Archive for the 'Groundwater' Category

Watersheds, Groundwater, and Drinking Water: A Practical Guide

Published on February 25, 2010 in Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

FYI…From the perspective of ‘life-long-learning’ this new book looks
interesting, especially for those of us directly working on such related
efforts?

I have ordered it, but not yet had it in hand…
Brock

Completion and publication of a layperson’s guide to watershed
hydrology and groundwater hydrology.

The book, entitled “Watersheds, Groundwater, and Drinking Water: A Practical
Guide” is geared towards a relatively broad audience with a varied interest
in water and groundwater.

The book will be useful for folks participating in watershed and groundwater
interest groups; for stakeholder groups in industry, agriculture,
environmental organizations, and NGOs; and for water district, irrigation
district, and water utilities personnel without formal college-level
background in hydrology.

It is also useful as a reference in an introductory undergraduate class.

The full-color book is available through UC ANR Communications at
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/Items/3497.aspx

The book can previewed through Google Books at
http://books.google.com/books/p/anr_publications?id=qfvlzm1A1vMC

The Endowment supported the production of the book with a
contribution of $10,000, which enabled us to print the softcover book
in full color, while keeping the sales prices extremely affordable
($40).

Katy Mamen
Ag Innovations Network
101 Morris St., Suite 212
Sebastopol, CA 95473
Tel: 707.823.6111
Fax: 707.823.6113
katy@aginnovations.org
www.aginnovations.org

Santa Rosa Groundwater “Recharge”

Published on February 12, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Groundwater and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

To All,

One thing you will hear over and over about ground water in the Santa Rosa area is that it is in a “recharge area” . However this paradigm needs to shift. It implies that we can draw from the water resources without consequence because it will always “recharge and come back”. This is not true. What a water recharge area actually is can be greatly varied and un-explained. Some aquifers just dry up. With such little science and information about the county’s primary resource, it is actually quite irresponsible to assume that anyone is actually “managing groundwater”, especially officials tasked to do so.

Lloyd

More Wells Sinking the Central Valley

Published on February 9, 2010 in Environmental Impacts and Groundwater. 0 Comments

To All

The consolidation caused by the repeated pumping action of ASR’s (AKA “ground water banking”) causes permanent compression of the formation also. This is the biggest crime of all because the ground water storage capacity is reduced forever. It never comes back.

Lloyd

Hi Don–

The attached jpg file shows the situation in the Central Valley as of 1977–the subsidence at this site was about 36 feet over the time span indicated. It’s worse now.

The man in the photo is Joe Poland, who studied Central Valley groundwater for USGS.

Jane

Hi,
in case this didn’t get posted here yet.

Great quote I hope to hear around this watershed someday…..Don

“We don’t need any more straws going down there ’cause we’re already doing a pretty good job of sucking it dry,” says farmer Dan Errotabere, who has dug three wells as deep as 1,200 feet to irrigate his tomatoes, almonds, and garlic in recent years. “We’re using this water as a last resort, but pretty soon we’re going to need a policy to protect ourselves from ourselves.”

<http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0111/Will-drilling-more-wells-in-California-help-or-hurt>http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0111/Will-drilling-more-wells-in-California-help-or-hurt
Don McEnhill
Russian Riverkeeper
PO Box 1335
Healdsburg, CA 95448
707-433-1958
fx: 707-433-1989
<http://www.russianriverkeeper.org/

Russian Riverkeeper works with the community to advocate, educate, and uphold our environmental laws to ensure the protection and restoration of the Russian River for the health and benefit of all who use and enjoy it.

