No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWill Water follow oil as Scarce Resource 1980WILL MATER FOLLOW OIL AS A SCARCE RESOURCE? Frieda Reitman The University of Connecticut F~ieda ReJ~man Assistant Professor of Business Environment and i~.~ Program at Stamford School of Business Administration dnJversity of Connecticut Stamford, CT 06902 Poi ic) 203-322-8398 Prepared for presentation at the Eastern Ecor~omics Association meetings, ~iay lO, lgBO. The work upon which this paper is based was supported in p~rt by funds provided by the Office of Water Research and Technol- ogy Project No. B-O15-CUNN, U.S. Department of the Interior, ~ashjngton, D.C., as authorized by the ~ater Rosearch and Oevelopment Act of lg78 (P.L. g5-467). ?he opinioqs ~pmessed are solely those of the author. I ~eould like to ackno¢ledge the help of my colleagues L. Frsnkel and i~l. Huffmire, and my graduate assistant, L. Golub. WILL WATER FOLLOW OIL AS A SCARCE A Connecticut Perspective Abstract RESUURCE¥ There are similarities between the current outlook for water and the pre-1974 outlook for oil. These similarities - in the nature of the demend for the resource and in the nature of the public response to the prospects of shortages - suggest a possible crisis in "water." in Connecticut, demand for water has continued to rise. Potential supply, mainly in aquifers, appears sufficient for future needs. However, aquifers are threatened with pollution. A major problem is inadequate provision for disposal of con- taminants. If this=is not solved, a shortage of clean water may occur, ~ILL HATER FULLO~ 0IL AS A SCARCE RESOURCE? A Connecticut Perspective ~ill people have to 11ne up for an allocation of drinking water as they lined up for gasoline? The answer is "quite possibly" even mhen looked at from the vantage point of water- rich Connecticut. There are a number of differences between the pre-19?4 outlook for oil and the current outlook for water, but there are two similarities which suggest that water may well follow oil as a scarce resource. The first similarity concerns the nature of the demand for the resource. In response to relatively low prices, · ~ay of life and a technology usin9 ever increasin9 amounts of oil,de~eioped. The same is true of water. The second similarity concerns the attitude of the publ,ic. Even thou9h there were many ~arnings, society wes not ~illin9 to adapt to an oil s~arce ~orld before there was a crisis. The same seems to be true of ~ater. Demand for ~ater In the United water as we did in dential consumers, Connecticut, water in States today, se consume 17 times as much lgOO.(2~This reflects larger demand byresi- industry and agriculture. In the state of utilities provided 355 million gallons a day (~GD) 1977.* This amounted to 157 gallons per capita per day.~? ~ *This includes industrial use. It excludes water provided by private wells to 16~ of the state's population. Since each person requires one end a half quarts a dey for survival, our society now "requires" substantial water for other uses. There is some evidence that industry is ~ttempting to conserve. However totals are still rising. The Stamford Water Company sold I1 ~IGD in 1966, 14~GD in 1970 and 15 ~GD in lg?9.~ 9 > 'I ' Requi~ed for Survival: 15 quarts per day per person Used in Conn. 1977: 137 gallons a day per person Part of this increasing demand is due to the fact that the price of water has increased less than the cost of livin9 over the long run, and takes a small part of the purchasers' budget. From 1930 to 1954 water rates declined, so in real terms, water became cheaper. From 1954 to 1978, water rates increased 25 times, approximate)y the same as the cost of living. Currently, with no further increase, the real price again declining. of water is Selected Stamford Water Co. Rates 1930 1954 1978 ~inimum Charge: 900 cu.ft. 5/8" ~eter ~ 4.50 ~ 3.30 $ 8.31 4" ~eter 50.00 ~9.50 125.76 Next 14,000 cu. ft., per 100 cu. ft. .36 .32 .86 The current average monthly bill for a residence is $8.56, a very small amount for most consumers. The average monthly bill = for an industrial user in Stamford ~ith s a" meter is $622.~ *Figures supplied by James Iflclnerney, President Stamford ~ater Co. ,. 3 A United Nations that water cost is If demand for sufficient? study on industrial use of water Indicates a vary small part of total cost.(lO) water continues to rise, will supplies bm Supply of Water Water, unlike oil, is It is not destroyed when it may change location, but it found in the air as steam or ~n one sense a renawable resource.* is used; it may change form, it is still "water." It may be water vapor or rain or snow, on the surface in rivers, lakes, ice caps and oceans, and in the 9round in underground streams and aquifers. (Aquifers are geologic units capable of yielding usable amounts of water.) Of the total amount of water on earth, g5% is in the oceans. Uf the remaining fresh water, ??% is in ice caps end 91aciers, 22.4% in groundwater and soil moisture, lakes, .04~ in the air and .01% in streams. (11) fresh liquid water on earth is in aquifers. of the liquid fresh water we see and realize what of the total that is, we assume that the supply of fresh water will be adequate for a very long time. Having e large supply of "fresh" water is not sufficient, however. That water must also be of high protected from pollution. This is really areas like Connecticut. .35% in 97% of the When we think a small part quality. It must be the water problem in · Barn~t refers to the amount of eater as "finite". At 'any time the total amount is limited. But this is different from the "finite" oil supply which, once used, is gone. LOCATIUN OF ~AT£R SUPPLY Total ~ater Supply ucean Fresh Fresh ~ater Supply ~ 1% Other /' ~2~" Croundsater Ice caps ., Glaciers Liquid ~ater Supply g?