Category Archives: Drinking water

Dry weather started early this year amid cloudy conditions

UPDATE:
July 5. Greg Johnson, who lives in Hansville and manages the Skunk Bay Weather station there, said the unusually high rainfall in June for Hansville, compared to the rest of the peninsula, was the result of the Puget Sound convergence zone settling over the area on several occasions. Weather conditions brought localized squalls during the month, he said, adding, “This is very unusual for us.”

The reading at Greg’s weather station, 1.98 inches for the month of June, was somewhat lower than the 2.26 inches recorded at Kitsap PUD’s weather station in Hansville.
—–

Cool, often cloudy conditions have helped obscure the fact that very little rain has fallen on the Kitsap Peninsula over the past two months.

Precipitation in Holly (click to enlarge)

Now that we are in the fourth quarter of the water year, we can see that rainfall levels for this year will be close to average for most areas on the peninsula. What might not be recognized, however, is that April was well above average, while May and June were well below average.

Continue reading

Amusing Monday: Value of water featured in art contest for students

More than 1,300 students entered this year’s Water Resources Art and Poetry Contest, sponsored by New York City’s water utility, known as the Department of Environmental Protection. Some 60 winners were named as “Water Champions” by a panel of judges.

Art by Lily H., grades 6–7.
Photo: New York City DEQ Art and Poetry Contest

“For more than three decades, DEP’s annual Art and Poetry Contest has given young New Yorkers a wonderful opportunity to use their artistic abilities to learn about and express the importance of protecting our environment and water resources,” DEP Commissioner Vincent Sapienza said in a press release announcing the contest winners. “Nearly half the State of New York relies on the city’s water supply system, so this is a terrific way for students in both New York City and beyond to celebrate our shared natural resources.”

Continue reading

Amusing Monday: ‘Raw water’ craze strikes a nerve with comedians

While world health officials are trying to bring clean drinking water to sickly communities around the globe, there appears to be an upstart movement promoting so-called “raw water,” which is said to be considerably better for your health than pure clean water.

Raw water, by definition, is left untreated and reported to contain living organisms that provide health benefits. One brand, aptly named Live Water, is selling for more than $6 a gallon. You are advised to drink it within a month to prevent it from turning green, presumably from the growth of organisms.

The movement, which seems to encourage people to go out in search of natural springs, grew rapidly in California with the help of a guru-like character who changed his name from Chris Sanborn to Mukhande Singh. The whole story has been just too good of a setup for comedians to ignore.

There are some very amusing lines in the videos shown on this page, but I thought I should begin with a video that actually puts the issue into a serious context. Reporter Gabrielle Karol of KOIN-TV in Portland produced an investigative report two weeks ago. She found that the source of “Live Water” is a bottling and distribution plant in Oregon.

Continue reading

Bremerton wanes in water challenge; Seattle, Tacoma near top spots

Bremerton has fallen behind this year in a nationwide competition among cities to get the most people to take a pledge for water conservation.

Since the beginning of the National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation six years ago, Bremerton has always ended among the top three cities in its population group. This year, the city stands in 31st place, which isn’t too bad considering that there are 4,800 cities participating in the competition.

Top-ranking cities in Washington state include Tacoma, currently in fourth place, and Seattle, which is in fifth, based on the percentage of their populations taking the water pledge.

Olympia stands at 42, Federal Way at 48 and Bellingham at 90. In Kitsap County, Port Orchard is ranked at 128th in the list of smaller towns, while Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island are not even in the game.

Bremerton has always done well in the competition, perhaps because of former Mayor Patty Lent’s enthusiastic promotion of the contest and water conservation in general, along with special efforts by Kathleen Cahall, the city’s water resources manager.

This year, Bremerton has chosen to take a break from promoting the contest, Kathleen told me, citing a number of other water-related activities in April. Mayor Lent is out of office now, but everyone who participated in past contests should have received an email notice from the Wyland Foundation, which sponsors the National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation.

The goal of the contest — which includes hundreds of prizes for contest winners and other participants — is to get people to think about ways they can save water and to put those ideas into action. Individuals may join the competition until the end of April by going to the My Water Pledge website.