California Water Boondoggle

Published on February 4, 2010 in Groundwater and Water Conservation. 0 Comments
If you have been wondering why government can’t seem to get anything right, consider this:
Not only is the government manipulated by special interest influence, it also caters outright to special interests.  Pandering politicians continuously and repeatedly create government boondoggles — a series of reinvented mini-ENRONs — plagueing us and our wallets, over and over again.
Case in Point – California’s Water “Solutions.” We all understand there is a problem with water in California.  How do the politicians go about solving this problem?
Water Transfer Facilitation Act ( Westlands Water Project) SB – 1759 sponsored by Dianne Fienstein and Barbara Boxer.
What would this bill do?  For years Central Valley farmers (mostly large agribusiness) has been getting cheap publicly subsidized water. Aside from the money issue, there have been severe negative consequences from this water use including damage to the Bay Delta system ecosystem and fishery loss, polluted ground and surface water in areas of the Central Valley, and soil loss from pollution. SB 1759 proposes more taxpayer money to help build a peripheral canal and subsidize the shipment of up to an additional 300,000 acre feet (98,100,000,000 gallons) of water for use by industrial agriculture and possibly to some southern California Cities.
Aside from the cost of this project to subsidize agribusiness on marginal soils, this bill would support continued and additional damage to the Bay Delta system by eliminating protections put in place by legislation (the Central Valley Improvement Act) and poisons ground water, surface water, and soils in the region. Some of this water may be resold (without reimbursing this publicly financed project).
Proposed State Water Bond
Closely linked to The Westlands Water Project (SB-1759) is the Water Bond solution proposed by our Governor and some California Legislators.
The Water Bond proposes taking on huge debt to build a peripheral canal and some dams (linked to SB 1759) that would supply publicly subsidized water to wealthy agribusiness – with some water going to Southern California cities.
Aside from the astronomical debt (financed at very high interest rates due to poor California Bond ratings),  the Water Bond would continue to enrich a few while devastating the Bay Delta system and other Central Valley ground and surface water resources.
And, in fact, provisions in the Water Bond may allow for future privatization of our water – where we get to buy back the water resource that we paid to develop.
What are you going to do?
Write your Senators and tell them what you think about SB 1759
Vote “NO” on the Water Bond
Alan Levine,
Coast Action Group

California’s Groundwater Shrinking because of Agricultural Use

Published on February 3, 2010 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts and Groundwater. 0 Comments

Garance Burke,
Christian Science Monitor,
January 4, 2010

New data from satellites show the vast underground pools feeding faucets and irrigation hoses across California are running low, a worrisome trend federal scientists largely attribute to aggressive agricultural pumping.

California water pumping agricultural use

The photograph above illustrates subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California. In the photo, USGS scientist, Joe Poland shows subsidence between 1925 and 1977 due to fluid withdrawal and soil consolidation.

The measurements show the amount of water lost in the two main Central Valley river basins within the past six years could almost fill the nation’s largest reservoir, Lake Mead in Nevada.

“All that water has been sucked from these river basins. It’s gone. It’s left the building,” says Jay Famiglietti, an earth science professor at the University of California, Irvine, who led the research collaboration. “The data is telling us that this rate of pumping is not sustainable.”

Hundreds of farmers have been drilling wells to irrigate their crops, as three years of drought and environmental restrictions on water supplies have withered crops, jobs and profits throughout the San Joaquin Valley, where roughly half of the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables are grown.

Developers and cities dependent on the tight supplies also have joined the well-drilling frenzy as the crisis has deepened.

NASA scientists and researchers from UC Irvine presented their findings at a recent conference, showcasing data from twin satellites that pick up changes in the aquifers coursing underneath the state.

The NASA mission represents the first attempt to use space-based technology to measure how much groundwater has been lost in recent years in California and elsewhere in the world.

From October 2003 through March of this year, Mr. Famiglietti and his team tracked how Earth’s gravitational pull on the satellites changed as the amount of water stored in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins dried up.

As river water, snowmelt, soil moisture and aquifer levels declined, the satellites sensed less of a pull to the planet, which allowed scientists to extrapolate over time how much water had disappeared.

More than three-quarters of the loss was due to groundwater pumping in the southern Central Valley, primarily to irrigate crops, researchers found.

If drilling keeps on at the same clip, scientists warned, more wells could start running dry.

“We’ve known about the conditions in California for a while since it’s one of the most pumped aquifers in the United States,” says Michael Watkins, NASA’s Pasadena-based project scientist for the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment mission.

“Hydrologists were just surprised to see that the deep water conditions had dropped so much, since it was more than we had expected,” he says.

Click here for original article

Will Drilling More Wells in California Help or Hurt?

Published on February 3, 2010 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts and Groundwater. 0 Comments

Garance Burke, Christian Science Monitor
January 11, 2010

The government is spending $40 million in federal stimulus funds to pull water from underground aquifers in drought-stricken California, even as evidence is growing that the well-drilling boom could degrade the quality of water delivered to millions of residents.

Farmers, conservationists and engineers are criticizing the Interior Department’s plan to spend taxpayer money on digging more wells, saying the approach risks marring the environment. Canals buckle, aquifers collapse and drinking water turns saltier due to so much pumping, and studies show that the state’s water supplies are dwindling.

