Within the next decade, an aqueduct that supplies half of New York City’s drinking water will be shut down for 6-15 months of repairs. Amazingly, almost no one knows about this.

The Delaware Aqueduct is the world’s longest tunnel and an engineering marvel, delivering water 85 miles to the city using only gravity. However, a portion of it travels through soft limestone and this has become a problem. A small stretch has been leaking water for decades – up to 35 million gallons per day, or more than 3% of the city’s water consumption.

From 2015-2019, NYC will be constructing an 8-mile bypass tunnel around these leaks. During most of this construction the Delaware Aqueduct will continue delivering water, but at some point it will need to close to make the connection to the bypass. Read the details from the Department of Environmental Protection here.

How will New York function with 50% of its water supply turned off? Thankfully, by the time the Delaware spigots close, those at the new Croton Filtration Plant will open. Right now, 10% of our water comes from Croton; when the plant is completed, it can supply 30%. The city has a few other tricks up its sleeve like moving water between various reservoirs and relying on groundwater supply in Queens. The challenge is also mitigated thanks to a 2010 law that increases water efficiency standards for new plumbing fixtures (a Green Codes Task Force recommendation). However, it seems probable that there will be some restrictions on water use that year, such as limits on water for landscaping. Without restrictions, NYC might be forced to “borrow” water from neighbors in New Jersey and Long Island.

From time to time I’ve heard the sentiment that thanks to climate change, we no longer need to worry so much about water efficiency in New York. This theory is that our region is getting wetter, which is why we haven’t had a drought in 10 years. That may be the case, but I wouldn’t want to bet my money – or my drinking water supply – on what the weather forecast predicts for next week, never mind years out. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that water efficiency ensures we aren’t needlessly wasting resources and enables us to operate our drinking water infrastructure below capacity, giving us critical breathing room at times like the closing of the Delaware Aqueduct.

In his quirky but groundbreaking book, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, Buckminster Fuller pointed out that if you are aboard a sinking ship, even a floating piano top can look extremely promising.  But Fuller also notes that this doesn’t mean a piano top is the ideal design for a flotation device.

To continue the metaphor, in the absence of anything like a global plan to combat the planetary climate crisis, we seem to be searching the horizon for piano tops, forcing ourselves into a series of more and more uncomfortable decisions regarding energy, resources and the ecology that supports us.  In almost every sphere of the environmental movement, you see strategies once considered beyond the pale under serious consideration–only because the options grow worse and worse each day.  Should we allow hydro-fracturing for shale gas if it keeps us from using the even more damaging Canadian tar sands?  If we could eliminate mountaintop removal to extract coal by ramping up our nuclear power output shouldn’t we consider doing that?  Even if tomorrow there were some miraculous global compact to transition to 100% renewable energy, these questions would need to be resolved to determine how we bridge to that desired outcome.

A recent addition to this growing list of uncomfortable strategies under consideration is geoengineering: the science of intentionally altering the earth’s atmosphere to curb the rise in average global temperature.  As we continue to burn fossil fuels at a breakneck pace and as negative feedback loops in the global system (like the growing seasonal reductions in the polar ice cap or the release of methane from melting permafrost grow worse much more quickly than expected, a growing chorus advocates for a dramatic response: injecting sulfate particles into the atmosphere that will reflect significant amounts of the sun’s heat, thereby slowing the rise in global temperature.  What might once have sounded liked science fiction is being studied and discussed by reasonable, intelligent people with no particular ax to grind.

A few weeks back Michael Specter at the New Yorker did a wonderful job of summing up the recent scientific activity in the field, and there have been other discussions of the subject at Scientific American and Wired.  Yale 360 surveyed the pros and cons here.

