Tag: water supply
Interview: The Future of Water in a Warmer World
Peter H. Gleick, President and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, is concerned that without reducing greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will have dire impact on water resources. (Courtesy of the Pacific Institute)
With concern about climate change growing, some scientists are trying to determine how global warming will affect sources of water. Lester Graham spoke with the President of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick about what climate change might mean to weather patterns:
With concern about climate change growing, some scientists are trying to determine how global warming will affect sources of water.
Lester Graham spoke with the President of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick about what climate change might mean to weather
PG: Overall, the planet is gonna get wetter because as it gets hotter, we'll see more
evaporation. The problem is, we aren't always gonna get rain where we want it.
Sometimes we're gonna get rain where we don't want it. And at the moment it looks like
the biggest increases in rainfall will be in the northern regions where typically water is
less of a problem. Or at least water quantity is less of a problem. And we may actually get
less rainfall in the Southwest where we need it more.
LG: Let's talk about some of the precious areas to North America. For instance, a lot of
people are worried about snow pack in the Rockies.
PG: Yes, well, one of the most certain impacts of global climate change is going to be
significant changes in snowfall and snowmelt patterns in the western United States as a
whole, actually in the United States as a whole because as it warms up, what falls out of
the atmosphere is going to be rain and not snow. Now that really matters in the Western
United States, in the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada where our snow pack really
forms the basis of our water supply system. Unfortunately, as the climate is changing,
we're seeing rising temperatures and decreasing snow pack. More of what falls in the
mountains is falling as rain, less of it's going to be snow. That's going to wreck havoc on
our management system, the reservoirs that we've built to deal with these variations in
climate. Incidentally, it's also going to ruin the ski season eventually.
LG: You mentioned that the farther north you go, according to some models, we'll see
more rain or more precipitation. At the same time, with warmer temperatures, we'll see
less ice covering some of the inland lakes, such as the Great Lakes, which means more
evaporation. So, what are we going to see as far as those surface waters sources across
the continent?
PG: Without a doubt, global climate is changing. And it's going to get worse and worse
as humans put more and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And as it gets
warmer, we're going to see more evaporation off of the surface of all kinds of lakes,
including especially the Great Lakes. And interestingly, even though we don't have a
great degree of confidence of what's going to happen precisely with precipitation in the
Great Lakes, all of the models seem to agree that over time, the Great Lakes levels are
going to drop. And it looks like we're going to lose more water out of the surface of the
Great Lakes from increased evaporation off the lakes than we're likely to get from
precipitation, even if precipitation goes up somewhat. And I think that's a great worry for
homeowners and industry around the margin of the lake. Ultimately for navigation,
ultimately for water supply.
LG: There's a lot of talk about the gloom and doom scenarios of global warming, but
they'll be longer growing seasons and we're also going to be seeing, as the zones change,
more of this fertile ground in as northern US and Canada get longer growing seasons.
That's not a bad thing.
PG: There are going to be winners and loser from global climate change. And
interestingly, there are going to be winners and losers at different times. Certainly, a
longer growing season is a possibility as it warms up. And I think that, in the short term,
could prove to be beneficial for certain agriculture in certain regions. Interestingly
though, and perhaps a little depressingly, over time, if the globe continues to warm up, if
the globe continues to warm up, evidence suggest that the short term improvements in
agriculture that we might see might ultimately be wiped out. As it gets hotter and hotter,
some crop yields will go down after they go up. We're going to see an increase in pests
that we didn't used to see because of warmer weather. Unfortunately, pests like warmer
weather. Furthermore, if we don't really get a handle on greenhouse gas emissions, if we
don't really start to cut the severity of the climate changes that we're going to see, the
doom and gloom scenarios unfortunately get more likely. Over time, the temperatures go
up not just one or two or three degrees Celsius but four or five or eight degree Celsius.
And that truly is a catastrophe for the kind of systems we've set up around the planet.
HOST TAG: Peter Gleick is a water expert and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, based in California.
