Bullitt wants to go off the water grid: realistically, will it be able to?
I have a story in today's paper on The Bullitt Foundation's proposed living building on Capitol Hill. The project is fascinating: it aims to create all its own energy, produce and treat all its own water and re-energize the neighboring park among other points.
The project has a lot of interesting aspects. However the one I'm most interested in is the water angle. The building hopes to break the mold by capturing all its rainwater off the roof, which will be held in an underground cistern, according to Colleen Mitchell, project manager with 2020 Engineering. Then, some of the water will be treated by UV filters, pumped to faucets throughout the building and used as potable (or drinking) water. Some of the water will be sent to toilets, which will use one pint per flush. All waste from the toilets will be sent to a composting container in the basement, where it will slowly compost and be used for the building's greenhouse. The greenhouse will run up the south side of the building with plants on each level. Urine from the toilets will go to four tanks in the basement where it will stabilize and be sterilized over a three-month time period. After three months, one part urine will be mixed with eight parts greywater (or the water that goes down faucets). That mix will be sent to the greenhouse where it will be evapotranspired by plants with nutrients from urine being used for fertilization.
I've got a rendering of what the system will look like here:
Image courtesy 2020 Engineering
The system is incredibly cutting edge and will set an amazing precedent if permitted. And the 'if,' dear readers, is a big 'if.'
Unfortunately, the precedent is one of the things that probably has permitting agencies worried. Last June, I attended a forum on water attended by a number of speakers. One of them was Steve Deem of the state health department. Going off the water grid is great in theory, he said, but architects, developers and engineers don't generally understand that if a project provides water, it is responsible for the building's water forever. That raises a lot of health and safety issues.
Secondly, there's the issue of charges and rates. King County is in the process of building Brightwater, its massive, multi-million-dollar water treatment plant outside Woodinville. Brightwater gets paid for in part by capacity charges, fees and rates from users. From what I've heard from multiple sources, projects are welcome to go off the water grid, as long as they pay those hook up fees and charges. For most developers, this is a turnoff because they are paying twice - once for the water system and once for the hook up. Bullitt has yet to finalize these details with the county. Chris Rogers of development partner Point32 said, "There will be conversations with the county and other players to understand what sort of levies there will be for something that we don't use."
At that same June meeting, Christie True, director of the King County Wastewater Treatment Division, said it's a social justice issue. If developers don't pay for wastewater infrastructure, people with fewer resources will end up paying more.
Last April, Ray Hoffman, acting director of Seattle Public Utilities, said on-site water treatment is not moving forward in the Puget Sound area because of bureaucracy. "There are institutional barriers on both the public and private side that prevent things that are readily available from getting off the shelf and into the ground."
These are some of the issues Bullitt faces in trying to go off the water grid. I don't envy them the process but it will be an amazing achievement if they succeed.
When I asked him about the difficult code issues he was about to face, Denis Hayes of Bullitt said all agencies are on the same page in wanting to see innovative projects happen. "We’ll take that robust optimism until somebody in authority says we shouldn't have it."
What do you think, readers? Just how important is this project and what kind of a precedent will it set? Will it succeed in getting off the water grid and are the health and social justice issues valid concerns? I'd love to hear from you on this topic.
Categories
- AIA
- Architecture
- awards
- Business and technology
- Cars
- Challenge
- Code issues
- Construction
- Density
- Energy
- Engineering
- Famous speakers
- Germany
- Globe Conference
- Grants
- Green events in the Seattle area
- Green materials
- Green roofs
- Greenbuild
- Greenhouse gasses
- Greenwashing
- Hanford
- Hazardous sites
- Infrastructure
- Integrative design
- Japan
- Jobs
- King County
- laws and regulations
- LEED
- Living Building
- Living Future
- Measuring performance
- Men
- Overview
- Paul Hawken
- People
- Portland
- Problems
- Profiles
- Projects
- Puget Sound
- Random
- Ratings
- recycling
- Regional Issues
- Research
- Scandinavia
- Seattle
- Seattle Department of Planning and Development
- Seattle firms
- SEPA
- Social Justice
- Solar
- Suburban cities
- Tools
- Tours
- Trainings
- Uncategorized
- Urban planning
- USGBC
- Vancouver
- Washington State Department of Ecology
- Waste
- Water
- Women
- Zero emissions
DJC Green Building Blog

Welcome to the Daily Journal of Commerce Green Building Blog. Our focus is on green building issues in Seattle, the Pacific Northwest and anywhere that might interest you. If you have any comments or questions, please email maudes@djc.com.
