There’s plenty of exciting trinkets to purchase in the birthplace of jazz, before enjoying a beignet and coffee at Cafe DuMonde. But, replicas of the city’s water meters are popular memorabilia even on t-shirts, coffee mugs, and doormats.

Water meter boxes that captivate tourists and NOLA natives were mostly designed by Edwin Ford of Ford Meter Box Company, a company of Wabash, Indiana. Another famous water meter is allegedly the design of M.W. Clark of Mattoon, Illinois

A popular water meter that is replicated on NOLA souvenirs is covered with crescent moons and stars. It’s known as the “Crescent Box that is so coveted” and was designed by Ford in the 1920’s after a trip to NOLA.

NOLA is one of Ford Meter Box Company’s oldest utility customers. By 1924, approximately half of Ford Meter Box’s sales were in NOLA.

In the case of the NOLA water meter, a piece of city infrastructure morphed into an emblem of a city’s culture and fashion.

A system originally designed to meter customers for their consumption of water has evolved into a fashionable way to display NOLA pride.

Water infrastructure and city water systems across the United States have affected local communities in various capacities. But few are more interesting than the legacy of NOLA’s water meters.

If you ever traverse the bustling streets of the Big Easy, be sure to purchase a piece of water meter memorabilia…to complement the iconic fleur de lis tokens , of course!

Some jewelry shops, like Mademoiselle Jewelry, are selling NOLA water meter jewelry while committing a percentage of sales to benefit Hurricane Katrina victims. Consumers can be fashionistas with a cause with NOLA water meter jewelry from designated retailers.

If you enjoyed this article, you should also read:

All Washed Up But Are Your Clothes Really Clean?

You Know You’re Irish When You Know This

Will Your Beer Be Here in 20 Years?

Celebrities Raise Awareness About H20 Issues in Liberia

Do You Still Pitch Change Into Waterwells?

“Contamination of water sources by toxins is affecting our drinking water supply. Some of these toxins produce liver disease, liver cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s,” said Larry Brand, professor at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami.

Last month, Brand presented his views on marine hazards to human health at the Austral Summer XI Institute hosted in Concepcion, Chile. Nutrient runoff in freshwater ecosystems and the ocean can cause red tides, harmful algae blooms that produce natural toxins and deplete dissolved oxygen, Red tides directly impact the seafood industry, as evidenced by the red tide that wiped out Chile’s seafood industry a decade ago, noted Brand.

Excessive nutrient dumping is harmful to the environment and the economy. Still, a degree of ambivalence from politicians prohibits public policy from regulating marine pollution and nutrient runoff.

“It’s a political issue. It’s pretty clear that we need to reduce nutrient runoff in our water, but trench economic forces don’t want to do that,” continued Brand.

Improved sewage systems will decrease nutrient runoff into the U.S. water supply. Updating water infrastructure in the U.S. is fundamentally linked to protecting human health and preserving the ecological integrity of drinking water. But, gaps in funding for the maintenance and repair of aging infrastructure, coupled with a lack of political will to update systems, stymies efforts to improve faulty sewage systems.

Unregulated agricultural fertilization contributes to the contamination of water supplies and domestic environmental degradation. “There is a dead zone downstream in the Mississippi River due to fertilizer runoff. There are virtually no laws that prevent farmers from dumping huge amounts of fertilizer on to their farms,” informed Brand.

Fertilizer runoff from farms upstream of the Mississippi River creates tension and environmental inequity between upstream and downstream states. Uncontrolled fertilizer use by farmers upstream adversely affects ecosystems and markets dependent on them for economic development. 

Nutrient run-off degrades tourist locales that rely on the lush environment of the natural habitat to attract visitors.  Approximately 90 percent of coral reefs in the Florida Keys have been lost due to contamination from nutrient runoff. Sea grass meadows, the nursing ground for fish and crabs, are also compromised because of this pollution. Fragile ecosystems that support the seafood industry and the livelihood of local fishermen are being jeopardized by runoff double fold.

As the natural habitat of fisheries corrodes, the amount of fish bought and sold will decrease. Moreover, a lot of chemicals that are dumped into oceans, such as endocrine disrupters and PCB, bio magnify in the food chain. Hence, high levels of mercury in tuna and swordfish are an immediate concern for its deleterious impact on consumer health and the seafood industry.

Mobilizing funds and the political will to combat toxic nutrient run-off in the United States is a complex undertaking. Once variables including increased medical expenses for treating sicknesses due to poor water quality, ecological degradation, and decrease in seafood industry revenues are factored into the equation, one can anticipate a more proactive response at the decision making level.

Resolving the issue of marine hazards to human health cannot be treated as an isolated issue. Rather, it involves a cross disciplinary, multi-faceted approach to improving water infrastructure and appropriately analyzing the stratified impact of excessive nutrient runoff into water systems. Once the full scope of the economic, public health, and environmental risks of nutrient run off are understood, it will be prioritized on the eco-political agenda.