Pacific Institute
Gleick publication offered by Pew Center
U.S. Global Change Research Program on water
Author Lester GrahamPosted on April 16, 2007 Categories InterviewsTags atmosphere, canada, continent, evaporation, fertile, global climate change, great lakes, greenhouse gases, growing season, homeowners, industry, navigation, north america, pests, peter, planet, precipitation, president, rain, rockies, rocky mountains, snow pack, southwest, surface waters, warm weather, water, water supply
Plunging Into Low-Flow Toilets
Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990's. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/quirmbach_021907.mp3
Rob Zimmerman admits there are plenty of jokes about toilets, but the
water engineer for the Kohler Corporation takes the bathroom commode
very seriously.
"I've heard people say that the toilet is kind of the foundation of
modern civilization… that modern sanitation allowed for the growth of
cities and allowed for the decline of infectious diseases."
And now Zimmerman has a handle on a new role for toilets: saving water.
Studies have shown that toilets can account for up to 30% of
a household's water use. Water prices are going up and in some fast-
growing communities water supplies are growing more scarce.
So, the EPA created a voluntary program it calls Water Sense. It aims
to get toilets to use 20% less water than the newer toilets you've
probably seen that were mandated back in the 1990's. This new
generation of toilets goes from 1.6 gallons per flush to about 1.3
gallons, and still meets performance guidelines for producing a clean
bowl.
(Sound of flushing)
Kohler and other toilet makers are trying various ways to get to 1.3
gallons. After looking at a 1.6 gallon model, Rob Zimmerman lifts the
tank lid on a 1.3:
"What you see that's different here… is remember the other one had
that red flapper? This canister here, that lifts straight up when you flush
it, so all the water can move from all different directions and go down
down the valve. It's a bigger rush and so the actual time that this
flushes is a little bit shorter than the other one."
Zimmerman says other higher efficiency models use what's called a dual-
flush system that sends away one amount of water for liquid waste and
another for solids, with an average of 1.3 gallons.
Another type is the so-called pressure assist, a louder system that
compresses air to force the smaller volume of water out quickly.
Under its new Water Sense Certification program, the EPA has put out
final specifications for the 1.3 models.
Kohler is getting ready to submit six toilet models for certification,
which the EPA compares to its Energy Star program for things like
computers. EPA Water Administrator Benjamin Grumbles says the public
can be confident about a third party certification system the EPA has
"The agency working with the scientific community and with independent
testing organizations want to make sure that consumers, when they see that
Water Sense label, they will be able to have confidence that the
product will perform well, and it will lead to increased savings. Not
just in terms of water, but also reduce the water bill and reduce the
energy bill as well."
But it may take a while to build that confidence. At a home remodeling
show, bathroom fixtures store owner Rich Libbey said he's seen low-flow
toilets elsewhere that have not worked properly.
"Some of the Carribean Islands that are desert islands flush on a
European quart of water, but they don't clean the bowl. So, later on in
the evenings, for example at a bar or resort, the toilet gets kind of
gamey."
But Libbey says he's willing to give companies like Kohler the benefit
of the doubt of reliably getting to 1.3 gallons per flush. Like most
high-efficiency energy-saving systems, the up-front costs are a little
higher.
The Kohler Corporation says its new high-efficiency toilets might cost
an extra fifty dollars to buy, but estimates the financial payback of
using less water could come in just a couple years.
For the Environment Report, I'm Chuck Quirmbach
More on the WaterSense program from the EPA
Find out how much water your toilet uses
How much water do other household appliances use?
Author Chuck QuirmbachPosted on February 19, 2007 Categories FeaturesTags agency, consumer, energy bill, energy star, epa, european, high-efficiency, kohler, organization, rich, rob, sanitation, testing, toilet, voluntary program, water, water supply, water use, zimmerman
Utilities Use Fish to Test Water
Some major U.S. cities are adding a new type of watchdog to
their drinking water systems. Rebecca Williams reports that watchdog
is a fish:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/williams2_092506.mp3
Some major U.S. cities are adding a new type of watchdog to their drinking
water systems. Rebecca Williams reports that watchdog is a fish:
New York City and San Francisco are two of the cities making room for fish
tanks in their water treatment plants. They're using a common fish called
bluegill to test for toxins in the water supply.
Tony Winnicker is with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. He
says the system sends pre-treated water through the tank where the bluegill are swimming
"If something unusual enters their gill system, particularly bluegill, which
are highly sensitive, they cough, their body reacts to it and the sensors
pick that up."
