Having recently published an article in AWWA Water Science, Christopher Douglas answered questions from the publication's editor-in-chief, Kenneth L. Mercer, about the research. Systematic Oversizing of Service Lines and Water Meters Christopher Douglas, Steven Buchberger, and Peter Mayer Currently I'm working as an assistant engineer at Hazen and Sawyer and progressing toward my Professional Engineer license rather than pursuing research as part of a group. I'm learning a lot about pumping water, assessment programs, and sewer and pipe rehabilitation. Christopher and his fiancée Adeline take a day hike outside of Colorado Springs, Colo. Christopher poses with his new-to-him bike. He's teaching himself how to replace the rear brake cable and looks forward to taking it out for a spin. I can think of a lot of teachers and mentors who have influenced me, but I'll answer this question with a shout-out to my graduate advisor, Dr. Steve Buchberger. We met each week to talk about my research and every week he had me prepare a one-page summary of my progress since the previous meeting. He was enthusiastic about the courses he taught and his research, but documenting my work throughout the entire project was an incredibly useful habit to build and something I try to maintain. I think it helps keep me focused on problems I'm capable of solving instead of going down rabbit holes. The civil engineering ethos says, “Design it a little bigger than you think it should be—after all, who knows what could happen,” which is sound advice. But this philosophy has drawbacks that are not often discussed. In addition to the cost of paying for something bigger than we need (e.g., a water meter), we're designing pumps and pipes to handle more flow than necessary. The method for sizing a building's plumbing system hasn't really been overhauled since the early 1940s, and we can come up with lower, more accurate peak flow estimates than could have been done back then. The effects of lowering the peak design flow ripple through a project to the cost of the meter, connection and service fees, pipe size, and sizing hydraulic equipment such as pumps inside the building. In the long term, it could be used to revise building codes. This would lead to lower building costs and energy costs in the form of smaller meters, pipes, pumps, and water heaters, as well as a better picture of how much water consumers use. I grew up, and live, in Ohio. Around here, some of our main issues related to water are aging infrastructure, pollution from surface runoff, and localized flooding, so right-sizing of water meters just isn't the first priority. Honestly, the research did more to influence my views on water than the other way around. I exercise and cook as much as I can. I recently began to garden and purchased a used road bike that I'm learning to maintain and ride—working with my hands has been a nice change of pace for me since so much of my life is academic. I like going for hikes and dog walks with my new fiancée, as well as reading and learning to code in Python. To learn more about Christopher's research, visit the article online at https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1165.
As we begin a new year—AWWA's 140th, by the way—I cannot help but feel hopeful. Even though there isn't a true bright line between years and we still need to wear masks to protect each other's health (at least as 2021 begins), I feel hope. From time to time I have been known to say, “The world is run by those who show up.” The last time I publicly used that phrase was at the Young Professionals Summit last February. The point I make with this phrase is that if you want to change the world for the better, you must engage in the solution—you must show up. From the number of tweets, it appears the phrase and the concept resonate with the young professional audience. That, too, provides hope. Almost seven years ago, AWWA, Engineers Without Borders USA, and the American Society of Civil Engineers banded together to create Community Engineering Corps (CECorps). CECorps’ noble mission is to bring underserved communities and volunteers together to advance local engineering solutions. Learn about the Community Engineering Corps at www.CommunityEngineeringCorps.org. Every year, CECorps “shows up” to change the world for the better. While the technical support CECorps provides to underserved communities is critical, the magic of CECorps is the power of hope its volunteers bring to the communities they serve. Two recent examples show how CECorps helped with water infrastructure solutions. The Culver Lake Water Company—despite the implication of its name—depends on a single well (not a lake) as its water supply. The well is situated in a 1910 concrete structure. The system was challenged in meeting New Jersey regulatory standards, and the company lacked the necessary engineering analysis and funding to address the infrastructure issues until a small team of CECorps volunteers from AWWA's New Jersey Section stepped in to help. Today, equipped with a detailed report and analysis from the CECorps team, Culver Lake Water Company has a clear path for financing and improving its system. In Seattle, the educational opportunities at Nathan Hale High School include a commercial-sized greenhouse and a half-acre school garden—known as the Nathan Hale Urban Farm. The educational idea is to provide students with hands-on experiences that connect them to the earth, the food they eat, and their community. With the program's introduction came increased water demand for the school and the need for a better water solution. CECorps volunteers provided a preliminary design and concept for a rainwater collection system to supply the garden with water. The preliminary design and concept were used as part of a grant application which, along with additional assistance from the CECorps team, successfully led to a finished project for the school. CECorps’ core values require it to go beyond the technical projects, knowledge-sharing, and providing hope to these communities and