25trim tab

TRAnsFORMing OuR RElATiOnsHiP WiTH WATER And WAsTE

STORy by JASON F. MCLENNAN

FLUSHING OUTDATED THINKING

Fall 200926

From the very moment that we are first taught as children to “use the potty,” we are indoctrinated with a series of lessons that end up shaping and enabling our society’s most deep-rooted cultural taboos.

The process of producing waste moves from being a “magical, natural act” to something dirty, shameful and dangerous. We are afraid of and ashamed of our own waste. These taboos are so ingrained that they have spawned a century of enormous infrastructure projects in every community in the Western world. The underlying assumptions are never questioned and alternatives, even when simpler, are treated with ridicule and contempt. “Out of sight, out of mind and somewhere else” is the mantra behind the thinking. Simply flush and send “it” away.

But here’s the thing: We have a big problem on our hands now as a result of this ingrained and outmoded thinking; a problem that is emerging in just about every community in North America. It is threatening to bankrupt many over the next decade and at the same time cause significant environmental damage each and every day it remains un-dealt with.

Our waste treatment and processing methods are horribly outmoded, as are our ways of thinking about human waste. Centralized municipal treatment and the vast network of conveyance systems, much of which were installed 50 to 100 years ago when cities were more geographically concentrated, are breaking down and showing the effects of their age. The majority of them were built during an era of significantly cheaper labor and material costs and the tasks of rebuilding, replacing or expanding such services are creating problems of enormous scale.

The typical response is either to throw good money after bad in the form of temporary repairs, or to use already depleted public funds to build replacement facilities even farther out of town. This is the “sunk-costs argument,” which is the poster child of failed leadership. Neither approach solves the long-term environmental and economic problems created by centralized systems; nor does either deal with the bigger question raised:

Why are we so afraid of our own waste to the point that we will bankrupt our communities and turn a blind eye

to the environmental implications when cheaper and cleaner opportunities are readily available that work just as well or better.

HistoryWhen it comes to water, public health and sanitation, industrial waste treatment systems currently operating in most American and Canadian towns and cities were designed with 19th-century thinking. There was – and still is – a strong belief in the need to send our wastes as far away as possible and in the belief that this is the only safe thing to do with it. This is part of the general philosophy that the “solution to pollution is dilution.” Simply dump it into water and send it away. This outdated philosophy was created because a long time ago, when sewer systems were first being created, water-borne illnesses and fecal contamination were not properly understood. But now, when we do in fact understand how to safeguard against these health threats, we throw science aside because of the power of inertia and taboo. The way we do things is so ingrained in our culture that to do otherwise is considered insane. Flushing it away is more “civilized” and “advanced” than any other possible solution, or so the theory goes.

Many people don’t realize that early flush toilet manufacturers engaged in active marketing campaigns to

27trim tab

scare and entice the public into buying their products just like with any industry. Demand for the systems we have now were “manufactured” just like with any consumer product. People were warned of the “dangers” even when risks were properly managed or nearly non-existent and shamed into wanting flush toilets and centralized waste treatment systems at the threat of being branded as uncivilized. It worked. As natural and necessary as eating and drinking, voiding came to be seen as shameful. Now, just about every community in North America and Europe handles their waste the exact same way. Culturally speaking, we continue not to question our basic assumptions more than a century later, despite the costs increasingly shouldered by communities that can’t afford such a knee-jerk set of assumptions.

It needs to be said very clearly that the improper handling of human waste can cause serious health problems.

Previous generations suffered greatly with typhoid fever, cholera and dysentery until flushing toilets placed barriers between human beings and fecal bacteria.1 No solution should even be considered if it increases the risk of these problems plaguing us again. But what this article is hoping to do is to remind people of some fundamental principles.

1. Just because a technology or system solves a problem does not inherently mean that it is the best system or technology to solve the problem.

2. Any technology or system that is never challenged is destined to develop additional problems that can end up greater than the problems originally solved as realities change through time.

It is my belief that centralized municipal or regionalized waste treatment systems are not only far from being the ideal solution, but they are creating significant problems that can no longer be ignored.