The sensors hooked up to the tank trigger emails to water plant workers to
let them know the fish are acting funny. The system also automatically takes water
samples at the moment the fish react.
Winnicker says the system detects anything from a change in clarity to
toxins that could be very harmful to people.
A related article
What does a bluegill look like?
A related article from the Washington Post
Author Rebecca WilliamsPosted on September 25, 2006 Categories News SpotsTags fish, new york city, san francisco, sensor, tom, toxin, water sample, water supply, water treatment plant
Epa Finalizing Sewage Blending Policy
Heavy rains can overwhelm sewer systems. The EPA's proposed solution, blending, is a topic of debate. (photo by Sarah Griggs)
The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing
a policy that will allow sewage treatment operators to send largely untreated sewage directly into rivers and lakes. It's a cost-savings effort pushed by the Bush administration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Lester Graham reports:
The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a policy that will allow sewage treatment operators to send largely untreated sewage directly into rivers and lakes. It's a cost-savings effort pushed by the Bush administration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Lester Graham reports:
The process is called blending. If too much sewage is coming in to treat completely, this policy allows operators to "blend" mostly untreated sewage with already treated waste water, then release it into the waterways. That saves the federal government money by not having to pay for sewage plant expansions.
Environmentalists don't like it. Nancy Stoner is with the group Natural Resources Defense Council.
"They're saying that they're going to save money by providing less treatment now even though that pushes the cost onto the public by contaminating our drinking water supply, by killing fish, by contaminating shellfish so it cant be sold, by closing beaches."
The EPA says blending untreated sewage with treated sewage dilutes it so that it meets federal standards. The agency also argues that the policy merely sanctions a practice that already happens every time a sewer system gets swamped by heavy rains.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The EPA on its current blending policy
Read the NRDC's report on "The Growing Problem of Sewage Pollution" (.pdf document)
Check out the proposed blending policy (.pdf document)
Author Lester GrahamPosted on December 13, 2004 Categories News SpotsTags beaches, blending, defense council, drinking, environmentalists, epa, expansions, federal, fish, government, killing, money, natural resources, nrdc, plant, policy, process, rains, sewage, sewer, shellfish, standards, system, treatment, untreated, waste water, water supply, waterways
Tragedy Prompts New Drinking Water Proposal
Environmental groups are praising a proposed law that aims to protect the sources of Ontario's drinking water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Karen Kelly reports:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2004/09/kelly_090604.mp3
Environmental groups are praising a proposed law that aims to protect the sources of
Ontario's drinking water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Karen Kelly reports:
In the year 2000, seven people died after drinking tainted water in Walkerton, Ontario.
Ontario passed laws to improve the testing of tap water.
Now the province is proposing a new law to help prevent the sources of drinking water
from becoming polluted in the first place.
It plans to create special committees that will oversee protection in the different regions.
Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association describes it as a step
forward.
"If it's completed in the direction its going it would be one of the best around and
certainly a thousand times better than we had before Walkerton's tragedy."
However, Muldoon and others say the province still must find a way to fund these
protections. They want Ontario to introduce water meters so that industry and residents
pay for the water they use.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I'm Karen Kelly.
CBC news stories about the Walkerton water tragedy
Author Karen KellyPosted on September 6, 2004 Categories News SpotsTags contaminated, industry, metering, ontario, province, public, residents, tap water, taxes, walkerton, water meters, water supply
'Non-Stick' Chemical Discovered in Great Lakes
New research shows that chemicals used to repel food, stains, and water are sticking just about everywhere else in the environment. They were recently found in the Great Lakes. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Sarah Hulett reports, their discovery was not a surprise:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2004/08/hulett_081604.mp3
New research shows that chemicals used to repel food, stains, and water are
sticking just about everywhere else in the environment. They were recently found
in the Great Lakes. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Sarah Hulett
reports, their discovery was not a surprise:
The chemicals are called perfluoronated compounds. They're used in products
like Teflon, Scotchgard, and Gore-Tex. They've been detected in animals from
Arctic polar bears to seals and birds in the Baltic.
Matt Simcik is a researcher at the University of Minnesota. His studies turned up
the chemicals in lake trout from all five Great Lakes. Simcik says a likely source
for the contaminants is wastewater treatment plants.
