Monthly Archive for May, 2009

CWA Impaired Water Bodies 303(d) and Russian River First Flush

FYI,

Northcoast Water Board public meeting on CWA Impaired Water Bodies 303(d) and Russian River First Flush

Meeting Announcement – Agenda 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:30 a.m.,

 2. Public Hearing on Resolution No. R1-2009-0047 to consider whether to affirm, reject, or modify the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters section of the 2008 Integrated Report. (Matt St. John) INFORMATION ITEM

3. Update on the Russian River First Flush 2007 Report (Don McEnhill and Sierra Cantor)

Note: See Action Calendar for location address.

Northcoast Waterboard Meeting-Waivers on THPs

FYI,

Northcoast Waterboard meeting announcement on Waivers on THPs

 THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009 8:30 A.M. 
6. Public Hearing on Order No. R1-2009-0038 to consider Categorical Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for discharges related to Timber Harvest Activities on Non-Federal Lands in the North Coast Region (James Burke)
Note: See Action Calendar for location address

Clean Water Restoration Act Update

Latest Buzz on the Clean Water Restoration Act
Last week the Obama Administration sent a letter to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) Chairman Boxer urging enactment of legislation to clarify the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction in the wake of the 2001 SWANNC and the 2006 Rapanos Supreme Court decisions.  Chairman Boxer welcomed this letter in a press release posted on the EPW website last Thursday.
And just today in his Huffington Post blog, former Waterkeeper Alliance President Steve Fleischli writes about the need for strong congressional action to save America’s waterways.
If you have not done so already, please contact your Senators’ local district offices this week while they are home for Memorial Recess and urge them to support the Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787).  Visit www.senate.gov  and follow the prompts to find their district office contact information.  You can also take action now by visiting National Wildlife Federation’s Clean Water Restoration Act action page .

 

 

CWN’s Briefing, Water Crises and Factory Farms

  

To All,
Mark Your Calendars for a Clean Water Network:
CAPITOL HILL BRIEFING & RECEPTION
Factory Farms: The Dark Side 
First briefing in CWN’s National Series on  
“America’s Water Crisis”
WHEN: JUNE 2, 2009, 2-4 PM  (Please note a reception will follow the panel discussion to welcome EPA’s Assistant Administrator of Water Nominee Peter Silva)    
 

WHERE: 304 Cannon House Office Building

Come to the first installment in the Clean Water Network’s important series on America’s Water Crisis. A panel of experts will talk about the impacts of factory farms (CAFOs-Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) on our nation’s precious water resources.Topics will include legislative, regulatory and litigation updates and discussion on the public health implications from CAFOs including possible connections to Swine Flu. Panelists will also discuss the ramifications of providing federal and state subsidies to the CAFO industry, with almost no assessment of the environmental effects of CAFOs on individuals and communities.

Speakers:  

Keeve E. Nachman, PhD, MHS, Science Director for Food Production, Health and Environment,

 

Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Martha Noble, Senior Policy Associate and Attorney, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, 

Clean Water Network Vice-President of the Board of Directors Eric Schaeffer, Executive Director,  Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). Former
director of EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement, and also of EPA’s Pollution Prevention Policy Staff. To RSVP and to get more information please email natalieroy@cleanwaternetwork.org
    

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Capitol Hill Update    

Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed their version of the SRF 17-2. The bill number is S.1005. The two links below are from Clean Water Action and American Rivers detailing various thoughts on the bill. Overall the bill is a mixed bag.  Good research, money, and water efficiency provisions, but no set-aside for green infrastructure, anti-sprawl or right to know provisions. CWN will keep you updated on any and all developments with this legislation!

 

 

 

Grape-growing vs. Wastewater in Wine Country

Clark Mason, Press Democrat, 2009

When Jason Passalacqua, a Dry Creek Valley winery owner, heard about a plan to use highly treated wastewater to irrigate his vineyards, he thought it was a good idea.

“When I first heard about reuse, I thought great,” he said.

But he now considers the plan to use wastewater to grow grapes a “threat to the environment” of Dry Creek Valley and its world-class wines.

