
Like electric lights, water reuse is destined to become a necessity
Today, we're seeing history repeat itself with water reuse. As the United States grapples with an escalating water crisis, a powerful solution is gaining momentum. Buildings can intelligently capture, treat, and reuse their own wastewater by leveraging advanced technology, data analytics, and automation to optimize every step of the water reuse process. These smart systems continuously monitor water quality and usage, automatically adjusting treatment processes to ensure safety and efficiency. While current regulations limit this recycled water to non-potable applications, the reality is that water from these systems is often treated to a level that is scientifically safe enough to drink. This isn't about compromise—it's about building smarter, managing water as a circular resource, and using it where it's needed most, all within the building itself.
This innovation comes at a critical moment. Nearly 45% of the lower 48 states are currently experiencing drought conditions, with the Southwest and Plains regions particularly hard-hit. Major water systems like the Colorado River and Lake Mead face unprecedented strain, while aquifers supplying 90% of U.S. water systems are depleting at alarming rates. Climate change only compounds these challenges by intensifying evaporation and disrupting weather patterns, leading to both extreme droughts and devastating floods.
At the same time, water and sewer rates are skyrocketing as municipalities invest billions to upgrade aging infrastructure and manage dwindling supplies. For buildings, this translates into rising operational costs and growing pressure to adopt more resilient, cost-effective solutions.
Against this backdrop, onsite water reuse represents not just an innovative approach but an increasingly necessary one. And predictably, some people may feel uneasy with onsite water reuse, mostly because of perception, unfamiliarity, and the natural human tendency to be cautious about new technologies, especially those involving health and safety. But history shows us that discomfort is often just the first chapter in a story that ends with 'How did we ever live without this?'
The path from rejection to necessity
History keeps repeating itself when it comes to building innovation. Take indoor plumbing—people fought against it tooth and nail in the 1800s. Public health officials, guided by the now-debunked miasma theory —the belief that disease was spread by 'bad air' rather than germs—insisted that human waste had to be kept outside the home. Ironically, their reliance on cesspools and open sewers only fueled the spread of deadly diseases like cholera and typhoid, which ravaged entire cities
Only as modern sewage systems developed and germ theory took hold did attitudes finally shift. Indoor toilets, once feared as harbingers of disease, gradually became celebrated as symbols of sanitation and progress. Today, their presence is so fundamental that we've collectively forgotten they were ever controversial at all.
Electric lighting faced similar resistance. Before it lit up our lives, it sparked public panic. Newspapers churned out stories about people getting electrocuted or going blind. The infamous War of the Currents between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla only heightened public anxiety, with Edison going so far as to publicly electrocute animals to paint Tesla's alternating current (AC) as a deadly force. Yet within a generation, those same lights became the very symbol of human advancement. Resistance gave way to adoption, and eventually to total dependence.
Then there's air conditioning. Doctors once warned it would make us soft and sickly. In the early 1950s, the National Association of Home Builders and the University of Texas partnered to create the Austin Air-Conditioned Village —a real neighborhood built to study how everyday families would adapt to living with air conditioning. Six homes were equipped with A/C, while others were left uncooled. Researchers tracked not just energy usage, but human behavior, comfort, and social response. Some participants worried about health effects, while others complained that the cooled air attracted scorpions and other desert pests. But over time, skepticism gave way to comfort, and the experiment helped lay the groundwork for widespread adoption. Now more than 90% of American homes have A/C, and places like Phoenix or Miami would lose millions of residents without it. What was once considered risky has become absolutely essential.
Water reuse is gaining popularity
Our centralized water infrastructure is showing its age. Pipes laid a century ago are failing. Treatment plants designed for consistent climate patterns are buckling under the pressure of intensifying droughts, floods, and wildfires. Meanwhile, commercial and residential buildings account for the majority of urban water use—yet a significant portion of that demand is for non-potable applications like toilet flushing, irrigation, and cooling, which don't require pristine drinking water quality.
Onsite water reuse offers a compelling alternative. With today's technology, buildings and industry can recycle up to 95% of their wastewater. This approach strengthens sustainability, enhances resilience, and increasingly improves the bottom line. San Francisco has already made water reuse mandatory for larger developments. Other cities such as Los Angeles and Austin are creating incentives or updating building codes. Forward-thinking developers aren't waiting for mandates; they're embracing water reuse to meet sustainability commitments and future-proof their investments.
Still, old habits and perceptions persist. Some people instinctively recoil at the idea of treated wastewater, even when it's used exclusively for non-potable purposes. But both the data and the historical pattern are clear about where we're headed.
The lifecycle of transformative technology
Every transformative building technology follows a predictable journey:
First comes resistance: 'You want me to put what inside my building?'
Then adoption: 'Actually, this solves a real problem quite elegantly.'