"Because these chemicals are used in everyday use – textiles and carpets and
things. And when you wash your clothes, or wash your carpet, that water gets
into the waste system, and eventually ends up in the lake."
The effects of the chemicals on humans is the subject of intense debate – but at
high exposures they've been linked to problems including birth defects and
cancer .
One of the two known chemicals has been phased out of use. Federal regulators
are looking at the other to determine whether it should be restricted as well.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I'm Sarah Hulett.
Author Sarah HulettPosted on August 16, 2004 Categories News SpotsTags birth defects, cancer, carpets, health, human health, lake trout, lakes, phase out, regulators, streams, teflon, toxin, university of minnesota, wash, washing, wastewater treatment plants, water supply
Proposals to Limit Great Lakes Water Diversion
The Great Lakes from space (Color satellite photo courtesy of NOAA).
Leaders of the states and provinces around the Great Lakes have released two draft agreements to manage the region's water supply. The proposals' aim is to block any attempt to divert water from the lakes to drier parts of the world. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Sarah Hulett reports:
Leaders of the states and provinces around the Great Lakes have released a draft agreement to
manage the region's water supply. The proposal's aim is to block any attempt to divert water
from the lakes to drier parts of the world. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Sarah Hulett
There's no immediate threat by outside interests to ship or pump large amounts of Great Lakes
water to the arid Southwest, or to any other part of the world that needs freshwater. And the
draft agreements aim to keep it that way.
There are two documents up for consideration by the public and policy makers. One would be a
binding compact between the states. The other would be a voluntary agreement between the
states and provinces.
Ohio Governor Bob Taft co-chairs the Council of Great Lakes Governors – which released the
plans.
"The whole effort is premised out of our concern that we have a legally enforceable framework,
and a clear standard."
There's already a federal law on the books that allows any one Great Lakes governor to veto a
diversion of water from the lakes. But there are concerns about challenges under the U.S.
Constitution, or free trade agreements.
The Great Lakes Charter Annex would require the approval of all eight states for any proposal to
divert more than a million gallons a day out of the basin. Even if a diversion is approved, there's
a catch: whatever's taken out of the basin would have to be returned once it's used.
Noah Hall of the National Wildlife Federation says the practical effect of those requirements
would be a guarantee that the lakes don't get pilfered by drier parts of the U.S….
"…Where they have growing populations and dwindling supplies of water, and they've been
looking at using the Great Lakes to meet their water needs for some time. I think they'll
obviously see this agreement for what it is, which is a pretty large barrier – perhaps an
insurmountable barrier – to accessing Great Lakes water down the road."
The agreement would also allow any three states to block withdrawals from within the basin of
more than five million gallons a day. Existing users would be grandfathered in, so only the most
mammoth project would likely come up for consideration – a new power plant, for example.
Hall says that means at most one project a year that would come up for review.
"But what it guards against is the threat of the absolute largest diversions. The massive
withdrawals. The ones that could by themselves harm or impact the Great Lakes, and lower lake
Eventually, states would be required to put rules in place for managing smaller withdrawals
within the basin. Even under a best-case scenario, that wouldn't happen for at least a dozen
years. But Ohio Governor Taft says the end result will be preservation of the lakes for future
generations.
"We have a responsibility as stewards of this precious resource – 20 percent of the world's fresh
water supply – to protect and preserve it for the benefit of the people within the region, and that
is what the draft agreement is intended to accomplish."
The plan is up for public review over the next three months. Each Great Lakes state would have
to sign off on the interstate compact. It would also require the approval of Congress. And the
fast-growing arid southwest has more representation in Congress every term.
