A)     Identifying the Problem

-     “An estimated 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, 2.5 billion people have no access to proper sanitation, and more than 5 million people die each year from water-related diseases” (U.N. 2004)

-     Fort Lewis campus used 33.5 million gallons between 2003 and 2004 which cost the school $53,644.75.

-         For sewage treatment of the 33.5 million gallons the school paid $62,266.50.

-         Campus still has some toilets that take 5 to 6 gallons per flush.

-         Campus does not have any low flow showerheads in any of the buildings which could save 65 liters per five minute shower.

-         All buildings on campus are monitored by one water meter instead of being individually metered.

-         There is no system in place to monitor for leaks except for visual observation.

-         There is no lining on the pond for irrigation and it loses irrigation water because of that.

-         Campus irrigates with water used to spray down the machines at the sewage treatment plant and when campus irrigates they spot spray herbicides, use 24B for dandelions, and fertilize with a granular turf fertilizer.

-         Campus does not have any substantial methods of water conservation.

-         When the head of the grounds was asked if there were any methods of conservation in place he said that “this is not a communist system,” that people don’t need somebody to hold their hand in any all of their activities, and that “we do not need crossing guards at every crosswalk.”

-         The intention of this evaluation is to identify how much water is used at campus, how much it costs, and how water could be used more sustainable.

-         Another intention of this evaluation is to identify how campus can come up with alternative sewage treatment.

-         We believe this evaluation is important because the uncontaminated fresh water supply that the world does have is being rapidly depleted.

-         The ethical, environmental, and social implications are: the water supply on earth is limited and to conserve it for future generations, as well as to provide clean and safe drinking water to everyone, is currently a very important task.

-         “By 2025, two thirds of the world’s population is likely to live in countries with moderate or severe water shortages” (UN 2004)

B)     Possible Alternatives

-         Campus could make lots of changes to conserve, use, and treat water in a more sustainable manner.

-         Campus can put up signs that say “water, there is a limited supply” or “water save some for the fish” in all areas with faucets and drinking fountains.

-         Campus could treat its own waste water in a living system and use that water to flush all toilets and urinals on campus.

-         Penn State installed a living system to treat waste water as well as Burlington Vermont where John Todd the inventor of living systems is a professor.

-         In china a whole city set up a living system to treat waste water.

-         Tyson foods in Berlin, Maryland installed a living system that treated there water with less energy and more efficiency to their former treatment system.

-         Alternatives of a living system could save 1,245,330 over twenty years not including the inflation of waste water treatment over that time period.

-         If we were to install a living system and flush the toilets and urinals with the treated water from the system we could also save a substantial amount of money on potable water.

-         These possible alternatives could save Fort Lewis allot of money over a period of time as well as establish Fort Lewis as an Environmental example to schools, communities, and cities around the world.

-         Potential barriers are the initial financial investment, bringing the professionals who can implement a living system, and getting the land to build a green house to house a living system.

C)     Solutions

-         Fort Lewis can overcome the economic barriers of putting in a living system by receiving grants from the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the National Wildlife association and it also over a span of time save Fort Lewis lots of money.  $1,245,330 could be saved over twenty years not including the inflation of waste water treatment over that time period. 

-         The infrastructural barriers that Fort Lewis would have to deal with would be that campus would have to re-route sewage lines and build a greenhouse to store the living system.

-         We can get more students involved by incorporating the living system into classroom activities.  Science as well as environmental studies students could help maintain the system as a part of their science or environmental curriculum.

-         Fort Lewis can promote our agenda by bringing in speakers, getting grants, and by getting the progressive community of Durango involved.

-         John Todd the inventor of living systems will come here and speak, National Wildlife Association will give Fort Lewis grants, and the Environmental Protection Agency will give Fort Lewis grants.

-         Indirectly all the departments at Fort Lewis will be interested because building a living system will draw more attention, money, and students to Fort Lewis.

D)     Conclusion

-     Fort Lewis campus used 33.5 million gallons between 2003 and 2004 which cost school $53,644.75.

-     For sewage treatment of the 33.5 million gallons the school paid an additional $62,266.50.

-         The intention of this evaluation is to identify how much water is used at campus, how much it costs, and how water could be used more sustainable.

-         The possible alternatives to save campus $62,266.50 a year would be to install a living system to treat all of campuses sewage and to try and conserve water more conscientiously.

-         Fort Lewis immediately should proceed with being more conservative with the way water is used and immediately install a living system to treat waste water.