Follow this blog:
RSS

GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water

By | August 31, 2010, 3:00 AM PDT

Why doesn’t water get more attention?

According to Jeff Fulgham, it’s because it’s available on demand virtually everywhere — from taps to toilets to showers and sinks.

But as the newly-appointed chief sustainability officer of GE Power and Water — as well as the division’s Ecomagination leader — Fulgham knows better. The reality is that the world is quickly running out of water — and if we don’t do anything about it, what was once ubiquitous will become scarce in some of the world’s most populous areas.

I spoke to Fulgham from his office in Trevose, Penn. about why water needs more marketing, a new business model and a policy push to make conservation attractive.

SmartPlanet: How did you end up in the water business?

JF: I’ve been in the space my whole career, about 25 years. I was [first] a chemical engineer for Nalco Chemical. I grew up in the industrial boat. I’ve dealt a lot with the power industry, and spent a lot of time with power as it relates to water. I arrived to GE when it bought BetzDearborn. I worked my way up to chief marketing officer, and two months ago, my boss, our CEO, asked me to step into this role.

As a CMO, I felt like I was engaged a lot more with internal aspects. I had a large global marketing team focused on the people and the business. I had to free up a lot of time to get on the thought leadership trail.

SmartPlanet: You say that water is a major challenge going forward. What’s going on?

JF: The path that we’re on is a little scary right now. The challenges the world faces with water falls into three buckets: quantity, quality and the energy consumption related to it.

From a quantity standpoint, we’ve reached a point globally where the demand for [fresh] water is exceeding the global supply. By 2020, that imbalance could reach between 470 and 500 trillion gallons. The world can’t provide enough water to meet our insatiable demand.

At GE, we’re focused on reducing the demand and increasing supply.

Demand reduction falls into three buckets. [First] we work with our industrial partners to optimize water use. The industry uses 20 percent of the world’s water supply; in the U.S., it’s 46 percent; in China, it’s 25 percent; India is only about 5 percent.

[Second,] we look at other sources of water: municipal wastewater reuse, lower-grade sources of water that we can clean up.

[Third,] at the discharge side, it’s all about how we can reduce the amount of effluent going downstream.

It’s the old Boy Scout thing: leave it better than you found it.

We have a lot of technologies around desalination that reduce the cost, take the energy cost out — about 50 percent of the cost of running a desal plant is energy — and make it more affordable to provide more supply. We also take on the toughest, nastiest wastewaters in the world and clean those up for reuse, instead of eliminating it from the hydrological cycle completely.

It’s all related to rebalancing the supply-demand equation. As you extrapolate out with population growth, industrial demand — all of those things are going to put more pressure on the water supply.

SmartPlanet: You said that wastewater is often eliminated from the hydrological cycle. What do you mean?

JF: Wastewater is, unfortunately, on the rise.

Some of the less conventional fuels used right now…take natural gas. In New York and Pennsylvania, we’re sitting on one of the greatest shale gas reserves in the world. The extraction method was only developed in the last 10 years. They drive a lot of water into the ground, which breaks the shale and frees the gas bubbles up. What comes up is really nasty wastewater combined with gas. They separate the gas, and the wastewater is really nasty stuff.

The way to get rid of it is put it in a really giant evaporation pond, or put it in a disposal well — states like Texas and Louisiana do this — and remove it from the cycle completely.

Here we are in a water-stressed environment, and getting rid of our most precious resource.

Now, we’re able to extract contaminants [from the wastewater] — for example salt, which can then be used for road salt here in the Northeast.

Today, we want the natural gas because it meets the needs of global climate change, but it taints our water supply. Ideally, you take the wastewater stream, reuse it and fracture the next well. That’s one way we can continue to conserve water.

The low-hanging fruit is, let’s reduce the amount of consumption. The higher fruit is changing the ways you run your plant.

SmartPlanet: When we talk about the smart grid, we talk about the point where green starts to make business sense. When does water begin to make business sense?

JF: I think about these enablers to get the tailwinds to make things happen. Three things: technology, economics, policy.

From a technology perspective, it really comes down to, how are we able to take these really challenging waters and treat them for reuse instead of just dumping them? How do I reduce the cost of making [clean] water? It costs less every month, every year.

