# data[].attributes.body
THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS BEFORE READING THE BOOK
1. What is the source of the water used in your home and where and how is it treated?

MATTHEW: My house gets its water from the East Burlington Wastewater treatment plant. They treat the wastewater by removing the solids the same way OWASA did with the settling and filters, then they chlorinate and dechlorinate (for the most part) the water.

GRACE: We get our water from OWASA. It is treated with standard water treatment (like what we learned about on the field trip). It is treated by mixing and settling the water and then filtering it out.

Asela My family receives water from the Mebane City Water Treatment Plant that is a facility in Mebane, NC. This treatment plant treats its water both physically and also with biological removal treatment processes. They use the following processes in order to treat the water: “Influent Bar Screen, Grit Chamber, Activated Sludge Aeration Basin, Final Clarifiers, Cloth Media Disk Filters, Chlorine Contact Basin, Sodium Bisulfite & Re-aeration Basin, Rotary Drum Thickener, Aerobic Digesters.” Once the water is cleaned, “...the recovered, clean water is then discharged into Moadams Creek.”

Patrick We have a well in our house that collects water from underground via water aquifer and and passes it though a filter before it reaches a filter. After it is filtered, it comes to our house where we are able to enjoy it straight out of the faucet. However, we have a filtered sink just on case.

Chris We have a well that is filtered before we get it in the house, where we put it into another water filter before drinking it.

WILL The main source of water for my home is a well located out in the main yard, and I do believe that the way in which it works has been described on many others here, so I shall skip that. We treat it with very little mind, a tool that occasionally needs a little tune up, and very rarely even consider what life would be like without it.

OWEN The source of water in my house comes from a well that is near our house and goes through a water filter as it comes to the house. It comes from an aquifer beneath the surface of the earth, where a tube runs down to collect water for the house.

ELIAS The main source of water at my house is a well, but we also have a rain water collector for watering the vegeitaion in our garden. The well water comes from ground water under the Earth's surface, and it's treated with a filtration barrier device.

NATHAN After doing some research, I have found that my water comes from a public water system. The source of this water is surface water.This includes lakes, rivers, and streams. Because this source is very susceptible to contamination it undergoes many treatments from treatment plants. There are many documented instances of high levels of VOC's in this water.

SAM: The source of water for my actual house is the Graham-Mebane lake. We receive our water through a public water system. It is treated through the Graham-Mebane Treatment plant and it goes through a total of 58 different treatments including iron removal, manganese removal, and disinfection processes. Our barn and other outside faucets draw their water from the well on our property. But the water does not go through treatment and has not been tested.

SEAN: The water that we get at my house comes from a well. The water is sucked out of an underground aquifer and is filtered by a small filtration system behind our house. The water still contains high levels of minerals so it isn't safe to drink to much straight out of the faucet.

KIERAN: The water used in my house, to my knowledge, comes from the Orange-Alamance Water System. The treatment plant is located between Efland & Hillsborough, and gets its water from Corporation Lake, which is linked to the Eno River. On occasion, water may also be gotten from Lake Orange, but only in drought situations. This water is then distributed through pipes after being treated in the lab at the plant.

Reno: My main water source is the well at my house in Graham (Alamance county); this is a standard well that uses a groundwater supply to my house. We have a whole-house filter that makes the water potable; we can drink water from the bath tub if we want to. If we didn't have the whole-house filter system, however, it would be full of mineral deposits and therefore unfit for human consumption.

MR. G:  Chapel Hill and Carrboro's "city" water comes from University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir.  It is treated at OWASA (Orange Water and Sewer Authority) where it is send via pipes to water towers around the town.  The towers are at higher elevations to provide water pressure when you turn on the faucet.  Many people in rural areas, such as myself, have wells that pump water up from a hard rock aquifer several hundred feet below the surface.  The water pumped up by my well is potable (drinkable) but we do have a system that raises the pH by adding calcium carbonate.  Having a neutral pH water flowing through plumbing is very important as it decreases the likelihood of chemical reactions with metal pipes.  The water is now "hard" having an excess of CaCO3 so the next step is a water softener.  The last step is a UV system that kills microorganisms and bacteria.

AVA: I get my water at home from an underground water well on my property. No one else has access to it other then my house. My father installed it and we are one of the two houses in my neighborhood that has their own well. For general use, there is a whole house filter for sediment which is located under our house before it goes into the piping system. For drinking water, we have a reverse osmosis purification system in one tap in our kitchen.

2. Had you given much thought to water supply previous to reading this book? What did you know about it?

MATTHEW: I had given some thought to water supply prior to reading this book. At my old house we had a well (the well would turn the water brown because of dirt). I always wondered where the water came from; how does the well get water from dirt, I wondered. I knew very little about water treatment. All I pretty much knew was that water goes through filters.

Grace: Yes I did, because I used to live somewhere where clean water was a privilege  to a lot of people. I knew about standard water treatment, but also I had also learned about desalination and reverse osmosis. I also know that our drinking water is like 3% on the planet.

Asela Before reading this book, I did not think about where my water came from, or how it was treated. As someone who drinks primarily water and avoids sodas, or other sugary drinks, I have noticed that not all water tastes the same, depending on where it is coming from; the water from the school has a different taste than the water from the General Store or my house. Before reading this book I knew that water could come from wells, public water systems, etc. and was treated different ways, but never thought much about it. I also knew about the ways in which water was, and still is, significant and helped shape many civilizations, as I learned in history class.