% / Gr oundmater ~. In order to understand the nature of the pollution problem, it is necessary to look more closely at the nature and extent of the supply of mater. The relationshi~of the factors affecting supply are summarized by the following diagram~and comments. Surface ~ater r,r ound~ater (Aquifer mster) ~e 1. Rainfall replenishes surface eater as it fails and aquifer mater as it falls on land mhich drains into it. · . 5 2. Some water returns to the air through evaporation and evapotranspiration. 3. Surface water and aquifer water run into each other. Streams and lakes usually overlie aquifers. ~hen is low, water from surrounding aquifers will flow ~hen water is pumped from aquifers, surface water induced tnte the aquifer. 4. ~ater may be drawn from either source for use. 5. After use, the discharged water may be reused, be returned to surface water, groundwater, or may air, surface water Into streams, is often or may be lost to the the ocean or to another water area. From the point of view of Connecticut, 1. ~ainfall has been high in recent years. 59" per year in the 7O's compared to 42" per year This probably helped many communities to avoid shortages. 2. Utilities currently supply 84% of all water users. remaining 16~ have their own wells. Aquifers provided B% of the water used in 1975. ( 4 ) This percentage is increasing. It averaged in the 60's. Present Use (water utilities) 353 mCD Present capacity (safe yield) 571 Expected Need, year 2000 671 The (?) ~lany Excess capacity is distributed unevenly through the state. areas are close to capacity now. Additlona! capacity is expected Connecticut has aquifers more than twice the required to come primarily from groundwater. which can be expected to yield much amount.* *Conversation with E.H.Handman, U.S.G.5. Hartford, Ct. ~. There is a gToming mavement in industry to ~e-use water. ~ost used water (63%) is discharged into a public sewer facility. (~) Other water is discharged into septic tanks or onto land directly. The Pollution Problem The problem which Connecticut faces is one of assuring itself of a supply of quality water. The potential for pollution of that supply is great. In recent years, contamination of both surface and 9round water has been documented. In Connecticut, spillage of oil introduced contamination into 50 aquifers between July 1975 end June 1977. (3) .Dur~n~ ~197~, ~ the town of Southington had to shut down 3 of its 6 municipal drinking water wells because of contamination with two industrial solvents. (8) Students at the Middle School in ~eston have had to drink bottled water on and off for seven years because of salt pollution of its drinking water. ( 5> Sources of ~roundwater [ontamination (3> 1. 5olid ~aste Disposal (Landfills, etc.) 2. Septage Disposal 3. Storage~ Transfer and Spills of O~l and ~es Industrial Development (wastes, accidental spills, storm water runoff) 5. Road Salt 5. Septic Systems 7.. ~ater Softener ~estes 8. .Agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides) .. ? Since 1974 end the 5ale Drinking ~eter Act action been taken, by the federal government and by the protect surface eater. Practices. leading to the of ~ater have been prohibited. These rules have results. has states,to contamination produced Unfortunately, the same kinds of rules for groundwater not produce the same quick results for several reasons. 1. The existence and source of surface ~ater pollution is relatively easy to detect. The existence of 9round ~ater pollution is much harder to detect; usually it is discovered after there is a problem, ~hich may be years ation occurred. 2. Tracing the source of easy for surface ~ater. It is pollution. Water in the ground moves slowly, From one foot to many hundreds of feet, a year. (1) 3. Once the pollution ceases, surface ~ater ~ill improve relatively quickly because the ~ater moves rapidly. Because 9round~ater moves slowly, it may take centuries for an aquifer to become clean once pollution ceases. Thus, due to different physical properties, the problem of protecting aquifers is more difficult. There is one additional problem that makes aquifer protec- tion more difficult. In protecting surface sater, rules ~ere after the contamin- the pollution is relatively much harder to track ground ~ater promulgated prohibiting the disposal of contaminants into surface waters. As a result, many of these wastes were pieced on or in the Ground. If Governments now ~rohibit the disposal of con- taminants on the 9round, ~here ~ill ~hey go?* Therefore, any rules limitin9 disposal of pollutants must provide ways for safe disposal. Not to make this provision creates a stroh9 economic incentive for illegal diseosal, mhich - at some future time - ~ill pollute a water supply. Unless the problem of the disposal of ~astes is solved, there is a real possibility of a contaminated water supply and a shortage of clean water in the not too distant future. Connecticut generates over 100 million gallons of hazardous waste annually, not includin9 radioactive waste. This includes Oil lO mil. gals. Solvents 5 " " Sludge ?0 " " Chemicals 8 " " Other 310 mil. pounds (6,#1) The chemical, metals and machinery, and transportation industries are the biggest generators of waste. Connecticut does not have sufficient facilities to handle all these wastes in an acceptable manner. There is no incinerator. There are only 2 secure landfills operating, much of the waste, particularly chemicals, is transported out of state. Other waste is stored or disposed of on site by the 9eneratin9 company for went of a better solution.