There’s a lot of technology we’re developing on our own — we’re up two to three times more in technology spend this year than the last — and we’re doing it through partners. AWRI in western Canada is a partner, and they have problems with extraction and the development of the oil sands. We have a joint development center with ConocoPhillips in Doha, UAE. Our largest membrane facility is a $100 million with National Singapore University. We do feel like technology is one of the major enablers to get us to the next level.

There are a couple of big levers for economics. The technology, you’ve just got to make it cheaper. [The price of] desal has dropped 80 percent since the early ’90s.

The other challenge is that water is thought of as free. It’s incredibly cheap. Water has to be priced relative to its value, and we are not there. In many places in the world where water is most scarce, there are strong subsidies to make it inexpensive.

In the city of New York, water commissioner Kathryn Garcia has reduced consumption by 16 percent. Unfortunately, her revenues then dropped 16 percent. Many cities have a tiered pricing structure where it actually gets cheaper as it gets used.

One of the things that works against us is that with water being essentially free or cheap, it’s hard to justify on reduction alone. Some municipalities are actually paying industrial partners to take that water so they don’t have to pump and treat it. The biggest headwind we see is just this wacky pricing of water. There’s a change underway, and a lot of industrial companies see that change.

One thing that helps to offset this is a lot of forward-thinking companies. I’ve seen that in the food and beverage industry. Folks like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, InBev, Nestle, Heineken. But they’re also folks like GE. We’ve set a goal of 25 percent reduction across our company.

SmartPlanet: Who are the worst culprits of water usage?

JF: Of the big volume users, the power industry is by far the biggest volume user. In the U.S., 49 percent of the water used in the industrial market goes to generate power for thermal power plants: coal, nuclear, gas. A big power plant uses a boatload of water. The primary use is to cool those processes — the big hyperbolic cooling towers.

It takes about 5 million gallons a day of water for a 1,000 megawatt power plant.

It gives you some perspective. You can use river water, certainly well water, but when you start getting into lower grade water, it becomes a bit of a challenge. The power industry has become the most aggressive in [innovative] applications of water, because they use so much.

SmartPlanet: Why is there such water demand from power plants? Can’t they reuse it?

JF: Often what happens is the water that leaves the plant is less than what’s brought in — a lot evaporates into the air — so there isn’t as much at the end of the plant as there is at the beginning of the plant, so they’re taking new freshwater instead. So we’re saying, let’s take discharge from another plant and use it here.

If there are 100 gallons of water in the world, 20 goes to industry, 70 goes to agriculture, and 10 goes to you. What we need to look at is those first two markets and how they can be more efficient in using water.

With agriculture, if you think about a farmer today, typically they’re getting their water free or highly subsidized. With 70 percent of the world’s water supply going to irrigation, the cheapest source of water is going to our farmers. They have the lion’s share of water rights. With low-flow irrigation and other off-the-shelf devices, we’re reducing it by 50 to 70 percent.

You could reduce the world’s water consumption by 50 percent [by addressing these markets]. It’s phenomenal. But there’s no incentive to doing that. Why would I spend more money for something that’s already free?

A lot of what we’re starting to see is pickup of much more efficient irrigation. They need the financial incentive. It’s tough being a farmer right now. As we go from 6-plus billion to 9 billion people, that backs right into that. There’s a lot of interesting work going on right now in the ag space — part of it is the shift to low-flow and part of it is growing crops in the right places. Israel has been very proactive in this area — in the areas of olives and dates, they can irrigate them with brackish or partial saltwater.

SmartPlanet: Why can’t we use brackish water for cooling purposes?

JF: Well it’s really tough on metal. If you bring diluted saltwater in, you start corroding everything. There are systems designed for seawater, but…

SmartPlanet: Shouldn’t we mandate using such systems?

JF: Where it’s possible, sure. For island nations, absolutely. And there are a lot of plants in the U.S. on the sea taking advantage of that. But there’s also the environmental concern in putting warmer water back into the ocean — the long-term fate of the ecology of the ocean. That’s an issue.

SmartPlanet: Let’s get back to your three points: technology, economics, policy. What can we do on Capitol Hill?

JF: The economics are getting close, and one of the things we’re getting to in the House [of Representatives] is a potential tax-credit for water reuse. Right now, prices make it just a little out of reach. The conversation right now is for a 30 percent tax credit, a little extra incentive to bring it across the finish line.