“We don’t need any more straws going down there ’cause we’re already doing a pretty good job of sucking it dry,” says farmer Dan Errotabere, who has dug three wells as deep as 1,200 feet to irrigate his tomatoes, almonds, and garlic in recent years. “We’re using this water as a last resort, but pretty soon we’re going to need a policy to protect ourselves from ourselves.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the government is targeting its well-drilling effort to serve remote communities and prop up California’s agricultural economy, a $36 billion industry that grows nearly half the country’s fruits, nuts and vegetables.

“The role of the federal government is to provide a helping hand. But the federal government can’t solve the water problems,” Mr. Salazar says as he sampled sliced cantaloupe with local farmers several weeks ago. “California water issues are a big mess and have been a big mess for a long time.”

Since the drought began in 2006, hundreds of new wells have been drilled and are pumping around the clock in the state, tapping aquifers that date to the days of the dinosaurs.

In the last six years alone, the amount of water that has been lost from the aquifers coursing beneath the parched Central Valley would be nearly enough to fill the nation’s largest reservoir, Nevada’s Lake Mead, NASA researchers says Monday.

Salazar announced in July the department would send emergency drought aid from President Barack Obama’s stimulus package to drill and renovate up to 135 wells. The total number has dropped since then, and authorities are still drawing up plans about how and where to drill.

The money will go to dig up to 50 new wells, retrofit up to 40 old ones and install temporary pipes and pumps to move water to crops and orchards, federal officials says. More than $2 million of the funds will be used for monitoring the real-time ecological impacts of wells in sensitive areas, and proposed new wells will undergo environmental review.

While everyone agrees the state’s aquifers are quickly being drawn down, no California or federal rules govern how much water can be pumped out. Driven by a similar set of concerns, other Western states have set up laws to limit pumping.

Dennis Freeman, who oversees a main canal that irrigates the valley’s farm fields, says even without government-financed wells, it is already costing millions to fix the damage wrought by decades of pumping.

“There’s no doubt about it, the canal is sinking,” he says, gesturing at cracked and buckled concrete panels lining the structure’s edge. “There’s more wells going in, because our growers gotta get water to their crops. But we’re always concerned about the effect that will have.”

Continue reading ‘Will Drilling More Wells in California Help or Hurt?’