ProcessEach time we flush into a conventional centralized sewage system,2 we take a several-ounce problem and turn it into a several-gallon problem by adding clean water to send waste on a journey to a facility that is often miles away. Pumping it that far requires enormous amounts of energy and relies on underground sewers costing significant funds to upgrade and replace, paid for by taxpayers whose coffers are already low. The waste is stripped of its useful nutrient content, is dealt with in a process that typically emits significant global warming gases, and often uses powerful chemicals. This is all before being pumped back out of the facility, sent on its way again via a sprawling maze of pipes that crawl beneath city streets

Fall 200928

disproportionately small number of contractors who are big enough to handle the scale of the infrastructure. For many medium and small-sized communities (or smaller states and provinces), these companies are almost always from far away, taking the majority of tax dollars elsewhere and concentrating profits in the hands of a small number of individuals (who also in turn fight any notion of progress).5 The “Halliburton Effect” ensues.

Decentralization, on the other hand, spreads funds throughout the community, allowing for a larger playing field, supporting smaller business and keeping more public funds closer to home. This trend is well documented in the energy efficiency field; decentralized efforts to cut energy use on the demand side employ more people and also save taxpayers money than building new power plants to meet larger demand. Guess what tends to get funded? It’s important to understand that utilities are, in essence, monopolies.

backwards business models. Many communities also get trapped into backwards business models where major sources of revenue come from sewer connection fees. This creates a perverse incentive to encourage behavior that enriches one department’s budgets at the expense of the overall financial performance of the community. Even if a project were willing to handle its own wastes on site (at

and lead to a body of water somewhere in the region. Leaking pipes litter the route along this round-trip journey, failing to fully contain the very substances they are meant to carry. 3

This system is nothing less than insane. As a way of addressing a public health risk, it is extreme overkill; as Amory Lovins would say, “it’s like cutting butter with a chainsaw.”4 There are saner, cheaper, more ecologically benign solutions to the challenge of waste management that actually could result in community amenities rather than community problems. As the saying goes, we are literally “flushing money down the toilet” and then ending up with more problems than we solved in the first place.

understAnding tHe Problems witH tHe current PArAdigm

Here are just a few of the problems inherent in centralized waste treatment systems that are often overlooked and misunderstood:

tHe economic reAlitiesthe concentration of wealth. Large centralized systems, like any mega-project, funnel sizeable contracts toward a

[AbOVE] Sewage outlow dumping into a larger water body. [RIGHT] Naturalized waste treatment systems can become a cultural amenity and increase biodiversity

29trim tab

its own expense), many communities require such projects to “pay twice” by installing redundant infrastructure and paying hook-up fees, often at great ecological impact on some sites. This has for years been a problem with energy utilities that had no incentive to help their customers use less energy. This is not a case of government serving the best fiscal interests of the public.

nimbyism and property values. Nobody wants a large waste treatment plant near their home or office – or for that matter anywhere they are likely to see or come near. Plants are unattractive, they smell and they lower surrounding property values. I, for one, believe that any public infrastructure should result in a net increase in value for a community.

As a result, new facilities are built well away from the neighborhoods they serve, drawing even more energy to transport materials to and from and broadening their environmental impact. Alternatively, many decentralized processing systems can actually enhance the beauty of a place with wetlands and lagoons that teem with forms of life that convert the waste. Urban “living machines” or “eco-machines”6 (biological waste treatment systems designed at the building or neighborhood scale) have indeed been viewed as so attractive that many projects have

placed them in highly visible locations in their buildings, including lobbies and major gathering areas. Imagine waste treatment that, instead of being ugly, attracted tourists and increased property values!

financial resource depletion. Replacing and expanding large centralized treatment systems and their miles of supporting infrastructure either nearly bankrupts local governments or will do so over the coming decades. Throughout the U.S. and Canada, municipalities are waking up to the fact that their infrastructures are aging poorly, and there is no longer money to pay for the necessary upgrades and retrofits. Continuing to repair old systems – with their miles and miles of leaky pipes – just doesn’t make sense.7 As we’ve created a society of sprawl, we’ve institutionalized a set of expectations that are impossible to maintain. Building new centralized treatment plants can mean billions in construction costs, with millions more in annual operations costs. Only to see even more money needing to be spent a few decades later to do the same thing again.

barriers to innovation. Existing waste treatment approaches severely limit opportunities for innovation. It is fair to say that there has been much less innovation in waste treatment than in most sectors due to a limitation on acceptable treatment practices. If we branched out beyond

Fall 200930

the old way of doing things and allowed for decentralized approaches more readily, the market would open up to allow new entrepreneurial efforts, new technologies and new systems. New lines of business would emerge over a larger field of players, channeling revenues into local economies and giving consumers a broader range of waste management options from which to choose. True market-based economics would reign, but would lead to more ecologically sound solutions while also lowering costs. Companies that currently offer highly innovative decentralized approaches barely survive, as current regulations prohibit their use in most jurisdictions.

