By Erin Mosley, Chair of WEF's Stockholm Junior Water Prize Committee
This week, nearly 50 students and many of their teachers are travelling to Anchorage, Alaska, for the U.S. Stockholm Junior Water Prize (SJWP) Competition hosted by the Alaska Water Wastewater Management Association (AWWMA) and WEF. As the only major high school science competition focusing on the water environment, the SJWP offers its participants an opportunity to meet role models and peers who understand their projects and their passion for water quality issues. It’s also a different kind of competition...one that emphasizes collaboration, networking, and fun over “lone wolf” research.
The competition reaches a broad range of students through its multiple levels of competition. After projects are submitted online for the state level competition, many students are interviewed by water industry professionals from the WEF Member Associations (MAs). In this way, each MA plays a crucial role in connecting with these students and encouraging their interest.
The state winners arrive at the U.S. on-site competition to meet the judges and attend the award ceremony, but they leave with a network of friends and future colleagues developed through the social and educational events. Likewise, their teachers participate in an outreach program that encourages water-related curriculum and research over the long term. And the competition doesn’t stop there – we provide opportunities to publish, keep in touch, and more.
The SJWP program addresses so many areas of interest to WEF members that it is hard to list them all in one blog: workforce sustainability, career outreach, fueling future research, networking among up-and-coming water professionals, and strengthening ties between WEF and its MAs are only the first things that come to mind.
So as I travel to Anchorage to be a “coach” to a group of state winners for the fourth year running, my thanks go out to Stephanie Costello and others at WEF, the SJWP committee (which is always looking for new members), AWWMA and the volunteers in Alaska, our sponsors, each MA that has helped with state competitions and student/teacher airfares, and any other volunteer or friend who has touched this competition in the last decade.
Please contact us if you have ideas and would like to get involved. And make sure to check out the SJWP page soon for news on the U.S. winner and finalists. Cheers!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Nutrient Removal: Everywhere, All the Time?
By Jeanette Brown, 2008-2009 Vice-President of the Water Environment Federation
As water quality experts know, many treatment plants throughout the United States are required to remove nitrogen, phosphorus or both. And if you manage or work at a utility like mine, in a region where nutrient removal is required, you know there are significant related costs, both capital and operating, as well as increased process monitoring requirements. As stewards of the environment, we take great pride not only meeting permit requirements but also in trying to achieve much greater removal of pollutants. Now we must all address a fundamental question as to whether or not every water body would benefit from nutrient removal. It’s complicated, because while we strive for the cleanest water possible, we understand this objective must be balanced against most effective use of environmental resources and diverse considerations that impact water quality at the regional and local levels.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has petitioned EPA to issue generally applicable nitrogen and phosphorus removal requirements for wastewater treatment plants. They contend that total phosphorous limits of 1.0 mg/L and total nitrogen limits of 8.0 mg/L are consistently attainable on an annual average basis using current secondary treatment technology. They also contend that many treatment plants are currently doing this with either a slight increase in cost or in some cases reduction of costs.
Many of us who currently operating nutrient removal plants have some concerns about this proposal because we understand how cold temperatures, wet weather and changing influent characteristics can impact nutrient removal efficiencies. In order to evaluate this petition, which will certainly be a hot topic at the upcoming Nutrient 2009 meeting, members of WEF and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) developed a questionnaire which has now been completed by many plants throughout the country. The results give us an understanding of the processes used at plants, whether or not they are doing nutrient removal, effluent quality, and costs. The goal is to provide EPA with expert advice as they continue to address nutrient criteria and issues.
Additionally WEF has convened a nutrient issues workgroup. This workgroup is assessing base line performance of conventional secondary treatment plants that evaluate how much nitrogen and phosphorus can be removed by the process. They are also evaluating state-of-the-art processes for nutrient removal, including cost and performance.
It is vitally important that we continue to thoroughly address this question of universal benefits of nutrient removal before any final decision is made to mandate generally applicable nutrient removal requirements. As stewards of clean water, we all have a stake in the answer, and I’d appreciate your thoughts.
P.S. You may want to check out the Nutrient Removal Knowledge Center on WEF's website for more information.
