Archive for the 'Waste Discharge' Category

Toxic Waters: Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A.

Published on March 8, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

CHARLES DUHIGG and JANET ROBERTS
February 28, 2010

Thousands of the nation’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.

View: Toxic Creek

As a result, some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising.

Companies that have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters are not being prosecuted, according to Environmental Protection Agency regulators working on those cases, who estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years.

Continue reading ‘Toxic Waters: Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A.’

Contaminants of Emerging Concern

Published on March 8, 2010 in Pharaceutical Contamination and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

The Board of Public Utilities (BPU) has requested Utilities staff to present an annual update to the Board on contaminants of emerging concern – a topic that has become an area of focus in the water/wastewater industry. Presentations were made to the BPU in April 2007 and July 2008, and a third presentation is scheduled for April 1, 2010.

In the past year, Oregon State University received a federal grant to analyze illicit and legal drugs in municipal sewage. This is the first time this analysis had been performed on raw sewage within the United States to the best of our knowledge. The City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department participated in this study in an effort to guarantee the high quality of its recycled water and support research on these particular analytical methods. The drugs included in the analysis were:

Drugs/Metabolites/Biomarker
Methamphetamine*1
Amphetamine*1,3
p-Hydroxy methamphetamine*3
Cocaine*1
Benzoylecgonine*4
Hydrocodone*5,2
Hydromorphone*6
Oxycodone*7
Methadone*7
Phencyclidine (PCP)*1
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)*1
2-oxo-dydroxy-LSD*8
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)*9
Nicotine*10,11
Cotinine*10,12
Caffeine*10
Class
1 illicit drug
2 legal drug
3 metabolite of meth
4 metabolite of cocaine
5 precursor of meth
6 metabolite of hydrocodone
7 prescription opiod
8 metabolite of LSD
9 rave drug
10 human urinary indicator
11 smoking biomarker
12 nicotine metabolite

Take Action on Wastes

Published on February 8, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Pharaceutical Contamination and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

To All,

The problem of “waste” in the U.S. is both a local and a federal issue, with the Environmental Protection Agency providing the scientific veneer, among others, for the nation’s profit-at-any-cost, multibillion dollar sewage sludge, garbage, and chemical fertilizer industries. Several decades ago, after public pressure forced corporations and municipalities to stop dumping toxic sewage sludge into the oceans and waterways (it was killing all the fish and marine life and polluting beaches), the EPA decided it was time to rename this hazardous waste “organic fertilizer” (or “biosolids”) and to begin to spread municipal sewage sludge on millions of acres of non-organic farmland and rangeland. Emboldened by their success, EPA and the sludge industry then tried to tell us in 1998 that it would be OK to spread sewage sludge on organic farms as well. Fortunately OCA and the organic community beat them back as part of a massive nationwide grassroots campaign called Save Organic Standards (SOS).

A steady stream of greenwashing and false solutions that encourage waste production instead of waste reduction are coming at us from corporate marketing departments and the federal government. OCA believes that positive action to encourage waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting (real organic composting, not renaming sewage sludge or industrial waste as compost) is most likely to arise at the local level. Several cities have taken positive actions in the direction of zero waste, but the devil is in the details.

Take household and industrial sewage sludge for example. For decades sewage sludge (the end product of the nation’s thousands of Wastewater Treatment Plants) was dumped in the oceans and rivers, now it is spread on non-organic farms and rangelands, while current industry plans include burning it and turning it into an energy source; but the fundamental problem isn’t what to do with billions of pounds of toxic sewage sludge produced every year (obviously we must isolate and contain it as hazardous waste), but rather how can we stop producing it in the first place. Household sewage, contaminated as it is with chemical cosmetics, toxic household cleaners and any number of pharmaceutical drugs poured into toilets and kitchen sinks, isn’t pristine; but, to paraphrase Bob Hope, it’s not the shit, it’s what we’ve done to it. After the toilet is flushed or the drain is emptied, household waste is funneled into a vast underground sewage system, where it joins a toxic stew of industrial and hospital wastes and rainwater runoff from our streets and highways. Allowing corporations to flood the environment and the waste stream with 100,000 synthetic, mostly toxic chemicals, (most of which end up in sewage sludge), less than 1% of which have ever been proved to be safe for the environment and public health, is a form of insanity. Besides contaminating the water and soil, this irrational so-called “sewage treatment” process wastes enormous amounts of potable water.

At a certain point, cities and towns must come to the realization that using clean water to flush away household waste; engineering rooftops, roadways and streets to funnel rainwater into our sewage systems (instead of capturing it or percolating it back into the soil); and allowing industry and hospitals to discharge toxic chemicals into our wastewater stream just doesn’t make sense. Composting (non-water) toilets, rooftop water catchments and cisterns, and zero discharge of synthetic chemicals potentially or actually proven to hazardous to human health and the environment (the “precautionary principle”) are not fringe ideas, but rather the wave of the future. That is if there is a future.

Human and animal manure, (separated from and free from chemical and pharmaceutical residues), throughout the centuries, and in the present time can and should be safely composted and utilized as a fertilizer on fields, farms, and forests. Although current organic standards prohibit the use of compost derived from human manure (properly composted animal manure is allowed) on food crops, feeding the soil with properly composted “humanure” (or producing methane gas for energy use through bio-digesters) will no doubt become the norm in the future as fossil fuel and water supplies dwindle and chemical fertilizer costs become prohibitive.