So far in this year’s contest, the city of Tacoma is leading this state in the water challenge. Promotional materials include a Facebook video from Mayor Victoria Woodards, as shown on this page.

The non-profit campaign is supported by WaterSense, a program of the Environmental Protection Agency; the Toro Company; National League of Cities; Conserva Irrigation; and Earth Friendly Products.

Kathleen, a leader in Bremerton’s longtime efforts to maintain an abundant and clean water supply, will retire at the end of June after 27 years with the city. In all, she has worked in the water business for 38 years.

I’ve always found Kathleen to be responsive to the needs of water customers as she goes about making sure that the city’s water supply will last well into the future. She has been a key figure in many stories about drinking water that I have written.

The field of water resources is “Infinitely interesting,” Kathleen told me in an email.

“It has been a joy for me to have worked a whole career for my local community, ensuring safe drinking water and protecting water resources,” she said. “There is much I will miss. I learn something new every day! I look forward to staying involved in the Bremerton area.”

Some of the events that Bremerton will focus on this month, which has been designated as Earth Month:

Amusing Monday: Film students find creativity in Eco-Comedy videos

Amateur filmmakers have focused their talents on environmental issues to produce some of the most creative short videos in the eight-year history of the Eco-Comedy Video Competition.

That’s just my opinion, but I’ve been watching this competition for years, and I know it is not easy to combine humor with a sharp message about protecting the environment. Usually, one or two videos stand out in the contest sponsored by The Nature Conservancy in Maryland/DC and the Center for Environmental Filmmaking at American University in Washington, D.C. But this year seemed to be different.

Although the number of entries was down from last year — 30 compared to 48 — I found something unique in all the finalists as well as the honorable mentions. I was also pleased to see an elevation in the production quality, as well as improved acting over what I’ve seen in the past. I could envision some of these short pieces going forth as public service announcements on television.

A panel of five judges selected the best videos based on the level of humor as well as the ability to deliver a clear message about the environment to a broad audience in three minutes or less. The winners were announced last week as the DC Environmental Film Festival on the American University campus.

The Grand Prize winners, Theodore Blossom and Robbie I’Anson Price, will receive $2,000 from the Center for Environmental Filmmaking. Their video, titled “@Humanity,” is the first on this page. Theo, based in London, is a science communicator who presents and produces stage shows, films and comedy. Robbie, a doctoral student and filmmaker from Lausanne, Switzerland, studies communication and learning in honeybees with the goal of determining how communication can improve fitness.

The Viewers Choice Award went to a video titled “Journey to the Future” by Stephanie Brown & Tim Allen, shown second on this page.

Here are the YouTube links to all the videos recognized by the judges;

Grand Prize Winner: “@Humanity” by Theodore Blossom and Robbie Price

Viewer’s Choice Winner: “Journey to the Future” by Stephanie Brown & Tim Allen

Finalists:

Honorable Mentions:

Can people distinguish the taste of tap, bottled and recycled water

If you are thirsty and someone hands you a glass of water, you might or might not ask where the water came from. If you trust the person, you probably don’t worry much about the health risks of drinking the water.

On the other hand, if you are told that the water comes from highly treated sewage effluent, you might think twice about taking a drink — even if you are assured that the water is cleaner than tap water, bottled water or any other source.

It’s a matter of perception, which is why some people drink only bottled water. They think it must be more pure than water from the faucet. But studies have shown that much of the bottled water on the market is just someone else’s tap water, and often the source is unidentified.

A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Riverside, conducted a taste test to see if people’s perceptions about drinking treated wastewater has any connection to the actual taste of water. Findings were reported in the journal “Appetite.”

The 143 participants were provided three samples of water in a blind taste test, meaning that there were no clues about the source of water. One was a brand-named bottled water, which had been purified through reverse osmosis; another was tap water from a groundwater source; and a third was tap water that came from an indirect reuse (IDR) source. IDR processing, which is used in at least six California water systems, involves treating the water to a high degree through reverse osmosis and putting it into the ground, where it mixes with existing groundwater. From there, it is pumped back out and treated as a normal groundwater source.

Many of the findings of the study were surprising to the researchers. For example, the IDR water and bottled water were preferred over the groundwater source by many of the tasters.