Patrick I have not thought at all of where our water comes from other than the occasional wondering of how our well works. Now that I know, I realize that we actually have less work required than people who get their water from a city. Our water doesn't need to pass through a plant and our well only needs a tune-up every year or so.

Chris no, to be honest, I have not thought about where my water comes from. I knew it came from reservoirs and treatment facilities in this area.

WILL I have given just about as much thought to water supply as other students in the current generation. I know that supplying water is a very understated process, and often requires very ingenious engineering solutions to overcome the terrain and other limiting factors in an area. I do dabble in city planning, so I do know that there really should be a lot of thought put into it that isn't always applied.

MR. G  Will, I'm sure your interest in city planning will provide some interesting insights as we discuss this book here

OWEN  Before reading this book, I had not really thought much about water supply, unless I heard about droughts in different parts of the world. I know that there are different ways for people to collect/get water, including wells, lakes, rain water, etc.

ELIAS  I didn't think a lot about water supply before reading this book. I usually just assume that people get their water from man made reservoirs and from the ground. I don't know a lot about water, but I do know that most countries have access to treated water and that it makes up 70 percent of the Earth.

NATHAN Before reading this book, I did not give much thought to water. It is one of the many resources that people take for granted. I know that water comes from many different sources and the treatment of the environment around water affects it and the life within it. There is also a lot of research concerning other potential water sources taking place today. Water worldwide is treated very differently and susceptible to different amounts of contamination depending on a country's economy/government/laws.

SAM: I had not thought about the water supply recently, but I do know that the water supply is created by tributaries accumulating and ground water sources feed into it as well. I also know that the world's water supply is being threatened by industrial waste and other contaminants. There are many laws and regulations and acts set up in order to help preserve, clean, and protect the remaining excess able water supplies in the world. I also know that water supplies have been the core of every civilization that has ever existed. Cities, kingdoms, and empires are all centered around water supplies.

SEAN : Before this book I never really thought about our drinking water and mostly took it for granted. I would think a lot about water in rivers and lakes around me but not the water people drink.

KIERAN: I can't say I knew a ton about the full process of water treatment and its distribution from wells and treatment plants, but I have given some thought to it. There's one big reason for that: during certain times of the year, I notice that the tap water in my house tastes different, and during the winter there's a chemical used to treat it (I'm unsure of what it is) that I really don't like the taste of. Once I started noticing differences in stuff like that, I got more interested in thinking about water is treated and where it comes from, mostly because I thought it was interesting that water is treated with different chemicals during different times of the year.
Reno: Prior to reading the book, I'd thought about it quite a bit--as there's a water treatment facility right next to my house, as well as the Haw River and Alamance Creek (which happens to go through my backyard). I was also involved in the installation of the whole-house filtration system, which I've talked about with my family and benefited from. I knew about how the water treatment facility (from which I do not get my water) works, as Evan and my mother toured it, as well as a bit about pollution in local waterways and how that affected the groundwater which eventually ends up in wells, including my own. I also was aware that pollution is prevalent in my area (not especially high, but present) and that that should be slowed down, which led me to participate in cleanup programs and other peer education programs.

MR. G:  Most people have no idea where their water comes from.  They are satisfied that they turn on the faucet and there it is - it is expected.  Water suddenly becomes a concern when it is no longer available as during a sustained drought or becomes contaminated.  I feel strongly about everyone becoming knowledgeable about their water so they can make better decisions in the future.

AVA: Before reading this book, I had given the idea of where water came from some thought but never looked into it in depth. I was aware that my house had its own well and that my neighborhood was supplied with "city water". I had always thought that Chapel Hill was supplied solely by Jordan Lake and that the water was filtered and then had chlorine put into it. I have always been someone who tried to conserve water as much as possible because I have always been aware that it does run out. However, more recently I have realized that water supply and treatment is a complicated process that had evolved hundreds times throughout history.

THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS WHILE READING THE BOOK - THESE QUESTIONS ARE MORE GENERAL THAN THEY ARE SPECIFIC.  PLEASE DO CONTRIBUTE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.  READ WHAT YOUR CLASSMATES WROTE ABOUT AND CORRESPOND ACCORDINGLY.  TYPE A CLASSMATE'S FIRST NAMES IN CAPS WHEN REFERRING TO A COMMENT THEY MADE. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CONTRIBUTE MULTIPLE TIMES WITHIN EACH THREAD.
3. "Water 1.0" consists of the development of systems to import and distribute water. The book starts out looking at how the Romans accomplished this feat.   List an “innovation” related to “Water 1.0.” How did this innovation improve the quality of life for people living at the time?  What were some of the problems that needed to be addressed related to water?

SAM: One of the innovations was the Roman's uses of aqueducts and tiered fountains to transport water across country and into the cities' centers. But the issue with this system is that the Romans used lead pipes. Lead has been proven to be toxic to humans and the Romans were aware of this, but chose to stay with using lead because it was a plentiful resource and it was cheap and easy to shape/manufacture into items of use. Despite these issues, these innovations improved Roman quality of life due to access to relatively clean water and their way of returning dirty water back to the environment was certainly an affect early sewage system despite the drawbacks, like sewage still getting into drinking water.

