By Nathalia Teixeira / Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan reporting for the Kent State-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

The process of cleaning water so humans can use it is demanding. Organizations such as the Ohio EPA operate to certify the water quality is drinkable and usable for our daily tasks.

But as citizens, we are also responsible for how much water we waste and must be mindful of how water conservation is important for the environment.

The passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 improved water quality. However, experts say improvements have stalled - and how much water we waste may make it harder to start improving again.

"We are really cautious about saying that water quality still doesn't have room for improvement," said Rich Cogen, executive director of the Ohio River Foundation.

Columbus supplies more than 51 billion gallons of water annually to 1.25 million people. The average person in the city uses about 112 gallons per day.

According to the U.S. EPA, the average American household uses more than 300 gallons of water per day.

"Household use of water, many times, is the way that most people will waste water," said Lydia Rose, an associate sociology professor at Kent State and environmental sociologist.

In 2014, 40 states told the federal government they expected water shortages in the coming decade. Rose said many of us no longer think of water as "precious," but humans rely on less than 1% of the water on the planet to support people and animals.

"We sometimes don't think of how precious this water is as a resource," Rose said. "There's only so much water on our planet. When we waste it, when we don't take care of it - in terms of making sure that sewage doesn't contaminate our waters - we can really run into some big problems in some communities where water is a scarce resource."

Cogen said the more water we use, the more wastewater we create.

Wastewater can take two forms: direct sanitary sewage from houses and offices; and stormwater runoff, which comes from streets and lawns and may contain pesticides, herbicide or pollution from vehicles.

That wastewater must be treated by utilities before it can then be discharged into our waterways. So, the cost and expense of treating water are proportional to the amount of wastewater we create.

"The way that converges - if we were to use less water in our homes and our businesses and they were able to treat and handle that lower volume of wastewater, then they would be better able also to treat the volume of water that they get in stormwater runoff or even the runoff from our lawns when we water our lawns," Cogen said. "So the less water we use can translate into better treatment at the utility of the wastewater that it receives."

The volume of wastewater the utility receives is not necessarily released to waterways in pristine condition. Instead, wastewater is allowed to be released into the waterway with small amounts of pollution, as long as it meets certain water quality criteria.

"If, in fact, we're able to use less wastewater and send less wastewater to that utility for treatment, then it will then discharge a lower volume of wastewater to the receiving water," Cogen said.

Cogen said that when it rains, then utilities may have to release some untreated wastewater because they can't handle both the wastewater and stormwater at the same time. These releases are known as combined sewer overflows.

"These combined sewer overflows are still very prevalent in many of our cities in the Ohio River watershed," Cogen said. "We're talking about billions of gallons a year flowing into these receiving waters."

The importance of water goes beyond individuals conserving water at home. Cities and builders need to manage the use of water when developing land as well, Cogen said.

"We have to be cognizant of the impact - the increased water usage and thereby increased wastewater discharge that we are asking our utilities to handle go hand in hand," Cogen said. "It's not to say that we should avoid development, but we... should be definitely redeveloping sites as opposed to developing new sites [of watershed]. We also could reduce the amount of water that we use through the implementation of better landscapes that require less water."

Cogen gave the example of Cincinnati, where some residents have torn out their lawns or begun relying on rainwater to water them. They also put in trees, bushes and plants that require less watering and less maintenance than a lawn would require.

Another example is installing more efficient showers and toilets.

"Technology has definitely improved over the last five or 10 years concerning toilets and showerheads," Cogen said. "People should take a look at those options, which are also cost-effective for them."

Even these small steps lead us to a more sustainable society, Rose said.

"The term 'sustainability' is really about making sure that we have what we need to survive in the long run and not overuse," Rose said. "If we're going to tie sustainability and water use together, we have to be mindful of how we're using water and where it is that we can conserve that water so that the next generations will have the water that they need, particularly in communities where water is very scarce."

At the state level, H2Ohio is a comprehensive water quality effort that was introduced by Gov. Mike DeWine in 2019 and is attempting to systematically address water issues that have been accumulating in Ohio for decades.

These issues include lead pollution from outdated water pipes and fixtures, dangerous algal blooms on Lake Erie brought on by phosphorus runoff from farm fertilizer, failing drinking water, wastewater, and household sewage treatment systems, and more.

"Each of these major issues impacts water quality in a negative way," Ohio EPA spokesperson Anthony Chenault said in an email. "By focusing on correcting these issues, water quality will continue to improve."

This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

A new, high-tech wastewater treatment incinerator, used in only a few states, is on the wish list for one Michigan city.

Former state Representative - now Mayor of Warren - Lori Stone is asking her former colleagues in the Environment, Great Lakes and Energy Subcommittee for up to $100 million to upgrade her city's wastewater treatment system.