(8,#1) * In Connecticut, a permit from the Dept. of Health is required for dispose) of wastes. **For ~ome sastes, the preferred method of disposal is in an extremely high temperature incinerator. There have been attempts to establish and operate secure landfills, =hich are acceptable means of disposing of many wastes. In every instance the community involved would not agree. In one community e private operator had made arrangements with officials for an approved facility; the officials were soon voted out of office. Twice, recently, the Commissioner of the DePartment of Environmental Protection had to overrule a staff recommendation ( based siting of a landfill,because "site" for hazardous ~astes~ accomplished. 8usiness is Haste disposal. on scientific evaluations> on the of local oppositiono+ Without a protection of aquifers will not be not happy ~ith the higher costs of proper However, these higher costs are encouraging companies to develop 'technologies to reduce ~aste significantly, to treat the remainder, and to recover ss much resource as pos- sible. The Uniroyal ~hemical Plant in Naugatuck, after extensive testing, was able to reduce its quantity of flammable ~aste, end to burn the waste as fuel instead of shipping it out of state. Savings the first year were $185,000. Cost of Waste Disposal Unsscure landfill $ .05/gal. Secure landfill .50~gal. Incineration 2,80/gal. * Comments by John J. Housman Jr., Chief of Hazardous end Industrial Waste ~anagement, Conn. D£P, 4/2~/80. lO The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, currently being implemented, mill force industry to dispose of mastea properly. If there ie no stete-mide facility,then each large firm will attempt to provide for its omn maetes. If this is done, it mill probably never be economic to run e state- mide facility, and there mill of a small firm.* Thus it is act now. be no place to handle the masts important for the State to Hecentiy, a poll of Connecticut residents showed that 67% believe the disposal of wastes is a serious problem, but only 26~ believe it is a serious problem for their community.(6,#3) This helps explain the reluctance of communities to accept a masts handling facility in their "backyards." As long as people are reluctant to take the steps necessary to protect aquifers particularly the diff£cult steps of accepting appropriate masts facilities in their communities, the potent£al for a shortage of cIean mater exists. Since me dellver water in a one-track system (in Connecticut it is delivered by 395 water utilities and thousands of individual malls) ail water must be of the highest quality no matter mhat its use. We must protect the quality of the entire supply. ~hen the wells of residents are contaminated, mhere is an alternative supply? If an aquifer servicing a community is polluted, hom can an alternative supply be delivered~ * Comment by John Voohies, health and safety specialist for Amer~r~n Cyanamid, Stamford, at meeting, Greenwich CT, 4/23/80 Conclusion I? people continue to demand large quantities of quality water and refuse to take the unpleasant steps necessary to protect the aquifers and assure that supply, the potential for water shortages exists. ' 8afore the lg?4 oil embargo, many students of oil supply had pointed out (1) that demand for oil vas rising, and (2) that oil was a non-renewable resource ~hose supply vas diminishin9. Even after the lg?~ ~arnin9 that OPEC ~ss responding to the above knowledge, people, for the most part, refused to take appropriate action. Finally a crisis developed. Now is the time for people to take action to avoid a crisis in water supply. REFERENCES 9. 11. Alexander, Tom, "The Hazardous ~aste NLghtmare," Fortune, April21, 1980. Barnet, Richard J. "The World's Resources - Part II". The Na~ Yorker, ~lerch 31, 1980, pp. 76-91. Connecticut Area~ide Waste Treatment management Planning Program. A Guide to Ground Water and Aquifer Protec- tion· Draft, June 1979o ~iddletomn, CT. 0645? Connecticut Area~ide Waste Treatment ~anagement Planning Program. 298 Work Plan ~pmmary. ~iddletomn, CT. 06~57. Gallagher, fflegan. "Experts Fear Shortage of Clean Drinking Water." Fairpress, Normalk, CT. 2/20/80. League of Women Voters of Connecticut Education Fund. Hazardous Waste l~lanaqemant A Connecticut Perspective. No. 1, ~ctober 1979, No. 2, ~ecember 1979, No. 3, February 1980. Office of Policy and ~anagement. Connecticut Conservation and Development Policies Plan. Proposed Revision of 1979, Hartford, CT., ~larch l~ 1978. Spohn~ " Custav. "Water Pollution A Groming Concern. Ne~ York Times, Connecticut 5action, 1/8/80. Stamford Water Company. Annual Report. 1970, 1979. United Nations. The Demand for Water: Procedures and ~lethodoloqies for Projectinq Water Demand in the Context of Reqional and National P]anninq. Natural Resources Water Series #3, 1978. White, Gilbert F. "Introduction, Symposium on Water Resources ~lanagement in a changing World" Natural Eesources Journal, vol. 16, No. 4, Oct. 1976.