Grace: It is interesting that the Romans did not really dispose of their sewage, properly, so it was with their drinking water. It's also weird to me that they used lead pipes to transport their water. But just because it is weird to me doesn't mean it was weird to them. Lead was very common, so it was easily accessible and malleable (like Asela said before). They didn't know about the toxic nature, only that it was an easy resource and that people could get water through the pipes that were made from it.

Asela In “Water 1.0,” we learn about the Romans’ use of lead pipes in order to collect water and direct it to citizens’ homes, and return the left over or used water to the environment. This was very important to the Romans, and helped shape their civilization, but also had a negative impact because of the material the pipes consisted of; the pipes used were made of lead which is a neurotoxin as Patrick pointed out. Although lead is toxic, people continued to use it for creating pipes because it was easy to shape and there was a lot of it in the area. But because of the region, the lead pipes consisted of a layer of calcite, which shielded the inside of the pipes, so lead could not contaminate the water. Because of these pipes, people were able to save time and energy; due to this method of transporting water, people could have water directed to their houses or could collect water from a nearby fountain.

Chris I found it interesting that, even though the romans knew about the bad effects of lead, they still continued to use lead pipes to maximize profit. It seems that humans do not change. The main innovation was the ability to move water between hills using the syphon method, which basically allowed water to be taken to Rome in the first place, but the cleanliness of water was still a problem.

Patrick one of the things that the romans did was build aqueducts to move water from far away places into the city of Rome. It made water more accessible and less laborious for citizens to get. A big problem with the aqueducts were that they required maintenance, were expensive, and they used lead pipes, which caused lead poisoning

SEAN:  The Romans built a huge dam that held back water originally meant for the emperors villa but became a source of water for some of the aqueducts. This gave Rome a large and not easily wasted supply of water that they could draw from. Some of the problems they had been facing were lack of accessibility to water and the quality of the water that the did get, but this reservoir helped solve that

NATHAN  As the Roman population grew close to half a million (5x the biggest cities in the world at the time), simply diverting the water to the city over miles became inefficient. This is when they began planning and constructing the incredibly innovative aqueducts. This improved life for people because they could be healthier and cleaner too. Because water is essential to life, it was important for a city of such a huge population to get clean (or so they thought) water to everyone. Romans were also cleaner, reducing disease, because they were able to access excess amounts of water. One problem with the Roman water systems was it needed to be watched constantly. Because they didn't have machines to do everything for them, people were in charge of making sure this water was safe. This meant keeping a close eye on contaminants, leaks, and other things that may negatively impact the water. They also had to figure out a way to filter the water after storms. Arguably the biggest problem though, was what they made their pipes from: lead. Lead is a very harmful neurotoxin, and could have contributed to the people who grew sick (although they may have got lucky in regards to the geology of Rome).

OWEN: At the beginning of the Roman Empire, other major cities that had around 100,000 people could sustain itself on water sources around themselves. Rome was different, though. They began using water for more than just drinking, but also used it for water recreation; and their population had reached half a million by 300 BCE. The famed aqueducts were only a small solution to Rome's water problem as it only supplied 5% of the imported water supply. By placing the water supplies underground, it tried to avoid enemies from sabotaging it and reducing the likelihood that the water would be contaminated. One of the problems that had to be solved was fast moving water down steep slopes that would erode away the channel. They successfully slowed the movement of the water by installing stone structures in the aqueduct that made the bottom of the channel rough and harder to erode. Another problem they had to solve was the changing conditions at the sources of water as sometimes it would contain clay or other particles that would clog up the pipes. They solved this by building wide troughs within the aqueduct system where the velocity of the water would be slowed down to where the particles would separate, and maintenance crews then could easily remove the particles from the pipes.

KIERAN: The Romans developed aqueducts in order to compensate for the shallow groundwater and small local springs. Rome was generally opposed to making these, though, as they were costly and took a long time-- up to 15 years-- to complete at times. As quoted from the book, "If the topography around the city had been more favorable, the Roman engineers would have avoided them entirely." (3) These aqueducts improved the quality of life for many residents, as they provided water throughout Rome and saved people the trouble of having to scrounge for it in small, specific places. However, maintaining the aqueducts required a lot of work in order to make sure that pipes did not get damaged and debris did not block or pollute the flow of water. In addition, these aqueducts required funding from both the emperor and donations by private citizens.

Elias: The Roman Empire used a system of aqueducts to get water to their cities. The aqueducts were expensive and had to be kept in working condition for the cities' use. The quality of life was mostly improved for people who lived in the heart of the city, where the water flowed into public fountains and baths. And like most things in Rome, private water was reserved only for the elite. Because the water moved through the aqueducts with the force of gravity it was hard to get the water to keep moving over large valleys that had no hills. The solution that the Roman engineers came up with was to build inverted siphons. The siphons pulled the water over the next hill so that it could continue flowing. The pipes that the Romans used were made of lead, luckily for them, their water supply contained calcite deposits that formed a protective layer to evade lead poisoning.

AVA: As many people have mentioned, the aqueducts and led pipes were obviously big inventions and unknown problems. For me, these inventions are interesting in the way that it was now more common to have running water coming directly into ones home or to a public place. This, to my knowledge, had never been common practice beforehand. These ideas were a gateway for how we still do things today. Water pipes are underground and the source is often times far away from our actual homes. To me, this lifestyle change which came about is more fascinating then the actual inventions

SEAN: In the city of Siena they tunneled down to a layer of hard clay and made tunnels to collect water that percolated through. Eventually this water would reach fountains where it would collect. These fountains were outside city walls so the city then extended the wall around the fountains so they would be more protected. This allowed people in a dry area more access to much needed water.