groups. CECorps members also are committed to addressing infrastructure challenges in a socially responsible way. This includes promoting solutions that improve equity in access to public infrastructure, considering the needs of diverse populations, and engaging volunteers who reflect the communities helped by CECorps. In 2020, in support of advancing social responsibility, CECorps entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE). NSBE is a 45-year-old, student-governed, nonprofit organization. Cementing this collaboration is the fact that NSBE's mission also envisions hope for a better world. NSBE's mission is to increase the number of culturally responsible Black engineers who excel academically, succeed professionally, and have a positive impact on the community. Even with great partners like NSBE, CECorps may not solve all the infrastructure challenges for all the underserved communities; but that will not stop us from showing up, providing hope, and solving what we can where we can. Steve Barr, who leads AWWA's CECorps work, puts it this way: “Solving these infrastructure challenges sometimes seems like pushing a big boulder uphill, but through CECorps I see the passion AWWA members have to help those who need help the most. I like showing up for that. It gives me hope.” It is a new year, so if you'd like to become a volunteer for CECorps, contact Steve Barr at sbarr@awwa.org to learn about how you or your section can get involved.
Journal AWWAVolume 113, Issue 5 p. 88-90 Standards Update New AWWA Manual Examines Elastomers John V. Ballun, Corresponding Author John V. Ballun marketing@valmatic.com Search for more papers by this authorShah Rahman, Shah Rahman shah.rahman@kci.com Search for more papers by this author John V. Ballun, Corresponding Author John V. Ballun marketing@valmatic.com Search for more papers by this authorShah Rahman, Shah Rahman shah.rahman@kci.com Search for more papers by this author First published: 02 June 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1732Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume113, Issue5June 2021Pages 88-90 RelatedInformation
Key TakeawaysWastewater reuse and other nontraditional water supply options may become necessary for communities facing extended drought due to population shifts and climate change.A community survey and subsequent analyses uncovered misconceptions and gaps in public knowledge surrounding water resources and water reuse.Surveys are useful for understanding public knowledge and opinions but must be supplemented with meaningful education and outreach.Without genuine public engagement and trust‐building, water infrastructure projects might not align with a community's values and interests.
Early in 2020, when the severity of COVID-19 became evident, US water utilities implementing conservation programs had to act quickly to determine how to mitigate changes in their conservation programs and staffing. Prioritization and collaboration helped utility staff settle into their new way of working, which included adapting to online connection with customers and each other. These adaptations might lead to permanent changes. Thanks in large part to the power of technology, many water conservation and customer education programs have continued, with interest and participation even increasing in some cases.
The affordability of water service is a large and growing challenge for the sector. Utilities are facing substantial costs to upgrade infrastructure and to treat for emerging contaminants of concern, but also are grappling with how to fund these efforts without disproportionately impacting customers. So discussions around affordability at the household level are important not only in the strategic planning and day-to-day operation of water systems, but also for state and federal agencies considering new regulations. In these discussions, it's important to recognize that affordability is a complex issue, and household-level affordability and the consequences of policy changes cannot rest on a single metric like median household income. Many stakeholders, AWWA included, have long advocated for better analysis of rulemaking to identify whether rule requirements are likely to cause affordability problems to low-income customers. Understanding impacts on fiscally challenged households is an important step to determining what can be done to address those challenges while still ensuring access to safe and reliable drinking water supplies. Under current practice, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) prepares an extensive economic analysis for new Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulations. That analysis includes determining whether—across the nation as a whole—the health benefits of a rule are greater than the costs of implementation. USEPA looks specifically at the household-level cost implications of drinking water regulations only for small systems with the question of whether a small-system variance (i.e., a less expensive but equivalently protective compliance strategy) should be available. And USEPA prepares analyses to address several executive orders, including Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The panel emphasized that analyzing impacts on household affordability is not meant to reduce health protections for low-income customers or anyone else. Instead, evaluating the impacts of regulatory options on household-level affordability should provide an opportunity to modify draft rule frameworks and implementation strategies to mitigate impacts on low-income households and consequently alleviate disparate impacts. The panel's work sets the stage for improving current SDWA decision-making processes, which in turn will help lead to more informed decisions across the sector. Although work remains to fully demonstrate the recommended analyses, they nevertheless pave the way for a more informed future. Adam T. Carpenter is the energy and environmental policy manager at the AWWA Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at acarpenter@awwa.org.