Followed by mandates and markets: 'New code requires it, and buyers expect it.'
Finally, normalization: 'Remember when buildings didn't have this?'
Onsite water reuse is already transitioning from the second to the third phase—and picking up speed. Soon enough, we'll look back at the practice of flushing toilets with drinking water with the same bewilderment we now feel about houses without indoor plumbing. The real question isn't whether onsite water reuse will become standard practice. It's how quickly we can make the leap from outrageous to obvious.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


TechCrunch
29 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Could Google's Veo 3 be the start of playable world models?
Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google's AI research organization DeepMind, appeared to suggest Tuesday evening that Veo 3, Google's latest video-generating model, could potentially be used for video games. In response to a post on X beseeching Google to 'let me play a video game of my veo 3 videos already,' and asking, 'playable world models wen?' Hassabis responded, 'now wouldn't that be something.' On Wednesday morning, Logan Kilpatrick, lead product for Google's AI Studio and Gemini API, chimed in with a reply: '🤐🤐🤐🤐' Both posts from the Google executives are little more than playful suggestions, and a Google spokesperson told TechCrunch the company had nothing to share at the moment. But building playable world models isn't outside the realm of possibilities for the tech giant. now wouldn't that be something… — Demis Hassabis (@demishassabis) July 2, 2025 World models are different from video generation models. The former simulates the dynamics of a real-world environment, which lets agents predict how the world will evolve in response to their actions. Video gen models synthesize realistic video sequences. Google has plans to turn its multimodal foundation model, Gemini 2.5 Pro, into a world model that simulates aspects of the human brain. In December, DeepMind unveiled Genie 2, a model that can generate an 'endless' variety of playable worlds. The following month, we reported that Google was forming a new team to work on AI models that can simulate the real world. Others are working on building world models — most notably, AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li. Li came out of stealth last year with World Labs, a startup that has built its own AI system that generates video game-like, 3D scenes from a single image. Techcrunch event Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW Veo 3, which is still in public preview, can create video as well as audio to go along with clips — anything from speech to soundtracks. While Veo 3 creates realistic movements by simulating real-world physics, it isn't quite a world model yet. Instead, it could be used for cinematic storytelling in games, like cutscenes, trailers, and narrative prototyping The model is also still a 'passive output' generative model, and it (or a future Veo generation) would need to shift to a simulator that's more active, interactive, and predictive. But the real challenge with video game production isn't just impressive visuals; it's real-time, consistent, and controllable simulation. That's why it might make sense to see Google take a hybrid approach that leverages Veo and Genie in the future, should it pursue video game or playable world development. Google could find itself competing with Microsoft, Scenario, Runway, Pika and, eventually, OpenAI's video-generating model Sora. Given Google's planned moves in the world models space and its reputation for using its deep pockets and distribution muscle to steamroll rivals, competitors in this space would be wise to keep a close watch.


Android Authority
41 minutes ago
- Android Authority
Last Chance: Get a new phone for $1,000 off on any Verizon myPlan account, no trade-in
Edgar Cervantes / Android Authority TL;DR Verizon is offering $1,000 off any device on a myPlan account — including entry-level plans — without a trade-in, but you must add a new BYOD line and claim the offer in-store. The new line is free for 36 months, but you'll still pay around $7–$10 a month in taxes and fees. The deal is a great fit for those who need both a device upgrade and a new line that can be used with their old device, but may not make sense if you have no use for an extra line. T-Mobile has been stealing Big Red's thunder for a while now, but a recent, independently backed report claims that the Uncarrier has officially dethroned Verizon as the best network in the US. For its part, Verizon has been working hard to retain existing customers and attract new ones through a variety of customer service improvements, free swag like concert tickets and gift cards, and some impressive promotions — including a free line for 36 months for select customers. Another standout promo is the ability to get $1,000 off a new phone on any Verizon myPlan account, including the entry-level Welcome tier, all with no trade-in required. Considering how rare this kind of offer is for lower-tier plans, it's a heck of a deal. That said, this deal is about to expire. Of course, there are a few small catches. While the new device can be applied to any myPlan account, you'll need to add a new BYOD line. The new line is actually free for the next 36 months, though you will still need to pay taxes and fees, which typically come out to around $7–$10 a month. The other catch is that this offer is only available in-store, so you'll have to visit your nearest Verizon retail location. Is this deal really worth it? Let's be honest, Verizon isn't doing this out of kindness. With T-Mobile on its heels, it is losing subscribers, and a healthy influx of line activations is something it can use to bolster its numbers for its investors. Still, if you need to upgrade a device and want a secondary line for a family member—like a child or grandparent—this could be a great deal. You could use the $1,000 credit for your own upgrade and then give your old phone to the new BYOD line. But what if you just want the $1,000 credit and have no need for a secondary line? Even if the line fees and taxes are only $7 a month, you'd still be paying $252 over 36 months for a line you might not use. Still, you'd be saving about $748 in total, which could be worth it for some. I'll admit, my household considered this promo, but for us, it made more sense to finish paying off our current phones and leave Verizon before any further price hikes. Ultimately, whether you should consider this promotion comes down to whether or not you want to further tie yourself to Verizon. Got a tip? Talk to us! Email our staff at Email our staff at news@ . You can stay anonymous or get credit for the info, it's your choice.


