archive-org.com » ORG » D » DECENTRALIZEDWATER.ORG

Total: 93

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • decentralizedwater.org
    and sustainable water services to communities Distributed water management describes integrated planning design and management using system infrastructure at various scales from decentralized to centralized based on an equitable approach that considers suitability and sustainability This research presents distributed infrastructure management approaches to a variety of stakeholders provides examples showing where and why distributed approaches are being used to advance sustainability at the community level and provides tools that practitioners can use to make informed infrastructure decisions The resources provided will assist planners utility managers engineers developers regulators and other decision makers and stakeholders to better determine whether or not these approaches would be a viable solution in their community This project analyzed 20 case study examples where distributed approaches are being used for wastewater service across a range of community specific situations and management frameworks This information was then used to create a toolkit to help stakeholders determine where when why and how to use decentralized approaches in urban and suburban areas or in areas where users might normally be served by centralized systems The case studies include a variety of applications of the distributed infrastructure approach including onsite reuse systems driven primarily by the green building and sustainable

    Original URL path: http://www.decentralizedwater.org/research_project_DEC3R06.asp (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive


  • decentralizedwater.org
    focusing on motives for and barriers to implementation It examines unforeseen difficulties and surprises in the process of design and construction The study goes beyond construction to evaluate how these buildings fare in operation and in what respects they perform differently than originally envisioned Second the study quantifies the environmental impact of water management technologies used at the study sites linking the impact of green building practices to the watershed or community as a whole Third the study explores linkages among green building practices green building ratings and standards and the cumulative impact of these approaches on sustainable management of water The study examines strengths and weakness of commonly used rating systems Fourth the study identifies barriers in local programs and codes to green building efforts and water resource sustainability Finally the study identifies possible changes in green building rating systems and regulatory review processes for overcoming existing limitations Results include Universal standards do not necessarily provide the greatest benefit for specific local regional situations Rating systems and regulators should consider the value of making ratings and regulations responsive to local factors Very few aspects of current green building rating systems attempt to measure downstream or wider watershed impacts Much of the focus is on water conservation and efficiency with efficiency related to building plumbing fixtures whether internal toilets sinks or external irrigation systems There are rewards for site strategies that take into account permeability infiltration reuse and evapotranspiration rates but in general these factors are weighted equally with efficiency measures even though they may be of greater benefit to the watershed and the environment as a whole Consideration of single issues without regard for synergistic impacts is problematic There is a need for inter or multi disciplinary judgments Green building rating systems should consider incentivizing establishment of management frameworks

    Original URL path: http://www.decentralizedwater.org/research_project_DEC6SG06b.asp (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • decentralizedwater.org
    a platform for communities to overcome these challenges through organizing around and operating under key sustainability principles and practices The report uses examples and perspectives from two case study communities to offer real world context The project team recruited two communities Tucson Pima County AZ and Northern Kentucky and an expert advisory panel to participate in a retreat to flesh out ideas for a new water infrastructure paradigm The retreat took place in Hebron Kentucky from June 1 June 3 2009 Thirty five people comprised of research team members case study community representatives and advisory panelists attended The real life circumstances for each of the two case study communities provided a basis for discussion to define a new water management paradigm The group first discussed conceptual model components in the context of each community and then worked together to generate ideas for a broadly applicable model for the new paradigm Based on input received at the retreat and follow up research the research team defined the new paradigm as a composite of five integrated components 1 sustainability goals 2 sustainability operating principles 3 integrated technological architecture 4 institutional capacity and 5 adaptive management Many of the core principles defined for the new paradigm contrast with past and current practices for example valuing all water as a resource moving toward a performance based regulatory framework aspiring toward better outcomes and recognizing true costs while maximizing the value of action The report constructs a framework for supporting a new sustainable water infrastructure paradigm The framework includes an integrated planning structure that connects current institutional silos a technical toolbox to use in the context of performance based requirements at the watershed and community scale regulatory flexibility to encourage innovation and affect better outcomes research and demonstration to build knowledge and capacity new partnerships

    Original URL path: http://www.decentralizedwater.org/research_project_DEC6SG06a.asp (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • decentralizedwater.org
    and mistakes were made in understanding the structure of viable management entities Ultimately the challenge of change in a fragmented market of fifty states with different institutional and regulatory structures may have been too great for the industry to manage This White Paper updates the findings and conclusions of the earlier study and incorporates lessons and insights from a series of planning and research workshops convened by the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project NDWRCDP and CAWT from 2000 to 2009 Strategies for expanded use of advanced decentralized designs include updates to recommendations from the earlier study Greater collaboration of decentralized industry leadership with federal and state governments engineers environmental organizations planners scientific researchers architects energy specialists ecologists and others Advocacy for high standards of practice technology performance management Targeting of innovation to meet the nation s pressing needs for preserving and restoring water quality and quantity and healthy cities and towns in particular through water reuse nutrient removal energy recovery and green building In addition the following new strategic initiatives are suggested Piloting of integrated water wastewater reuse stormwater energy and other resource designs and management at the building and neighborhood scales Development of learning and outreach programs for change agents across the country to have access to information and tools for decentralized approaches Advocacy for progressive governance in several promising states and for renewed federal leadership in research funding and regulatory reform Update of the Advanced On site Wastewater Treatment and Management Market Study State Reports Summary An update of a study of the market for distributed wastewater technologies and management originally completed between 1997 and 2000 was conducted to provide updated information about the status of regulations management technology use funding training programs and research and demonstration projects in each of the fifty states A state