Key Takeaways From determining future water demands to setting rates, it's a given that most planning related to water requires managers to deal with uncertainties. If uncertainties are understood more clearly, then stakeholders buy in to resulting decisions more readily. Probability management provides principles, methods, standards, and tools to reduce the cost of confronting uncertainty when making decisions.
Journal AWWAVolume 113, Issue 2 p. 85-87 Water Reuse An Urban–Agricultural Partnership Delivers Recycled Water to California's Central Valley Carrie Del Boccio, Corresponding Author cdelboccio@woodardcurran.com Search for more papers by this author Carrie Del Boccio, Corresponding Author cdelboccio@woodardcurran.com Search for more papers by this author First published: 02 March 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1677Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume113, Issue2March 2021Pages 85-87 RelatedInformation
Key TakeawaysA complete and accurate water service line inventory goes beyond regulatory requirements when used in conjunction with a lead service line replacement program.Absent accurate historical records, it's likely several sources of information will be needed to complete a lead service line inventory.The inventory data must be maintained as a living document so they can be used to help respond if an exceedance occurs.
Key TakeawaysHomeowners’ decisions to replace their lead service lines (LSLs) can be complicated by factors including understanding of the science, perceptions of lead exposure risks, and cost of the work.First‐draw and five‐minute flush samples may not capture the peak lead concentration, further complicating a customer's replacement decision.In the author's case, sequential sampling indicated that LSL replacement for her home significantly lowered lead concentrations after stagnation.
Tracer analysis is commonly used to evaluate the hydraulics of environmental and chemical engineering systems. The traditional tracer analysis is conducted through physical experiments that are usually complex, costly, time-intensive, and may be impractical. Because of the continued advancement of computing technology, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has demonstrated its applicability in simulating tracer transport. CFD can provide advantages, including no interruptions of existing water treatment process, no impacts of background concentration, and a relatively low cost. However, no reports have quantitatively studied the cost that CFD can save on tracer analysis. This study first proved the accuracy of CFD tracer analysis for an existing ozone disinfection tank and then compared the economic expenses and environmental impacts of CFD tracer analysis with those of a field tracer analysis. It was found that CFD-based tracer analysis has accuracy on par with the physical-based study but at relatively low economic cost and environmental impacts.
Journal AWWAVolume 113, Issue 2 p. 74-77 Public HealthFree Access Consider How Social Distancing Policies Can Affect Drinking Water Infrastructure Performance Kasey M. Faust, Corresponding Author faustk@utexas.edu Search for more papers by this authorLynn E. Katz, Search for more papers by this authorMary Jo Kirisits, Search for more papers by this authorKerry A. Kinney, Search for more papers by this authorLina Sela, Search for more papers by this authorMarina Kopytkovskiy, Search for more papers by this authorCaroline Russell, Search for more papers by this authorJessica Kaminsky, Search for more papers by this author Kasey M. Faust, Corresponding Author faustk@utexas.edu Search for more papers by this authorLynn E. Katz, Search for more papers by this authorMary Jo Kirisits, Search for more papers by this authorKerry A. Kinney, Search for more papers by this authorLina Sela, Search for more papers by this authorMarina Kopytkovskiy, Search for more papers by this authorCaroline Russell, Search for more papers by this authorJessica Kaminsky, Search for more papers by this author First published: 02 March 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1673Citations: 1AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Layout imagery by Michael Vi/Shutterstock.com In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing policies (SDPs) have been implemented in communities worldwide. By design, these policies have caused massive changes in our behavior as families shelter at home and industry and commerce pause or reduce operations. These changes have altered water consumption patterns, and in some cases they have likely degraded the drinking water quality in distribution systems. Although some drinking water utilities have the resources to discover and mitigate any potential negative effects, many do not have the capacity to implement testing protocols beyond regulatory requirements. SDPs and Water Quality Drinking water distribution systems (DWDSs) are designed for a given range of operational conditions (Faust & Kaminsky 2018). However, a DWDS might be operating outside of those design conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic because SDPs are driving significant changes in water use. Although residential water demand is expected to increase when SDPs are in force, this might be offset by a sharp decrease in nonresidential water consumption, which typically accounts for more than half of all water consumption. Such changes in water use create zones with reduced flow/velocity, water stagnation, and increased water age. Increased water age can result in decreased disinfectant residuals (Wang et al. 2012) and conditions that promote growth of microorganisms, such as pathogenic Legionella spp. (Waak et al. 2018). Proactive monitoring in a DWDS could be used to trigger operational changes to mitigate these consequences. However, some utilities might not have the financial, workforce, or instrumentation resources needed to monitor in real time and beyond regulatory requirements. The following guidance outlines ways in which SDPs could affect water infrastructure and provides some suggestions for monitoring DWDSs. This discussion is intended primarily to aid resource-limited utilities that are responding to substantial changes in water use caused by the current and potential future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, recognizing that not all utilities will experience substantial changes in water use. Management and Water Use Challenges The water industry has faced some challenges associated with workforce absenteeism and continuity of operations during the pandemic (AWWA 2020). Today's older water professionals, who hold much of the institutional knowledge of our systems, is at disproportionate risk from COVID-19. Moreover, field staff face workforce safety issues because of SDPs and potentially reduced access to personal protective equipment. For systems with one operator (or a single operator shared among multiple water treatment plants), continuity of operations and the ability to monitor for abnormalities in operations are concerning (AWWA 2020). In addition, the water sector faces challenges related to water flow and water quality. Water Flow In areas that usually have substantial commercial or industrial water use, a reduction or pause in operations during the pandemic could lead to significantly decreased water use. In contrast, DWDS zones dominated by residential water use could exhibit temporally shifted and increased aggregate daily demand because more people remain at home as a result of SDPs. For water utilities that do not have substantial changes in total water demand during the pandemic, changes in temporal and spatial water usage can still affect water quality in ways that could threaten public health. Water use reductions, if not accompanied by corrective actions (e.g., changing pumping operations), naturally decrease flow velocities that control the amount of time treated drinking water spends in the pipelines. This additional residence time enables treated water to undergo various chemical, physical, and biological transformations (Abokifa et al. 2020, Zhuang & Sela 2020). In summary, spatial, temporal, and volumetric changes in water use are expected when SDPs are in force, and these changes will lead to zones with low or intermittent flows in a DWDS compared with pre-pandemic conditions. Water Quality Zones in a DWDS where flow has dramatically increased or decreased create a complex situation in which flow velocity/regime, water quality, reaction rates, and hydraulic residence time change simultaneously. For instance, the flow regime (laminar versus turbulent) has been shown to affect disinfection decay constants and the concentration of disinfection byproducts (Zhang & Andrews 2013). Machell and Boxall (2012) showed only a weak association between mean water age and water quality in a DWDS, but the associations became stronger when the maximum water age contribution was considered. For instance, chlorine residual decreased and the heterotrophic plate counts increased as the maximum water age contribution increased. The effects of stagnation on corrosion have been shown to vary with metal ions released (e.g., iron versus copper) and water chemistry (i.e., pH, temperature, alkalinity, chloride, and sulfate) (Li et al. 2020, Zlatanovic et al. 2017, Boulay & Edwards 2001). This suggests that extreme changes in water age, such as during periods of social distancing or shutdowns, could substantially affect water quality. In summary, where SDPs lead to increases in the maximum water age, the disinfectant residual could decrease while microbial growth and corrosion could increase compared with prepandemic conditions. Increased Monitoring During Social Distancing One easily monitored indicator of change in aggregate water use patterns are tank turnover rates. Systems that have observed reduced tank turnover rates during the COVID-19 pandemic should view this as a potential indicator of water age issues in the DWDS and should strongly consider additional water quality testing. Utilities with hydraulic models can estimate changes in water use profiles, which lead to demand changes, to identify potentially vulnerable DWDS areas where water quality could be monitored in a targeted fashion. We recommend surveillance (i.e., nonregulatory monitoring) of disinfectant residual, lead, and copper concentrations in DWDSs when SDPs are in force. Nondetectable disinfectant residuals indicate reduced protection against microbial pathogens. Lead or copper concentrations above their respective drinking water action levels indicate potential corrosion issues, possibly because of changing water quality. Moreover, lead exposure can result in acute (Hon et al. 2017) and chronic (NTP 2012) health effects. Lead testing can indicate short-term or extended exposure to higher lead concentrations during the pandemic. Additionally, for DWDSs using chloramine as a residual disinfectant, we recommend nitrite testing because its level can indicate the growth of nitrifying bacteria and potential issues for maintaining measurable chloramine residuals. This type of surveillance allows utilities to identify