The basic idea is to mimic a major volcanic eruption, without the big bang and the earthquakes.  When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, huge quantities of sulfur dioxide were released into the atmosphere and a period of global cooling followed.  Scientists surmise that a continued infusion of sulfates would result in long-term cooling of global average temperature.  Tinkering with the earth’s atmosphere is not for the faint of heart.  Somehow filling the atmosphere with sulfates would need to happen every year, in perpetuity, or the cooling effects would cease.  Perhaps more importantly, many are concerned that even discussing the concept of geoengineering will give those that are already complacent about climate change an excuse to ignore the subject entirely under the assumption that a simple technical fix will be found.  Others have pointed out that simply reflecting the sun’s heat while continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere will do nothing to curb acidification of our oceans, one of the most dreadful and largely ignored impacts of the current climate crisis.

Ultimately, what should give us pause about geoengineering are the things we don’t know.  The atmosphere is too complex a system to think that we can start mucking with it and have anything like a comprehensive sense of the repercussions.  For instance, many fear that geoengineering has the potential to seriously disrupt the Indian monsoon.  The list of things we don’t know about how the atmosphere interacts with our planetary ecology is almost unfathomably long.  I was reminded of this when someone recently described to me the relatively recent discovery of ballooning spiders, which cast their gossamer into the air like a sail and are carried off by the wind to new domains.  These spiders have been found upwards of 16,000 feet above sea level and travel many hundreds of miles. Will geoengineering impact this species?  I doubt anyone really knows.  And how many others are there like them?  Or consider the emerging understanding about how microbes in our stratosphere impact rainfall, disease and climate?  How will geoengineering affect this almost unknown ecology?

Humans have a tendency to assume that what we know is all there is to know, or close to it. Ultimately, the thing that should make us wary of geoengineering is the same thing that should lead us to slow our emission of greenhouse gases, because we don’t really know how it will impact our otherwise stable global climate.

Ellen Honigstock, a member of the Urban Green Council Chapter Task Force for LEED Regionalization 2012, shares their initial findings on recommendations for LEED RPC 2012:

The USGBC recognizes the importance of projects that address region-specific environmental issues in their design; these Regional Priority credits were first introduced in the LEED 2009 rating systems.

Urban Green Council, along with all the other chapters of the USGBC, is currently evaluating which credits to prioritize in LEED 2012 for the five boroughs in New York City and Rockland and Westchester Counties.

Starting in late summer 2011, the Urban Green Council Chapter Task Force for LEED Regionalization 2012 began to meet monthly.  Shortly thereafter, the Chapter Task Force (CTF) identified five general categories of regional priority issues: Water, Air, Energy, Ground and Resources.

Focusing first on what the important issues should be rather than where they might occur, the CTF compiled a comprehensive list of 17 possible priority issues. These priorities were compared with the ones identified in LEED 2009 Regionalization in order to maintain as much continuity as possible.  The list was also compared with the recommendations in the Urban Green Council Green Codes Task Force Report to identify which environmental issues would benefit most from green incentives, rather than from proposed legislation.

Continue Reading

The same day last week the City Council helped us all breathe easier with a new law on chemicals in carpets, the Department of Environmental Protection released its new stormwater rule that encourages natural rainwater detention and retention, along with accompanying design guidelines. “Natural” here is not being used like the labels on cleaning products – here we are talking about honest to goodness mother nature. Rather than send rainwater to concrete tanks, sewers, and treatment plants, the new DEP rule encourages onsite reuse and natural infiltration.

It’s hard to overstate how much of a “180” this rule and the Green Infrastructure Plan represents for DEP, at least in terms of the principles involved. Until very recently, the only stormwater approach that mattered to DEP’s water engineers were those that could be measured in tanks and pipes. While we all know rainwater can be absorbed in the ground, directed into a rain barrel, and retained by a green roof, it wasn’t that easy to measure this capture. So it didn’t count at all for DEP. It does now.

The new rule is not a panacea for those who favor green infrastructure but is still a big step forward. The rule drastically reduces the allowable runoff from new construction and major reconstruction (a 90% reduction from previous limits). DEP will consider a range of approaches to reduce runoff including vegetative cover, green roofs, and permeable pavement. It will also consider open-bottomed detention systems that allow infiltration. Owners are required to provide maintenance for these systems so they work as intended. And finally, new developments next to a waterway must send rainwater into the waterway (rather than the sewer system).

