25.01.2014 Views

Groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin

Groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin

Groundwater in the Great Lakes Basin

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

problems. A spectacular break occurred <strong>in</strong> July 2007<br />

when a water ma<strong>in</strong> broke flood<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> eastbound lanes<br />

of I-96, shutt<strong>in</strong>g down <strong>the</strong> freeway <strong>in</strong> Livonia, Michigan<br />

(Figure 5) (Bouffard, Greenwood and Ferretti, 2007).<br />

Leaks also cause erosion of <strong>the</strong> pipe bed, which can <strong>in</strong><br />

turn weaken road and build<strong>in</strong>g foundations result<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>in</strong> costly repairs (Hunaidi, 2000). On August 11, 2007,<br />

a portion of Keele St. <strong>in</strong> Toronto was shut down after<br />

a water ma<strong>in</strong> leak washed away aggregate underneath<br />

<strong>the</strong> road caus<strong>in</strong>g it to buckle (Burgmann, 2007).<br />

Even without <strong>the</strong>se added monetary losses a 2003<br />

estimate for Ontario municipalities <strong>in</strong>dicated that<br />

water-related revenues only covered 64% of <strong>the</strong> costs<br />

of provid<strong>in</strong>g water and water services. Insufficient<br />

fund<strong>in</strong>g leads to more leaks and high risk to groundwater<br />

contam<strong>in</strong>ation as fail<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>frastructure is not<br />

replaced (Kitchen, 2007; Report of <strong>the</strong> Water Strategy<br />

Expert Panel, 2005). The National Round Table on<br />

<strong>the</strong> Environment and <strong>the</strong> Economy (NRTEE) (1996)<br />

estimated that a 100% <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> water prices would<br />

result <strong>in</strong> a 30% decrease <strong>in</strong> water usage which would, <strong>in</strong><br />

turn, decrease f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g required for <strong>in</strong>frastructure.<br />

Leak<strong>in</strong>g pipes frequently result <strong>in</strong> reduced water<br />

pressure <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> supply system. This can result <strong>in</strong><br />

potential health and environmental hazards. Decreased<br />

pressure, comb<strong>in</strong>ed with cracks <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pipes, provides<br />

a means of entry through which pathogens and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

contam<strong>in</strong>ants can enter <strong>the</strong> water supply (Hunaidi<br />

et al., 2000). Older systems that are still <strong>in</strong> use may<br />

still have service l<strong>in</strong>es that are made of lead (House<br />

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,<br />

2004). Generally <strong>the</strong> response to decreased pressure <strong>in</strong><br />

a supply system is to raise <strong>the</strong> pressure, mak<strong>in</strong>g up for<br />

losses and to ensure adequate water pressure for fire<br />

Table 2.<br />

Data on Water Usage and Loss <strong>in</strong> 15 Cities <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Great</strong> <strong>Lakes</strong> – St. Lawrence Bas<strong>in</strong><br />

Water Usage and Loss <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Great</strong> <strong>Lakes</strong> - St. Lawrence Bas<strong>in</strong><br />

City Year Population Residential<br />

water use<br />

(m³/yr)<br />

Estimated<br />

% Loss<br />

do to<br />

Conveyance<br />

Amount<br />

lost per<br />

year do to<br />

Conveyance<br />

(m³/year)<br />

Amount lost<br />

per year do to<br />

Conveyance<br />

(dollars)<br />

% Res.<br />

Metered<br />

Res.<br />

Water<br />

Price<br />

per m³<br />

Canadian Cities<br />

Toronto 2001 2,397,000 245,311,560 10.00 24,531,156 $31,277,223.90 80.00% $1.28<br />

Montréal 2001 1,583,590 299,647,000 40.00 119,858,800 $44,347,756.00 18.90% $0.37<br />

Hamilton 2001 322,252 84,105,681 20.00 16,821,136 $11,068,307.62 63.00% $0.66<br />

W<strong>in</strong>dsor 2001 200,062 22,718,400 20.00 4,543,680 $1,208,618.88 100.00% $0.27<br />

Kitchener 2001 184,100 16,535,880 20.00 3,307,176 $3,670,965.36 99.90% $1.11<br />

Thunder<br />

Bay 2001 117,000 11,088,700 20.00 2,217,740 $1,024,595.88 100.00% $0.46<br />

Sarnia 2001 70,000 7,372,876 20.00 1,474,575 $840,507.85 99.90% $0.57<br />

Average 24,679,180 $13,348,282.21 80.24% $0.67<br />

Totals 172,754,263 $93,437,975.49<br />

US Cities<br />

Chicago 2005 2,886,251 453,384,380 17.20 77,982,113 $27,371,721.77 21.50% $0.35<br />

Detroit 2001 925,051 725,228,960 17.20 124,739,381 $55,883,242.72 100.00% $0.45<br />

Milwaukee 2004 590,895 143,193,417 12.70 18,185,564 $7,583,380.16 100.00% $0.42<br />

Cleveland 2005 467,851 154,751,802 12.70 19,653,479 $20,164,469.29 100.00% $1.03<br />

Toledo 2005 309,106 61,666,481 12.70 7,831,643 $3,618,219.11 100.00% $0.46<br />

Buffalo 2004 287,698 113,663,855 12.70 14,435,310 $8,242,561.74 87.00% $0.57<br />

Rochester 2006 217,158 20,659,174 12.70 2,623,715 $611,325.60 100.00% $0.23<br />

Duluth 2005 86,419 16,281,579 12.70 2,067,761 $1,393,670.61 100.00% $0.67<br />

Average 33,439,871 $15,608,573.88 88.56% $0.52<br />

Totals 267,518,966 $124,868,591.00<br />

*Conversion Factor: 1m³ = 260.417 gallons<br />

Source: Sereres, 2006<br />

129

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!