The Toilet That Can Help Solve Our Water and Energy Problems

Published on February 2, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Groundwater, Waste Discharge and Water Conservation. 0 Comments
The Toilet That Can Help Solve Our Water and Energy Problems
By Gar Smith, Earth Island Journal. Posted December 28, 2009.
Upwards of 3 million people die annually from diarrhea, dysentery, and parasitic diseases — all for the want of clean water. Meanwhile, each year in the water-rich United States, 2.1 billion gallons of the world’s most precious liquid are used, not to water thirsty crops or slake parched throats, but to flush human waste from home toilets to municipal sewers. While harvesting rainwater and recycling graywater are fine strategies, it’s time to get to the seat of the problem. We need a Toilet Revolution. As frequently happens, the solution to this modern problem can be found in the recent past — and the Third World present. Jeff Conant, author of The Community Guide to Environmental Health, has traveled the world in search of the perfect “waterless toilet.” He found it in the Mexican town of Tepotzlan, which boasts hundreds of “non-traditional waterless” eco-loos. In the 1980s, Tepotzlan’s innovators got a boost when former UNICEF worker Ron Sawyer settled in to help the locals design a new generation of “eco-san” toilets.
While the practice of using human waste as fertilizer is as old as humanity itself, Tepotzlan’s eco-sanistas marked an engineering watershed when they found a way to separate feces from urine. A locally designed toilet seat harvests the fluids while allowing the solid wastes to fall into a dry compost toilet. (Not such a strange idea: The human body is designed to send solid and liquid wastes in opposite directions.) One immediate result of separating pee from poo is the elimination of the unpleasant aromas associated with the traditional outhouse.
While installing waterless toilets in high-rise apartments might raise certain engineering challenges, “urine-separating dry toilets” are being adopted around the world — from South Africa, Peru, Cuba, and India to the United States, where composting waterless toilets can be purchased online. There are several to choose from, including Biolet, Envirolet, Sun-Mar, the venerable-sounding Clivus Multrum, and the EcoJohn (an “incinerating toilet” that’s being used in US homes and military camps). Most sell for around $1,500. Home Depot lists a Biolet for $1,400 (about the price of a new fridge). The Nature’s Head urine-separating dry toilet (designed by sailors for onboard use) is a bargain, priced at $850.
Dry-compost toilets not only conserve water, they also protect rivers and oceans. By circumventing modern sewers, dry-compost toilets avoid diverting nitrogen, potassium, and phosphate-rich wastes from the land (where they would enrich the soil) to rivers and oceans, where they cause algal blooms, oxygen-robbing eutrophication, and oceanic “dead zones.”
The first flush of the Toilet Revolution was heard in Orange County, of all places. In 1997, San Diego announced plans to have a “Toilet-to-Tap” system up and running by 2001. In 1998, California’s governor signed a law directing the state to evaluate the potential of recycling the post-toilet flow to “ensure that any water produced by these systems meets the identical standards that our drinking water does now.” While San Diego’s filtration system successfully reduced contaminants to the same level as “untreated fresh water,” many people had trouble swallowing the idea of sipping treated waste water, even though toilet-to-tap is a proven, Space-Age technology. For decades, America’s orbiting astronauts have thrived by drinking their own urine, recycled endlessly through space shuttle filtration systems.
There’s another powerful reason to separate and recycle urine. It turns out that urine — the world’s most abundant waste — could become the “fuel of the future.” Ohio University researcher Geradine Botte has developed a catalyst that can extract hydrogen fuel from urine. While it takes 1.23 volts to split two hydrogen atoms from H2O, it only takes 0.37 volts to strip four hydrogen atoms from a urea molecule. That’s twice as much hydrogen for one-third the effort. The Royal Society of Chemistry’s journal, Chemical Communications, confirms Botte’s discovery: “While water is an increasingly limited essential resource,” the journal notes, “there will never be a lack of urine.”
Existing nickel electrode technology can be easily scaled up to produce hydrogen from the effluent of today’s sewage treatment plants. As Botte notes: “We do not need to reinvent the wheel.” But tomorrow’s water-smart homeowners will need to adapt. There will be one more container to add to the line-up for weekly curbside pick-up — the urine bin.
Solving two problems for the price of one is a rare deal, especially when tankless toilets will start paying back the investment immediately as household water use falls by one-third. Sometimes, relief can come from surprising places. If this all pans out, we may need to replace the phrase “piss-poor” with “urine-rich.”

On USGS-Treated Surface Water and Aquifer Recharge

Published on January 27, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Groundwater and Water Conservation. 0 Comments
We are sinking. Neighbors noticing door frame cracks appearing and spreading.
Neighborhood near the police station – one mile downstream from the City well.
Alan
I very much agree with this assessment. And it’s especially true in an area where there is already so much underground contamination from poor waste disposal practices — on farms, at gas stations and repair shops, dry cleaners — you name it!
And this is what SCWA wants to do in the Santa Rosa Plain. We will need Mr Iversen’s information when it can be put before a groundwater management stakeholder’s panel for the Santa Rosa Plain.
Jane
This idea of “ground water banking” is a really bad idea. I don’t have enough time to write about it right now, but trust me, I will. Many aquifers have been destroyed for all time by this foolish irresponsible activity. What it does do is make a lot of money for well drillers, trucking companies, contractors, and creates waste water engineering jobs. It also is an un-scientific and unpredictable degradation of the useful waters of the State of California. The current primitive method of “studying” the feasibility does great damage. Any time the earth is perforated, water is injected, and then withdrawn, whether for testing purposes or otherwise, damage is done. Unfortunately the methods used today are antiquated and un-scientific. The complete inability of engineers to comprehensively model, predict, analyze, collect accurate information, or guarantee the results of any “ground water banking” or ASR (aquifer storage and recovery) project speaks volumes about the unsound nature of the activity. There is so much money in this activity that there actually ASR organizations and clubs. There have been some success stories. But do the hours or research and read all the documents. I have seen many of these types of projects go really badly, and then there is no accountability. Anyone can punch some holes in the earth and start fooling around according to some engineering plans, but once the damage is done it can’t be reversed. I have sat on panels and questioned engineers and scientists. They just can’t answer the hard questions. This is why so many water wells have been permanently destroyed from this type of activity. Once an aquifer is disturbed and contaminated (note:
clean water can destroy an aquifer quite easily) it probably will never be the same again no matter how much money is spent or what is attempted to correct the mistake. I have also read the documents and followed the progress of attempts to correct contamination of aquifers. I have yet to see success on the scale that we are talking about here when things go wrong.
Lloyd
I believe that the SCWA’s proposal of “groundwater banking” is to use “excess” Russian River Water in the winter – the same water that goes down the pipeline now as potable water – to replenish the groundwater. They are doing a feasibility study in Sonoma Valley and I believe, Santa Rosa Plains as well. As of before Christmas they were looking at companies to do the study. It sounds like they are looking how best to do this with the right location, whether to spread it or sink it with a well or what… One of my concerns is the rights and effect of taking it out again.
It is something to watch.
Kathy
Surface Water and Aquifer Recharge
This went around back in 03. It is specifically about “treated surface water”?? I just found it again and based on the fact that one of the Key 12 strategies that SCWA is considering is groundwater injection of “excess” Russian River water – I thought that some would find this of interest? Obviously, what process and disinfection treatment methods that would be proposed by SCWA to ‘protect’ groundwater will be a core part of this discussion – so hopefully THM’s won’t be part of the cocktail??!!
Brock