Opinions expressed by bloggers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.
Polls
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.Recent Posts
- The next big thing in energy conservation? Small commercial buildings
- Your patio can also be a power plant
- Living Future a Deep Dive into What’s Possible…and Necessary, says Noted Paul Hawken
- House gets a deep green remodel for $150 a square foot
- When it comes to certified wood, GSA is right to question LEED
Recent Comments
- T. Caine on When it comes to certified wood, GSA is right to question LEED
- Washington, D.C’s Green Building Act: What it Is and What it Could Mean for the Future of Construction | Viridian Wood Products on What can we learn from D.C.’s green building law?
- Less energy: Seattle Green Home Tour 2013 | LD Arch Design on House gets a deep green remodel for $150 a square foot
- There isn’t anything better coming along. | O'Brien & Company on Crunch the numbers and preservation wins
- Juno on It’s time to redesign our neighborhoods
Energy information
- BetterBricks
- Earth Advantage Blog
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Washington State University Extension Energy Program
Green blogs
- Best Green Blogs
- Building Capacity Blog
- Building Seattle Green Blog
- City Tank
- Climate Solutions
- Earth Advantage Blog
- GreenbuildingsNYC
- GreenFab News and Media
- Greenversations
- Inhabitat
- Jetson Green
- Landscape and Urbanism
- Metaefficient
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Portland Architecture
- SeattleScape
- The Greenworkplace
- Thinkspace
Green Building organizations
- Built Green
- Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council
- City of Seattle Green Building
- City of Seattle Green Building Program
- DJC.com
- Environmental Services Directory for Washington State
- Green Infrastructure Wiki
- King County GreenTools
- Lifecycle Building Challenge
- Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Resources
- Puget Sound Partnership
- Seattle Great City Initiative
- Whole Building Design Guide
Green events in the Seattle area
- AIA Seattle
- Cascadia Green Building Council Events Calendar
- Master Builders of King and Shohomish County Built Green Events Calendar and News
- Seattle Department of Planning and Development Events

March 18th, 2010 - 09:52
This looks like a great test-case for how to create a living building. I’m just not sure why they’re building it here.
I’d love to read an article about why it’s important to conserve water in rainy Seattle. It’s a huge issue almost everywhere else in the world, but I don’t see the issue here. But since everyone around here talks about conserving water, it feels like I’m missing a critical piece of the argument.
Many talk about the embodied energy in water – what it takes to pump the stuff around – but our water comes from high up and I’m not sure we spend much energy pumping it (or do we?).
Here is a great summary of our water supply. It seems like the worst-case scenario is that if we use too much water (and they haven’t planned for this by letting less out in the winter), then boats can enter the locks a bit less often.
Perhaps it’s a problem because of our changing climate? Our snow pack is less than half of normal this year.
Or maybe the real problem is water treatment. Looking at our wastewater system, it’s sized for 440 million gallons a day although the average wet weather flow is 133 million gallons a day – it certainly doesn’t look like we have a wastewater issue. Although maybe this is where all of the energy is used that we’re concerned about (even considering the 15 million KWh per year produced by cogeneration?). But if that’s the case I’d like to see better designs on the water treatment side (which looks to be well done in this example) and less effort spent on large (and expensive) rainwater cisterns.
March 26th, 2010 - 12:50
Rainy or not, we have a water-quanitity problem in this region, and the implications are a lot weightier than boats going through the locks. See http://bit.ly/95C3tc
Also, it’s really misleading to look at the average wastewater load versus the permitted capacity. The wastewater system already is overloaded at times, and we have to dump partially treated sewage: http://bit.ly/aYxPly
Really, composting toilets would do a lot to, uh, relieve this situation.