Reno: Although the aquaduct system was revolutionary and allowed for water to be moved up grades and top places where it had been previously unavailable (or at least quite inconvenient), it had some major flaws--one of which was the fact that these pipes were made of lead, as others before me pointed out, and that (obviously now, but unknown at the time) lead to the deposits entering the people's bloodstreams, then their brains, and as lead tends to mimic other, necessary things in the brain that are needed for normal function, the lead particles clogged receptors in the brain while mimicking essentials

MATTHEW: When they were in their earlier stages of development, the Roman's made lead pipes that transported water from home to home. Also, they had pipes that got rid of used water. This was probably revolutionary for the time because otherwise, they would have had to travel to the nearest water source to get any water. On a small scale this could have made people less social and more protective of their homes. The biggest problem, as people have said earlier, is that the pipes were made of lead. This causes very many health problems to the person drinking the water. They didn't know this was such a big problem at the time, so there wasnt too much they could have knowingly done.

WILL: The Roman's where most famous for their aqueducts, as they were a revolutionary developed by a small amount of civilizations independently, but they had a few problems with them. Some of the problems they knew about, aqueducts were expensive, that much running water made them difficult to maintain, and they were often subject to sabotage, since patrolling that much land was difficult. Other problems were unknown or unconsidered, such as that lead piping would lead to extensive brain damage across the Roman populace.

4. "Water 2.0" concerned the purity of incoming drinking water.
Growth in industry and population in the United States caused river
contamination. This resulted in outbreaks of cholera and typhoid fever.  At what time in history did the transition from 1.0 to 2.0 occur and what were the circumstances?  Describe some of the issues related to drinking water.  List an “innovation” related to “Water 2.0.” How did this innovation improve the quality of life for people living at the time.  What were some of the problems that needed to be addressed related to water?

NATHAN: The transition of water 1.0 to water 2.0 occurred when the population of European cities began expanding. This expansion resulted in citizens having less space to properly (for the time at least) dispose of their waste, and difficulty getting water from wells, which could potentially be dangerous, and other sources. Local water supplies became inconvenient and hazardous, so cities needed to adapt. This is when they turned to imported water, indicating a change from 1.0 to 2.0. This change occurred because of a variety of factors including a reliance on rain which didn't always come, polluted water, and long traveling. One innovation related to water 2.0 were the underground channels, similar to pipes, that directed water from the hills, into the city. One problem that needed to be addressed concerning the water was the waste. As people turned away from using human waste for farming, more and more of it ended up in water, and ultimately led to deadly diseases such as the bubonic plague.

GRACE (responding to Nathan): I think that you made some really interesting points about diseases. What I find really fascinating is that the water systems were really well thought out and complex. It is brilliant that they were able to come up with underground channels, and obviously that was a major factor on how we get our water today. However, they weren't able to get rid of their waste properly. That is the interesting thing to me. Before it was being used for a specific purpose (fertilizer, as you said), but when they stopped using it, it began to pile up. I think the cross contamination of waste and water should have been a problem that was theoretically easy to solve, but another factor was probably lack of information as to what was making people sick. It may seem like common sense to us, but we know more than they did about how diseases are spread. Like the Romans didn't know all the lead they were using was killing them slowly, but we think that it's insane that they couldn't know that. It shows how much the world has evolved.

OWEN: Major cities in Europe relied on getting their water from rivers like London with the River Thames and Paris with the Seine. Populations with growing rapidly, and the need for water and where waste should go became a major concern, especially when these cities crossed the one million mark in the beginning of the 19 century. When the waste began to pollute the water supplies, this is when both London and Paris started building up their water infrastructures. Before this, in 1236, a system of 12 pipes (conduits) brought water from springs a few kilometers away from London; this worked when the population was below 100,000 people. Two companies, the Lambeth Water Company and Southwark & Vauxhall Water Company, pulled water from the center on the city which meant they were pulling the runoff from the cities gutters. In theory, this would have been fine because of the laws London had about dumping human waste, but the laws were rarely enforced and London had far to few outhouses to supply the people of London with accessible places to dump their waste. The two companies eventually moved their intake points upstream of London. Lambeth moved before one of the cholera outbreaks while Southwark & Vauxhall moved after being forced in 1855 as their customers fared worse in the outbreak. On the other hand, in Paris they worked efficiently to work to clean the river and the streets for the public health of the citizens. They made a canal that diverted water from the clean part of the Seine and used streams and River Marne. The water was then part through pipes to 84 public fountains, and unlike during the Roman times, these fountains could withstand the pressure meaning that they didn't need to constantly flow.

ELIAS: Reply to Owen I wonder how spread out the buildings were in those large cities. Why do you suppose that waste wasn't much of a problem for so long? I feel like this problem could have been sorted out when the cities were first created, but instead, they choose to wait after the cities had already been populated. Do you have any ideas for how you would have gotten rid of all the waste? I would have made three large bodies of water that would be rotated every so often to contain all of the waste.