Council of Great Lakes Governors Annex 2001 draft
Author Sarah HulettPosted on July 26, 2004 Categories FeaturesTags annex, annex 2001, congress, constitution, desert, diversions, dry, free trade agreements, governors, groundwater, legislation, national wildlife federation, politics, proposal, public comment, southwest, threat, voluntary, water supply, withdrawals
Great Lakes State Lags Behind in Water Regulations
Harry Randolph lives above a shallow aquifer in southeast Michigan. His dad taught him the vanishing rural folk practice of well witching (locating underground streams). His dad used a cherry branch. Harry uses bent metal rods. (Photo by Sarah Hulett)
Randolph and his neighbors blame this nearby gravel operation for draining too much of the local groundwater supply. A court settlement forced the gravel mine to stop pumping in 2003. (Photo by Sarah Hulett)
Locals say this ditch washed millions of gallons of water from the gravel mine out to Lake Erie before the quarry was forced to quit pumping. (Photo by Sarah Hulett)
States around the Great Lakes regulate large-scale water withdrawals with one exception. Michigan – the state surrounded by the Great Lakes – does not restrict withdrawals. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm says it's "shameful" that Michigan is the last of the Great Lakes states to require permits before pumping large amounts of water. But the businesses and farmers who use the water don't see a need for regulation in a state that's surrounded by the world's largest freshwater supply. We have more from the Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Sarah Hulett:
States around the Great Lakes regulate large scale water withdrawals with one exception.
Michigan – the state surrounded by the Great Lakes – does not restrict withdrawals. Michigan
Governor Jennifer Granholm says it's "shameful" that Michigan is the last of the Great Lakes
states to require permits before pumping large amounts of water. But the businesses and farmers
who use the water don't see a need for regulation in a state that's surrounded by the world's
largest freshwater supply. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Sarah Hulett reports:
"This is a restoration on a Model A. '29. That's a '31."
Harry Randolph runs an auto body shop in the southeast part of Michigan. He needs water to
help prep the cars for sanding and spray painting. He also needs water for his home next door. In
2000 his well went dry … like hundreds of other wells in the area. He dug deeper for water.
That worked for a while. But in 2002, his well went dry again.
He collected rainwater to wash the cars in his body shop, and had drinking water delivered to his
house. Randolph and his neighbors blame a nearby mining operation that was pumping millions
of gallons of water to get to the sand and gravel underground.
They believe that theory was proven when water came back a few weeks after the quarry stopped
pumping in early 2003.
"It's all pretty clean. You'll hear the pump come on in a minute. It's come up faster than it ever
has."
In his corner of the state, homes and businesses sit above a shallow aquifer. And Randolph says
it should be the state's job to make sure that the big kid on the block isn't draining too much from
a sensitive water supply.
"I mean, pump the water, sure go ahead and pump the water. But when you're hurting a whole
community because they haven't got the water on account of it, they should be stopped pumping
that water. Or regulated."
But Michigan doesn't regulate water withdrawals. It's the only Great Lakes state that doesn't.
There's so much water around Michigan, not much thought's been given to limiting use… except
when that use was simply exporting the water.
Six years ago, officials in Ontario, Canada agreed to let a company called the Nova Group ship
about 150 million gallons of Lake Superior water to Asia every year. There was an immediate
and loud protest. People didn't like the idea of shipping Great Lakes water to other countries.
The uproar over the plan forced the provincial government to rescind that permit. But it was
enough to worry Great Lakes leaders. And later that year, they started work on a regional plan to
prevent similar threats to Great Lakes water from other parts of the world.
What came out of the governors' and premiers' efforts was a regional agreement called Annex
2001, an amendment to an agreement between the U.S. and Canada. It commits the states and
provinces to come up with standards to protect Great Lakes water and to regulate large
withdrawals by this year. The Annex 2001 calls for two things:
One was to require users to register withdrawals of more than 100-thousand gallons a day. The
eight states and two provinces surrounding the Great Lakes have done that. But Michigan never
met the second requirement: that states regulate withdrawals of more than two million gallons a
day. Dennis Schornack chairs the U.S. sector of the International Joint Commission which works
to prevent and resolve water disputes between the U.S. and Canada.
To this point in time today, Michigan is the only state that has not complied with that piece of the
puzzle. And it's sort of the price of admission to participate in consultations about withdrawals.
And Michigan so far hasn't met that price of admission.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is hoping to pony up her state's admission price with a
new plan to regulate large water withdrawals. It calls for new farms and businesses that pump
100-thousand gallons a day to apply for a state permit by the end of the decade.
But the state's agriculture and business lobby has resisted similar plans in the past.
Scott Piggott is with the Michigan Farm Bureau.
"The farmers in Michigan, what's really hard to get across to them: why. What is the benefit of a
full-blown, water use, comprehensive, regulation system on an area that doesn't see scarcity of
the resource, that agriculture is an excellent steward of the resource. I think they'd feel it'd be a
regulation not worth having."