“We think that happened because IDR and bottled water go through remarkably similar treatment processes, so they have low levels of the types of tastes people tend to dislike,” said co-author Mary Gauvain, professor of psychology at UC Riverside in a news release.

The groundwater source had the highest amount of sodium and carbonate, while the IDR source had more calcium. Concentrations of chloride and bicarbonate were similar for all three.

Another interesting finding: Women were twice as likely as men to prefer the bottled water.

Individuals who described themselves as more nervous or anxious than others had less preference for the IDR water, perhaps because of the higher mineral content. Individuals who described themselves as more open to new experiences showed a somewhat greater preference for the IDR water.

In describing the tastes, individuals often said their preferred choices had “no taste” or “no aftertaste,” which may be related to the mineral content. The IDR process may remove some unpalatable minerals during filtering, the authors said. Since IDR water goes into the ground, it may pick up other minerals that improve the taste.

The authors acknowledge that the preferences in the study may be more related to mineral content of each source than to the process that the water goes through before it gets into the drinking glass.

The taste of water involves many factors, starting with the makeup of a person’s own taste buds and saliva, as I described in a story last year in the Kitsap Sun:

“Experiments have shown that when a group of people with normal taste buds is given pure distilled water to drink, most people do not believe the water tastes normal,” I wrote. “Some even say it is slightly bitter or sour, perhaps because it contains less salt than saliva, or perhaps because it is totally lacking in minerals that people come to expect.”

As for mixing highly treated sewage effluent into the water supply, there are two hurdles to overcome. The first is convincing people that the water really is safe, such as by providing a clear assessment of the water content — including minute constituents that can make it through the treatment process, such as some pharmaceutical drugs.

Beyond an honest assessment of water quality, water managers need to address the emotional response of people when it comes to anything dealing with sewage. Revulsion is a deep-seated emotion designed to help people avoid contamination and disease.

One way to make treated effluent more palatable is to “naturalize” it by putting it into the environment, such as infiltrating it into the ground — even if that process makes it less pure before it goes through another step in purification. Removing or adding minerals may improve the taste.

Water itself — the H2O molecules — are no different in sewage than they are in bottled water or coffee. Water cycles through people, plants, clouds, soil, the ocean, and on and on. It gets used over and over again. The only real issue is the other chemicals that may go along for the ride.

Alex Spiegel of National Public Radio did a nice job analyzing the psychology behind the aversion people have to using treated wastewater and why people are more accepting of indirect use. Read or listen to “Why Cleaned Wastewater Stays Dirty In Our Minds.”

So far in Washington State, nobody is talking about using highly treated sewage effluent (“reclaimed water”) as a direct supply of drinking water — or even as an indirect supply where injection wells are close to extraction wells, as done in some areas of California.

Nevertheless, people’s concerns about the quality of their water may impair the acceptance of reclaimed water for irrigation, groundwater recharge, stream restoration or even industrial uses. Addressing both factual and emotional aspects of this issue should help get us over those hurdles.

Related Water Ways posts:

Amusing Monday: World Water Day addresses natural purification

World Water Day, coming up this Thursday, is an annual worldwide event designed to focus attention on the importance of water to all living things.

Promoted by the United Nations, the 25-year-old World Water Day has always raised concerns about the 2.1 billion people in the world who don’t have easy access to clean water, creating a major health crisis in some communities.

This year’s theme is “nature for water” — although the discussion remains focused mainly on humans. Human actions have contributed to increasing flooding, drought and water pollution — and humans are able to use natural systems to help reduce the problems.

So-called “nature-based solutions” include protecting and improving water quality by restoring forests and wetlands, reconnecting rivers to their floodplains and creating vegetated buffers along lakes and streams, even in urban areas.

A fact sheet (PDF 2 mb) put out by UNESCO (U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) lays out the arguments on behalf of nature-based solutions. A larger 150-page report, titled “Nature Based Solutions for Water” (PDF 42.7 mb) can be downloaded from the UNESCO website.

A series of posters and cards related to this year’s theme can be downloaded from the World Water Day website. For the creative, I’m intrigued by the idea that you can create your own collage, using individual elements taken from the four posters. See “collage kit” on the same resources page.

