Farm Bureau)

*  As constituents, we need to pay attention to water management in CA so that we can urge our leaders to achieve sustainable water management immediately.

"The problem is that California's water house is out of order. We've over-promised our water rights. . . . This is completely unsustainable and the system is out of balance." - Adam Scow (California director of Food & Water Watch, an environmental advocacy group)

Additional messages from this useful discussion:

*   Stop expanding almond production in CA.

*  Stop fracking to protect our groundwater.

*  Stop buying bottled water.

*  Use gray water.

*  Buy less and buy locally.  Buying locally encourages pricing based on actual costs to produce goods rather than competition among markets and investor speculation. For example, California alfalfa is exported to support burgeoning foreign dairy industries.

What about the villainous almonds that require a gallon of water per nut? The real villain is cheap water.

California Drought News: Politics, Policies, a Little Science, and the Comforts of Home

There is a lot of drought news right now! I read several thought-provoking stories last week about the ongoing California drought. On Sunday (April 5), the New York Times ran the first-page, above-the-fold story "California Image vs. Dry Reality" The image above from the electronic version of the story is similar to the color photo that took up a third of the front page. The photo is startling, portraying a disconnect between the comfortable lives so many of us continue to lead while ignoring the realities of the desert we live in.

Jerry Brown is quoted, "For over 10,000 years, people lived in California, but the number of those people were never more than 300,000 or 400,000 . . . Now we are embarked upon an experiment that no one has ever tried: 38 million people, with 32 million vehicles, living at the level of comfort that we all strive to attain. This will require adjustment. This will require learning."

Governor Brown recently announced a mandatory 25% reduction in water consumption in municipalities. There is a useful interactive map from this article, illustrating Californians' daily per capita water consumption by region. Using this map, it is also possible to view how Californians have changed their water consumption since 2013 and how Gov. Brown's mandate will affect different regions. Takeaway messages:
1.  Conservation matters. Areas that have conservation initiatives are using less water.
2.  We should stop watering the grass. Regions with large, landscaped areas use more water than average.
3.  Daly City, what did you do to reduce your water consumption by 41% since 2013? This is a success story!

Farmers have already reduced their water consumption through loss of surface water rights and recent limits on groundwater pumping, as discussed in "Beneath California Crops, Groundwater Crisis Grows". While California has been at the forefront of numerous environmental issues, California has just begun to regulate groundwater pumping. This image (seen better if you go to the article) shows changes in well water heights - red dots indicating decreases, and blue dots indicating increases. The takeaway message: groundwater is much lower now than in 2009.

"In the midst of this water crisis, Gov. Jerry Brown and his legislative allies pulled off something of a political miracle last year, overcoming decades of resistance from the farm lobby to adopt the state’s first groundwater law with teeth. California, so far ahead of the country on other environmental issues, became the last state in the arid West to move toward serious limits on the use of its groundwater."

Experts point to management of surface and groundwater as essential to a sustainable water supply in California. At the same, time, there is no plan to tell farmers what to plant. In the last 20 years, acreage planted in almonds has doubled even though one almond can require as much as a gallon of water to produce. In times of drought, fields of water-thirsty trees and vines can't go without water without the trees dying.

Criticism of Gov. Brown's plan revolves around cries of politics and special interests like the farm lobby as mentioned above. In another example, on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle's Bay Area Section D on (Sunday, April 5), Willie Brown writes, "(Jerry) Brown got a lot of attention with his visit to the nonexistent snowpack in the Sierra. But if he's been serious, he would have been down in Palm Springs calling for them to turn off the water on the golf courses."

The New Yorker article from April 8, "Who's To Blame for California's Drought?" describes how politics may be influencing California water policy but ultimately concludes that recent conservation policies reflect complicated multilayered negotiations. Cutting back on watering urban landscapes is "low-hanging fruit" since it accounts for about half of city water use "with little social benefit", unlike eating the produce California farmers produce.

This brings up the topic of whether we are growing and eating appropriate quantities and types of produce and livestock in California considering our arid climate and ongoing drought. I plan to look into diet in more depth in another post soon, but for now the clear messages I can take away are:

1.  Restricting urban irrigation is a good idea. Succulent gardens are lovely too.
2.  Neil deGrasse Tyson is right - We need to vote for politicians who will advocate for policies in line with what scientists and experts advocate. This means paying a lot more time educating myself about things like surface water rights and groundwater pumping so that I will be an informed voter on these important policy issues.
3. Sustainable water management in line with our water supply is vital.
4.  Our lifestyles matter: farmers will not choose to grow crops they can't sell. We can make lifestyle choices in line with what we know to be best practices, and our behaviors can influence the marketplace.
5. As we all grow more conscious of the California drought, we may have to face the hard truth that it is time to give up some of our comforts. Are we prepared to do that? Behavior change is incredibly difficult. By the way, we are still not flushing, and the Navy showers are fine.