NATHAN: (Response to Owen) It is interesting to see or think about how terribly the waste management programs were in the past. That is one of the many things people nowadays take for granted along with water. If there was an efficient way to manage waste back in the Roman times, perhaps people would've found older water systems to be adequate. It was surprising to me that disease wasn't a bigger problem considering the unsanitary conditions at the time. I bet it can clearly be seen by contrasting the health of citizens in a city like Paris with those of another European city at the time, that cleaner water results in better health. It took people a surprisingly long amount of time to realize this.

ELIAS: The transitions from 1.0 to 2.0 occurred during the thirteenth century. The change occurred because of the need that large cities had for importing water, as their water supplies weren't sufficient enough to supply the cities. Cities located in hilly regions may struggle to get water inside of the city limits (seen in Siena, Italy). In Italy, they used wardens to protect the vulnerable fountains from intruders. Similarly to the Romans, the Europeans of the 13th century used a level system for different uses with the cleanest water at the first level. The fountains made life much better for citizens, but they were still left unhappy by the challenge of getting water from the fountain to their homes. One of the innovations during this time was the dung collector. It wasn't much of an innovation than a much-needed role during this time for the disposal of waste.

It became more pressing during the time of the bubonic plague when the cause of the plague was still unknown. It really just addressed the problem of the lack of waste removal in the cities. Pathogenic microbes were still a large problem even with efforts to remove waste. The risk of the diseases found in the water were still

KIERAN (In response to ELIAS): It's interesting that the main focus was just to get the sewage out of sight and out of mind instead of really trying to actually dispose of it. After all, it ends up somewhere. I guess it's similar to how trash and, unfortunately, recycling works today, where we send stuff off and it just ends up in some pile, either in a remote place in a different country or in the middle of the ocean.

OWEN: (TO ELIAS'S REPLY) The fountains from the Roman time had gotten a slight upgrade as they now could withstand pressure from the water. I like how you included an event that made changing the water systems more pressing (the plague).

SEAN: The transition between water 1.0 and water 2.0 took place in the 1800's and 1900's as larger civilizations and cities started to be built. One issue with the water was the high levels of contamination which caused disease outbreaks such as cholera. One innovation was the use of sand filters or other course materials to help clean the water. This helped people by providing them with cleaner water and making disease less rampant

Patrick replying to Sean: The sand filter was a big transition and I think that a lot of people don't truly understand how important it was to the success of the large cities at this time.

Asela responding to Sean:

Sand filters were one way of cleaning the water and helping with the spread of disease, along with the collection of waste, which was diverted from rivers and waterways, and used for fertilizer.

Ava replying to Sean
The sand filters where quite revolutionary. If you think about it, those filters were a first step towards how we most commonly treat water today. Not only do people have filters in their home, and many different kinds as well, but water is also filtered at treatment plants and distributed to the public.

GRACE (responding to AVA): I completely agree! I think that sand filters revolutionized the way we treat water, but the same concepts are still used today. Even though sand is probably a less common medium for water filtration, the idea of passing water through materials to get out all the sediments is still used today. It's interesting to see the way that ideas can stay the same, but with technological advancements we see so many changes to the way things worked. These changes end up helping us in the long run because we are improving on dated ideas. Even though sand filtration worked fine back then, we are now able to use methods that work even better.

KIERAN: During the beginning of the 19th century, the world, particularly Europe, was largely entering the "Modern Era," and as such it experienc
ed massive population growth. Along with this, though, came a huge problem with human waste, particularly in England. Nowhere else was this better exemplified than in the river Thames in southern England and London, where the water was constantly muddied by filth and sewage and had a horrendous smell. In Paris, France there was a similar problem, though to a lesser degree. Organizations such as the New River Company came up with the initiative to implement new, improved canals to redistribute the water and to hopefully help with the problem, but this only helped to a certain degree and left a lot to be desired. Some developments that did eventually come of this included sewage farming, which effectively controlled the sewage levels, and new pipelines which more effectively transferred the polluted water. This, however, was only temporary, and would need to be further improved on by the development of water treatment that was forthcoming.

SEAN RESPONDING TO KIERAN: How come British cities seemed to have so much more trouble with water quality than other European cities at the time.

CLOVE (Response to SEAN): Probably because they had such a large population; They were more or less behind with technological advances for a period of time. However, China was in a similar situation for a longer time, but I don't think they had problems with hygiene to such an extreme degree as the river Thames. This just brings to mind how different their priorities were, in technology as well as culture.

Patrick As the large civilizations grew and were forced to find more water for more people, I think that they really didn't think about treatment as much until people started getting sick and they were able to realize that it was the water. This made innovation necessary and things like the sand filter and waste tubes became used. Some were temporary while others were very effective.

Asela

Chapter 1 of Water 4.0 describes the Ancient Romans, as chapter two talks about the Middle Ages, which occurs after the fall of the Roman Empire. During this time period people took water directly from the rivers, which were not always clean. They also struggled with keeping waste such as from slaughterhouses, tanneries and stables out of the water systems. There were problems with the quality of water that the people were receiving, as the water they used was either collected from rivers or was a collection of rainwater-- both not filtered. When there were dry periods people struggled with collecting water, because they could no longer depend on rain. An innovation that the people of the Middle Ages had were the new methods of collecting waste, which provided cleaner drinking water. Because waste was valued as fertilizer, people used it on their fields and farms. This contributed to cleaner water, but the risk of disease remained.