But for people in a few pockets of Michigan, water has been scarce. Just ask autobody shop
owner Harry Randolph. And he's not the only one. In rural central Michigan, people say their
wells go dry in the summertime when large-scale farms pump groundwater to irrigate their crops.
But those aren't the withdrawals people worry about.
For much of the Great Lakes region, fears about water diversion usually involve arid southwest
states, or shipping freshwater in tanker ships to other parts of the world as the Nova Group
planned to do.
But Dennis Schornack of the IJC says the real problem of water diversion is not so far away. It's
dealing the demand for water by the growing communities just outside the Great Lakes basin.
"And the people living just on the other side of the divide can't use the water. They can see it,
they can smell it, they can swim in it, they can boat in it, fish in it. But they sure as heck can't
use it for drinking water, or for industrial purposes."
And advocates for water withdrawal regulations say unless Michigan gets its own house in order,
it's going to be hard to say no to thirsty communities – whether they're just outside the Great
Lakes basin, or on the other side of the globe.
Read more about Governor Granholm's proposal
What is Annex 2001?
Remarks from the Michigan Farm Bureau
Author Sarah HulettPosted on March 8, 2004 Categories FeaturesTags agriculture, annex 2001, aquifer, aquifers, canada, communities, community, farmer, farmers, farming, freshwater supply, governor jennifer granholm, great lakes, great lakes basin, ijc, international joint commission, lake michigan, lake superior, michigan, michigan farm bureau, natural resources, nova group, state permit, state permits, state regulations, united states, water, water disputes, water exporting, water importing, water regulations, water supply, water withdrawal, water withdrawals
GREAT LAKES STATE LAGS BEHIND IN WATER REGULATIONS (Short Version)
Michigan is the only Great Lakes state that does not regulate large-scale water withdrawals. But the state's Governor Jennifer Granholm is hoping to change that. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Sarah Hulett reports:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2004/03/hulett2_030804.mp3
Michigan is the only Great Lakes state that does not regulate large-scale water withdrawals. But
the state's Governor Jennifer Granholm is hoping to change that. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium's Sarah Hulett reports:
Michigan sits right in the middle of the world's largest fresh water supply. And Governor
Granholm says unless the state starts to regulate the water use of its own farms, golf courses, and
power companies, Michigan won't have the political clout to say no to other interests outside the
"I do not want to see other states coming into this region and dipping their straw into the Great
Lakes and pulling it out. If we don't have a law to prevent that, that's what's going to happen."
The Democratic Governor's proposal calls for new farms and businesses that pump more than a
hundred-thousand gallons a day to apply for a state permit by the end of the decade.
But Republicans control the state Legislature. And some of them worry that new permit
requirements would burden already struggling farms and businesses.
State to Ban Phosphorus in Dishwasher Soap?
Every summer, lakes become inundated with algae. As the slimy, green muck dies, it chokes out oxygen, which can kill fish and other aquatic life. One cause of all that algae – phosphorus in the water. The phosphorus comes from natural sources such as decaying leaves, and it comes in farm and lawn fertilizer, which runs off into the water. But there's also phosphorus in a product many of us use every day – dishwasher soap – which goes directly into the water and down the drain. One state might be the first in the nation to ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap, and as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Mary Stucky reports, other states might follow:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2003/05/stucky_051203.mp3
Every summer, lakes become inundated with algae. As the slimy, green muck dies, it chokes out
oxygen, which can kill fish and other aquatic life. One cause of all that algae – phosphorus in the
water. The phosphorus comes from natural sources such as decaying leaves, and it comes in farm
and lawn fertilizer, which runs off into the water. But there's also phosphorus in a product many
of us use every day – dishwasher soap – which goes directly into the water and down the drain.
One state might be the first in the nation to ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap, and as the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium's Mary Stucky reports, other states might follow:
(ambient sound of lapping water)
Lakes are a source of natural beauty, recreation, tourist dollars, even food. And in Minnesota
people take their lakes seriously. But when the algae takes over, no one wants to swim in the
scum, fish die for a lack of oxygen and the lake's ecosystem is endangered.