As water quality experts know, many treatment plants throughout the United States are required to remove nitrogen, phosphorus or both. And if you manage or work at a utility like mine, in a region where nutrient removal is required, you know there are significant related costs, both capital and operating, as well as increased process monitoring requirements. As stewards of the environment, we take great pride not only meeting permit requirements but also in trying to achieve much greater removal of pollutants. Now we must all address a fundamental question as to whether or not every water body would benefit from nutrient removal. It’s complicated, because while we strive for the cleanest water possible, we understand this objective must be balanced against most effective use of environmental resources and diverse considerations that impact water quality at the regional and local levels.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has petitioned EPA to issue generally applicable nitrogen and phosphorus removal requirements for wastewater treatment plants. They contend that total phosphorous limits of 1.0 mg/L and total nitrogen limits of 8.0 mg/L are consistently attainable on an annual average basis using current secondary treatment technology. They also contend that many treatment plants are currently doing this with either a slight increase in cost or in some cases reduction of costs.
Many of us who currently operating nutrient removal plants have some concerns about this proposal because we understand how cold temperatures, wet weather and changing influent characteristics can impact nutrient removal efficiencies. In order to evaluate this petition, which will certainly be a hot topic at the upcoming Nutrient 2009 meeting, members of WEF and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) developed a questionnaire which has now been completed by many plants throughout the country. The results give us an understanding of the processes used at plants, whether or not they are doing nutrient removal, effluent quality, and costs. The goal is to provide EPA with expert advice as they continue to address nutrient criteria and issues.
Additionally WEF has convened a nutrient issues workgroup. This workgroup is assessing base line performance of conventional secondary treatment plants that evaluate how much nitrogen and phosphorus can be removed by the process. They are also evaluating state-of-the-art processes for nutrient removal, including cost and performance.
It is vitally important that we continue to thoroughly address this question of universal benefits of nutrient removal before any final decision is made to mandate generally applicable nutrient removal requirements. As stewards of clean water, we all have a stake in the answer, and I’d appreciate your thoughts.
P.S. You may want to check out the Nutrient Removal Knowledge Center on WEF's website for more information.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Water Regs Frozen in Time, Need Reinvention
By Rebecca West, 2008-2009 President of the Water Environment Federation
New EPA administrators bring new opportunities to address environmental challenges, like improving our regulatory approach to the nation’s water resources. It was a big theme at the WEF/NACWA Clean Water Policy Forum earlier this month, where utility executives discussed our nation’s out-of-date water regulations. We talk about limited Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts that do not connect water needs and resources at the state and local levels and folks generally agree that watershed management is the best approach to managing water. Water—supply and quality—is interconnected and should clearly be regulated that way, and it’s not under our current system.
Don’t get me wrong, both Acts were based on the best science and thinking at the time they were created and are very, very good. They’ve made tremendous progress, but they’ve run the course of a useful life, and we also know so much more today. Nonpoint source pollution, impacts from urbanization, you name it, there’s a whole new dimension in water management not reflected (no pun intended) in our current water regulations. Not to mention how climate change impacts water quality and supply through impact over time.
And unlike anything we have now, any revised legislation should emphasize a conservation ethic to address growing water scarcity and the importance of water reuse. People are undervaluing and over consuming water, and unfortunately we have not mustered the political will to begin asking them to use less!
Bottom line: let’s start with a blank sheet of paper and reinvent regulation from a watershed perspective, including every aspect of water resource management. Why not start by combining the SDWA and the CWA to create a single Water Act, and down the road from a global sustainability standpoint, the International Water Act? Just some thoughts from the recent Clean Water Policy Forum, what do you think?
New EPA administrators bring new opportunities to address environmental challenges, like improving our regulatory approach to the nation’s water resources. It was a big theme at the WEF/NACWA Clean Water Policy Forum earlier this month, where utility executives discussed our nation’s out-of-date water regulations. We talk about limited Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts that do not connect water needs and resources at the state and local levels and folks generally agree that watershed management is the best approach to managing water. Water—supply and quality—is interconnected and should clearly be regulated that way, and it’s not under our current system.
Don’t get me wrong, both Acts were based on the best science and thinking at the time they were created and are very, very good. They’ve made tremendous progress, but they’ve run the course of a useful life, and we also know so much more today. Nonpoint source pollution, impacts from urbanization, you name it, there’s a whole new dimension in water management not reflected (no pun intended) in our current water regulations. Not to mention how climate change impacts water quality and supply through impact over time.