Dry Creek Valley Vineyard

Passalacqua belongs to a coalition of grape growers, winemakers, environmentalists and others opposed to the Sonoma County Water Agency’s plan for a $385 million project that could ship recycled water primarily from Santa Rosa’s regional sewage treatment plant to northern Sonoma County for agricultural use.

On Tuesday, he helped present the results of a study critical of the Water Agency’s environmental impact report for the project, which is up for adoption by the county Board of Supervisors on May 12.

Water Agency officials said the recycling project, which is envisioned as an alternative to drawing from the Russian River and underground water supplies, is likely years away from being built and only the environmental study is up for consideration. But critics said if the study is approved, it could sit on a shelf like a “ticking bomb.”

Passalacqua and other opponents of the plan fear treatment plants do not adequately filter out chemical compounds that could affect the quality of grapes and could negatively impact wells, creeks and fish.

But there are other grapegrowers who welcome the recycled wastewater and note that it has been used for years in agriculture.

“We’re working toward securing some of that water,” said Keith Horn, who heads the Coalition of Sustainable Agriculture, a group of more than a dozen grapegrowers and wineries that supports wastewater use.

“We understand everybody’s concern,” he said. But he said the recycled water is “swimming pool quality” and already used in some vineyards in Sonoma County and Napa. “We won’t do anything to compromise the integrity of our product, or property,” Horn said.

The North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project would create 19 reservoirs and 112 miles of pipeline though the Dry Creek, Alexander and Russian River valleys.

Treated wastewater would be diverted from Santa Rosa’s pipeline that already delivers wastewater to the Geysers geothermal fields.

Besides effluent from Santa Rosa’s plant, which also serves Rohnert Park, Cotati and Sebastopol, it could also carry Windsor’s treated wastewater and some from Larkfield-Wikiup and the airport area.

“There’s a storm of wastewater headed our way,” said Ray Holley, a former Healdsburg newspaper editor who said the Water Agency’s plan amounts to a “wastewater superhighway” into the winegrowing region.

Water agency officials say treated wastewater has been safely used for years for agricultural purposes, is tightly regulated by state law and can be a reliable source of water in drought conditions.

Critics of the Water Agency’s plan said using recycled water may work in places like the Santa Rosa Plain, where soils are less permeable and wells are hundreds of feet below the surface.

But the sandy, gravelly soil in Dry Creek Valley that produces great wine is especially porous. Combined with a shallow water table, “it allows water to pass right through the soil and into the aquifer,” Passalacqua said.

However, Pam Jean, the Water Agency’s deputy chief engineer of operations, countered that recycled wastewater is being safely used as a water alternative around the world.

“If there is a recycled water project that ends up being implemented in the Dry Creek, Russian River or Alexander valleys, I have a hard time believing those areas are going to be any different than every other place it’s done,” she said Wednesday.

Russian River Enters the Pacific

She noted the project aims to reduce the longtime discharges from local wastewater treatment plants into the Russian River and its creeks, as well as reduce the use of ground and surface waters for agriculture.

The Clean Water Coalition of Northern Sonoma County, the 2,500-member alliance that Passalacqua is a part of, commissioned a study by professional hydrologists who said the effluent would infiltrate drinking water supplies and could exceed state standards for levels of copper and nickel.

The study found that reduced pumping of groundwater would alter the aquifer in detrimental ways. And it said the wastewater would quickly pollute stretches of waterways critical to the restoration of endangered salmon.

The study raised concerns that wastewater used for irrigation and frost protection would run off into creeks and deposit salts, nitrate, metals and other trace pollutants.

In recent years, there has been growing national concern over what remains in processed wastewater, including household products ranging from pharmaceuticals to shampoo.

Water agency critics also noted there has been evidence that estrogen traces in wastewater have caused male fish to sprout female organs.

But David W. Smith, a Santa Rosa water quality consultant, said Wednesday that those fish were exposed to much higher amounts of estrogen than what is found in Santa Rosa’s wastewater.

As far as the danger of wastewater infiltrating Dry Creek wells, he said, “recycled water properly applied in irrigation would not be detectable in wells.”