We are sinking. Neighbors noticing door frame cracks appearing and spreading.
Neighborhood near the police station – one mile downstream from the City well.

Alan

I very much agree with this assessment. And it’s especially true in an area where there is already so much underground contamination from poor waste disposal practices — on farms, at gas stations and repair shops, dry cleaners — you name it!

And this is what SCWA wants to do in the Santa Rosa Plain. We will need Mr Iversen’s information when it can be put before a groundwater management stakeholder’s panel for the Santa Rosa Plain.

Jane

This idea of “ground water banking” is a really bad idea. I don’t have enough time to write about it right now, but trust me, I will. Many aquifers have been destroyed for all time by this foolish irresponsible activity. What it does do is make a lot of money for well drillers, trucking companies, contractors, and creates waste water engineering jobs. It also is an un-scientific and unpredictable degradation of the useful waters of the State of California. The current primitive method of “studying” the feasibility does great damage. Any time the earth is perforated, water is injected, and then withdrawn, whether for testing purposes or otherwise, damage is done. Unfortunately the methods used today are antiquated and un-scientific. The complete inability of engineers to comprehensively model, predict, analyze, collect accurate information, or guarantee the results of any “ground water banking” or ASR (aquifer storage and recovery) project speaks volumes about the unsound nature of the activity. There is so much money in this activity that there actually ASR organizations and clubs. There have been some success stories. But do the hours or research and read all the documents. I have seen many of these types of projects go really badly, and then there is no accountability. Anyone can punch some holes in the earth and start fooling around according to some engineering plans, but once the damage is done it can’t be reversed. I have sat on panels and questioned engineers and scientists. They just can’t answer the hard questions. This is why so many water wells have been permanently destroyed from this type of activity. Once an aquifer is disturbed and contaminated (note:clean water can destroy an aquifer quite easily) it probably will never be the same again no matter how much money is spent or what is attempted to correct the mistake. I have also read the documents and followed the progress of attempts to correct contamination of aquifers. I have yet to see success on the scale that we are talking about here when things go wrong.
I believe that the SCWA’s proposal of “groundwater banking” is to use “excess” Russian River Water in the winter – the same water that goes down the pipeline now as potable water – to replenish the groundwater. They are doing a feasibility study in Sonoma Valley and I believe, Santa Rosa Plains as well. As of before Christmas they were looking at companies to do the study. It sounds like they are looking how best to do this with the right location, whether to spread it or sink it with a well or what… One of my concerns is the rights and effect of taking it out again.
It is something to watch.

Kathy

USGS-Treated Surface Water and Aquifer Recharge
This went around back in 03. It is specifically about “treated surface water”?? I just found it again and based on the fact that one of the Key 12 strategies that SCWA is considering is groundwater injection of “excess” Russian River water – I thought that some would find this of interest? Obviously, what process and disinfection treatment methods that would be proposed by SCWA to ‘protect’ groundwater will be a core part of this discussion – so hopefully THM’s won’t be part of the cocktail??!!

Brock
Study finds underground water storage may alter ground-water quality, when treated surface water was used to recharge the aquifer As alternative approaches to increasing water supply and availability in southern California, such as injecting and storing treated water underground are explored, water managers need to be aware of potential impacts on water quality, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
The USGS study of a test site in the Antelope Valley of southern California, near Lancaster, found that when treated surface water was used to recharge the aquifer, by-products of the water disinfection process accumulated in the aquifer. These by products include trihalomethanes (THMs), which have been listed as carcinogenic by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“Injection, storage, and recovery projects that integrate surface-water and ground-water supplies are rapidly becoming important parts of California’s water-supply system,” said USGS scientist Miranda Fram, lead author of the study, “However, this study demonstrates that these projects may alter ground-water quality, and thus, potentially may affect the future usability of the water for some purposes.”