It’s kind of like [how] wind was in the last decade. Wind technology is green and renewable, but a lot more expensive than a coal power plant. Early on, it needed incentives to get started.

Similarly, we see water reuse [incentives].

SmartPlanet: Does water need higher visibility and awareness?

JF: It’s a lot of ground-level effort. We see interest where it’s a problem: Brazil isn’t very interested; California is very interested. If you go to where water is scarce and a problem, [there's interest].

One thing needed is incentives; the other is to eliminate some old policy that is inhibiting new thinking. There exists a state-level policy that prohibits the reuse of wastewater for agriculture — but we didn’t have the technology then to do so [safely]. We need to bring those things up to 2010, so that even a state like New Mexico can reuse water.

The policies were put in place for good reason, because we didn’t want untreated municipal wastewater in our lettuce. Now we have technologies to ensure those things don’t happen.

SmartPlanet: How bad is the U.S. water infrastructure?

JF: Today, on average, roughly 44 percent of municipality’s water is considered non-revenue generating. They produce it but don’t get paid for it. Twenty-five percent is from leaks, breaks — it just doesn’t get to the end. Or people are tapping into the line, but not paying for it. Or there’s poor metering.

In the U.S., leaking pipes are a big concern. New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, London — old, aging infrastructure. GE is engaged in monitoring — with our intelligent platforms, hardware and software. One in four municipalities in the world are using our products.

The first stage is to understand the problem, that Pareto — what’s my focus? What’s the low-hanging fruit?

Then there’s the technology to do it. Then it’s repairing stuff in place — companies like InSituForm – how do you repair that pipe without digging it up? How does the city of New York repair a pipe under Broadway? Right now at GE, we dabble. We’re at each end of the pipe: purification and wastewater treatment. Today, we don’t play a lot there [in the middle], in the pipe business.

SmartPlanet: Why is that? Why not take the whole business, nose to tail?

JF: It’s a high-tech play: our infrastructure play in the power business is the big turbines. In rail, it’s the locomotive itself, it’s switching devices, it’s diagnostics. I liken it to rail — we make the switches, not the rails or railroad ties. We don’t want to necessarily be in the pipe business. How do you inject high technology into that whole play?

Distributed systems: like the grid, we will see a rise into smaller distributed wastewater systems, serving 1,500 homes instead of pumping the water out into big plants to be treated.

People underestimate the amount of energy that it takes to make and pump water. California’s the highest — 19 percent of their energy bill goes to that. There are a lot of things you can do to reduce the amount of energy you consume. With this next wave of megacities being built, there’s a great opportunity to rethink how we do things.

The smart grid and energy, there’s a parallel, probably five to 10 years behind. There’s a smart grid out there for water, somewhere.

A perfect example is the Solaire building in the Battery Park area [of New York City]. That building has a wastewater treatment plant in the basement, and they reuse 98 percent of their water. There are two sets of pipes — a small one brings water to the building’s occupants, and a big one brings wastewater from laundry and all that. It’s very difficult to retrofit an existing building. One of the challenges we face is the retrofit component.

SmartPlanet: Let’s talk about your job as chief sustainability officer for GE Water. What’s on your desk right now?

JF: My responsibility is for the water and process technologies business. And I expand into our broader power business. I’m kind of a test case — the one chief sustainability guy within GE to see if this makes sense. Water is less visible as a sustainable resource. We wanted one person to be out there.

It comes in concentric circles. The inner circle is what are we doing within the business itself — reduce our consumption, treat our wastewater. At a couple of our sites, we’re paying to dispose our wastewater off-site. Now we’re looking at a project to treat our own waste — we’re working on using our own membrane technology. Our benefit is not just reduce our cost there but recover a couple million dollars of a raw material out of the waste stream. So you’ve got a gain there.

Expanding that, we have 7,000 rooftops across our portfolio. I work broadly across all of our sites and work with the top 100 water consumers and we’re deploying our GE Water technology into other GE sites. At our nuclear plant in Wilmington, North Carolina we’re doing water treatment there. Our aircraft engines plant in Cincinnati. A healthcare facility in Europe.

Now we have a cool in-house system where we track and monitor water consumption across the portfolio. It’s been used for energy for a number of years, but now it’s been expanded for water.

SmartPlanet: That’s huge. One location to see water consumption for all your facilities?

JF: [Laughs] Yeah, I kind of take it for granted when I’m traveling around the world.