and monitor DWDS areas that experience substantial declines in water quality during the pandemic. Such monitoring also could be used to demonstrate how operational changes could improve water quality. The SDP effects and implications described here are not expected to be uniformly distributed throughout a DWDS. SDPs likely have exacerbated or spatially shifted the challenges each utility typically faces. Until research can provide better guidance, we expect the potential effects of SDPs on DWDSs are more likely in the following systems: Those with significant industrial and commercial components that have paused or reduced operations Those with a long or nonlooped DWDS Those that habitually have higher water age as compared with other systems Monitoring Methods We realize the need for increased water quality testing comes when utilities are facing workforce and financial challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic (AWWA & AMWA 2020). State/province or federal support could help utilities meet these challenges. For example, traveling teams of water professionals (with adequate pandemic-related safety protocols) could provide supplemental testing that goes beyond regulatory requirements. Alternatively, funds could be provided for utilities to perform testing themselves. In areas that usually have substantial commercial or industrial water use, a reduction or pause in operations during the pandemic could lead to significantly decreased water use. Particularly for utilities that are extremely resource limited, but also for utilities that want to engage more with their communities in a safe manner, citizen science or crowdsourcing might be appropriate ways to monitor water quality. Utilities could provide low-cost kits to customers with accompanying protocol instructions to sample disinfectant residuals, lead, and copper as well as nitrite. Water samples for analyzing lead and copper could be collected at the point of entry and at the tap within homes, with the samples returned via mail or drop-off at testing locations. Occupants could monitor residual chlorine and nitrite levels, using off-the-shelf water quality test strips, and could send the results to their utility via a smartphone application or website. With adequate privacy protections, geotagged sample results could be displayed using an application or website, thereby providing operators with real-time awareness of system vulnerability. Notably, such data should be carefully analyzed to avoid biases associated with many samples taken at one site. Although such data do not replace standard water quality measurements, they would allow utilities to more quickly identify areas of potential concern for additional water quality testing and, if warranted, corrective action. Response Plans and Cooperation Broadly, utilities should leverage existing emergency response and hazard mitigation plans as they continue to respond to the challenges triggered by COVID-19, whether or not a pandemic was a previously identified hazard. In particular, plans for mutual assistance among utilities help ensure continuity of operations (e.g., to provide a temporary workforce in case of infection or support for additional water quality testing). The effects of pandemic-induced changes in water use or DWDS water quality remain largely unknown. Therefore, to maintain DWDS integrity, water quality sampling and hydraulic modeling must inform appropriate operational mitigation strategies. Notes for a Concerned Public Despite the concerns described here, the authors do not believe the public should avoid piped drinking water unless they observe changes in their water supply or are instructed to do so by their water utility. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes there is no evidence for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is the causative agent of COVID-19, through drinking water (CDC 2020). Authors' note: This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2032434/2032429. Biographies Kasey M. Faust is assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin; faustk@utexas.edu. Lynn E. Katz is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Mary Jo Kirisits is an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Kerry A. Kinney is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Lina Sela is an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Marina Kopytkovskiy is project manager at Parker Water and Sanitation District, Parker, Colo. Caroline Russell is principal technologist at Carollo Engineers Inc., Austin, Texas. Jessica Kaminsky is an associate professor at the University of Washington, Seattle. References Abokifa AA, Xing L, Sela L. 2020. Water. 12: 4:1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12041033Google Scholar AWWA, 2020. COVID-19 Water Sector Impact Survey (March 10–16. AWWA, Denver. Google Scholar AWWA, AMWA (Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies), 2020. The Financial Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on U.S. Drinking Water Utilities. AWWA. Denver. AMWA, Washington. Google Scholar Boulay N, Edwards M. 2001. Water Res. 35:3:683. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00320-1Google Scholar CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2020. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Frequently Asked Questions. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/water.html. Google Scholar Faust K, Kaminsky J. 2018. Population Dynamics and the Resiliency of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure (P Gardoni, editor). Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames, United Kingdom. Google Scholar Hon KL, Fung CK, Leung AK. 2017. Childhood Lead Poisoning: An Overview. Hong Kong Med J. 23:6:616. Google Scholar Li, M.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z. et al., 2020. Water Res. 175:115675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115675. Google Scholar Machell J, Boxall J. 2012. J Water Res Plan Man. 138:6:624. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000220Google Scholar NTP (National Toxicology Program), 2012. NTP Monograph: Heaflth Effects of Low-Level Lead. NTP. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Google Scholar Waak, M.B.; LaPara, T.M.; Hallé, C. et al., 2018. Environ Sci Technol. 52, 14: 7630. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01170. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Wang, H.; Masters, S.; Hong, Y. et al., 2012. Environ Sci Technol. 46, 21: 11566. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303212a. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Zhang, H. & Andrews, S.A., 2013. J Water Supply Res T. 62, 2: 107. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2013.077. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Zhuang, J. & Sela, L., 2020. J Water Res Pl-ASCE., 146: 1 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001139. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Zlatanovic L, Van Der Hoek JP, Vreeburg JHG. 2017. Water Res. 123: 761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.019CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume113, Issue2March 2021Pages 74-77 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Journal AWWAVolume 113, Issue 2 p. 82-84 Diversity & Member Inclusion Focus on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion to Promote Business Success Tina S. Houston, Corresponding Author tina.houston@aecom.com Search for more papers by this author Tina S. Houston, Corresponding Author tina.houston@aecom.com Search for more papers by this author First published: 02 March 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1676Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume113, Issue2March 2021Pages 82-84 RelatedInformation
Key TakeawaysA novel analysis was conducted of utility‐provided and US Environmental Protection Agency–collected data on disinfection practices for small, medium, large, and very large community water systems.The analysis includes a total of 3,823 systems across four size categories that collectively serve more than 217 million US customers.In the United States, chlorine‐based disinfectants are by far the most widely used for both centralized (primary) and residual (secondary) disinfection in the distribution system.
Industries can be defined by the requirements they must consistently meet. For the water industry, that requirement is to deliver safe, continuous supplies of water along with environmentally and economically sound reuse and returns of that water. For that to happen, water professionals must constantly perform a series of important tasks. From treatment and distribution to rates and customer relations—at the source, to the tap, and back again—there is a steady hum to the regular background work that's typically taken for granted. And like other industries, the background work in water has a seasonality to it that overlays its prerequisites. In North America, water demands are commonly highest in summer months and drop off once outdoor watering diminishes. Pipes freeze and burst in the winter, yet most water supply challenges occur in the summer. During my time as editor-in-chief, I've come to appreciate that the topics in Journal AWWA should reflect the seasonality of the water industry. There are constants too, like regularly encouraging thought and practice leaders to share their experiences with colleagues through articles that are interesting and useful. And there is always an underlying need to reinforce safety, innovation, and collaboration. The articles in Journal AWWA aim to cover as many topics as possible—as timely as possible. But like most industry magazines, Journal AWWA is not very nimble because there are several months between when an article is submitted, when it is accepted, and when it is delivered, either online or in print. Even so, with the typical forecast of topics in mind, I try to anticipate what will be important to address in the pages of Journal AWWA. Sometimes this is hard. For example, computer hacks and security issues are random, but seasonal challenges can be anticipated. In the April issue, we've got to mention drought and water shortages, and it's a good idea to hit the topic again around July when the climate is the hottest/driest. The odds are good that there will be a drought somewhere in North America in the summer, especially as the extremes from climate change become more pronounced. Likewise, we mention pipe breaks sometime around November to remind that soon there will be crews out in the cold making emergency repairs. So far, 2021 has been a bad year for this as extreme cold pushed far south into areas that were unprepared for it. In the end, many of the seasonal topics that drive the water industry are affected by climate change, so readers should understand that, for all its variations, resilience and adaptation are constant topics. This month's issue features articles that address challenges from lead, manganese, and Legionella, and much more. Whatever the season or topic, if you are interested in submitting an article, please contact me at journaleditor@awwa.org.
