The Alliance for Water Stewardship Beta International Water Stewardship Standard provides a roadmap for companies and utilities to follow towards sustainable water use. Participants will learn about the Alliance, how the Standard can help transform water management, and how to help improve the Standard before it is finalized in 2014. This presentation was given by Kathryn Buckner, President, Council of Great Lakes Industries.

1.
Kathryn
A.
Buckner,
President
Council
of
Great
Lakes
Industries

2.
Study
Sponsors
— Great
Lakes
Protec3on
Fund
(GLPF)
—
—
—
Council
of
Great
Lakes
Industries
(CGLI)
Na3onal
Council
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement
(NCASI)
LimnoTech
(LTI)
2

3. Industry
needs
water
NewPage
Corpora3on's
Escanaba
Paper
Company
Mill
Purpose
— Process
support/transport
media
— Serve
as
raw
material
— Support
energy
produc3on
— Provide
hea3ng
and
cooling
— Treated
effluent
return
point
AFributes
— Withdrawal
volumes
can
be
high
— Return
flows
oKen
high
— Low
consump3ve
use
— Water
quality
is
maintained
3

4. Water
stewardship
is
important
— Relate
withdrawals
to
supply
— Water
recycling
and
reuse
important
— Poten3al
for
impact
is
key
concern
— Rela3onships
with
other
users
are
important
— Governance
plays
a
key
role
Lake
Michigan
from
Beaver
Island
4

5. Can
water
stewardship
tools
help?
5

6. The
list
of
tools
is
long,
and
growing…..
— Aquawareness
— Global
Water
Tool
(WBCSD)
— Alliance
for
Water
Stewardship
— BIER
Water
Footprint
Working
— UNEP/SETAC
Life
Cycle
Ini3a3ve
— Strategic
Water
Management
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Group
Carbon
Disclosure
Project
-­‐Water
Disclosure
Ceres
Aqua
Gage
Corporate
Water
Gauge
Federa3on
House
Commitment
to
Water
Efficiency
Global
Environmental
Management
Ini3a3ve
(GEMI)
Global
Repor3ng
Ini3a3ve
—
—
—
—
—
—
Framework
(Australia
minerals)
UN
CEO
Water
Mandate
Water
Brief
for
Business
Water
Footprint
Network
Water
Footprint
Neutrality
and
Efficiency
Project
(UN)
Water
Neutral
Offset
Calculator
WaterSense
Cer3fica3on
Scheme
ISO
Water
Footprint
Standard
Source:
NCASI
6

7. Evalua3ng
water
stewardship
tools
— Explored
Great
Lakes
water
stewardship
priori3es
with
stakeholders
— Established
metrics
approach
for
field
tes3ng
— Carried
out
field
trials
at
Great
Lakes
industries
— VeFed
results
with
mul3-­‐
stakeholder
Expert
Panel
7

8. Ini3al
field
trial
results
— Poten3al
for
significant
value
— Context
is
cri3cal
to
defining
value
— Some
metrics
redundant,
insufficient
or
missing
— Exis3ng
tools
only
par3ally
addressed
water
stewardship
evalua3on
needs
8

9. GLPF:
“What
works
best
in
the
Great
Lakes?”
— Current
objec3ve:
Find
or
develop
a
tool
people
will
“line
up
to
use.”
— Project
elements
— Establish
characteris3cs
needed
for
tool
— Test
tool
elements
at
five
industrial
facili3es
— Establish
“home”
or
system
for
tool
use
9

10. Establishing
tool
characteris3cs
— Extensive
collabora3on
process
— Industry
stakeholders
— Water
stewardship
advocates
— Resource
managers
— Academics
and
policy
personnel
— Webinars,
mee3ngs,
and
personal
communica3on
— VeFed
through
Expert
Panel
10

