Here are three tweets that caught my eye this week.
Bean counters bet against more water conservation http://t.co/OnjNUhNkkt via @ABQJournal
— John Orr (@CoyoteGulch) June 10, 2022
Betting against more water conservation? Huh? Did I read that right? The linked article discusses the budgeting process for a water utility and describes how for 5 consecutive years now, the budget includes a higher volume of water sold than actually occurs during the budget period. With less water sold, that obviously correlates to lower water sales revenues (to the tune of $30 Million over those 5 years!). In preparing the budget for the 2014-15 fiscal year, the water utility projects an increase in the volume of water sold (and a corresponding increase in water sales revenue). It’ll be interesting to see how budgeted revenue compares to actual revenue in the 2014-15 fiscal year, and if water sales revenue falls again, whether the water utility bets on conservation in the 2015-16 budget.
Infrastructure jobs pay well, appeal to many, and promote long-lasting economic opportunities http://t.co/bXMKcmDZe1 via @BrookingsInst — The Value of Water (@TheValueofWater) June 11, 2022
Infrastructure garners a lot of attention in today’s headlines. The massive need for infrastructure investment, and water infrastructure investment in particular, is well-documented. Recently, I blogged on this topic arguing that local leadership holds the key to our nation’s water infrastructure challenges. The article linked in the tweet provides more incentives for local leaders to invest in their infrastructure. You want to bring jobs to your community? Invest in infrastructure. You want to promote economic growth? Invest in infrastructure. One of the interesting things in the linked article is the percentage of infrastructure jobs attributable to water: just 6%. I expect that number to grow as more leaders realize the need for investment in water infrastructure and find the courage to discuss the immediately tangible ramifications of that investment (i.e., rate increases) with their constituents.
Paper: Are There Obstacles to the ‘One Water’ Approach to Water Services Planning & Management? http://t.co/771P6PnKQ9
— Michael E. Campana (@WaterWired) June 12, 2022
Session 14 of The Water Values Podcast with Steve Maxwell really brought the “One Water” concept home for me. Now when I see articles or tweets about “One Water”, I stop and read. Steve’s discussion of the “One Water” approach made me think much deeper about water as a single resource in contrast to breaking water into siloed categories like drinking water, wastewater, storm water, process water, etc. The tweet by Mike Campana links to one of his blog posts in which he likens the “One Water” approach to integrated water resource management for urban settings. In the post, he re-produces a table from an article on barriers to the “One Water” approach. The table identifies seven urban water management categories and then compares the integrated management approach and the conventional management approach to dealing with issues in those categories. The result provides a good overview of how traditional thinking impedes implementation of the “One Water” approach. One that will sound familiar: Stakeholder collaboration in the “One Water” approach involves engagement and a collective search for solutions, while in a conventional model, stakeholder collaboration is code for public relations and selling a pre-determined solution. Interesting read.
Which of these tweets resonates most with you?
