|
IKLN
<br /> S�ALECO��O�ITIES
<br /> dexstood and how so much potential technological and economic of our common failure to realize the
<br /> will ultimately manifest itself is,of limitations of our existing watershed agenda is one of education.
<br /> course,subject to interpretation. regulatory framework are at hand. But education and,for that matter,
<br /> Many in the government,university, Failwe to fully incorporate the governance,may be erroneous priori-
<br /> and nonprofit sectors,including many watershed approach into program ties affecting nothing.
<br /> at the U.S.Environmental Protection implementation will result in
<br /> Agency(EPA),consider the cause to failure to achieve our environ- A Change In Perspective
<br /> be a lack of education about what de- mental objectives in many of our We have learned that a distributed
<br /> centralized treatment can accomplish. nation's waters. I approach to infrastructure is possible.
<br /> I consider it an issue of governance. Despite candid leadership and We also have learned that the poten-
<br /> EPA,in its 1997 report to the U.S. arguments for systemic change,none tial of the distributed approach is
<br /> Congress and in subsequent docu- has been forthcoming. locked in programmatic structures
<br /> ments,endorsed decentralized waste- that inhibit its application and blind
<br /> water treatment as a permanent long- Despite issues Of definition and us to its inherent capacity for environ-
<br /> term solution to be evaluated on the - mental results,as well as opportum-
<br /> same basis as traditional systems. governance:decentralized Waste- ties to create jobs and grow capital.
<br /> However,it justified its position ur- has
<br /> example,one utility in what
<br /> der the framework of public health, ' water treatment has opened critical was one of the fastest-growing coup-
<br /> instead of within the context of the ,new perspecve$in how to ties in the nation in 2007 is designing
<br /> o prove
<br /> sewer ordinances. a centralized treatment plant that,
<br /> In doing so,EPA consigned decen- in the current economic climate,it
<br /> tralized wastewater treatment to a infrastructure is not expecting to build Instead,to
<br /> collection of innovative and alterna- serve scattered commercial demand
<br /> tive technologies whose application The decision to allow decentralized for development,the county's lead-
<br /> and permitting are subject to the wastewater treatment to be subject ers have asked,"What can you teach
<br /> vagaries and variables of local health to environmental health codes has me about decentralized wastewater
<br /> codes and departments.Tragically, diminished and obscured its potential I treatment?"
<br /> the reputations of many technolo- Not only did this classification expose Those leaders were seeking dis-
<br /> gies and the decentralized approach decentralized wastewater treatment tributed systems.More than that,
<br /> itself have been discredited for want to the uncertainties of the codes,it though,they were pursuing a model
<br /> of any semblance of a management stripped a distributed architecture of that places the supply of services in
<br /> process, the tools available in traditional sewer response to demand—instead of try-
<br /> Whether EPA realized it or not,it ordinances to aggregate participa- ing to predict how things will change
<br /> was apparent by 1997 that to address tion,raise funds and assess fees,and in the future.
<br /> nonpoint source pollution and realize establish trusted and responsible I Despite issues of definition and
<br /> the objectives of integrated water management. governance, decentralized waste-
<br /> resource management and the water- Correspondingly,EPA has neglect- water treatment has opened critical
<br /> shed agenda,it would be necessary ed to clarify the value of a distributed new perspectives in how to provide
<br /> to provide a distributed approach to architecture,encourage its application infrastructure. .
<br /> Infrastructure,Climate change and the through the sewer ordinances,and The potential in decentralized
<br /> efforts to reduce carbon,nutrient,and stimulate its application through the wastewater treatment is not in its tech-
<br /> water footprints further this realiza- use of state revolving funds.Moreover, nologies as much as it is in the per-
<br /> tion.By 2001,it had become glaringly in an irony bordering on tragedy,EPA, spectives that its technologies have
<br /> apparent to the EPA Office of Water. which was created to achieve envi- enabled.Among the most important
<br /> Consider the perspectives of Tracy ronmental results that neither private I are that there can be a more efficient
<br /> Meehan,EPA assistant administrator markets nor individual states could and cost-effective alignment between
<br /> for water from 2001 to 2003: achieve,has abrogated its responsi- the demand for infrastructure and its
<br /> • Point source controls alone are i bility for the watershed agenda and supply.Decentralized treatment can
<br /> not capable of achieving or main- transferred it to the states, supply highly effective and reliable
<br /> taming ambient environmental And finally,instead of engagmg the treatment while diminishing both the
<br /> standards. complexity that I am trying to suggest capital costs and the high-energy life-
<br /> The assimilative capacity of our - briefly in this commentary,EPA has cycle costs of collection,
<br /> environment is limited,and the j largely determined that the cause Open almost any comprehensive
<br /> 40 WE&T•WWW.WEF.OrRG/MAGAZINE
<br />
|