California Drought and Ongoing Anxiety: Bring Your Own *&#% Handkerchief to the WC Already!

High and Dry: Reservoir Levels Tell Only Half the Story, Leaving California Dry as Drought Continues Juliet Christian-Smith Juliet Christian-Smith, climate scientist March 31, 2015 

I just saw this article today from the Union of Concerned Scientists. This article is similar to others I have seen, highlighting the seriousness of California's years-long drought. This is exactly the kind of article I appreciate seeing because it represents sound research and rational planning. An article like this gives me hope that, "When we know better, we can do better," as Oprah says. However, these articles also keep me awake at night because, like any good science, the findings are presented, and conclusions do not go beyond the supporting data. I may never know if snowpack will start being used alongside reservoir level for water planning.

What this means is that I am often left hanging. "So, what should I do in response to the information I am receiving?" I would like to help through my individual behaviors, and I would like to engage in supporting broader actions like policy and infrastructure changes that will help our society live more sustainably.

For this reason, the following Science Do Now Blog post on KQED  caught my eye:

What's The Best Path to a Sustainable Future?

This blog is aimed at 6-12th grade students. The question in this article is whether we will achieve a sustainable future through individual behavioral change or government regulation. There are various links that go into more depth regarding how difficult it is to change behavior alongside the nod to governmental gridlock.

As a social psychologist turned sociologist myself, I do believe we can make significant progress through understanding what motivates behavior change. We have the social sciences to thank for powerful ideas like "diffusion of responsibility", "self-fulfilling prophecy", and of course, "cognitive miser". I would like to see more stories like this targeting not just students, but all of us who are anxiously looking around for practical solutions.

The cognitive miser in me loves it when there is a clear, "And here is what you should do" answer to a nagging question. Behold, there is an answer embedded in this blog!

The nagging question for today: "Are electric hand dryers more environmentally friendly than using a paper towel to dry my hands in a public restroom?"

One study conducted by students at the Rochester Institute of Technology found that switching from paper towels to electric hand dryers reduced carbon emissions by 75%, but 65% of study participants reported they still preferred paper towels. Most participants were not motivated to change their behavior despite evidence that they should switch to electric dryers.

This finding, alongside World Bank data indicating that Japan's per capita carbon emissions are about half the U.S.'s indicates the importance of cultural differences in similar economies. One point of difference is that, in Japan you won't find electric hand dryers or paper towels in public restrooms. Japanese people generally bring their own handkerchief to public restrooms so they don't expect these services. How hard is it really be to bring your own handkerchief (or manage with wet hands for a couple minutes)? About as hard as remembering to bring a bag to the store, I think.

I usually carried a handkerchief in my purse when I was an exchange student to Japan in the 1980s. I lived to tell the tale, but somehow, I stopped carrying my handkerchief when I moved back to the U.S. Like me, Miwako Kuwahara connected her American acculturation to the loss of her habit of carrying a handkerchief in her "My Turn: The Handkerchief as Cultural Touchstone".

 The thing is, Americans aren't used to doing this; it feels "foreign". Few will start doing it until they notice a critical mass of other people doing it too or have a solid reason to change a mundane habit. Because they just aren't thinking about it. We are cognitive misers and passive victims (and sometimes benefactors) of our powerful cultures. 

Bring a hanky, the earth will thanky. (No, I am not a poet.) Don't have a handkerchief? Write me, and I will send you one!

Water Conservation: Low Flow Toilets

I am still basking in the glow of our astounding water challenge success. I am also humbled by the awareness that some of my neighbors and friends have been conserving their water better than we have for a long time. The big conclusion for me is that it is possible to use substantially less water through unremarkable changes: washing clothes less (and only washing full loads), showering a little less and taking navy showers, and not flushing the toilet every time.

There is more to this story, however. On November 7^th of last year (2014), my favorite neighborhood plumbers Heise’s Plumbing  came by and installed 2 low-flow shower heads and 2 low-flow toilets. Thanks to the SFPUC website, I can see how our water usage changed with these new fixtures.  