According to consultants hired for the environmental report on the Water Agency project, “our ability to measure extremely low levels of these trace constituents exceed our current understanding of the long term effects of such constituents.”

The environmental report notes that as more becomes known, discharge standards could be revised, providing protection to both the environment and public health.

“We would not be proposing a project that would be doing harm to the agricultural industry,” said Water Agency spokesman Brad Sherwood. “We would not move forward with a project that had negative implications to fisheries.”

Opinion: Is it really Grape-growing vs. Wastewater in Wine Country?

The Press Democrat story describes some very critical water quality issues that will have to be addressed in the North Bay Water Reuse Authority Project, as well as in the North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project. Over the past several years, SCWA, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and their engineering and consulting firms have minimized or ignored the very important issues of impacts of emerging toxics (remaining pharmaceuticals, hormone disruptors, heavy metals, chlorination by-products and other constituents of tertiary treated water) to grapes, soils and groundwater.

That failure will not suffice in a world-class wine grape market, particularly as these US Bureau of Reclamation programs are pushed forward for possible approvals and funding. The USBR programs primarily benefit grape growers who have already exhausted their local supplies of ground and surface waters. The analyses for EIR/EIS and of the economic impacts of distributing treated wastewater with these remaining constituents requires a much more detailed and considered response.

This is in addition to consideration of whether the recycling of treated wastewater should be primarily used to offset the current and future demands of potable water derived from the Eel and Russian Rivers and local groundwater, rather than primarily being used to expand the agricultural customer base of the SCWA and other water vendors as they are in these USBR proposals.

David Keller Bay Area, Director Friends of the Eel River

Russian River Low Flows Meeting in Guerneville

Hi Brenda:

Below is the agenda and list of speakers.  For publicity, we are running
a public notice in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, West County Gazette,
and Sonoma West.  We have also included the meeting date in our most
recent press release and have it posted on our Web site. I believe Vesta
has also sent the notice out to her e-mail list.  I was also planning on
posting some notices in local businesses around the River this week.
What else can you think of?

For handouts, we will have a copy of the final order, instream flow map
of the Russian River, Russian River water supply system…  

Public Notice:
Russian River Community Meeting

What Does the State Water Board Order Mean for the Russian River?  

Date:  Thursday, May 28, 2009
Time:  6:30p.m. – 8:30p.m.
Location:  Guerneville Veterans Memorial Building, First and Church
Streets, Guerneville, CA

About this community meeting:  
*    SCWA Director and Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo will
host this meeting to discuss the State Water Resources Control Board
Order authorizing reduced flows in the Russian River this summer and
fall.   
*    In March, SCWA staff held a similar meeting to discuss the
potential of a State Order.  
*    Now that the State Order has been authorized, SCWA staff will
provide an overview and address what it means for the Russian River.  
*    A panel of speakers will discuss the State Order, including
community leaders.
*    Your participation is welcome.  We look forward to an open
dialogue.      

For more information, please contact Brad Sherwood, public information
officer, at 707-547-1927 or Sherwood@scwa.ca.gov.  

Speaker’s Panel:

Welcome/Introductions: 
 SCWA Director and Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo

About the State Water Board Order:    
Grant Davis, SCWA assistant general manager (Overview)
Pam Jeane, SCWA deputy chief engineer of operations (Implementing flows)
David Manning, SCWA principal environmental specialist (Fisheries)

Water Advisory Committee:
Jake Mackenzie, Chair and Rohnert Park City Councilmember

Sweetwater Springs Water District: 
Steve Mack, general manager

Russian River Watershed Protection Committee
Brenda Adelman, chair

Russian River Chamber of Commerce:
Margaret Kennett, president

Russian Riverkeeper
Don McEnhill, program director

Thank you,
Brad Sherwood
Public Information Officer
Sonoma County Water Agency
Phone:  707-547-1927
Cell:  707-322-8192
Fax:  707-528-2080
www.sonomacountywater.org
Twitter:  http://twitter.com/SCWA
YouTube:  http://tinyurl.com/cjcwxp

 
Hi Brad:

I need to get more info for our upcoming RRWPC Board meeting about your
community meeting on May 28th.