And unlike anything we have now, any revised legislation should emphasize a conservation ethic to address growing water scarcity and the importance of water reuse. People are undervaluing and over consuming water, and unfortunately we have not mustered the political will to begin asking them to use less!
Bottom line: let’s start with a blank sheet of paper and reinvent regulation from a watershed perspective, including every aspect of water resource management. Why not start by combining the SDWA and the CWA to create a single Water Act, and down the road from a global sustainability standpoint, the International Water Act? Just some thoughts from the recent Clean Water Policy Forum, what do you think?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sharing the Sustainability Buzz
By Peter T. Brady, B.E., Residuals and Biosolids Committee Chair
At the residual and biosolids meeting in Portland last week, sustainability through effective residuals management could be described as a shared vision…or the major buzz. Topics like benefits of land application where appropriate and increased plant efficiency were discussed everywhere. And presentations on green energy and energy renewal were especially popular among older and younger attendees alike. That’s actually why I’m blogging.
In addition to creating leading-edge optimization solutions and tools for today’s residuals managers, our field must continue to attract and cultivate a new generation of young professionals (YPs). The Residuals and Biosolids Committee (RBC) is addressing sustainability from both perspectives because to make sustainability work, we need a sustainable workplace.
Green energy savers like the incinerator Cleveland upgraded to generate electricity or the report on carbon emissions presented last week are great for at least two reasons…they contribute to our profession’s knowledge base and they attract the
YPs who want to fix the environment. While we build on a solid range of best practices and operations to sustain the environment through smart residuals management, we must communicate the very real opportunities to protect public health and the environment. And we should do that through venues where YPs seek information (like blogs)-- and encourage their involvement. The time to reach out has never been better.
As we saw in Portland, big things are happening in residuals management, a field bursting with innovative and practical ways to improve our environment. WEF and the RBC continue to work toward developing the best possible technical information and resources, making them available in formats that work for experienced residuals professionals as well as YPs who may be exploring the field for the first time. (Visit the Residuals and Biosolids Conference Proceedings page to see materials from recent RBC meetings.) And the RBC has challenged each of its subcommittees to increase their number of active YPs, through social media, old-fashioned networking or whatever else works, and we’ll review our progress at WEFTEC. We need YP involvement, and so does a sustainable planet.
At the residual and biosolids meeting in Portland last week, sustainability through effective residuals management could be described as a shared vision…or the major buzz. Topics like benefits of land application where appropriate and increased plant efficiency were discussed everywhere. And presentations on green energy and energy renewal were especially popular among older and younger attendees alike. That’s actually why I’m blogging. In addition to creating leading-edge optimization solutions and tools for today’s residuals managers, our field must continue to attract and cultivate a new generation of young professionals (YPs). The Residuals and Biosolids Committee (RBC) is addressing sustainability from both perspectives because to make sustainability work, we need a sustainable workplace.
Green energy savers like the incinerator Cleveland upgraded to generate electricity or the report on carbon emissions presented last week are great for at least two reasons…they contribute to our profession’s knowledge base and they attract the
YPs who want to fix the environment. While we build on a solid range of best practices and operations to sustain the environment through smart residuals management, we must communicate the very real opportunities to protect public health and the environment. And we should do that through venues where YPs seek information (like blogs)-- and encourage their involvement. The time to reach out has never been better.As we saw in Portland, big things are happening in residuals management, a field bursting with innovative and practical ways to improve our environment. WEF and the RBC continue to work toward developing the best possible technical information and resources, making them available in formats that work for experienced residuals professionals as well as YPs who may be exploring the field for the first time. (Visit the Residuals and Biosolids Conference Proceedings page to see materials from recent RBC meetings.) And the RBC has challenged each of its subcommittees to increase their number of active YPs, through social media, old-fashioned networking or whatever else works, and we’ll review our progress at WEFTEC. We need YP involvement, and so does a sustainable planet.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Value for Members Remains Top WEF Priority
By Bill Bertera, WEF Executive Director
WEF is in the best financial shape of its long history...still, we expect our operations--and our members--to be significantly affected by the recession. Like utilities and companies across the country, and indeed, around the world, we will be doing business differently to meet tough economic challenges. For the record, one thing won’t change, and that’s our focus on delivering top quality training and education for water quality professionals.