MATTHEW: (response to Asela) yes! Very well said in my opinion. For the sake of discussion, I'll beg to differ that all the water was unclean. The water that came from far upstream like at springs was rather clean. But yes there were many problems sanitarily with the quality of the water. And I like your innovation,  this changed the agriculture game.

Ava
Water 1.0 shifted to 2.0 during the time period in which European city populations grew (13th century). During the Roman times of aqueducts and fountains, water was transported from local sources. But since the population was growing so rapidly, this meant that there was now large amounts of waste flowing into and contaminating the sources used. The populations of these cities decrease by 30% due to the poor water quality. Many people believed that people got sick due to the vapor which the waste released and it wasn't until both cholera outbreaks that this was scientifically disproven. In London, the New River Company was born and a canal was built to bring water from springs far away. After the second cholera outbreak, the Lambeth Water Company decided to intake water upstream of where the main contamination was. However, neither of these systems were effective enough water filtration started to be practice. Eventually,  these cities began to move towards the system of sewage farms where sewage would be used for fertilizer begin to take place.  All of these innovations combined fought the contamination problem and helped decrease the amount of people getting sick. There were also plans to build a large pipeline system to remove the waste in Paris  outside of the city but never was built.

SAM: Europe was a major area of transition from 1.0 to 2.0 water. The cities there were experiencing a rapid increase in their populations which led to many problems when it came to drinking water and waste. The water systems could not get up with the increased amount of sewage and could not deliver enough clean drinking water. To rectify this problem, cities began creating urban water infrastructures. For example, London and Paris created water infrastructures in order to manage the sewage build up in the streets and the lack of clean drinking water. They built a canal called the New River. A couple companies like the Lambeth Water Company built pipes to draw water from the Thames. But this was a problem when it can to the cleanliness of the water due the water being drawn from the center of the city where a lot of runoff contaminated the Thames. But despite a few drawbacks, cities that established water infrastructures improved the lives of people by providing access to clean water and creating sewage systems to help manage waste.

CLOVE: This isn't necessartily a direct answer to the question that was posed, but more of an opinion. Honestly the innovations pertaining to sewage containment and access to clean water in Europe was probably one of the most important developments within the continent during that period. Without it, so many more people would've become infected by disease and most likely killed horribly due to lack of advanced medical techniques (which was definitely another amazing innovation). Mismanagement of water can be so detrimental to a population, whether it's too hard to access or it's just plain disgusting and uningestible. Take for instance Flint, Michigan. People get sick because of that water, and it shouldn't have to be that way because this is the 21st century and we are far beyond the methods, or lack thereof, of water treatment during the time of the river Thames crisis.

MATTHEW: The shift from water 1.0 to water 2.0 happened in Europe at the end of the 1800s. This all happened during the expansion of modern living cause they had problems with rapidly increasing population and rapidly increasing waste. Then importing water became a thing that many people did to make up for the loss of "clean" water supplies. An innovation was when the farmers changed what they used as fertilizers to make less waste. This greatly benefited the water quality and helped people get more water cause it was easier to purify. Spreading diseases was a major problem that needed to be fixed.

WILL: The transition between the two periods of water took place amid the 19th century across Europe. The clearest (or rather dirtiest) example of this was in London, who experienced one of the earliest industrial booms and thus were among the first to experience the water related issues it gave. The Thames became disgusting, and outbreaks of cholera set the public into alarm. It's amazing to think people didn't realize this know, but the simplest solution to the problem (if perhaps not the most proactive one), was to simply stop getting water from downstream of polluted areas. The companies responsible for London's water eventually realized this, and that was a great temporary solution, but it was becoming more obvious that people simply needed to stop dumping things into the river, which was rarely enforced.

5. "Water 3.0" focused on contaminated water.  Under Water 1.0 and
Water 2.0, cities had simply piped contaminated water back into rivers.
This practice made down-stream consumers and wildlife the recipient of
untreated runoff. Water 3.0 consists of the development and use of sewage treatment.  When did this transition occur and what were the circumstances?  List an “innovation” related to “Water 3.0.” How did this innovation improve the quality of life for people living at the time?  What were some of the problems that needed to be addressed related to water?  What are the hallmarks of “Water 3.0?”

OWEN: Water 3.0 discusses the advancements that mainly northern cities or midwestern cities had to do in the US. It talks about the improvements made on the systems in place in London and Paris. In 3.0, they had to tackle the problem of sewage contaminating fresh water supplies, but also the problems they faced with different diseases. New York City boomed to a population of 3 million people and Chicago with a population of 1.7 million. Residents that got there water from Lowell and Lawrence began getting their water upstream in response to the canals and rivers serving as open sewers. After Sedgwick and his team was asked to study the problem of diseases, they revealed that the problem was sewage contamination. Lawerence argued against other scientists that self-purification meant that there was no need to protect downstream cities from the discharges of their upstream neighbors, because the flowing river would remove contaminants from the water. Another problem with the sewage is that it contains large amounts of oxygen-depleting compounds, harming the aquatic species that rely on oxygen levels, like fish, carbs and mussels leading to them suffocating. The developments during this period helped with the increasing populations' needs, and most of these methods are still used today for water treatment.

ELIAS [response to OWEN]: Seems like sewage treatment should have been given more focus, because of how much damage it caused to both drinking water and wildlife. Also you would think that the water treatment methods should have been more automatic since the methods were being practiced in Europe. It doesn't seem like it would have been very hard for Sedgwick to determine the problem being sewage since so much was being dumped into rivers.