Check out the reduction in our household water usage from November to December last year! Our December bill spanned November 15 – December 12. During that period, we used an average of 80 gallons of water per day compared to 174 gallons the previous month. That is about a 55% decrease in water usage from one month to the next.

You can see from the chart above, that the real impact is not that extreme, but in the 3 months prior to the toilet installation, we used in the ballpark of 150 gallons of water per day for our family of 4. Previously I noted that our family was using approximately 33 gallons of water per day per person up until the Water Challenge began in March, which took into account lower water usage since the HE toilets installation.

I just looked at our averages through last November when the low flow toilets and showerheads went in. I discovered that, from November 2013 through November 2014, our average water use was a little higher – 37 gallons per person or 158 gallons for our household each day.

Since November when the new toilets and shower heads were installed, we used closer to 100 gallons of water per day. We reduced our household water use by 30% with absolutely no behavior change other than having new toilets and showerheads installed. We reduced our water consumption from approximately 35 gallons per person per day to 25 gallons per person per day, or a ~7% reduction in water usage per person x 4. Toilets matter!

The Dirty about the Toilets:

I installed the Toto Eco Drake – model #ST743E tank andmodel #C744E bowl. I purchased these on the recommendation of Heise’s because they said, “They work well.” I agree. They get the flushing done. This toilet gets good reviews by other users too.

The toilets are single flush as opposed to the dual pee/poo settings that flush as little as .9 gallons of water. My toilets have the WaterSense sticker on them, indicating that they don’t use more than 1.28 gallons per flush, which is the standard to be considered a High-Efficiency (HE)toilet. (Mine use 1.28 gallons per flush.)

From what I understand, a standard toilet uses 3.5 – 7 gallons of water per flush. Who knew? I think some of my neighbors did, but I guess I wasn’t really paying attention, and no one I know has been talking about gallons per flush. Let’s talk toilet! I am sorry I didn’t replace my toilets sooner. I believe the low-flow shower heads are using less water too, although I would guess the bulk of our new water conservation is due to the HE toilets.

Start-up Costs:

I paid $370 per toilet. In looking around a little online today, I see I could have bought the toilets myself for around $250 and then just paid Heise’s to install them for me. I could even have installed the toilets myself, which I believe is fairly easy to do. But, I am lazy, and I love finished projects. With labor included, the total cost of this project was $1,250. The City of San Francisco gave me a $125 rebate for each toilet ($300 total rebate) to bring that back down to $950.

In looking through my new, favorite website some more – the San Francisco Public Utilities website – I just discovered it is even possible for some San Francisco residents to have a new HE toilet installed at no cost. You can find rebate information on this site too.

As I was looking around to find the best new toilets, I came across the Maximum Performance MaP website that tests toilets. It is a good resource for selecting a new HE toilet.

 More Questions:

For anyone else out there obsessing over their toilets: How has the installation of a dual-flush HE toilet impacted your water use? Are you seeing even more extreme reductions in water use than I am?

Ted Cruz, Neil deGrasse Tyson and a Country of Armchair Scientists: Do We Care Whether Environmental Policy is Scientific or Not?

This morning, a Facebook friend of mine liked the March 24 Washington Post article entitled, "Ted Cruz says satellite data show the globe isn't warming. This satellite scientist feels otherwise". 

 The author, Chris Mooney, is a journalist who is most well-known for his book The Republican War on Science (2005). In the newspaper article, Mooney describes several possible sources of climate data, satellite data being one source. He also describes how different people can have different perspectives on global warming based on looking at data from one year vs. trends over years and decades. Mooney ultimately criticizes Cruz for cherry picking data points and misinterpreting the Physicist Carl Mears' conclusions from his satellite data. Mears, whose data Cruz has used to argue that humans are not causing global warming, has said this conclusion is incorrect.

 A couple weeks ago, I had the thrill of attending Neil deGrasse Tyson's entertaining talk in San Francisco. Somehow, I managed to be the last person to ask him a question during Q and A. (OK, I climbed over a few people to exit my row and threw some punches.) My question: I just watched the Cosmos episode on global warming. How would you recommend applying what scientists are telling us in our day-to-day lives? In other words, can I make a significant impact with my own lifestyle changes? What kind of response should people like me - people who are not astrophysicists or climate scientists working on producing more data - do in response to what we know now?