Warren's current plant was built in 1957 and serves over 137,000 residents. The new incinerator would oxidize organic matter contained in the sludge.

Warren Wastewater Treatment Plant Director Donna Dordeski said the old system is failing.

"One of the hearths of the furnace collapsed and failed, and we couldn't use it any longer until repairs had been completed," said Dordeski. "So, from the beginning - and all the waiting, getting the contractors and repairs completed - it took four months."

Dordeski said they're approaching the final steps of getting permits for the project. And they're still seeking funds, at the state and federal levels - including infrastructure grants that may be available.

The city has around 500 miles of sanitary sewer pipes to ensure its wastewater is treated and disposed of properly. Dordeski said when the current system breaks down, it affects local residents. Trucks have to pick up and carry sludge back and forth through their neighborhoods to nearby landfills.

"That's a 24-hour operation," said Dordeski. "We usually have several trucks. Its a continuous process, five days a week, where we process the sludge and those trucks have to be nearby, available, be loaded, exchanged for a new one. So, that's what has to happen when our incinerator is not operational."

Michigan has 95 wastewater treatment plants.

Warren's mayor believes if the new incinerator is approved, the city will have the opportunity to be the proving ground as a pilot program for this technology.




get more stories like this via email

As Wyoming and other states grapple with shrinking Colorado River water levels - new research pinpoints how much water is being diverted to feed cattle, to sprawling desert cities, and the river's 40 million other stakeholders.

The stakes are high in a time of persistent and widespread drought.

Brian Richter - president of Sustainable Waters - said if Upper Basin states can't deliver the volume of water required under a century-old agreement, Lower Basin states could force the issue with what's known as a compact call.

"The likely result would be that the Upper Basin states, including Wyoming, would be forced to use less water," said Richter, "so that more water could be flowing into Lake Powell and downstream into the Lower Basin."

Researchers found that in Upper Basin states, cattle-feed crops soak up 90% of all irrigation water - which is three times the amount that goes to all cities, towns, commercial and industrial uses combined.

Just 19% of the Colorado River feeds the wetlands and riparian areas wildlife depend on.

Richter noted that cities in Utah and along Colorado's Front Range are at risk because they have very low priority for accessing water under the 1922 Colorado River Compact.

Despite calls for closing off spigots used exclusively for cattle feed, Richter said blaming any single user is counter-productive.

"Farmers and ranchers are growing the things that people want, and are willing to pay a necessary price for," said Richter. "So they are just responding to consumer demands."

He said he believes the new data could be an important tool for Colorado River stakeholders as they work to build a long term plan to bring the total use of water back in balance with what nature provides.

Richter said right now, water use is at least 10% to 15% over that limit.

"We need a long range plan that says how much water do we want to use in the cities? How much water do we want to use on the irrigated farms? How much are the industries going to need?" said Richter. "And until we do that long range plan, we are just going to be reacting to these water shortages on a year-by-year basis."




get more stories like this via email

Colorado lawmakers are considering legislation to restore protections to key waters and wetlands struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in a decision leaving more than half of the nation's water supply at risk of industrial pollution.

Margaret Kran-Annexstein, director of the Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club, said House Bill 1379 is in sync with Colorado voters, pointing to a recent survey which found nearly nine in 10 voters want to limit damage and pollution from development, industry and mining on wetlands and streams.

"Recent polling has found that massive majorities of Coloradans, whether they are Democrat, Republican or Independent, really support common sense water protections that would happen under this bill," Kran-Annexstein reported. "I think we can all agree that clean water is a necessity."

A coalition of conservation groups support the measure to create a permitting program for responsible development through the Colorado Department of Health and Environment.

Last month, Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, introduced an alternative proposal supported by the homebuilding industry, which would require a new division and staffing in the Department of Natural Resources.

Kran-Annexstein stressed clean, reliable water resources drive the economy and are vital for the health of communities. She believes the high court's ruling, claiming some waterways do not have significant connections to watersheds, was a win for corporate polluters who want to avoid permitting.

"In Colorado we know that there are a lot of streams and rivers and wetlands that run dry for certain parts of the year," Kran-Annexstein pointed out. "This ruling said that those waterways don't deserve protections and they don't count, just because they are seasonal."

Mountain states like Colorado are the source of drinking water for some 40 million Americans living in downslope states and Kran-Annexstein said the House bill is an opportunity to pass important and necessary protections after last year's Supreme Court decision.

"This decision left half of the waters across the United States unprotected by the Clean Water Act," Kran-Annexstein emphasized. "And really left it to states to make their own laws to protect state waters. And now it is the responsibility of states to step up and close that gap."