The outer circle where I spend a lot of time is with our customers. The food and beverage industry is very proactive, and I spend time with my counterparts, chief sustainability officers at other companies, and what we’re doing to help them meet their goals.

A final component is our Water for Humanity project, which isn’t quite philanthropy. From a CSR standpoint, our GE Foundation donates hundreds of million of dollars. But I want to get beyond that. Philanthropy will help to some degree, but it’s not going to have the ripple effect. I’d rather see us create sustainable business models within a community. Such as water kiosks, a clean water system for a local village rather than the contaminated water supply they use today. How do you create this sustainable piece? It’s hard for us to do that as a big company, but through partners, we can pull that off.

Sometimes it’s hard for us to de-feature things and make it very effective and incredibly inexpensive.

I have to find a way to make it economically make sense. We’re used to selling 100 systems at $1,000 dollars; I’m interested in selling 1,000 systems at $100. It’s two ways to get to a million dollars. Ultimately, you get to the same endpoint — a profitable business model.

Healthcare is doing the same thing. How do we create these models that work? If not us, then who? There are 25,000 NGOs dabbling in the water business. We’ve got an opportunity because of our scale to make an impact.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
24
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
This is pure fiction. For one, agriculture does not need and does not use cleaned water. Even places that irrigate use water direct from rivers or canals, not cleaned water in city systems. Its a problem of water allocation, not water shortage. This guy is looking for an excuse to charge more for water, so his company can pay less and charge more for purified water.
Posted by abear4562
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
I find it counterintuitive to solicit advice on the price of water from
someone who sells it.

Disingenuous comes to mind.
Posted by dgm9sf@...
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
Jeff Fulgham the Al Gore of water.
Make up a crisis, panic everyone. Then encourage governments to exert more control over citizens, and limit and steal their rights.

Before believing a word of what this guys says, follow the money. Who stands to benefit from the positions he takes?

Certainly not the public.
Certainly not the consumer.
Certainly not agriculture.

"In the U.S., 49 percent of the water used in the industrial market goes to generate power for thermal power plants: coal, nuclear, gas. A big power plant uses a boatload of water. The primary use is to cool those processes ? the big hyperbolic cooling towers.

It takes about 5 million gallons a day of water for a 1,000 megawatt power plant."

GE is big on Solar. Do ya think he is propagandizing to try and get the government to throw more taxpayer money to GE to develop non-market-competitive solar energy?

I'm just saying...

Yeah, we do need clean water. Industrial polluters should be forced to clean up the pollution in the water they use before they release it into rivers, streams, etc. Similar to what they are required to do for air pollution coming from their businesses.
Posted by Albee_Freeoneday
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
This story is worse than fiction. Water is not destroyed in the earth's cycle. So what if a plant loses some to evaporation. That water eventually falls to the ground as, wait for it, water.

GE is managing to become evil. The rent seeking we are seeing from them has become disgusting.
Posted by RickCaird@...
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
I agree with abear4562 - charging small farmers more for the water they use will put them out of business - which will allow Agribusiness to gobble up more of our land and introduce more harmful genetically mutated crops and dangerous pesticides to the environment.

Fulgham needs to clean his own house, then get other large industries to do the same. Until that is accomplished, keep your slimy hands off the small farmers.
Posted by baron34
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
a couple of ploicies
Henceforth all new or upgraded wastewater discharges shall be built up stream of the community. All new or upgraded intakes will be located downstream of the community. All new or upgraded water resources will be sourced within 25 miles of the community boundaries using the water.
Shake up the existing status quo? You bet. Will it make people pay attention to water and their use? Probably to some extent, but I'll bet that sewage overflows would become a thing of the past.
Posted by zclayton3
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
An unspoken truth: choose to live in, farm and industrialize an arid region and you'll (gasp!) always be short of water. And no, you can't have ours. Come back where it's green and you won't be thirsty - or have to pay through the nose for water. Duh.
Posted by father.nature@...
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
Jeff Fulgham is full of crap. This thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on
yet another resource is why America is in economic trouble.
Business is leading around America around by the nose. Reminds
me f the crisis' of running out of oil. We were old in the late 60s -
early 70s that we would run out of oil by the 90s. Run out of water...
not as long as there are oceans and reverse osmosis.
Posted by 16Tons
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Formerly with Enron?
Like the others above I'm alarmed by what appears to be another attempt to create markets and revenue through manipulation of a formerly cheap commodity.