Considering that this is the 25th World Water Day, I anticipated more events and celebrations. The one event listed for Washington state is a guided tour of Edmonds Marsh, one of the few urban saltwater estuaries still remaining in the Puget Sound region. Details of the walk are provided in a brief article in Edmonds News.

The first video on this page is a promotional piece by UNESCO.

Official poster of World Water Day
Source: UNESCO

I found the second video, filmed in Istanbul, Turkey, to be revealing about people’s attitudes about water. I imagine the reaction might be the same in some U.S. cities — although the specific location probably makes a lot of difference. The video, produced in 2015, was created for Standart Pompa, a manufacturer of water pumps.

The video shows a video screen next to a water faucet with a dying tree depicted on the screen. When passersby turned off the water faucet, the tree suddenly transformed into a healthy green condition. Although the weather was cold during the filming, nearly a third of the people going by took their hands out of their pockets and turned off the water, which was actually recirculating from the drain so that no water was wasted.

The third video is a cartoon designed to drive home a message about the importance of water, beginning with the simple act of brushing your teeth. It was produced by TVNXT KIDZ.

Plans coming together for recycling wastewater from town of Kingston

All the pieces are falling into place for an upgrade of Kingston’s sewage-treatment plant to produce high-quality reclaimed water for irrigation, stream restoration and groundwater recharge.

Kingston Wastewater Treatment Plant
Photo courtesy of Golder and Associates

By the end of this year, a study by Brown and Caldwell engineers is expected to spell out the location and size of pipelines, ponds and infiltration basins. The next step will be the final design followed by construction.

When the project is complete, Kingston’s entire flow of wastewater will be cleaned up to Class A drinking water standards. During the summer, the water will be sold to the Suquamish Tribe for irrigating White Horse Golf Course. During the winter, most of the flow will drain into the ground through shallow underground pipes. Some of the infiltrated water will make its way to nearby Grover’s Creek, boosting streamflows and improving water quality in the degraded salmon stream.

Another major benefit of the project will be the elimination of 42 million gallons of sewage effluent per year — including about 3,000 pounds of nitrogen — which gets dumped into Kingston’s Appletree Cove. I wrote about the effects of nitrogen and what is being done to save Olympia’s Budd Inlet in five stories published this week in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, as I described in Water Ways on Thursday.

The Kingston project, estimated to cost $8 million, has been under study for several years, and Kitsap County Commissioner Rob Gelder said he’s pleased to see the effort coming together.

“The Kingston Recycled Water Project is pivotal, and I’m very happy to be partnering with the Suquamish Tribe,” Rob said in an email. “The best thing we can do for our environment and to enhance water availability is to not discharge treated flows into Puget Sound. We are uniquely positioned to benefit from strategic investments of this nature in the coming years.”

The Kitsap Peninsula is essentially an island where the residents get 80 percent of their drinking water from wells. North Kitsap, including Kingston, could be the first area on the peninsula to face a shortage of water and saltwater intrusion — which is why new strategies like recycled wastewater are so important.

The latest feasibility study was launched last October under a $563,000 contract with Brown and Caldwell. The work includes a detailed study of soils and analysis of infiltration rates, according to Barbara Zaroff of Kitsap Public Works who has been coordinating the project. The location of the pipeline and ponds for storing water near White Horse Golf Course also will be determined.

Funding for the study includes a $150,000 grant from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation with $150,000 from the Suquamish Tribe. Kitsap County recently received a loan for up to $558,000 to support the study.

I last wrote about the Kingston Recycled Water Project in Water Ways three years ago, when I also discussed a similar project in Silverdale, where recycled water will come from the Central Kitsap Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Federal waters rule gets batted around endlessly in the courtrooms

Confusion is nothing new when it comes to figuring out whether federal agencies have jurisdiction over certain wetlands and intermittent streams under the Clean Water Act. And now the Trump administration has guaranteed that confusion will reign a while longer.

Meanwhile, lawsuits — also nothing new to the Clean Water Act — continue to pile up at a rapid pace.

Some argue that the confusion begins with the 1972 Clean Water Act itself, which requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for any filling or dredging — which covers most development — within the “navigable waters” of the country.