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Why The U.S. May Confront Non-Tariff Attacks Against Tech Firms
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump smiles during a phone conversation with Mexico's President ... More Enrique Pena Nieto on trade in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on August 27, 2018. President Donald Trump said Monday the US had reached a "really good deal" with Mexico and talks with Canada would begin shortly on a new regional free trade pact."It's a big day for trade. It's a really good deal for both countries," Trump said."Canada, we will start negotiations shortly. I'll be calling their prime minister very soon," Trump and Mexican negotiators have been working for weeks to iron out differences in order to revise the nearly 25-year old North American Free Trade Agreement, while Canada was waiting to rejoin the negotiations. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images) I recently explained in Forbes that Trump trade negotiators could leverage the planned withdrawal of anticompetitive federal regulations to obtain a cutback in foreign anticompetitive market distortions (ACMDs) that harm American firms and consumers. A July 2 nonpartisan letter to senior Administration officials from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), joined by senior policy scholars, strikes a similar theme in calling on the Administration to target foreign governments' non-tariff attacks (NTAs) on America's leading technology companies. The letter recommends a 3-pronged negotiating strategy to counteract NTAs. Administration adoption of that strategy could bestow substantial benefits on U.S. producers, workers, and consumers. The NTA Problem As the letter explains, a new form of trade restriction is emerging that existing legal frameworks fail to address: non-tariff attacks (NTAs). NTAs are a specific type of ACMD that is growing in significance. Unlike traditional tariffs or known non-tariff barriers (NTBs), NTAs are disguised as legitimate domestic policies. Their true purpose is to target leading U.S. technology firms, undermine innovation, extract financial and intellectual assets, and weaken America's strategic position in the global tech race. Three features distinguish NTAs from traditional NTBs: As the U.S. seeks to rebalance trade relations, rolling back these unfair practices should be a top priority in negotiations. The ITIF has documented over 100 cases where U.S. trading partners have adopted policies aimed at limiting American tech firms' operations or siphoning their revenues. The European Union led this effort with its Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA), which targeted major U.S. firms while largely sparing local competitors. In 2024 alone, regulatory fines on American companies in the EU totaled nearly $6.7 billion. Other countries are following suit: Brazil with similar regulations, India targeting U.S. firms under its data protection law, and Japan restricting dominant U.S. smartphone platforms. Although often framed as consumer protection, privacy, or digital sovereignty, these policies impose selective burdens that disadvantage American firms and empower foreign rivals. They also often harm the enacting countries themselves by disrupting ecosystems that support small and medium-sized businesses dependent on global platforms. These attacks also pose national security risks. U.S. tech firms are vital to innovation and defense sector competitiveness. By diverting investment from R&D, mandating tech transfers, or exposing sensitive capabilities, NTAs erode the strength needed to compete with China's state-led technology push. The consequences are severe: This problem is most pressing in the U.S.-China context. While America applies overt targeted measures like export controls, other nations exploit NTAs to undermine U.S. firms more subtly and effectively. These tactics distort markets far more powerfully than tariffs and shift global leadership toward China just as the U.S. needs unity and strength. Policy Recommendations Addressing NTAs is essential for preserving U.S. technological strength, protecting national interests, and maintaining U.S. leadership in the global digital economy. Current trade negotiations present a golden opportunity to confront the growing NTA threat and reinforce the foundations of American innovation and security. Keep in mind that NTAs do more than just harm American industry and national security – by harming our high tech companies, they present broad threats to overall American welfare. High tech firms are hugely beneficial to the American consumer. They provide high-quality, low-cost services to Americans (think Google or YouTube), are a huge sector in our economy, create jobs and wealth for Americans at large, and drive innovation that improves lives and the American consumer experience. In sum, countering NTAs is key to maintaining a dynamic, innovative U.S. economy. Appropriately, the ITIF letter highlights 3 vital criteria for confronting the NTA problem: 1. Make NTAs a top agenda item in all trade negotiations. 2. Secure binding agreements to block discriminatory digital regulations. 3. Set up systems to detect and respond to emerging NTAs. The Trump administration may wish to consider making these suggestions key features of its trade negotiating strategy. Success in rooting out NTAs would be a 'win-win-win' for American firms, workers, and consumers.