From a business standpoint alone, we need to challenge conventional thought.

understAnding true risk

risk. In our built environment, we surround ourselves daily with much more dangerous things than human waste. If public health and building officials are comfortable enough to allow natural gas (a highly toxic, flammable and explosive substance) to flow into our homes, why is a site-specific composting toilet considered such a risk? Why are requests to install neighborhood-scale waste treatment systems or building-scale systems always met with such resistance? And why is the specter of public health waived as the overarching issue?

This tunnel-vision is hypocritical, and does not truly represent the public’s best interest. Obviously, the fear of

public health risks associated with decentralized systems in the 21st century is emotional and not scientific. If we can institute acceptable protocols to have people pump their own gas in their cars (which is really risky) or cook with propane (also potentially deadly), then certainly we can create protocols that allow for decentralized building-scale and neighborhood-scale waste treatment systems that are safe and reliable. Certainly, if city or county staff can be trained to operate heavy machinery in the field or repair fallen electrical wires over a huge geographic range, they can be trained to monitor and test and correct decentralized systems – or require proper inspections by the private sector. If this were not the case, we wouldn’t have elevators either! To operate an elevator, you are required to have annual safety inspections that follow specific protocols to ensure public safety. The same should be true for many decentralized systems.

But let’s explore the flip-side to this argument and take it one step further. Faulty and expensive centralized systems potentially pose a far greater long-term risk to any community due to the scale of failure that is possible when and if things do go wrong. When large-scale systems fail, they fail on a grand scale. In February of this year, nearly 900,000 gallons of untreated sewage spilled into the San Francisco Bay when heavy rains overwhelmed cracked pipes.8 In August 2006, a pump station failure sent an estimated 30,000 gallons of raw sewage into Santa Monica Bay, closing miles of beaches.9 In 2000, seven people died and more than 2,300 became ill in the small community of Walkerton, Ontario when e-coli contaminated the water supply.10 The reports keep piling up, yet public

Prescription drugs are finding their way in municipal water supplies all over this country.

Combined Storm and Sanitary Sewars continue to pose significant challenges to cities all over the US and Canada.

31trim tab

demand for change remains stagnant because the taboo is so ingrained. People don’t know that there are better solutions available.

drugs in the water. This is one of the dirtiest secrets about centralized waste treatment systems, but the truth is beginning to leak out. By aggregating an entire community’s waste, with no way of knowing who is flushing what, we accumulate and concentrate a mix of whatever chemicals leave our bodies through excretion or get dumped down the drain. A 2008 Associated Press study reported that trace levels of prescription drugs were found in 24 of the 62 major metropolitan water systems it tested – and these levels are rising. The report states that “a vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans.”11 Treatment processes neither screen for nor remove such toxins, so they flow freely through the systems and into

our residential taps – and there is almost nothing we can do about it since we can’t stop it at the source. There are almost no studies that investigate the combined effects of many of these drugs, since most are tested in isolation. As the public sees these trends increasing, there will be demand for even more expensive filtration techniques and significant litigation risk for cities and counties. It is only a matter of time before people begin suing their local governments for failing to protect them from these drugs. Litigation risks are mitigated when people are responsible for their own safety or where risk of litigation can be compartmentalized at a neighborhood scale. Can our communities afford giant class action lawsuits?

national security. I personally hate using this argument for anything, but it’s an argument that can’t be denied. Big infrastructure targets are attractive to unstable individuals or organizations with twisted political or social motivations. While it is arguably easier to protect fewer centralized sites, they represent significant risk precisely because collateral damage can be so significant and therefore attractive as a way of getting attention. Catastrophic failure of any centralized infrastructure can just as easily be naturally caused – earthquakes, tornados and the like can potentially create significant risks depending on how a community’s ability to function is affected. If a whole city couldn’t safely flush for a period of time, what are the risks associated with that?

environmentAl imPActs

life cycle impacts. A thorough life cycle analysis (LCA) of a centralized waste treatment system would most likely show that its long-term environmental impact is considerably higher than that of most, if not all decentralized systems.12 Proponents of centralization argue that the status-quo approach creates less environmental strain than multiple decentralized systems and they often stand behind a veil of supposed life cycle

A vast array of pharmaceuticals - including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones - have been found in the drinking water supply of at least 41 million Americans.