Congress defined “navigable waters” in a way that has generated much confusion and many lawsuits through the years: “The term ‘navigable waters’ means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” the law states.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court couldn’t figure it out and ended up adding to the confusion. In a 4-4-1 split ruling, half the justices focused on “navigable waters” with a narrow definition to include major waterways but avoid federal protection for many wetlands and intermittent streams. The other half of the justices supported a broader definition, which would protect downstream waters by also protecting upstream sources of water.

Writer Steve Zwick of Ecosystem Marketplace does a nice job explaining the legal and historical context for the confusion in a four-part series of articles. Zwick relies on, and gives credit to, the writings of William W. Sapp and William M. Lewis, Jr.

Under the previous administration of Barack Obama, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency worked together to draft a new rule to more clearly define federal jurisdiction over streams and wetlands, as outlined by the broader Supreme Court opinion. It became known as the “Clean Water Rule” or “WOTUS” for Waters of the U.S.

Some potential opponents applauded the certainty of the proposed rule, even if they disagreed with some details. (See Water Ways, March 25, 2014.) But others believed that the states, not the federal government, should be in charge of protecting streams and wetlands. It became a common theme to argue that the new rule would regulate the tiniest ditches and farm ponds — something the Obama administration denied.

One of the opponents of the 2015 rule was Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general who ended up suing the Obama administration on behalf of his state. In all, 31 states joined various lawsuits against the rule, with separate lawsuits brought by farmers and industry.

Scott Pruitt, EPA administrator
Photo: EPA official portrait

“President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency currently stands poised to strike the greatest blow to private property rights the modern era has seen,” Pruitt declared in an opinion piece co-authored by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky. The piece was published in The Hill.

Pruitt, of course, is the man that President Trump later named to head the EPA, the same agency he was suing in multiple lawsuits. Pruitt said early on that he would not allow Obama’s WOTUS rule to go into effect.

Before it took effect, the WOTUS rule was tied up in the courts, including an injunction issued by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Under the Clean Water Act, appeals courts can take primary action under certain conditions, but the U.S. Supreme Court agreed unanimously (PDF 923 kb) on Jan. 22 that the WOTUS rule is not one of these conditions.

And so the rule, originally scheduled to go into effect in August 2015, was put back into a confusing status, ready to go into effect in 37 states where it was not blocked by an injunction that covers 13 states under an order of the U.S. District Court in North Dakota.

“This is just all-out war. All-out litigation,” Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau was quoted as saying in an article by Ariel Wittenberg in E&E News. “This is good news for lawyers, but it is not going to be settled at all.”

Pruitt’s EPA then moved to finalize the Obama WOTUS rule on Jan. 31 but with an “applicability date” set for two years away. The announced intent was to overhaul the rule by pulling back federal jurisdiction over streams and wetlands.

“Today, EPA is taking action to reduce confusion and provide certainty to America’s farmers and ranchers,” Pruitt said in a news release. “The 2015 WOTUS rule developed by the Obama administration will not be applicable for the next two years, while we work through the process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation.”

In the interim, the EPA has announced that it will revert to previous policies and guidelines drafted following the confusing Supreme Court ruling.

You can guess what happened next. On Feb. 6, a total of 10 states, including Washington, plus Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit in New York, claiming that Pruitt’s delaying tactics were illegal. The state officials, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, argued that the federal government ignored the federal Administrative Procedures Act by adopting the revised rule without a meaningful comment period and in disregard of the Clean Water Act’s underlying intent of protecting the nation’s waters.

“The agencies have now suspended the Clean Water Rule without consideration of the extensive scientific record that supported it or the environmental and public health consequences of doing so,” the lawsuit (PDF 1.9 mb) says.

On the same day, the implementation delay was challenged in a separate lawsuit (2.6 mb) by two environmental groups, Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation.

“The Agencies’ only proffered rationale for the suspension is that it will promote regulatory clarity and certainty,” the lawsuit says. “In light of the administration’s open antipathy for the rule’s provisions, that rationale rings hollow. But it is also belied by the record. There is no evidence that suspending the rule will promote clarity or certainty, and ample evidence that suspending the Rule will create confusion and uncertainty.”

In Ariel Wittenberg’s story in E&E, Georgetown Law professor William Buzbee talks about how messy things have become.