Do you know what Neil - yes, we are now close friends - replied? He said, "Stay visible." He actually said that twice. Now, he was referring to how he would like me to continue standing while he answered another question, but Neil did admonish me to "Stay visible." These words have given me newfound direction in life.

Ultimately, Neil did not respond to specifics about personal behavior change. Instead, he focused on how important it is for the U.S.'s environmental policies to agree with emergent science. Our national policies should reflect a commitment to utilizing climate science to guide our actions in taking care of our planet.

"Emergent science" is not a single, recent data point. It is the general consensus of the scientific community today, based on multiple data sources, test re-test reliability, peer reviews and criticism. Understanding and using emergent science requires practicing science in our day-to-day lives. It means becoming scientists ourselves in how we interpret information and make decisions.

 With the tv and radio shows Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey and Star Talk, Neil deGrasse Tyson is urging us all to be better scientists. He is making science fun and accessible so that science will become more tightly woven into our cultural fabric. This was the theme of NDT's talk a couple weeks ago. He showed how scientific inquiry has changed over time and in different cultures of the world, producing more and less innovation. 

 Neil deGrasse Tyson wants to make us all better scientists so that we can analyze arguments better to distinguish between facts, spin, and conflicts of interest. More importantly, as better scientists, we will be more prone to promote politicians who will utilize emergent science to create effective policies and innovate on issues like global warming. This is where our impact could be significant.

Personally, I would like to believe that global warming isn't happening. I would like to continue doing whatever I want at all times. Because I want to. And I can. It makes my life more comfortable and free than probably most humans ever in the history of humans. But I see the polluted air hanging over my house, and I can't remember the last time it really rained, and I know I should pay attention to the scientists.

I am left with the questions: Do we value science enough to urge our politicians to use it? Are we willing to become better scientists as more and more information is available to us? Could Fritz Heider's idea of the "naive scientist" from the 1950s be more true today than it used to be? Or, are Susan Fiske and Shelley Taylor still correct in defining us as "cognitive misers", creatures who won't think any more than they have to? To the degree that we are cognitive misers, will personal and community beliefs trump scientific inquiry in who we elect to create national policy?

Water Challenge: Results from Month 1

Well, the results are in! Our average water usage per person per day last month was 17 gallons. In one month, we were able to reduce our water consumption by 52%, and we moved a lot closer to the world average water consumption target of 13 gallons per day!

To sum up the results, our average water use per person in January-February was 33 gallons per day, compared to last month's (Feb. - Mar.) average of 17 gallons. I am honestly startled and encouraged by these results. I guess I haven't been paying as much attention to how we have used our water as I would like to think considering all the messages out there about California's severe drought. 

This is a family photo near a lake in the Sierra foothills, taken late February 2015. Note the buoy on the sand behind us that used to part of the swimming hole there.


The thing is, there is still plenty of room for improvement. For example:
*  We still watered our little yard last month. We could turn off the water entirely and only maintain plants that can survive without irrigation. This might mean killing off my 3 fruit trees and giving up on my berries and a few other vegetables we plant on occasion. It would also mean brown grass or the need to replace the grass with something else. Perhaps I will go back to backyard chicken farming and allow the entire space to become bare earth! We have maintained our little green patch for our kids to have space to run around in the backyard, but I don't think we would give up much to give up on green grass. I would be sad to see my plum, apple and lemon trees go, but perhaps they should.

Can we give this up? Probably . . .

*  We could simply continue to get better at flushing less often and also washing dishes and clothes less often. That is easy.

*  I haven't switched to using biodegradable soaps yet, but I could get more extreme and change all the products we use so that our gray water can get reused in other ways without concern about polluting the environment.

*  It would take more work, but we could save even more if it was possible to re-plumb our house so that kitchen sink and shower water could get re-used for irrigation and flushing toilets. (I also love the idea of an "endless shower" - a shower that continues to cycle the same water for x number of times, eliminating the guilt of a luxurious shower now and then. In talking with our contractor, I know the city of San Francisco does not officially allow this, but it would be fairly straightforward to include a switch system with a shower installation that allows for the homeowner to determine when fresh vs. recycled water gets introduced.)

*  We could utilize our rain barrel better to make rainwater our sole source of irrigation (when, in theory, it rains again). I know this is complicated when watering edible plants, but possible with some planning.

In the coming months, I will continue with the water challenge by obtaining a water conservation analysis from the SFPUC and also by attempting to keep a daily water usage diary. Send me your water challenge results and tips!