Pumping gas is infinitely more dangerous than a composting toilet.... yet it is the latter that is often deemed risky.

Fall 200932

thinking. It is certainly true that the embodied energy of centralized systems can often be lower than lots of smaller community-scale systems in terms of the waste treatment plant itself and the volume of material processed based on that embodied energy. However, once you factor in the miles of pipes leading to and from the facilities, and the energy required to move water and waste in and out, the actual LCA impact is enormous. Decentralized systems that can often rely solely on gravity rather than pumping energy would, over the life of the system, considerably out-perform a centralized system on an LCA basis. And again, if we move towards building-scale composting systems, there is simply no comparison in life cycle impacts. Simply put, centralized systems carry the largest environmental burdens of the options currently available.

climate change. Most centralized waste treatment systems that use open tanks generate significant levels of gases that contribute to global warming through the waste treatment process itself (not even counting indirect CO2 releases through energy use from all that pumping). Even when methane is trapped and used for co-generation (an

expensive proposition), CO2 is still produced. Decentralized systems that are water-based have similar problems, but typically operate using a greater amount of aerobic rather than anaerobic digestion (resulting in lower emissions, since methane — a significantly more potent greenhouse gas — is minimized). Building-scale composting systems release even less CO2 primarily because the “several ounce problem” is never made into a several gallon problem. stealing nutrients from nature. Nature is generous. In functioning natural systems, everything is useful and there is no concept of waste. Animal droppings become food for other organisms and contribute to returning nutrients to the soil for the benefit of all living things. Humanity, on the other hand, now co-opts a significant portion of the planet’s available nutrient content for food,13 and then destroys those nutrients in our centralized waste treatment systems or dumps them in water where they create imbalances that lead to oxygen-starved water and a drop in biodiversity.

When we do away with our waste rather than returning it to the soil where it belongs, we deny it the life cycle it depends on for long-term health. We destroy biodiversity

The Eco-machine at the Omega Center for Sustainable Living treats the waste from numerous buildings in a single facility.

Imagine if every tax dollar that was spent on wastewater infrastructure not only contributed to but enhanced the long-term economic, environmental and social vitality of our communities...

33trim tab

and site fecundity. This is almost unspeakable selfishness and stupidity on an industrial scale. In order to keep our now nutrient-starved fields fertile, we have to then use industrial petrochemical fertilizers, which themselves create enormous problems. By being so afraid of our waste, we’ve submitted to a process that is slowly degrading our land’s ability to feed us.

Psychological impact. We need to consider the long-term effects of our society’s infrastructure on the human species.

When we “flush away” our waste, we disconnect our actions from their results and we separate ourselves from the natural world even more. We become desensitized to the impacts of modern conveniences and the elegance of natural systems. Just as many children believe beef or chicken originates at the grocery store when they take no active role in its growth or preparation (and therefore become insensitive to animal suffering), humans who separate themselves from the potential environmental returns of their waste become insensitive to issues of water pollution and water quality. The more water becomes something you buy in a bottle or simply flush

down the drain, the more wantonly we use it and the more we separate ourselves from the very source of life itself. We need to raise citizens who understand that we all live downstream from somewhere else and that there is no longer some other place where we can send our waste. How do we teach children to become good, responsible members of society if they aren’t even accountable for their very first “creations?”

oPtions, to nAme Just A fewSeveral forms of decentralized waste treatment and processing systems are available for site-specific or neighborhood-scale use. Here are just a few:

1. composting toilets. Installed on a single-building scale, composting toilets represent the most decentralized approach to waste management – and the one with the smallest environmental footprint. This dry system collects solid and liquid waste and allows aerobic bacteria and fungi to destroy and/or stabilize pathogens and break the waste down to a fraction of its original volume. The end product is removed and

Fall 200934

used as a soil conditioner.14 A wide variety of options are available, including self-contained units (that I don’t find highly effective) to centralized systems that have composting chambers in a basement. Most people have a difficult time with the idea of composting toilets and are uncomfortable with sitting over a large hole. But given that toilets account for between 30-40% of a household’s water use, composting toilets are nearly a silver bullet in addressing water shortages. For those who can’t live without flushing, a “foam flush” option is available that uses a tiny amount of water and foam to create a soapy rinse.