Taken together, this rule implements 4 Task Force recommendations:

• SW 2: Reduce Stormwater Runoff From New Developments
• SW 4: Send Rainwater to Waterways
• SW 5: Encourage Innovative Stormwater Practices
• SW 6: Maintain Site-Based Stormwater Detention Systems

Another good day for green codes and a great way to kick off the New Year!

Coming on the heels of five NYC Green Codes Task Force laws enacted two weeks ago, this afternoon the City Council passed another package of four laws that will improve water efficiency and increase the availability of drinking water. To date, 16 Task Force recommendations have now been implemented.

After all the crazy storms of late, it can be hard for New Yorkers to remember the importance of water conservation. Although recent years have brought plenty of rainfall, New York City has faced seven droughts in the last 45 years. In addition, in approximately 2017 we will face a supply crunch when the city shuts down the Delaware Aqueduct to fix leaks. At that time, we will either need to reduce demand by 20% or find other sources (not now apparent) to ensure sufficient water supply. The laws passed today will reduce demand and ease the impact of future droughts and the anticipated 2017 shutdown.

Introduction 271 (Task Force proposal Water Efficiency 1) implements the primary water efficiency recommendation of the NYC Green Codes Task Force, increasing efficiency standards and requiring EPA’s WaterSense labels for plumbing fixtures starting July 1, 2012. The law will have a major impact over time. It will not require people to install the more efficient fixtures until they choose to make improvements to their bathrooms or kitchens, but we still estimate that 10 years after implementation, this law will save 61 billion gallons of water per year. After 20 years, consumption will be reduced by 80 billion gallons per year.

Introductions 268 and 263 (Task Force proposals Water Efficiency 3 and Water Efficiency 6, respectively) will reduce two types of large-scale water waste. Intro 268 will reduce leaks and waste from major equipment. Beginning in July 2011, new rooftop water tanks will need to include a high-water level alarm, which will alert building owners to overflow and wasteful operation of the filling controls. Also, submeters will be required for new cooling towers, boilers, most swimming pools, commercial kitchens, laundries, and gyms or spas. These submeters will help building managers detect leaks and malfunctions that now often escape notice for days or weeks.

Introduction 263 prohibits new installation of once-through cooling systems starting in 2011. These systems work by emitting their waste heat into potable water, which is then drained directly into the sewer system. Each ton of cooling in a once-through system uses 150,000 to 200,000 gallons of city water per year (at a cost $1,500-$2,000 in water bills). These once-through systems actually make no sense economically, since the water costs far more than the modest capital cost increment for a standard system that releases the waste heat to the air. However, to avoid excessive equipment costs in some constrained retrofit situations, replacement of existing installations is exempted as long as the replacement system does not use more water than the existing one.

Finally, Introduction 264 (Task Force proposal Health & Toxicity 20) improves access to drinking water. The law, which goes into effect July 2012, removes an existing code provision that permits bottled water vending machines to substitute for half the required drinking fountains in public assembly areas. It also requires new drinking fountains to include faucets for filling water bottles, and allows half the required fountains to be replaced by dedicated faucets for filling bottles.

These bills may never have been proposed were it not for the creativity and hard work of the Water and Building Stormwater Committee of the NYC Green Codes Task Force, including their input during the legislative process. Once again, we commend their efforts.

A great survey of the incredibly important efforts to restore Louisiana’s coastal wetlands.

The folks over at the ASLA’s blog, The Dirt, give a handy rundown of last week’s lecture by Frederick Marks on Human Responses to Green Design. Several fascinating subjects are covered but the one you should really keep your eye on is the notion of including “human performance”, along with energy and water, as part of the standard metrics by which we measure the success of a design.

Treating water as a precious resource is every bit as important as conserving energy. In the same manner that we have begun to explore the possibility of net zero energy, we need to move towards buildings that are net zero water users. Like energy, water use is terrifically complicated and concepts like Net Zero Water can help us get our heads around the subject and move the conversation forward.

A researcher in Philadelphia has launched a blog on the Net Zero Water concept.  Worth a visit.