SEAN: This shift took place in the early to mid 19th century when it became apparent more and more people were getting sick because of waste and chemicals in the water. The main water related problem at this time was all the junk and chemicals being dumped by factories and sewage plants into it causing harm to humans and wildlife alike. More advanced water filtration systems and regulations on what was allowed in the water helped to turn this around a little

NATHAN (Reply to Sean) I thought it was very interesting looking at how the European cities at the beginning of the chapter dealt with water treatment. They did begin using methods of filtration, but because this was too expensive they ultimately just turned to using a different part of the river, which would eventually become very polluted as well.

Patrick replying to Sean : it’s interesting that you bring up animals/wildlife because the waste and contamination’s of water sources would later affect humans when they ate or dealt with contaminated wildlife and I’m curious exactly how much of an impact this actually had on wildlife

SEAN to PATRICK : The dumped waste would have a larger effect on animals that lived in or near the water  (Mainly aquatic organisms or their predators). Much of the waste contaminating the water at the time would cause large fish kills or disappearances of certain species from the area.

ELIAS:  During the early nineteenth century the United States was facing cholera outbreaks, filthy streets, and inadequate water supplies. The shift happened in the later half of the nineteenth century. This shift occurred because of the contaminates running into the drinking supply such as sewage. Population sizes were growing and so was the need for clean water. many cities in the US faced diseases like cholera, typhoid fever, and other bacteria based diseases. One attempt at fighting the dirty water was to use a filtration plant similar to the one used in London. The idea was proposed by the Lawrence mill town. This particular innovation helped make water somewhat more suitable for drinking, even though it didn't help much to get rid of the bacteria associated with the diseases. Some of the things that needed to be addressed was problems of disease, unsafe water due to contamination, and giving citizens easy access to water. Some cities tried using a sand based water purification system to try and dissolve all of the organic compounds and get rid of the bacteria. Even today the sand based water purification is used, though it has some more complex levels of purification including the usage of certain chemicals.

KIERAN (response to ELIAS): I wonder how different society would be today if older purification methods had been used. It would be interesting to see how much it affects mortality rates and overall human health in comparison to other environmental and manmade influences currently.

Patrick: The shift to sewage treatment began when many large American cities dramatically grew onboard size. New York android Chicago are examples of This and the population growth led to an increase in the need For clean water. Disease also grew in the large cities because the drinking water was being contaminated by the sewage and human waste. These diseases included cholera and other water Borne diseases. To try and combat this, cities began to be use purification methods in attempt to make the water safer to drink and many of their purification methods are still used today.

OWEN (response to PATRICK): They also had to address getting water from a new source upstream rather than downstream that had been contaminated with the pollution of the big cities. They had to address similar faults of the European cities before they began to use purification methods.

KIERAN: The major transition to sewage treatment took place at the beginning of the 20th century and continued into the middle of it as more people took notice and made further additions to it. As cities in the U.S. increased in size and industry, it became evident that something needed to be done with sewage, as it was contaminating the water, causing illness and making life miserable for residents. At first, Chicago found a way to alleviate this problem for their citizens by elevating the city and reversing the water flow, but this only redirected the sewage as opposed to eradicating or otherwise limiting it. So, then, water filtration became an increasingly popular practice along with the use of chlorine for water treatment. These two combined are often considered to be the biggest innovation to drinking water since the invention of aqueducts in Ancient Rome. Water needed to be treated, be accessible and to, in turn, also be kept safe so as to not become further contaminated. Hallmarks of "Water 3.0" include the aforementioned advancements, the Clean Water Movement and the rethinking of how sewage systems should work and where they should be directed.

MATTHEW: (replying to Kieran) very well said. I like how this is simple to read yet it portrays the entire idea of the chapter. I also like how you reffered to both innovations as one big water revolution.

NATHAN: In the late 19th to early 20th century, big changes were taking place in big cities in the US, specifically Chicago and New York City. Industrializing cities were great for the economy, but at this time people never really considered the environmental effects of their business practices as long as they were making money. This meant that pollution was on the rise, especially in the bigger cities. The one solution that cities on rivers seemed to turn to was changing where they got their water. In London, Paris, and cities in the US, when water downstream  became very polluted they simply got their water upstream. While this may have temporarily solved the problem, it was not a good solution by any means. This is when a transition occurred. People, like William Sedgwick, realized that the source of diseases that were prevalent at the time came from the polluted water. Water filtration started to take off, but more effectively than the methods of Europe years before. Cities started using sand barrels, and then they turned to methods that constantly introduced oxygen. Introducing microbes as a means of water treatment was also a new innovation. Sand filters did reduce disease in a big way, but more effective methods were eventually established.

Matthew: People started to notice that the farther downstream people were getting sick. I honestly don't know how they couldn't have thought of this in the beginning. This was in the 1900's, when they started to change their ways. The downstreamers wanted to get their water from a different source. This really didn't work out so they began to use sand as a filter and microbes as purifiers. People were getting sick during these times. This was a big hallmark for the water industry especially cause it later spread to other countries.

Asela (responding to Huber):
What specifically were people getting sick from? Cholera was a very big problem, not only in the U.S., but in Europe as well. This was because feces would contaminate the food and water people were drinking; it would leak into the water systems, and traveled faster, becoming extensive.