2. Aquatron.15 Okay, this is actually a single technology, but I’m currently enamored with it. The Aquatron uses a conventional toilet, but through a patented centrifuge technology that separates the solids and liquids. Solids can be composted and the liquids handled through some sort of down-sized septic or onsite wetland. This system is perfect for less dense development, or, on a neighborhood scale, could be paired with a living machine. Even better is when the toilets have a urine diverter so that nitrogen is saved as a valuable resource.

3. living machines/ecomachines. Capable of handling volumes generated by single buildings or entire neighborhoods, these systems carry waste through its entire biological cycle, ultimately using nutrients to nurture on site plants and microorganisms. Drawing minimal external energy, they mimic processes found in natural wetlands by creating ideal habitats.16 Living Machines can be enclosed in greenhouses and can be

beautiful additions to any structure by creating a non-smelly tropical greenhouse.

4. constructed wetlands. As with a living machine, but without an enclosure, constructed wetlands rely on wetlands to do what they do best – filter and clean water. Constructed wetlands can be designed in stages to treat water to varying levels of quality and can become part of a community amenity or park.17

5. small-scale bioreactors. Installed on a building scale, membrane bioreactors promote the natural composting process by utilizing micro-organisms, air and heat to break down human waste. Like other site-specific systems, they yield nutrient-rich effluent that can nurture edible plants, although greater energy is used than with other decentralized systems.18 A benefit of bioreactors is that they can be located in basements without need of sunlight. They are in essence a smaller cousin of centralized systems, but without all the piping and pumping.

wHere we need to go from Here

While the technologies and strategies to completely transform our relationship with waste are clear, the pathway for our communities to transform themselves are much less so. There is considerable institutional and physical infrastructure that will get in the way, although the largest barriers remain our cultural taboos. The pathway to wastewater transformation will take several decades, but involves the following critical steps:

[RIGHT] Human waste can be converted into useful and safe compost to enrich soil.

[FAR RIGHT] Constructed wetlands, like this one, can be highly effective at waste treatment.

35trim tab

require water-saving devices. The first step in any transformation has to begin with reducing overall water use through efficiency. While toilets now use much less water than in the recent past, there is absolutely no reason why progressive municipalities shouldn’t immediately mandate dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals for all new construction. Older buildings should be given incentives to replace existing toilets and urinals. This mandate would result in a significant reduction in municipal water use in a very short time. Extra incentives could be put in place for a variety of reduction strategies, but individual homeowners would likely see a 15-20% reduction in water use immediately.

legalize decentralization and water reuse. The sooner our building codes adapt to allow decentralized systems as well as rainwater harvesting and greywater re-use, the sooner we will all reap their economic and ecological benefits. Progressive communities will be those that scrub outmoded regulatory barriers to innovation and allow projects to opt for an approved decentralized approach. There are plenty of homeowners and developers that would immediately opt out of the current paradigm allowing for ample pilot programs in order to work out long-term procedures as our communities transition. Practical standards for safety and efficiency must be established for existing and future decentralized waste systems just as they are for other potentially hazardous technologies. We can be as rigorous in this area as we are with gasoline and propane storage and delivery and ensure protocols that protect public health. It is critical that procedures do not go overboard and require unreasonable and unpractical levels of protections. As

part of the initial pilot transformations, standards and protocols would be adapted.

create incentives. Decentralization makes perfect fiscal sense as long as there is a level playing field, but we can sweeten the pot by adding financial incentives for builders, developers and homeowners who adopt such designs. Business development incentives could be awarded to innovative waste treatment start-ups, spurning a local green economy.

Smart municipalities are those that recognize that promoting decentralized systems buys them time to accommodate growth without having to expand municipal capacity. Instead of losing customers, they are shifting to long-term partners.