    Original URL path: http://www.decentralizedwater.org/research_project_05-DEC-3SG.asp (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • decentralizedwater.org
    patchwork of regulations to inequitable access to public financing In this report the researchers identify the most important barriers to engineers equitably considering decentralized wastewater treatment options determine the level of influence engineers have in overcoming the barrier s and develop strategies and actions The most influential barriers were classified into four categories Engineers financial reward for using centralized systems Engineers lack of knowledge of decentralized systems Unfavorability of the

    Original URL path: http://www.decentralizedwater.org/research_project_04-DEC-2.asp (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • decentralizedwater.org
    and DCED for example have been promoting these planning and design techniques suggesting that their implementation will reduce infrastructure costs associated with land development However there is a wide gap between the desire to effect these changes and the ability of local municipal officials to efficiently implement them through revisions to local codes and ordinances Many if not most residential development ordinances which exist at the time of this writing include obstacles to the implementation of sound design practices In a 1999 study the Pennsylvania Housing Resource Research Center PHRC reviewed residential land development practices in the Commonwealth to assess local regulatory practices The PHRC found two issues that frequently emerged in commentary on local subdivision and land development regulatory policy The first noted most often by conservationists and design profession als was the general lack of creativity in the design and development of residential land This shortcoming was widely considered to be a result of the lack of flexibility within individual zoning and subdivision ordinances While this inflexibility results in consistency within a municipality it does not permit the design creativity necessary to effect sustainable develop ment The second issue raised by builders and developers was the lack of consistency among site improvement design standards from one munici pality to another This results in awkward inconsistencies in lot size and building coverage characteristics road widths sidewalk locations and other infrastructure configurations at municipal boundaries In turn these inconsistencies frequently result in confusion and unnecessary costs due to plan and construction changes It has also been observed that state regulatory policy and existing local land use ordinances are sometimes at odds This was evidenced in 2003 when the Commonwealth introduced a new stormwater management pol icy Many of the design elements required to implement creative storm water solutions under that

    Original URL path: http://www.decentralizedwater.org/research_project_04-DEC-12SG.asp (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • decentralizedwater.org
    EPRI 2000 Responsible Management Entities can provide the administrative framework essential to ensuring that decentralized wastewater treatment systems protect both public health and the environment for the long term Unfortunately they have been slow in developing The study described in this research was conducted to identify successfully operating Responsible Management Entities and find those business characteristics common among them and in the process accelerate their formation The project team first defined Responsible Management Entity and success The team used the definition proposed by Yeager and English 2001 when they coined the term Responsible Management Entity rather than the more restrictive definition used by the EPA in their voluntary management guidelines Defining success proved more challenging as the definition was developed after reviewing the business practices of a number of RMEs Ultimately the project team settled on defining success as attaining the necessary technical financial and managerial capacity needed to operate the business By this definition of success the project team found few successful Responsible Management Entities Significantly the project team also found that governance is an important issue for the future success of a Responsible Management Entity Often overlooked the manner by which the entity is governed must be carefully

    Original URL path: http://www.decentralizedwater.org/research_project_04-DEC-4SG.asp (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive

  • decentralizedwater.org
    Identifier WU HT 03 33 DESCRIPTION Present methods used in the US for evaluating the consequences of wastewater treatment systems are primarily economic or only take into account the effect of effluent on receiving waters As a result the true environmental and social costs of wastewater treatment are often not included in decision making Many communities face decisions regarding centralized versus decentralized wastewater treatment as well as numerous strategies and technologies available within the centralized and decentralized sectors This proposal aims to evaluate analytical tools and methods that have the potential to capture the environmental consequences of wastewater alternatives in non monetary units Methods to be evaluated include life cycle assessment LCA and associated software environmental impact assessment EIA exergy evaluation and the Sustainability Process Index SPI The models will be evaluated in the context of several common scenarios of wastewater treatment decisions in the US Criteria used to evaluate each tool include data availability ease of use capture of relevant environmental economic and social factors and interest and usefulness of the information to decision makers The specific objectives of this project are to explore the advantages and disadvantages of each tool describe the barriers for use in the US

    Original URL path: http://www.decentralizedwater.org/research_project_WU-HT-03-33.asp (2016-05-01)
    Open archived version from archive



  •