Can you tell me who else will be on the panel, or at least who you
invited and what the agenda will be?   I’d appreciate it if you could send me a
copy of the agenda.  I’d also like to know about any hand outs you are
planning.

Finally, can you tell me about what publicity is planned?

Thanks.

Brenda

Clean Water Restoration Act Action

Clean Water Restoration Act Moves Closer to Mark-Up – Your Help is Needed!

 
Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Chairman Barbara Boxer (CA) has stated her intent to move the Clean Water Restoration Act (S.787) to mark-up.  Yesterday at an EPA budget briefing with Administrator Lisa Jackson, Chairman Boxer stated that muddied jurisdiction needs to be fixed now. 

 
Though the mark-up has been delayed, we need to keep momentum going to develop the maximum support possible for a strong legislative fix that will permanately protect streams, lakes, wetlands and other waters now at risk in wake of the 2001 SWANCC and 2006 Rapanos Supreme Court decisions.
 
We must keep the pressure on to support EPW Chairman Boxer, Water subcommittee Chairman Benjamin Cardin (MD) and bill champion Senator Russ Feingold (WI), as well as other supporters of S.787 who want a committee vote as soon as possible.  It could be as early as next Thursday, May 21st. 
 
What You Can Do Today

  • Call the offices of your U.S. Senators and ask them to support S.787.  If they are already co-sponsors of S. 787, ask them to tell their colleagues to get on board to move the legislation forward! To find your U.S. Senators office phone numbers go towww.senate.gov and follow the prompts. You can also call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected.  
  • Send letters to your Senators urging them to pass the Clean Water Restoration Act.  Examples of letters sent by other CWN members can be found on our website.
  • Submit a Letter to the Editor and/or urge your local paper to write an editorial in support of the Clean Water Restoration Act.  Here are examples to help get you started.

To date, these 24 Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of S. 787 (introduced by Senator Feingold on April 2, 2009):

Sen. Boxer, Barbara (CA)
Sen. Dodd, Christopher J. (CT)
Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. (CT) 
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. (DE) 
Sen. Kaufman, Edward E. (DE)
Sen. Durbin, Richard (IL) 
Sen. Brown, Sherrod (OH)
Sen. Kerry, John F. (MA) 
Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. (MD)
Sen. Levin, Carl (MI) 
Sen. Stabenow, Debbie (MI) 
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne (NH) 
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. (NJ) 
Sen. Menendez, Robert (NJ) 
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. (NY)
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. (NY) 
Sen. Wyden, Ron (OR) 
Sen. Merkley, Jeff (OR) 
Sen. Reed, Jack (RI) 
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon (RI) 
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. (VT) 
Sen. Sanders, Bernard (VT) 
Sen. Cantwell, Maria (WA) 
Sen. Kohl, Herb (WI)
 
Note: names in bold serve on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

 
If you do not see one or both of your Senators on this list, they need to hear from you!

 
 
Thanks for all you do to protect our nation’s waters! 
 

Natalie Roy
Executive Director

Clean Water Network

Estrogen Threatens Minnow Manhood Released into an Ontario Lake as an Experiment, Tiny amounts of the Hormone Wreak Havoc on Male Fish

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT, ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
May 22, 2007

Back in the summer of 2001, a team of Canadian and U.S. researchers spiked a lake in Northwestern Ontario with traces of synthetic estrogen used in human birth control pills. They then repeated the unusual treatment for the next two years and sat back and watched what happened to minnows living in the lake.

Feminized Fish Image

The results were nothing short of frightening. Exposing fish to tiny doses of the active ingredient in the pill, amounts little more than a whiff of estrogen, started turning male fish into females. Instead of sperm, they started developing eggs. Instead of looking like males, they became indistinguishable from females. Within a year of exposure, the minnow population began to crash. Within a few years, the fish, which at one time teemed in the lake, had practically vanished.

Details of the unusual experiment, conducted by a team of Canadian and U.S. government scientists, are being published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The dramatic results are likely to raise further concerns about the possible impact on wildlife and humans of drug residues in waterways.