At a minimum, disincentives such as requiring redundant systems and sewer connections when not needed should be eliminated so that people have a choice.

cap sprawl and infinite sewer extensions. While opening up possibilities for new technologies, it’s time to stem the bleeding with the current paradigm. All new developments under a certain density and distance from an urban core should receive no access to public sewers. Developments that promote sprawl should not get infrastructure subsidized by all taxpayers. Instead, low-density development should be required to utilize technologies such as composting toilets and constructed wetlands to treat water on site as a pre-condition to development within a county or city boundary. If a low-density residential or commercial building is surrounded

Fall 200936

EndnOTEs

[1] http://plumbing.1800anytyme.com/info/history_of_plumbing.php[2] Many of the older systems in North America (East Coast, primarily) are still based on a combined storm and waste sewer, which is the worst scenario possible. [3] Leaking pipes for both sewer conveyance and even potable water conveyance is staggering, costing untold damage and economic costs. How much water we lose from leaks is unknown since it all happens underground.[4] Although his quote was referencing energy use for heating, the principle is the same.[5] Many politicians love these big projects (often known as “pork”) because they are easy to point at as “solutions” and action on a subject.[6] First developed by biologist Dr. John Todd.[7] The price of sprawl is catching up with communities having to pay for road maintenance and the utilities above and below them. What seemed like a great idea during the 80s and 90s (allowing development to sprawl further and further afield) is now catching up. Developers externalized long-term costs on all of us taxpayers.[8] As reported by the San Francisco Baykeeper. Visit www.baykeeper.

org/work/sewage/spills.html[9] “30,000 Gallons of Raw Sewage Spills Into the Ocean.” (2009). From cbs2.com/local/Ballona.Creek.Venice.2.520299.html?detectflash=false[10] “Report of the Walkerton Inquiry.” (2002). From wvlc.uwaterloo.ca/biology447/modules/module4/Walkerton_Materials/WI_Summary.pdf[11] “Study Finds Drugs Seeping Into Drinking Water.” (2008). From www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88062858[12] Cascadia is currently raising funds to complete a detailed LCA of various systems.[13] Or to feed our domesticated herds.[14] Find more information at oikos.com/library/compostingtoilet/.[15] http://www.aquatron.se/[16] Complete descriptions are available at www.livingmachines.com.[16] http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~chiapas2/Water%20Management_files/Greywater%20Wetlands-1.pdf[17] See how the Eco-Tech catalog describes the process at www.ecological-engineering.com/carousel.html.

by ample land, there is no logical reason it should extend pipes beyond the municipal system’s existing boundaries. The less dense a project, the less access it should have to a centralized sewage system.

encourage eco-districts with distinct neighborhood-scale waste treatment. Transforming our cities is a block-by-block process. By designating specific Eco-districts as “bounded conditions” we can slowly change our communities to be more ecologically responsible. These Eco-districts would generate their own energy, handle their own storm water and treat and reuse all of their wastewater. When it’s time to replace or upgrade a given section of a city, an Eco-district can be formed that changes its relationship to water and waste using a mix of decentralized technologies. If we break the problem down into small, achievable goals and tackle waste processing and treatment issues one neighborhood at a time, we can overhaul the entire infrastructure within as little as 30 years. In the course of a single generation, we can effect real change to benefit the planet and its citizens for centuries to come.

tHe finAl flusH Human beings are the only creatures that operate under the assumption that waste is refuse. This is a mistake, particularly given all that we now know about preventing water-borne disease. We have the capacity to safely return our waste’s useful components back to the Earth and allow

JASON F. MCLeNNAN is the CEO of the Cascadia Region green building Council. He is the creator of the living building Challenge, as well as the author of three books, including The Philosophy of sustainable design.

it to begin a new cycle of life. We can even enhance the beauty of our communities as we do so.

Here is my challenge to everyone to envision and demand from your community leaders:

Imagine if every tax dollar that was spent on wastewater infrastructure not only contributed to but enhanced the long-term economic, environmental and social vitality of our communities, so that in the process of treating our wastes we increased biodiversity and soil health, saved money, created more jobs in the community, reduced risks and helped foster a long-term culture of environmental stewardship.

Imagine if such a vision were embraced by civic and national leaders in every town in this continent. Over the next 30 years, we’d see a reversal of sewage as a necessary evil to dispose of, to an amenity that promotes life as nature always intended it.

The dangers we face by avoiding the problem of industrial-scale centralization are far greater than those we flush away.