11. What
are
the
“Needed
Tool
Characteris3cs?”
Tool
Characteris.cs
Support
op(mized
internal
water
use
and
management
Understand
water
withdrawals,
consump3on
and
discharge
Give
and
protect
context
to
numbers
reported
Reflect
trends
in
performance
in
water
use
Understand
costs
associated
with
water
use
and
reduc3ons
Demonstrate
good
water
stewardship
Assess
and
minimize
impacts
and
risks
of
water
use
Account
for
regulatory
context
and
legal
framework
Highlight
water
conserva3on
best
prac3ces
Provide
“stamp
of
approval”/credibility
Report
on/demonstrate
local
facility
external
engagement
Support
disclosure
and
transparency
Generate
informa3on
for
reports
Demonstrate
water
management
decision
making
prac3ces
Respond
to
other
water
use
and
impacts
inquiries
Support
Great
Lakes
economic
development
Communicate
poten3al
for
sustainable
use
Highlight
social
and
economic
benefits
of
water
use
Comments
Measure
to
manage
Large
use
may
be
OK
in
abundant
Great
Lakes
Past
and
future
Tool
won’t
include
complete
cost/benefit
analysis
Environmental
impacts;
physical,
reputa3onal,
regulatory
risks;
environmental
jus3ce
Reflect
strong
governance,
processes
in
place
Recognize
or
accommodate
compe33ve
needs
or
uses
for
capital;
consider
environmental
/energy
tradeoffs;
accommodate
differences
between
sectors
and
facili3es
in
same
sector
Full
cer3fica3on
an
op3on
but
not
always
the
end
game
In
watershed
planning
and
management
Avoid
duplica3ve
repor3ng
Illustrate
examples
and
communicate
with
stakeholders
Make
sure
data
not
used
out
of
context
Demonstrate
poten3al
for
posi3ve
or
neutral
influence
on
water
resources
But
not
in
units
of
water
volume
(not
$/gal)
11

12. Challenges
for
the
tool
Ultimately,
the
tool
must
……..
Demonstrate
value
to
industries
Need
to
know
“what
will
I
get
out
of
it?”
Create
something
easy
to
use
Resources
are
limited
Leverage
existing
tools
and
frameworks
Don’t
recreate
the
wheel
Access
existing
data
collected
for
legal
requirements
Account
for
variability
in
operations
&
across
sectors
Provide
clarity,
improve
communications;
concerns
over
“worst”
or
“best”
comparisons;
may
include
a
glossary
of
terms.
Results
will
be
public,
possible
barrier
for
industry
Integrate/collate
available
data
Make
sure
it’s
flexible
Serve
as
vehicle
for
common
dialogue
Protect
confidentiality
needs
of
industry
Provide
a
voluntary
tool
that
should
not
lead
to
regulatory
use.
Develop
something
that
can
be
applied
to
an
individual
facility
or
group
of
facilities
Be
consistent
with
Compact
and
minimize
redundancy
with
State
tools
for
water
use
reporting.
Recognize
the
tool
could
affect
positive
behaviors
by
users
and
potential
users
Don’t
want
this
to
be
a
barrier
for
use
Improvements
may
be
more
apparent
than
on
facility-­‐basis
Regulators
are
not
seeking
a
new
tool
The
tool
may
illustrate
good
stewardship
practices
for
others
12

13. Tools
vs.
characteris3cs
— Field
tests
being
used
to
test
tool
inputs/outputs
against
needed
characteris3cs
— Is
AWS
the
answer?
— Metrics
mapping
exercise
conducted
— A
“hybrid
approach”
has
been
adopted
for
field
test
work
13

14. 14

15. Overlap:
Tool
Characteris3cs/AWS
IWSS
Characteris.cs
of
GL
Tool-­‐Specific
Criteria
+
+
+
+
+
Addi(onal
metrics
to
derived
tool
add
+
+
AWS
Core
Criteria
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Overlapping
indicators
/
metrics
Team
Feedback
to
AWS
Developers
AWS
AWS
Core
and
Advanced
Level
Criteria
XX X
X
Not
relevant
15

16. Preliminary
observa3ons
— Water
stewardship
can
be
an
element
of
broader
sustainability
efforts
— Corporate
objec3ves
vs.
local
facility
needs
may
differ
–
individual
facili3es
can
be
at
various
stages
of
stewardship
development
— Desirable
to
use
governance
compliance
ac3ons
to
sa3sfy
tool
criteria
16

17. Preliminary
observa3ons
— Important
to
evaluate
return
on
op3ons
vs.
taking
a
direct
goal
sejng
approach
— Some
op3ons
may
“reduce
water
use”
but
offer
few
addi3onal
benefits
— Water
stewardship
projects
must
compete
for
funding
with
other
projects
— Communi3es
may
priori3ze
sustainability
measures
geared
towards
economic
stability
How
can
tools
accommodate
these
issues?
17

18. Primary
Project
Purpose
To
iden3fy,
package,
or
create
water
stewardship
tool(s)
for
use
by
Great
Lakes
industry
18

19. THANK
YOU!
Council
of
Great
Lakes
Industries
Kathryn
A.
Buckner
President
kabuckner@cgli.org
734-­‐663-­‐1944
Dale
K.
Phenicie
Technical/Projects
Director
dkphenicie@cgli.org
770
487-­‐7585