- Mayor Hosterman (indirectly) replies to my post (Lies, damned lies and politics) with the reason she didn't want to talk facts:
But Hosterman says the man [me!] "started badgering me. I told him I took exception to his arguing with me over a minuscule comment and he argued it was not minuscule."
- The 438 page "National Multiple Family Submetering and Allocation Billing Program Study" from 2004 finds that 85% of apartments have no submeters, the ones that do have submeters use 15% less water, and that RUBS (pro-rata water billing) does nothing to reduce water use.
- Marketing BS of the day: "Budweiser asks men to stop shaving to save water" on Facebook (stupid #2), to save 1 million gallons (3 acre feet = stupid #3)
- Drought in Texas/Oklahoma + poor groundwater management = disaster for farmers
- China Admits Problems With Three Gorges Dam (Now what?)
- Hindustan Unilever's initiative to address water scarcity... in India, because the government has failed to do so.
24 May 2011
Speed blogging
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The 2004 EPA/Aquacraft study was ideologically driven to promote submetering. Accordingly, there are issues with the sample size for in-rent v. RUBS findings. The NMHC is in the process of conducting a study on this issue. Preliminary findings show around a 15% conservation benefit. In the early 2000's, EPA did a few things to combat RUBS due to their organizational opposition to it. They exempted submetered properties from SDWA testing but pointedly did not exempt RUBS properties. This made absolutely no sense. The water was presumed to be compliant when it reached the master meter. The RUBS program does not use a meter or change in any way the existing plumbing (like a meter would). Yet, RUBS properties would have to go to additional expense because they were using a billing system. Fortunately, they eventually reversed course. However, manufacturing the 0% conservation benefit assisted them to exert pressure against RUBS.
Post a Comment