(natural sound break)
Phosphorus occurs naturally. Some of it comes from decaying vegetation, grass clippings and
dead leaves. But because too much phosphorus is harmful, lawmakers have banned it from
certain commercial products. Last year Minnesota banned it from lawn fertilizer. And decades
ago, many states outlawed laundry detergent containing phosphorus. But they didn't ban it in
dishwasher soap.
"There were not near the number in 1970 of automatic dishwashers in the households. It's an
everyday thing now. "
Ray Cox Is a Republican representative in the Minnesota legislature. He is sponsoring the bill,
banning phosphorus in dishwasher soap. There are phosphorus free dishwasher soaps, but they're
a tiny fraction of the market. Still, Cox says phosphorus free soaps work better than they used to
because of the improvements that have been made in dishwashers.
"There are many, many products around here available right now and they work great. We've
used it for many years at home and there's no problem. I mean, our dishes are clean."
(ambient sound of dishwasher running)
Unlike other products containing phosphorus, detergent is flushed directly down the drain. For
each box of dishwasher detergent, it costs your local sewer treatment plant at least two dollars
and fifty cents to remove the phosphorus. But most cities don't have state of the art water
treatment, so a lot of phosphorus makes its way into lakes, rivers and streams. Just how much, no
one knows exactly. One study estimates that 6 percent of the phosphorus in water comes from
dishwasher detergent, according to Don Arnosti of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, a
coalition of 80 environmental groups.
"Removing this phosphorus will improve our waterways. How much, that's what's in debate. Is
it 6 percent as we suggest? Is it 8 percent? Is it 4 percent? And we say that's not important.
Nobody is saying it's not gonna be an improvement."
But will the improvement be worth the cost? Tony Kwilas is a lobbyist for the Minnesota
Chamber of Commerce, which has taken the lead in attacking the ban. He says consumers won't
stand for it because it doesn't help that much and the replacement products are inferior.
"Why ban a product that we're not quite sure the cost benefit of it. In Europe they went
phosphorus-free and they turned around and went back due to consumer complaints. Mainly it
sounds like there's spotting and scratching on some of the glasses, and it doesn't get all the food
Tony Kwilas says a ban on phosphorus in dishwasher detergent won't really help much since
there are so many sources of phosphorus in the water.
"I'm not going to dispute that phosphorus is a problem, but if you look at what phosphorus is
contained in, it's contained in antifreeze, it's contained in chicken tenders, it's contained in
bath beads, frozen fish, fire extinguishers, instant pudding, pet food, toothpaste, cake mixes. I
mean, so phosphorus is everywhere."
To ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap would raise the cost about 70 cents a box. But most
consumers seem unaware of the issue, even those shopping at this food co-op in St Paul.
"I was not made aware that this was really harming our environment badly." "I thought
phosphorus was already gone." "You know, I just became aware of it, so I will start paying
attention to it right now." "We don't pay attention regularly." "I had no idea that was in there
There doesn't seem to be a consumer demand for phosphorus-free dishwasher detergent, just yet.
Don Arnosti of the Environmental Partnership says just as they did with dolphin-safe tuna and
phosphorus-free laundry soap, consumers need to make their voices heard.
"It's time for the people of Minnesota to speak up and say clean water is more important than the
soap industry's contribution to certain politicians."
But if Minnesota passes the ban, what would happen? Would major detergent manufacturers
make special dishwasher soap just to sell in one state? Minnesota lawmaker Ray Cox says look
at what happened as states started to ban phosphorus in laundry detergent.
"As soon as the scale tipped to where we had about 20 states that were banning it all the
manufacturers gave up the fight and they reformulated and nobody makes anything that has that
significant content anymore. So while you can say a state by state basis doesn't make any sense,
on many things I think that's the way we have to go."
Cox says if Minnesota starts the ball rolling, it'll just be a matter of time before phosphorus is
removed from dishwasher soap everywhere, which is why both sides are paying so much
attention to what happens in Minnesota.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I'm Mary Stucky in St Paul.
Author Mary StuckyPosted on May 12, 2003 Categories FeaturesTags algae, chemical, chemicals, consumer, consumerism, consumers, contamination, detergent, dishwasher, ecosystem, ecosystems, environmentalists, fertilizer, human health, legislature, minnesota, pollutant, pollutants, supply and demand, vegetation, water contamination, water supply