The picture above is a satellite shot of a red tide.

If you enjoyed this article, you should also read:

Rainwater Catchment Devices to be Used in California?

The Politics of Water Between Greece and Macedonia

CSR Program Returns Over 17 Million Gallons of Water to Ecosystems

Biz Ethics: Investing in Sustainability

Weathering the Age-Old Gap in the South Caucasus

In the aforementioned article, Erika Berlinghof, Director of Government Relations of the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) told WaterWideWeb, “Private investments in water infrastructure are a necessary dialogue to be having right now.”

NAWC spearheaded the Water is Your Business campaign to raise awareness about the economic value of water. “In order to attract the private sector, you have to price the asset and resource accurately to repay the debt,” noted Berlinghof.

On Private Investments in H20 Infrastructure, Mumm commented, “Political will has to align with utility business needs and the ability for political leaders and utility managers to communicate the capital requirements of our systems is essential to addressing the funding gap.”

For Berlighof, public-private partnerships can deliver a timely and effective solution to the funding gap in water infrastructure. “Business is a good thing. But end users will end up paying more money if private investments are made versus if maintenance to water systems was funded by municipal bonds,” explained Mumm.  “Private equity might be a good thing in some ways, but our utilities have access to the cheapest capital in the world, after factoring in the tax exempt nature of the debt.”

Maintaining water infrastructure is complex because of the lack of political motivation to deal with the problem. It’s an issue that can be easily ignored because it is the “out of sight, out of mind” infrastructure that can be easily pushed to the side.

Aging water systems lead to main breaks, flooding, and leaks in local communities. Still, these communities are not aware of the amount of money involved in repairing these systems, nor are they aware of the significance that updating them implicates.

“Most communities aren’t going to raise utility rates so that they can deal with infrastructure issues. It’s not causing enough problems for them yet. It’ll happen all at once, which will cost large amounts of money,” mused Mumm.

For Mumm, it’s local communities where people are connected to these systems who are responsible for water infrastructure repair. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes guidelines for affordability of service that are set at 2.5 % of the median income of a local community.

These affordability guidelines protect end users from being overcharged for basic utility services. But Mumm proposes that increased utility rates will provide the means to straddle the financing gap.  ”Water infrastructure will be the largest investments that will be made by local communities,” argued Mumm.

But is it really fair to increase utility rates in local communities because water infrastructure was neglected for roughly 60 years?

Updating water infrastructure is everybody’s problem but the lack of awareness with respect to urgency in solutions implementation is delaying anybody from taking action. Some argue for private investments; while others insist that said investments run the risk of exploiting customers when it’s time to repay the debt.

But, increasing utility costs combined with emergency responses to water leaks, main breaks, and floods, add up to quite a cost over time as well. As the issue is complex, so is the solution. Either way, the U.S. needs to put its money where its water is.

If you enjoyed this article, you should also read:

Should Water Be Free?

Biz Ethics: Investing in Sustainability

Saving the Sands Makes Cents

Irrigation Hype in Uzbekistan

Erika Berlinghof, Director of Government Relations at the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) told WaterWideWeb, “Water infrastructure is the ‘out of sight’ and ‘out of mind infrastructure that no one wants to deal with.”

NAWC‘s Water is Your Business campaign started as an effort to raise awareness about the economic value of water.  Investment in water infrastructure prevents major events such as pipes bursting causing small businesses to shut down because they don’t have access to water after the incident.

“One reason why investments in water infrastructure aren’t happening is because local communities don’t appreciate this reinvestment,” continued Berlinghof. If the public is not interested in water infrastructure issues, engaging private sector constituents in the water dialogue needs to occur. Supplementing funds for water infrastructure projects by private investors can mitigate deficits in public spending while increasing overall operational efficiency.

Leveraging public-private partnerships for water infrastructure improvement can be a symbiotic exchange between the two entities.  Private sector investors will operate on budget in a timely manner while the public sector can provide oversight and engage the local community. Undoubtedly, oversight on such projects is a necessary component in protecting public interest with respect to water supply in the United States.

Involving private investors in such a project requires pricing water appropriately, a topic that is rather sensitive. To attract private investors, one must price water accurately in order to repay the debt to investors. Pricing water for scarcity is far off. Experts such as Piet Klop, Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute, advocate for pricing the treatment and delivery of water. If water is priced, then it will increase efficiency by end users and attract investments in technology by the private sector.

“The challenge found right now is either political unwillingness to invest in infrastructure or there are some challenges to private capital,” concluded Berlinghof. Ultimately, promoting access to sustainable water sources is the first step toward interesting local communities in the need for additional investment in infrastructure.