The USGS study, in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, examined the water quality effects of an injection, storage, and recovery test cycle, with a particular emphasis on the formation and fate of THMs.

The study found that THMs continued to form in the aquifer until the residual disinfectant (chlorine) present in the injected surface water was used up, and that bacteria in the aquifer would not consume significant amounts of THMs. Multiple lines of evidence indicated that THM concentrations in the water extracted from the aquifer decreased with time because the injected water was mixed with the native ground water in the aquifer. Because of this mixing, it was not possible to recover all the THMs in the aquifer.

“Consequently,” said Fram, “repeated injection, storage, and recovery cycles in Antelope Valley aquifers would alter ground water quality in the aquifer. The accumulation of THMs could be minimized by removal of the residual chlorine in the water before injection, or by modification of the extraction program.”

California Water Law Symposium

Published on January 21, 2010 in Climate Change, Environmental Impacts, Groundwater, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments
Who Controls the Water? Reforming California Water Law Governance in an Age of Scarcity. Detailed Description
Date: January 30, 2010
Contact: Susan Gilbert-Miller, Ph.D. Location: University of San Francisco School of Law, 2130 Fulton Street, S.F., Fromm Complex.
Cost: General Admission ($40); MCLE Credit (6 hours (est)) ($125); Full-time Law School Student ($0 – School ID card required). Seminar Symposium Saturday, January 30, 2010
Time Activity/Topic
08: 00 AM Please Check Back Soon for Updated Information . . . Sign-in and Continental Breakfast
09: 00 AM Welcome The Landscape: Introduction to California Water Law Governance Issues Presenter David Sandino, California Department of Water Resources, University of San Francisco School of Law Addressing the Issues of California’s Water Governance Presenter Stuart Drown, Little Hoover Commission
10: 00 AM Keynote Address Speaker Jared Huffman, Assemblymember Representing the 6th Assembly District
10: 30 AM Break
10: 45 AM Water Wars: The 2009 Legislative Package to Reshape the Delta’s Governance Presenter Richard M. Frank, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment, UC Berkeley School of Law Debating the Issues: the 2009 Water Legislation Description Moderator Richard M. Frank, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment, UC Berkeley School of Law Panelists Alf W. Brandt, Committee on Water, Parks & Wildlife, California State Assembly
Kate Poole, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Timothy Quinn, Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
Mariko Yamada, Assemblymember Representing the 8th Assembly District
12: 15 PM Lunch
01: 00 PM Surface Water Systems: Managing the Future Flow Description Moderator John D. Leshy, University of California, Hastings College of the Law Panelists Arthur Baggett, Jr., State Water Resources Control Board
Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District
David Nawi, US Department of the Interior
Richard Roos-Collins, Natural Heritage Institute (NHI)
Roderick Walston, Best, Best & Krieger
02: 45 PM Break
03: 00 PM California’s Groundwater – New Demands on Underground Waters Description Moderator Paul Kibel, Golden Gate University School of Law Panelists Chris Frahm, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Dennis E. O’Connor, California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water
Kevin O’Brien, Downey Brand
Andrew H. Sawyer, State Water Resources Control Board
04: 30 PM Wrap up and Concluding Remarks Reception

More information coming out about pharmaceuticals…

Published on January 16, 2010 in Groundwater, Pharaceutical Contamination and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

To All,

More information coming out about pharmaceuticals…

In recent weeks, federal regulators have changed course on regulating pharmaceuticals in public water supplies, taking a critical first step toward acknowledging that they may pose threats to human health.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering pharmaceuticals as candidates for regulation in drinking water and examining drug concentrations at water treatment plants across the nation.  The Food and Drug Administration is working to reduce the flushing of unused drugs and expand medicine return programs.  In California, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) is working to provide the State with recommendations on emerging contaminants in coastal and marine ecosystems and will convene a panel of experts in public workshops on this topic in January.  SCCWRP is also coordinating research with an expert panel that will answer key questions with regard to theseemerging contaminants and recycled water, pursuant to the State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy.

See the link:  http://www.cacoastkeeper.org/

–Larry