Thanks to abear, albee, et al for your more astute commentary.
Posted by jrezabek@...
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
I risk asking when will GE will venture into the clean oxygen breathing devices? The additional "cost" is no more than a tax like the carbon footprint crap and the tax inplication from it. Tax inhaling and exhaling so that GE can keep guys like him employed. Do we "create" water vapor when we exhale, too? How to collect that tax from every person and animal in the world would be an interesting proposal.
Posted by Tom Clabaugh
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
Great comments. Glad so many people can see through corporate grabs like this. The monopolization of water by multinationals is a real threat, though. Thanks for the warning Jeff.
Posted by Greenbau
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
Here's some research (not corporate-sponsored) about water and food in a presentation at the National Academy of Engineering Chicago Summit in April 2010.
http://iit.edu/grand_challenges/ppt/omelia.ppt

Scarcity--given increasing populations and uses for water (cleaned and uncleaned)--will affect price (or supply) regardless of the "provider." What are [other] approaches to ensure access to water for everyone?
Posted by Sweetser
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
Glad to hear from you, Congressman Hilder.

There are one and a quarter quintillion tons of water on the Earth. As someone else pointed out, it's merely a matter of distribution (and purification).

These are things we call "jobs" that employ people and earn them money. Instead of paying you more for taking care of the infrastructures, how about putting it up for bidding and ensuring that there are a *lot* of competitors for the business? That way competition will keep prices down.

Isaac Asimov wrote a polemic based on this subject ages ago, called, "The Martian Way".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_Way

Basically, GE has a vested interest in cap-and-trade and global warming fear-mongering. Now they're trying to add water into the mix. It's a company I'd like to see busted up.
Posted by hiraghm@...
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
The world isn't running out of water, it is running out of clean cheap water - which is often wasted. Conservation of water is good. But, whether it water or some other resource, the problem is the unchecked growing human population.
Posted by DesertTalk
31st Aug 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
The real problem is the insatiable growth endemic in communities that do not have the resources to sustain that growth. These local governments (such as Henrico County, Virginia, USA) then seek to expropriate water from other governments through bribery of officials or court action. Then, along come vultures like Fulgham & co. to explain to the residents of the affected areas that they should pay his bosses (either directly or indirectly through taxation and government-collected fees) for the water they lack because it was stolen from them to begin with. Did I mention that GE Power and Water is owned by the same multinationals that are driving the growth that causes the shortages in the first place?

Want us to believe a word Fulgham has to say? Let his company foot the bill for all their own projects, without any government subsidies or grants. Or, see if their customers are willing to pay directly the entire cost of their services, without those hidden costs that someone is surely paying in taxes.

These feeders at the public trough rake in billions a year in taxpayers' money in the form of grants and subsidies and then expect those same taxpayers to pay billions more to use the technology they thus develop.
Posted by decryobliviots
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
"One thing that helps to offset this is a lot of forward-thinking companies. I?ve seen that in the food and beverage industry. Folks like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, InBev, Nestle, Heineken."

i can't speak for inbev or heineken, but coca-cola, pepsico and nestle are 3 or the BIGGEST OFFENDERS of water... they get there water almost free then turn around and sell it at around 1000-10000% mark-up.

secondly, water shouldn't be used for large scale cooling applications, this is why new nuclear plants use gases, those gases can be much more easily re-used, they don't have never the same environmental impact and don't use a resource vital to life.

thirdly, if they want to up the price on water lets start with all companies/industries that are major wasters of water; golf courses come to mind (their also a complete waste of land too, and as such should also be more harshly taxed on their land), if that means 18 holes costs and extra 10 bucks so beit)

fouthly, (and this is direct to several of the comments) this ISN'T fiction, its a reality, its just being handled in ways that are typically anti-society and pro-business, much like global warming this problem DOES very much exist and is already or will become a major problem however its not being presented honestly... there's already enough buinesses involved in and grossly profitting from the water business... infact i'd be for atleast having 1 nationalized (though to most people that N-word is worse than the orther N-word...lol) company for ANY major service which is essential to life, such as water, food (government run farms, providing inexpensive non-corporatized [non-patented] food, which would also PROPERLY stock food banks, virtually none are properly stocked and most are always short), energy (covered in a few countries), education (already covered in most countries)...