Journal AWWAVolume 113, Issue 6 p. 85-87 Security & Preparedness Is Your Utility Leaking More Than Just Water? Joel Cox, Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Ohrt, Corresponding Author aohrt@westyost.com Search for more papers by this authorSarah Walsh, Search for more papers by this authorBailey Bartolucci, Corresponding Author manalo_christian@bah.com Search for more papers by this author Joel Cox, Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Ohrt, Corresponding Author aohrt@westyost.com Search for more papers by this authorSarah Walsh, Search for more papers by this authorBailey Bartolucci, Corresponding Author manalo_christian@bah.com Search for more papers by this author First published: 02 July 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1752Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume113, Issue6July/August 2021Pages 85-87 RelatedInformation
Key Takeaways Over the past two decades, water systems have recovered billions of dollars in verdicts and settlements through lawsuits against polluters and used these recoveries to fund remediation. In most situations in which defective products are responsible for contaminating drinking water supplies, the supplier will need to bring its own lawsuit against the responsible parties to achieve monetary recovery. When a manufacturer has information about its products' risks and fails to act on it in a responsible way, that manufacturer has been negligent and is responsible for any harm that results. Though concerns about entering into litigation are understandable, many water suppliers have found it well worth the risk to hold polluters accountable.
Journal AWWAVolume 113, Issue 6 p. 92-94 Money Matters America Needs a New National Water Policy Mark W. LeChevallier, Corresponding Author lechevallier1@comcast.net Search for more papers by this author Mark W. LeChevallier, Corresponding Author lechevallier1@comcast.net Search for more papers by this author First published: 02 July 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1754Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume113, Issue6July/August 2021Pages 92-94 RelatedInformation
Anticipating population growth and future droughts, many water systems with supply constraints have implemented potable reuse or are studying its potential. The technology and operations are well understood, and once conservation and water efficiency efforts are maximized, water reuse may be the most feasible option for many communities. As full-scale potable reuse has become a reality over the past 20 years, there have been campaigns to engage the public both for and against it. And while potable reuse is now generally accepted and even considered the most sustainable option in some cases, it just can't catch a break with some media. It's common to find emotion-inducing language in headlines, such as the term toilet-to-tap—e.g., “Ready or not, ‘toilet to tap’ recycled wastewater is coming to a spigot near you” (The Kansas City Star, May 2021). It's great when news outlets explore an important topic like this, but the example from The Kansas City Star begins with fictional dystopian water futures and ends by comparing drinking recycled water to “wearing Hitler's sweater”—not helpful images to build the case for potable reuse. Toilet-to-tap is catchy—poetic even—but water professionals should cringe when they see it because it's not correct and it reinforces wrong ideas about potable reuse. Unfortunately, it's easy to mentally connect a toilet to a tap, and in that moment of shock and disgust, a false and completely negative understanding of potable reuse is entrenched. The truth is that the multiple treatment barriers, both natural and engineered, that wastewater goes through on its path to drinking water are much more complex than the simple notion of toilet to tap. But while research continues to make progress in the field, reporters using the term toilet-to-tap in a headline stand to poison the well for public acceptance of a safe and helpful water supply strategy. When you see “toilet to tap” in a headline, know that it is a highly slanted but simple trick to hook readers. However, it also plants doubt and confusion around the safety of potable reuse when there really is no cause. Where these stories appear, water professionals should follow up with the sources to relay the potential value of potable reuse and discuss the unintentional reuse that naturally occurs for many communities. Negative attacks can erode support, but consistent, sustained, and comprehensive outreach is the key, so engage with your community and keep the discussion focused on what really matters. This month's Journal AWWA features articles on source water protection, disinfection, and apprenticeships in the water industry. If you are interested in submitting an article, contact me at [email protected].