Water policy is predominately controlled at the state level. Once local communities are informed about the impacts of faulty infrastructure, they can mobilize efforts for water policy. Investing in water infrastructure is investing in the public health of end users, promoting economic development of business owners, and providing jobs.  

Discussions about sustainable water resources and infrastructural development are typically associated with the struggle for clean water in developing countries. However, issues of water in the United States are politically sensitive and intricate as well.

The question that policy makers and local governments should ask themselves is “Can we afford not to invest in water infrastructure?” After all, hospitals and small businesses in their jurisdiction will not to be able to function if pipes continue bursting and reliable sources of water are not provided. Then, the public outcry will resound and the policy makers will be anxious to act.

Should we wait to create jobs for the American people, or potentially compromise the revenue generated by small businesses that fuel local communities, simply because our infrastructure needs to be updated? Or, will public-private partnerships be the answer to the lingering issue of domestic water management in the United States?

If you enjoyed this article, you should also read:

Should Water Be Free?

Biz Ethics: Investing in Sustainability

Saving the Sands Makes Cents

Irrigation Hype in Uzbekistan

Archaeologists speculate that the tunnel was used to drain rainwater around the Second Temple in the Old City before it was destroyed in 70 A.D.

The tunnel itself is 2,000 feet long, running from the heart of the Old City to the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan. According to reports about the tunnel, its course lies beneath the streets of the Old City and not under citizen homes.

The layout of the rainwater tunnel can give experts and archaeologists clues about what life was like during the Second Temple period before 70 A.D. Experts will soon identify the function of the rainwater tunnel to the city and its inhabitants.

Additional research about the rainwater tunnel will indicate how the ancient community handled excess rainwater. Was rainwater recycled and reused for other water projects? Or, was the excess water dumped and not used for agriculture, irrigation, or some other need of agrarian societies?

Questions about the excavation project and rights to the site remain. Some speculate that the archaeological project was an attempt to solidify Israel’s control over primarily Palestinian neighborhoods.

Ultimately, specialists and officials will have to determine who history belongs to in the case of the rainwater tunnel. When the excavation is complete, discussions about its status as a World Heritage Site or as one of the Wonders of the ancient world will leave history buffs and cultural connoisseurs curious about who owns the history of the rainwater tunnel.

The rainwater tunnel discovery ignites passions about religious and political issues in Israel. The project holds immense significance for the region. Dually, the rainwater tunnel is part of ancient history and a pawn on the chessboard of present-day politics.

If you enjoyed this post, you should also read:

The World’s Wickedest City Underwater

Excavating the Ruins of Cleopatra

UNESCO Works to Preserve Nautical Archaeology

Nautical Archaeology Threatened by Trawlers

The Golden Coast lost some of its luxury status as a consequence. According to a report in the L.A. Times, hundreds of gallons of waste runoff polluted the ocean due to the storm. Gary Brown, Executive Director of the nonprofit Orange Country Coastkeeper, confirmed that viruses, toxic metals, trash and debris polluted the coast because the municipal sewage systems could not handle the flooding.

Water quality advocates are outraged by the safety threat posed by the leak in southern California’s sewage systems. In fact, Brown asserted that if reports confirm that sewage runoff could have been avoided by updating water infrastructure, the group will file a complaint.

Aging water infrastructure continues to undermine health and environmental concerns in the United States. Interestingly, in 2010, California was the highest recipient of national water infrastructure maintenance funds (9.35 percent) with $126 Million awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),.

The southern California sewage runoff issue was not a sudden crisis that occurred from a random confluence of events. Preparation for extreme weather conditions like a major flood was at best minimal in the region. If follow up reports indicate that aging water infrastructure was a factor in southern California’s sewage runoff disaster, a thorough investigation of funding and project implementation may be sought.

Some parts of the world are in crisis from not having enough water. Other parts of the world are deluged by amounts that they aren’t prepared for. Disaster relief and emergency response to overwhelmed sewage systems are symptoms of an endemic condition plaguing major U.S. cities—aging water infrastructure.

As experts analyze the southern California sewage crisis, sustainable development strategies can include a comprehensive maintenance plan for municipal sewage systems. Advocacy groups like the Ocean County Coastkeeper are at the forefront of systemic change in the region, advocating for legislation and public policy enforcement.

In sum, allocating funds for water infrastructure is only a drop in the bucket of resolving water management dilemmas in the U.S. Consistent monitoring of these structures is necessary for the safety of people and the environment.

Unfortunately, an unprecedented catastrophe often occurs before awareness is raised about fundamental water concerns. Then, subsequent action can gather greater support and the development process can begin overtime. Since all eyes are on California, results may advance the cause before the next natural disaster occurs in California and around the nation.

If you enjoyed this article, you should also read:

Water for Agribusiness or Endangered Species in California?