@RickCaird

actually, thats not entirely true... for a few reason actually... first as the earth gets warmer (and it is, its already 0.5C warmer than 50-60 years ago and 1C warmer than 100-150 years ago) the atmosphere will hold more water as humidity as a constant as as such there actually will be less water ON earth, but more in the atmosphere... secondly, the earth contrary to popular beleif ISN'T a closed system... our atmosphere does escape earth (obviously not all, or even most of it, but some atmosphere is always leaving earth) and since most of our atmosphere is water vapor, most of whats being essentially outgassed from our atmosphere is water. in theory your right though, but in reality its not so simple and perfect.


i think baron34's got a better idea of what this all about than most... certianly more than anyone calling this fiction...lol
Posted by Daryl420
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Such incredible ignorance
Wow, never I have I seen such ignorance about such a vital subject. It just proves Fulgham's basic point.

While in many places farmers pay for water, or pay as part of a water district, many farmers (especially in the West) have water rights going back 150 years or more. This gives them first access to water before even cities which sprung up later. For example, if a stream flows through a farmer's property, he or she is allowed to take so many acre-feet a year free of charge. In other places such as California, farmers are part of irrigation districts which can be limited by the state. While the price is relatively cheap, the amount is always restricted. Environmental law also comes into play. In California, the need to keep the central delta free of salt water incursion from the bay area mandates a certain amount of fresh water being flushed into the delta each year. As the result of numerous court decisions, this has first priority over farmers and cities, no matter how bad a drought that may be going on.

In the past, irrigation water passed through a field and what wasn't taken up simply was put back into the irrigation canal and passed onto the next farmer. However, in this process the water picks up salts from the soil and these accumulate. Some prime farm land in California's Central Valley is now fallow because years of irrigation have left the soil with too many salts. In southern California, the Salton Sea is basically just a big sump used to collect all the irrigation water that has become too salty for further use. The Salton Sea has become so salty that nothing can live there, and it's quickly becoming an environmental disaster.

There are also huge issues over well water. The Douglas county area south of Denver (a relatively affluent area) survives solely on well water. There's at most 100 years of well water, and then it's gone. All surface water in the Front Range has long since been spoken for, so it would be tough luck for Douglas County -- except its population and political pull means it will ultimately take it from somebody else in the state.

Many farmers in the midwest depend on well water from the underground Ogallala aquifer. That water is quickly being depleted, and soon one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world will be bone dry.

As Fulgham says, water quality also comes into play. In the Denver area where I live, many cities take their water from a stream or river such as the Platte, use it, flush it down their toilets, process it, and then put it back into the stream where the next city downstream takes it for its use. Obviously, the downstream cities rely on the upstream cities maintaining basic water quality. However, no processing in the world currently removes trace chemicals, female sex hormones from women taking the pill, oil, soap, fertilizers and pesticides, or even the salts from urine. Mostly these pollutants are simply diluted to trace levels in the overall flow of the stream. However, while the water always passes current water quality standards, there's no telling what these trace pollutants do over a lifetime.
As Fulgham says, the first line of defense is using water more intelligently. GE will get little profit when people tear out their lawns in the future to save water, or learn to shut off the shower while soaping up. But beyond these first simple fixes, there's money to be made. If it's not GE, then it will be someone else.
Posted by zackers
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Such incredible ignorance
Wow, never I have I seen such ignorance about such a vital subject. It just proves Fulgham's basic point.

While in many places farmers pay for water, or pay as part of a water district, many farmers (especially in the West) have water rights going back 150 years or more. This gives them first access to water before even cities which sprung up later. For example, if a stream flows through a farmer's property, he or she is allowed to take so many acre-feet a year free of charge. In other places such as California, farmers are part of irrigation districts which can be limited by the state. While the price is relatively cheap, the amount is always restricted. Environmental law also comes into play. In California, the need to keep the central delta free of salt water incursion from the bay area mandates a certain amount of fresh water being flushed into the delta each year. As the result of numerous court decisions, this has first priority over farmers and cities, no matter how bad a drought that may be going on.

In the past, irrigation water passed through a field and what wasn't taken up simply was put back into the irrigation canal and passed onto the next farmer. However, in this process the water picks up salts from the soil and these accumulate. Some prime farm land in California's Central Valley is now fallow because years of irrigation have left the soil with too many salts. In southern California, the Salton Sea is basically just a big sump used to collect all the irrigation water that has become too salty for further use. The Salton Sea has become so salty that nothing can live there, and it's quickly becoming an environmental disaster.