WEF will continue to provide the best possible value for stretched member dollars even as we adjust current spending. It’s the Federation’s job to help you protect public health and the environment, and we are adapting our programs to meet your needs and resources.
We understand that travel is more difficult for many of our members, so we are putting new emphasis on distance learning technologies like free webcasts. Budgets for education and training are strained...we are adding more free content to our websites in response. Resources for innovation are strapped...we are emphasizing cutting-edge material and technologies in our educational offerings,
including WEFTEC, our specialty conferences and our seminars. And of course, we continue to focus on providing our members with the latest information on new funding for wastewater projects, a big topic at next week’s 2009 National Clean Water Policy Forum sponsored by WEF and NACWA.
This is a hard time for both the public and private sector, and WEF is here to make it a little less so. Already there are signs that the recession may be softening, but we have a long way to go yet. Together we will get there.
Please take a moment to let us know what you think and what else WEF could do to be of more help still.
WEF is in the best financial shape of its long history...still, we expect our operations--and our members--to be significantly affected by the recession. Like utilities and companies across the country, and indeed, around the world, we will be doing business differently to meet tough economic challenges. For the record, one thing won’t change, and that’s our focus on delivering top quality training and education for water quality professionals.
WEF will continue to provide the best possible value for stretched member dollars even as we adjust current spending. It’s the Federation’s job to help you protect public health and the environment, and we are adapting our programs to meet your needs and resources.
We understand that travel is more difficult for many of our members, so we are putting new emphasis on distance learning technologies like free webcasts. Budgets for education and training are strained...we are adding more free content to our websites in response. Resources for innovation are strapped...we are emphasizing cutting-edge material and technologies in our educational offerings,
including WEFTEC, our specialty conferences and our seminars. And of course, we continue to focus on providing our members with the latest information on new funding for wastewater projects, a big topic at next week’s 2009 National Clean Water Policy Forum sponsored by WEF and NACWA.This is a hard time for both the public and private sector, and WEF is here to make it a little less so. Already there are signs that the recession may be softening, but we have a long way to go yet. Together we will get there.
Please take a moment to let us know what you think and what else WEF could do to be of more help still.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Show Me the Green Infrastructure
By Paul Freedman, 2008-2009 President-Elect of WEF
The other day I was having a discussion about the current stimulus bill and potential set asides for green practices, when a thought hit me: are we as a profession and as individuals really walking the talk, or merely looking for handouts? Put another way, have we fully embraced a new mentality about adopting green practices or are we just being politically correct to win federal money?
I am happy to say, that WEF as an organization and as a professional association talks the talk, and walks the walk. WEF has a Community of Practice on Sustainability with more than 100 members and has provided professionals with hundreds of presentations, papers, and articles on related topics including a specialty conference on sustainability in 2008 and another planned for 2010; we’ve also been quite active in legislative and regulatory affairs advocating for green practices. Beyond all this, WEF is demonstrating our commitment through implementation of our WEFeco program which is aimed at reducing the organization’s carbon footprint through individual and organizational actions, and will ultimately help other organizations go green with similar efforts. This has included everything from reducing our energy usage and paper usage to recycling and even installing a green roof and terrace(come by and admire it or read about it in the April issue of Highlights.
So especially in light of upcoming Earth Day celebrations, I am proud to be part of an organization that is advocating and embracing green practices. As experts and stewards of the water environment, we do have an obligation to lead, by voice and by example. And who is more qualified to lead efforts to redesign water and land-use infrastructure for communities that are greener, better for the environment and more livable and sustainable? What are you doing, both as a part of your organization and as an individual? I challenge you to take a moment and share an example of what you or your company or organization is doing in the way of green practices or more specifically, infrastructure. Thanks in advance for your post and your commitment to a cleaner, greener environment.
The other day I was having a discussion about the current stimulus bill and potential set asides for green practices, when a thought hit me: are we as a profession and as individuals really walking the talk, or merely looking for handouts? Put another way, have we fully embraced a new mentality about adopting green practices or are we just being politically correct to win federal money?