Fracking Up the Chesapeake Bay

No Hexavalent Chromium in My Tap Water Please

Lead Found in New York City Tap Water

Reports indicate that a national safety level for hex chrom in tap water is not yet established. Moreover, public utility agencies are not required to test for it. Essentially, there is no system in place to punish the guilty or protect the innocent in terms of hex chrom exposure in tap water.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Chromium is released to the environment from natural and anthropogenic sources, with the largest releases occurring from industrial sources.” The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) lists standards and policies regarding hex chrom exposure in the workplace. But, similar directives are not applied to utilities providing tap water to end users in the U.S.

Interestingly, bottled water suppliers are not required to test for hex chrom either. So, avoiding hex chrom exposure is out of the hands of the buyer. How can policy makers even up the odds for the average American who doesn’t work in an industrial setting, but clearly wants to avoid hex chrom exposure at all costs?

In light of EWG’s report, perhaps the category of corporate social responsibility (CSR) for water utility providers will expand to include hex chrom testing. Major corporations invest heavily in CSR and sustainability programs but shouldn’t water safety be included in these endeavors?

If utility providers are not forced to abide by national hex chrom safety standards, then municipal water infrastructure projects should develop systems that filter for toxic chemicals like hex chrom. Traces of toxic chemicals like lead and hex chrom are indicative that aging water infrastructure and out-moded legislation regulations need to be restructured in the U.S.

At present, hex chrom can be filtered using reverse osmosis filters on the home tap. But replacing these filters costs $200. In the economic times of the country, spending $200 on a reverse osmosis filter may not be feasible for many families.

Issues pertaining to water contamination effect industrialized and developing countries alike. The latter faces immediate consequences from unclean drinking water and poor sanitation, with high mortality rates from water-borne diseases. The former deals with long-term consequences from hex chrom exposure, with individuals suffering from stomach and gastrointestinal cancers.

Research studies and statistics on the rates of toxic chemicals in tap water is the first step in protecting end users against them. If tap water users are unaware of toxic trace levels in drinking water, they are powerless to lobby for change to protect their water supply.

Working on water problems includes updating aging water infrastructure, holding utility companies accountable for trace levels of toxicants and informing consumers about the contents of tap water. In the U.S., tap water users take drinking water safety for granted. But as the EWG study reveals, water concerns are on tap in the U.S. as well.

Do you live in one of the cities where hex chrom was found in the tap water supply?

Would you invest in the reverse osmosis filter to protect your tap water against hex chrom and other toxins?

If you enjoyed this article, you should also read:

Lead Found in New York City Water Tap Water?

World Bank Invests in Water Management in Uzbekistan

Empowering Women with Water

New York City (NYC) tap water was recently found with lead levels that exceeded federal regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Lead is toxic to toddlers and pregnant women. In a sample of 222 homes in NYC, fourteen percent of homes were found with unsafe lead levels in the tap water.

In a city populated by roughly 8,400,000 people, access to uncontaminated tap water is essential to public health and safety. In 2007, NYC was awarded a 10 year Filtration Avoidance Determination by the EPA. The Determination marks the work of the comprehensive New York City Watershed Protection Program and is the reason why NYC does not need to filter its tap water.

Overall, NYC is world renowned for its effectiveness in water quality. Hence, the lead water finding in NYC tap water is of concern to city residents and raises questions about water quality and management practices in NY State.

NYS public drinking water is regulated by EPA guidelines which set parameters for safe drinking water standards in the U.S. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed by Congress in 1974 to protect drinking water for. The SWDA was amended twice thereafter. The 1996 amendment included water resource protection guidelines to ensure that tap water was protected from the source to the tap.

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) was established in 1996 by the amended SDWA. The DWSRF grants funds to States for water system enhancement and development. The funds are awarded based on information gathered from water system surveys.

For the 2010 fiscal year, New York State was allocated $89, 427,000 to finance water infrastructure maintenance, representing 6.59 percent of government funds available to States. New York was the second highest recipient of funds after California, the State that received $126, 958, 000 or 9.35 percent of funds available to states.

In the instance of increased lead levels in NYC tap water, reports indicated that the higher lead levels were found in older buildings. Time has weathered the City’s water networks and outdated others. Drinking water infrastructure in the U.S was mostly built in the 1970’s.

In New York, drinking water infrastructure needs to be rehabilitated. With the funds awarded by the DWSRF, New York State could invest in sustainable development water programs to safeguard against water contamination and increased lead levels. The EPA recognizes that infrastructure rehabilitation and sustainable development strategies must be executed to ensure the health of tap water consumers. Water treatment plants, storage facilities and improved pipelining will protect New York tap water from source to tap.

Even in a city like New York that is known for its quality drinking water, development work still needs to be done. With Federal funding, regular water testing and water contaminant regulation, NYC will be safeguarded against Federal violations and protect the well being of tap water consumers.