There are also huge issues over well water. The Douglas county area south of Denver (a relatively affluent area) survives solely on well water. There's at most 100 years of well water, and then it's gone. All surface water in the Front Range has long since been spoken for, so it would be tough luck for Douglas County -- except its population and political pull means it will ultimately take it from somebody else in the state.

Many farmers in the midwest depend on well water from the underground Ogallala aquifer. That water is quickly being depleted, and soon one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world will be bone dry.

As Fulgham says, water quality also comes into play. In the Denver area where I live, many cities take their water from a stream or river such as the Platte, use it, flush it down their toilets, process it, and then put it back into the stream where the next city downstream takes it for its use. Obviously, the downstream cities rely on the upstream cities maintaining basic water quality. However, no processing in the world currently removes trace chemicals, female sex hormones from women taking the pill, oil, soap, fertilizers and pesticides, or even the salts from urine. Mostly these pollutants are simply diluted to trace levels in the overall flow of the stream. However, while the water always passes current water quality standards, there's no telling what these trace pollutants do over a lifetime.

As Fulgham says, the first line of defense is using water more intelligently. GE will get little profit when people tear out their lawns in the future to save water, or learn to shut off the shower while soaping up. But beyond these first simple fixes, there's money to be made. If it's not GE, then it will be someone else.
Posted by zackers
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Sorry for the long double post
Somehow the system hiccuped on me...
Posted by zackers
31st Aug 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
The part about getting natural gas from shale reserves deserves
a very close look. The extraction companies have been exempted
from the clean water act and the resultant pollution is very nasty
stuff as Mr. Fulgrum mentioned.

Perhaps a better solution to that issue is to have the wind power
division of GE make a lot more money and curtail the practice of
getting natural gas from fracturing shale formations with
poisonous fluids.
Posted by RILIB
1st Sep 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
Many of the critical comments above look strangely like they were written by the same person...

Raising water prices can be a tricky proposition, since many people have investments and lives that are built on it being inexpensive. It must be done, however, or else scarcity will continue to prevail. The solution lies not in creating false prices, but in simply phasing out and then eliminating the subsidies that make water less expensive to consumers than the true costs. Unfortunately, too many proposed solutions merely involve more subsidies, e.g., a National Water Trust Fund or the like.
Posted by privatewaterlaw
1st Sep 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
This seems like listening to Verizon, AT&T and Comcast for Ideas on net neutrality (SEE: Astroturfer "Broadband for America.") Polluters should bear the brunt of cleaning their pollutants on the front end and should pay for what they have already released.

But: @Albee_Freeoneday

Al Gore didn't "invent" climate change: he first learned about it in college. But, then, we can't trust them pointy-headed intellectuals, can we? Let's bash the book learning so more of our kids will just drop out of high school.

Meanwhile, the top 10% of engineering graduates in China outnumber ALL the engineering grads in the US.
Posted by cdmsr
5th Sep 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
A second look
Before everyone writes off Jeff Fulgham's comments as those of a money hungry businessman, take a look at this new report released by The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread:

http://www.johnsonfdn.org/chartingnewwaters

This freshwater call to action represents an actual consensus among very diverse interests (including farmers, big business, NGOs, government, community leaders, etc.), and the consensus is this: we're facing a looming freshwater crisis in this country. This document reflects recommendations this group all agreed upon in order to deal with this crisis, was created based on two years of work these people did together, and is about as un-biased as you can get (to put this into perspective, it's the first document of its kind to form consensus recommendations from groups of people who are often at odds with one another about a very sticky subject - they're doing so because we have to.) What's one of their recommendations for staving off this looming freshwater crisis? We need to stop thinking of water as a commodity, and change the pricing structure.

Before continuing to decry every bit of Mr. Fulgham's comments, read this report to see what experts across many fields have to say. Maybe Mr. Fulgham has a point? The 200 people who helped write this report might say he does.
Posted by binocularfight
24th Sep 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: GE Water sustainability chief Jeff Fulgham: We need a price on water
Please look at my patent pending invention of a new topology for a two-wire controlled irrigation system.

water-wire-irrigation.com
Posted by shopa
19th Oct 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!