In the experiment, the scientists added just enough estrogen to give the lake water the same level of the sex hormone found in water discharged from sewage treatment plants in Canada and in other countries where the birth control pill is widely used.

More than a million women in Canada and more than 100 million worldwide are on the pill, making it one of the most commonly prescribed drugs. Women on the pill pass on some of the estrogen in their urine, from which it gets into surface waters.

Although the doses in the lake’s water were thousands of times lower than the amounts women on the pill receive, even this slight exposure was enough to skew development in both male and female fish, with males far more affected.

After treatment, the lake water had estrogen concentrations of about 5 parts per trillion, the scientific equivalent of almost nothing. A part per trillion is the equivalent of a few grains of salt in an Olympic-size swimming pool. The amount of estrogen added was about a fifth of a gram a day, or about one-tenth the weight of a penny.

The lead researcher, Karen Kidd, who conducted the project while with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and is now a biologist at the University of New Brunswick, was astonished that so little of a hormone used by people could harm fish.

“What’s sobering for me is that we’ve shown such a dramatic response in fish population at these low concentrations,” Dr. Kidd said in an interview.

It’s not known what effect, if any, human exposure to estrogen in drinking water might have, although Dr. Kidd said it is an area that should be a research priority. Reproductive problems in human males, such as declining sperm counts and testicular cancer, have been rising in recent decades, and the causes are not known.

“When we see these kinds of responses in fish, it raises a red flag for what these compounds are doing to humans,” she said.

There are currently no regulations in Canada covering estrogen or other drug residues in waterways. Municipalities typically don’t check for them and it is not known if there are human health effects for people who draw drinking water from sources receiving sewage, a common practice in Canada.

Researchers with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also worked on the experiment, which was funded primarily by the federal government and the American Chemistry Council. One of the companies that manufactures birth control pills, Schering AG, donated the estrogen.

The researchers monitored fathead minnows, a species that breeds after about two years of life, making its population vulnerable to the reproductive effects of the drug sooner than longer-living fish.

After dosing the lake for three years, researchers monitored populations for the next two. It is expected that with time, estrogen levels in the lake, which was about 35 hectares, or about the size of a large farm field or a medium-sized cottage-country lake, will decline, allowing fish populations to recover.

To ensure that the population decline they were observing wasn’t a natural phenomenon, the researchers tracked several other water bodies similar to the lake under investigation. There were no large population fluctuations elsewhere. The lake was located near Kenora.

Over the past decade, there have been a number of studies in North America and Europe showing skewed sexual development in aquatic life living near outfalls from sewage plants. This study is the first to show that exposure to drugs not only changes sexual characteristics, but can also destroy fish populations.

Dr. Kidd doesn’t think women should stop taking the pill out of worry for wildlife. She said municipalities need to build more advanced sewage treatment plants, which are able to degrade more of the estrogen into harmless chemicals.

Because of the high expense of the project, estimated at $250,000 a year, the researchers didn’t test the effects of lower estrogen levels on fish to determine if there is a safe exposure amount.

Effects of a Synthetic Estrogen on Aquatic Populations: a Whole Ecosystem Study

Principle Investigator: Karen Kidd
Freshwater Institute, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Contributing Partner(s):
Scott Brown, Environment Canada
Mark McMaster, Environment Canada
David Findlay, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Jack Klaverkamp, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Vince Palace, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Michael Paterson, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
David Graham, University of Kansas
Karsten Liber, University of Saskatchewan
Glen Van Der Kraak, University of Guelph

Why Project Was Undertaken: Alterations in sexual development, growth and reproduction occurs in fish exposed to estrogens and other hormone-acting substances in municipal sewage waste water. Male fish exposed to estrogens become feminized, produce egg proteins, have smaller reproductive tissues and in severe cases develop eggs. Estrogens used in hormone replacement therapy or birth control are not removed from treated waste water and are released into the environment. Long-term impacts of estrogens on fish reproduction and aquatic ecosystem health is unknown.

Continue reading ‘Effects of a Synthetic Estrogen on Aquatic Populations: a Whole Ecosystem Study’