CLOVE (replying to Asela):
Gross, yet accurate. This is still happening today in developing countries that don't have as advanced water treatment systems as the US. It's really unfortunate that this is still a problem today, especially considering that other countries could totally go in there and help out with relief efforts Then maybe not as many people would be dying from weird diseases that come from dirty water.

Asela:
This transition occurred during the nineteenth century-- a time of expansion for cities such as New York and Chicago. The country is described in the book as once being “ sleepy” and “isolated,” but these cities later resulted in the U.S. becoming a “leading industrialized nation.” Cities in the U.S. were faced with similar problems as in Europe, such as cholera outbreaks and unsanitary conditions. Sedwick’s team was able to determine the cause of the disease and led Lowell to help with these problems, by creating a water utility, which encouraged people to convert to drinking the water from underground, rather than from canals, where waste and chemicals would runoff and directly affect the water people were drinking; this not only affected people, but aquatic animals and ecosystems. Because of this, Lawrence was able to shed light on the fact that people couldn’t only rely on “self-purification,” but needed to create new water treatment plans.

WILL:
During the early periods of the 19th century was when people finally made the realization that water was able to carry and spread disease, and that it might just be connected to something that humans were doing. Cities with a rapidly rising population were of higher priority to solve this issue, so cities began taking measures such as getting water from upstream, but it still wasn't quite enough to curb the damage. Because of this, as well as the benefit of industrial revolution creative minds, cities began to deploy the first mass filtration systems, which while rudimentary, would lay the groundwork for the systems that were to be required later on in our troubled history.

CLOVE:
People finally realized that they were getting sick and dying from water contamination because of their trashy water treatment systems (if you could even call them that). A lot of large cities were growing rapidly in population, so that time was better than ever to create new measures of water treatment. The industrial revolution came along and people had new ideas of how to treat water in a more efficient way for that time period. Cities created large filtration systems to clean contaminated water so that they wouldn't become sick from it anymore. Underground canals for water became more popular because it wouldn't become contaminated by other things on the outside. Their methods of treatment were still very simple and ineffective compared to what we have now, but it was a big step forward for people living in that time period.

SAM: When did this transition occur and what were the circumstances?  List an “innovation” related to “Water 3.0.” How did this innovation improve the quality of life for people living at the time?  What were some of the problems that needed to be addressed related to water?  What are the hallmarks of “Water 3.0?”

The transition towards more sanitary methods for water began in the mid 19th century. The consequences of this action included cities in the Midwestern U.S. to going through complete transformations in order to implement new sanitary water treatment systems that include pipe lines that extend far from shorelines and are raised above sewage pipelines. This prevented sewage from contaminating drinking water. Other cities were finding ways of pumping water from fresh sources from miles away using aqueducts and they also created underground series of tunnels to divert sewage to the ocean, away from the fresh drinking water. Due to these actions, the amount of people suffering from cholera and other diseases dropped drastically. People also had better and more access to fresh water. Other innovations included a series of filtration systems that helped remove more contaminates from the water. This also cut back on the amount of diseases people suffered from. People lived longer due to clean water access and the fact that the cities were cleaner due to the improved sewage systems and drinking water systems. Unfortunately, the water filtration systems/plants of the time didn't always preform as well as people hoped. The plants didn't always remove all the physical debris and most were not able to filter out bacteria and other microscopic contaminates. But people hadn't given up on water filtration and water research facilities were set up and ways to filter out bacteria and other contaminates were found.

6. Reflecting on Water 1.0, Water 2.0, and Water 3.0, the author observes that even though key features like filtration and sewage have been added to modern water systems, cities still use the same centralized model developed by Rome. The problems posed by Water 3.0, however, are ongoing. Sedlak says that

most urban water infrastructures are outdated. For the most part, pipes
installed before and after World War II need replacement.  “Water 4.0" is about next-generation water systems. What were/are the circumstances for the advent of "Water 4.0?" How important are these innovations given the current state of the world and its societies? Give some examples of "Water 4.0."  Contribute your own ideas that fall into this realm.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AFTER READING THE BOOK.  PLEASE AVOID ONE WORD ANSWERS LIKE YES OR NO.  YOUR REPLY SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIATIVE.
TYPE A CLASSMATE'S FIRST NAMES IN CAPS WHEN REFERRING TO A COMMENT THEY MADE. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CONTRIBUTE MULTIPLE TIMES WITHIN EACH THREAD.

7. Has Sedlak made a good job of explaining the complexities of urban plumbing in the developed world?

8. Do you think we have advanced much in three thousand years or do we still have a long way to go?

9. With hindsight, where do you think city planners have made mistakes in the past with water systems?

10. Do you have any special knowledge of any of the methods Sedlak discusses as being part of Water 4.0 (or Water 3.1)?

11. Would you personally consider re-using your home’s wastewater, getting rid of your lawn or installing a vacuum toilet?  Please elaborate.

12. Will you feel differently next time you swim in a lake or the ocean after reading this book?  Please elaborate.

13. What do you know about what is happening in Las Vegas to improve the water system? How do you think things will change in Las Vegas in the near future?

14. What problems do you envisage in this area in the near future?

15. How do you think people will react to water bill price hikes to spend on improving the system for future generations?

16. Do you agree with Sedlak’s suggestions for the future? Do you see any drawbacks to any of his suggestions?