I am happy to say, that WEF as an organization and as a professional association talks the talk, and walks the walk. WEF has a Community of Practice on Sustainability with more than 100 members and has provided professionals with hundreds of presentations, papers, and articles on related topics including a specialty conference on sustainability in 2008 and another planned for 2010; we’ve also been quite active in legislative and regulatory affairs advocating for green practices. Beyond all this, WEF is demonstrating our commitment through implementation of our WEFeco program which is aimed at reducing the organization’s carbon footprint through individual and organizational actions, and will ultimately help other organizations go green with similar efforts. This has included everything from reducing our energy usage and paper usage to recycling and even installing a green roof and terrace(come by and admire it or read about it in the April issue of Highlights.So especially in light of upcoming Earth Day celebrations, I am proud to be part of an organization that is advocating and embracing green practices. As experts and stewards of the water environment, we do have an obligation to lead, by voice and by example. And who is more qualified to lead efforts to redesign water and land-use infrastructure for communities that are greener, better for the environment and more livable and sustainable? What are you doing, both as a part of your organization and as an individual? I challenge you to take a moment and share an example of what you or your company or organization is doing in the way of green practices or more specifically, infrastructure. Thanks in advance for your post and your commitment to a cleaner, greener environment.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thoughts from the World Water Forum
By Rebecca West, WEF President
During the World Water Forum V, held in Istanbul, Turkey, March 16-22, 2009, I was one of more than 25,000 participants who discussed themes including the following:
For communities across this planet to survive and then thrive, access to basic sanitation and
clean water is the first and most essential requirement. I’ve had opportunities to witness this first hand, most recently during a personal trip to Kidete, Tanzania. A small village of around 700 people, Kidete is located on the outskirts of Iringa, Tanzania (population around 180,000 people). It’s an area blessed with frequent rainfall, but access to water is a challenge due to changing weather patterns and an expanding population requiring water for living and for growing food.
As seen in this photo, Kidete residents must seek available water sources each day for their daily drinking, cooking, bathing, washing and crop growth.
A consistent and ample water supply would begin to completely change this village: children could attend school, women could better attend to the daily chores of growing and gathering food for their families (or perhaps even begin a small business or go back to school), babies would be born with better birth weights and a greater chance of living beyond their toddler years. Once this happens, Kidete and villages like it could develop a better standard of living and focus on protecting their water supply because they understand the value of water and what it means for each day of their lives. Then water issues related to governance, management, finance, education, and capacity development will take shape and more complex water issues related to global change and risk management could be considered.
Basic access to sanitation and clean drinking water is a right of all people, and I offer these thoughts to show that human development really does depend on that right. So do global water solutions.
During the World Water Forum V, held in Istanbul, Turkey, March 16-22, 2009, I was one of more than 25,000 participants who discussed themes including the following:
- Global Change and Risk Management;
- Advancing the Human Development and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG);
- Managing and Protecting Water Resources;
- Governance and Management;
- Finance;
- Education, Knowledge and Capacity Development.
For communities across this planet to survive and then thrive, access to basic sanitation and
clean water is the first and most essential requirement. I’ve had opportunities to witness this first hand, most recently during a personal trip to Kidete, Tanzania. A small village of around 700 people, Kidete is located on the outskirts of Iringa, Tanzania (population around 180,000 people). It’s an area blessed with frequent rainfall, but access to water is a challenge due to changing weather patterns and an expanding population requiring water for living and for growing food. As seen in this photo, Kidete residents must seek available water sources each day for their daily drinking, cooking, bathing, washing and crop growth.
A consistent and ample water supply would begin to completely change this village: children could attend school, women could better attend to the daily chores of growing and gathering food for their families (or perhaps even begin a small business or go back to school), babies would be born with better birth weights and a greater chance of living beyond their toddler years. Once this happens, Kidete and villages like it could develop a better standard of living and focus on protecting their water supply because they understand the value of water and what it means for each day of their lives. Then water issues related to governance, management, finance, education, and capacity development will take shape and more complex water issues related to global change and risk management could be considered. Basic access to sanitation and clean drinking water is a right of all people, and I offer these thoughts to show that human development really does depend on that right. So do global water solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