“If the administration had taken the time to put out proposals that truly and fully engaged with the merits of the Clean Waters Rule and tried to come up with a new read, then it would be ordinary days in the courts,” he was quoted as saying. “But anything they do now, given their proposals, is likely to be legally vulnerable.”

Now the possibility exists that some courts could delay implementation of the original WOTUS rule while others reject the two-year delay. In any case, there is no end in sight to the legal battles, and nobody can be certain about what kind of projects will require federal permits.

Amusing Monday: Plenty of Super Bowl ads show water in some role

It was easy to find water in this year’s Super Bowl commercials. In fact, some of the most entertaining ads featured water prominently, while others contained clear references to it. So I’m happy to continue the after-bowl tradition of reviewing commercials that people enjoyed during the big game.

One of my favorites was a pairing of fire and ice, a promotion of both a spicy new version of Doritos and a new lemon-lime variant of Mountain Dew, featuring Peter Dinklage and Morgan Freeman. Brian Steinberg of Variety magazine called the commercial “colorful and full of music and surprising raps.”

“That’s a tough order and sort of a challenge, but they found a clever way to do it,” said Ed Cotton of the independent ad agency Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners, as quoted in the Steinberg piece.

In general, Steinberg and other observers noted how advertisers this year seemed to shy away from politics and socially minded issues in favor of entertaining commercials about entertainment — that is, promotions for a lot of new movies and TV shows.

Margaret Johnson, chief creative officer for the agency Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, which created the Doritos-Mountain Dew ad, said she noticed a humanitarian theme this year and not so many women running around in bikinis, according to an article by Sapna Maheshwari in the New York Times.

“I was just thinking that one thing I haven’t seen are those ads that objectify women, which is refreshing,” Johnson was quoted as saying. “And guess what? There’s still funny stuff on the air. We’re making progress.”

One commercial with a strong water connection showed a cadre of Vikings towing their Ram truck across the ocean to get to the Super Bowl while singing “We Will Rock You.” They turn back when they find out who is playing in the game. The second video on this page is an extended version of the commercial you might have seen on television.

Many of the commercials viewed yesterday actually hit the Internet before the Super Bowl. In the month leading up to the game, the one that got the most hits featured Budweiser water, according to Business Insider magazine. The notes on the company’s YouTube video said Budweiser employees helped provide 79 million cans of water to people affected by natural disasters across the United States since 1988.

The second-most watched commercial before the game was a promotion for a movie called “Dundee” that nobody will ever see, because this series of ads is strictly an effort to get people to visit Australia. Three ads feature characters who might work well together to create an exciting movie. The titles are “Dundee — Official cast intro trailer,” “Dundee — Water Buffalo,” and “Dundee — The Son Of A Legend Returns Home.

But for all the promise of glory, the true nature of the visit is revealed in the amusing final video on the homepage of Tourism Australia.

One low-key commercial focuses on the true value of water. I’m not sure how well the message came through during the 30-second spot, but it’s another commercial in a long-running series by actor Matt Damon, cofounder of water.org. This organization helps to improve the health of people in third-world countries by providing permanent sources of drinking water.

This Super Bowl commercial encourages people to purchase a limited-edition glass with the logo of Stella Artois, a Belgian beer. The “chalices” were designed by female artists from three countries to reflect the different styles of Mexico, India and the Philippines. Check them out at water.org. According to the promotion, the $13 derived from each sale is enough to provide clean water for a variety of uses to one person for five years.

A funny commercial that has received little attention in the advertising media depicts some elderly folks still getting up to an alarm and going to work in a variety of occupations. The ad, by Etrade, encourages investment by younger people, so they won’t be tossed around by a firehose in their older years, as shown at the end of the piece. Tagline: “Over 1/3 of Americans have no retirement savings. This is getting old. Don’t get mad. Get Etrade.”

Another commercial I liked features water in a minor role, while no less than six celebrities toss out humorous lines. In “Alexa Loses Her Voice” — the Amazon commercial voted the best of the day in a USA Today survey — actress Rebel Wilson “sets the mood” while Alexa is out of service.

Michelob’s “I Like Beer” commercial features lots of people singing the drinking song, including one guy who somehow manages to sing underwater while swimming laps in a pool.