You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
If you’re going to have a giant hole of water in your backyard, put it to good use.
In the grand ranking of Fun Things You Should Feel Bad About, swimming pools are up there with Oreos and road trips. After all, when the U.N. says two-thirds of the world could face water-stressed conditions by 2025, it tends to put a damper on the guilt-free enjoyment of the giant hole of clean water in your backyard.
A new study published Monday in the journal Nature Sustainability more or less confirmed that yes, swimming pool ownership is bad. Looking at water usage in Cape Town, South Africa, the researchers found that the richest residents, who make up 14% of the population, consume 51% of the city’s water by doing things like “garden watering, car washing, and filling swimming pools,” while the city’s poorest residents, who make up 62% of the population, consume just 27% of the water resources doing things like “maintaining basic hygiene” and “hydrating themselves.” As the researchers concluded, “Urban water crises can be triggered by the unsustainable consumption patterns of privileged social groups.”
One takeaway from this study, though, is that the problem isn’t so much the swimming pools — which have many positive benefits — but the fact that the pools are in the hands of “privileged social groups,” where they go heavily underutilized. Private pools are often only used by one family, the homeowner’s, and only for a few months a year, if that. To make the tremendous energy and water costs of swimming pools actually worth it, we need to get a lot more people into them.
America used to be covered in these sorts of community pools, some of which could fit a thousand swimmers or more. During the 1880s and early 1890s, municipal swimming pools were places “where Blacks, immigrants, and native-born white laborers swam together,” though people of mixed classes and sexes did not, author Jeff Wiltse writes in Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America. As Wiltse explains, “During the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, the difference between people with ‘black’ skin and those with ‘white’ skin was a less significant social distinction than class … That changed during the 1920s, when race emerged as the most salient and divisive social distinction.”
Municipal pools were frequently segregated after World War I, but they were also “extraordinarily popular" from the 1920s to the 1940s, with swimming as much a part of the average American’s life as going to the movies. Tens of millions of Americans visited community pools each year, with sometimes “hundreds and even thousands of people at a time” taking a dip. But after desegregation in the 1950s opened public pools to everyone, some bigoted communities “found a loophole,” The New York Times writes. They could also close the pools for everyone.
So-called “drained-pool politics,” the attitude that “if ‘they’ can also have it, then no one can … helps explain why America still doesn’t have a truly universal health care system, a child care system, [or] a decent social safety net,” the Times postulates. For our immediate purposes, it also explains the rise of private pools across the country: “After racial desegregation, millions of Americans chose to stop swimming at municipal pools and chose instead to organize and join private swim clubs,” Wiltse writes. Those discriminatory choices still reverberate today: There were fewer than 15,000 pools at private homes before 1952; now there are more than 10.4 million. By comparison, there are only about 300,000 municipal pools in the U.S. and many are closing because they’re too expensive to maintain.
But as the world continues to warm, community pools are becoming vital pieces of infrastructure again. We know that small bodies of manmade water can actually somewhat help to cool down urban areas; we also know that having access to water like beaches and pools saves lives when cooling centers are in short supply. They also offer an outlet for physical recreation when others become dangerous or deeply unpleasant due to high temperatures. Additionally, part of the original popularity of community pools had been as relief from the heat before air conditioning; from an energy-saving standpoint, it still makes sense today to turn off your a/c whenever possible and cool down in water instead.
Despite all the net good of public pools, there hasn’t been a lot of movement to actually build more: only 198 of 3,310 commercial pools built in the U.S. in 2020 went into parks, Bloomberg reports (most of the rest “went to hotels and multi-family developments”). And while we shouldn’t take our foot off the gas in advocating for more swimming facilities, particularly in lower-income areas, private pool owners can also do themselves, the planet, and the rest of us a solid — and share. Pool party, anyone?
Okay, so no, pool parties obviously won’t fix over a century of racially motivated infrastructure decisions. Nor are they very likely to fix the “atomized recreation and diminished public discourse” that Wiltse says resulted from “private-pool owners [fencing] themselves into their own backyards,” since said private-pool owners would presumably be inviting attendees from their own homogenous social groups.
But sometimes pool ownership happens to good people, and it is in those cases that wringing as much use out of a pool as possible — and in doing so, minimizing the per-person costs of maintenance, energy expenditure, and water usage — actually start to make sense. Grist found that “the average pool uses about 20,000 gallons of water a year,” which is “a little less than a lawn” — lawns, of course, being another item up there on the Fun Things You Should Feel Bad About list. But if 50 people share one lawn, it starts to look a little less wasteful, particularly if that “lawn” also serves as a cornerstone of the community and local social life. (Introverted pool owners, meanwhile, can list theirs cheaply on Swimply, the “Airbnb for swimming pools,” so others can enjoy them when they’d otherwise be sitting empty).
Pool parties won’t save the world; to be honest, they won’t even entirely redeem private pools. But they could start to make swimming more broadly social again and nudge us back toward a culture where taking a dip with acquaintances, neighbors, and strangers is a value rather than a source of disgust and suspicion. It may be a drop in the bucket, but it’s one that’s worth it.
Just remember to invite me.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.