Tune in to future issues of Organic Bytes for OCA’s ideas on how we can and must reform our garbage, sludge, and chemical fertilizer industries and put an end to the rampant consumerism that is literally poisoning the planet with garbage and toxic chemical

–Larry

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.”

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

Russian River Gravel Mining Stopped

Published on January 15, 2010 in Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
To All,
In case you haven’t seen it, here are some press releases on the very big win in the gravel mining decision.
Marc

doc4b046ebe08ee6525298528.jpg

Judge’s decision could halt river gravel mining
A decision last week in Sonoma County Superior Court overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisors decision to extend the deadline for terrace gravel mining in the Russian River. Pictured above are Syar’s gravel pits along the Russian River between Healdsburg and Windsor.
Board of Supervisor’s 2008 extension reversed By Kerrie Russell Tribune Editor Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:02 PM PST A decision last week by the Sonoma County Superior Court could mean the end of gravel pit mining along the Russian River.
A ruling by Judge Robert Boyd overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisor’s vote that would have allowed an extension of terrace gravel mining in the Russian River.
The judge’s decision came a year after a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit was filed by the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, the Russian River Keeper and the North Coast Rivers Alliance.
The group filed the suit last fall after the Board of Supervisors in October of 2008 voted 3-2 to in favor of Syar Industries request to extend a terrace gravel mining deadline past April of 2006. The 1994 ARM plan (certified in 1996) required a 10-year limit and called for the end of mining on the west side of the Russian River.
“The ARM plan was clear that there were no extensions,” said Riverkeeper Don McEnhill.
However, last year’s decision from the Board of Supervisors would have allowed Syar Industries to “finish the job” on phase VI of the project, west of the Russian River just south of Healdsburg, and required that no more than a year should pass after mining is completed for environmental restoration there.
Following a motion from Fourth District Supervisor Paul Kelley, supervisors Tim Smith and Mike Kerns voted in favor of the three-year extension in 2008.
But in Judge Boyd’s 12-page ruling last week, he found that Sonoma County violated CEQA by failing to (1) prepare a separate Environmental Impact Report addressing the significant adverse impacts of Syar’s proposed terrace gravel mining, (2) adequately explain why the alternative of terminating mining and reclaiming the disturbed land for other uses was not feasible, and (3) provide an adequate discussion of alternative gravel sources including importation of gravel from outside the County and development of existing and proposed quarries within the County.
Boyd called Syar’s requested extension a contradiction of “the very essence of the project history,” and called their argument “circular.”
In response to the Board of Supervisor’s finding that the ARM should be extended because alternatives are infeasible, Boyd stated, “An agency cannot find an alternative infeasible simply because the developer does not want to do it.”
David Spielberg, attorney for Syar, was unsure what the company’s next steps will be.
“At this point, we’re still looking at it and evaluating what our response ought to be and what our options are,” he said. “Right now, we’re still trying to digest the decision.”
Terrace gravel mining stopped in 2006 while Syar waited for a decision on the extension.
“This decision is a great victory for the people of Sonoma County who rely on the Russian River and adjacent water aquifer for their drinking water,” said Marc Bommersbach, President of Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA). “Years of strip mining in the aquifer of the Russian River have severely impacted this precious resource that supplies the drinking water to 700,000 people in Sonoma and Marin Counties.”
Opponents of Syar’s gravel mining also argue that there are less costly and more environmentally sound ways to supply gravel for construction and road projects.
“It has been clearly demonstrated that the county has supplies of gravel to support projects like roads and buildings without relying on mining gravel in the county’s drinking water aquifer. They haven’t mined there since 2006 and the freeway project has not come to a halt,” Bommersbach said.
McEnhill said the ruling is a big win for the river.
“We feel like this ruling will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to try and go back and dig up the aquifers,” he said. “We think the biggest win is for our future water supply and for ag along the river.
“This is a victory that’s been a long time coming. It’s a historical win,” McEnhill said.

Judge’s decision could halt river gravel mining
A decision last week in Sonoma County Superior Court overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisors decision to extend the deadline for terrace gravel mining in the Russian River. Pictured above are Syar’s gravel pits along the Russian River between Healdsburg and Windsor.
Board of Supervisor’s 2008 extension reversed By Kerrie Russell Tribune Editor Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:02 PM PST A decision last week by the Sonoma County Superior Court could mean the end of gravel pit mining along the Russian River.
A ruling by Judge Robert Boyd overturned a 2008 Board of Supervisor’s vote that would have allowed an extension of terrace gravel mining in the Russian River.
The judge’s decision came a year after a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit was filed by the Westside Association to Save Agriculture, the Russian River Keeper and the North Coast Rivers Alliance.
The group filed the suit last fall after the Board of Supervisors in October of 2008 voted 3-2 to in favor of Syar Industries request to extend a terrace gravel mining deadline past April of 2006. The 1994 ARM plan (certified in 1996) required a 10-year limit and called for the end of mining on the west side of the Russian River.
“The ARM plan was clear that there were no extensions,” said Riverkeeper Don McEnhill.
However, last year’s decision from the Board of Supervisors would have allowed Syar Industries to “finish the job” on phase VI of the project, west of the Russian River just south of Healdsburg, and required that no more than a year should pass after mining is completed for environmental restoration there.
Following a motion from Fourth District Supervisor Paul Kelley, supervisors Tim Smith and Mike Kerns voted in favor of the three-year extension in 2008.
But in Judge Boyd’s 12-page ruling last week, he found that Sonoma County violated CEQA by failing to (1) prepare a separate Environmental Impact Report addressing the significant adverse impacts of Syar’s proposed terrace gravel mining, (2) adequately explain why the alternative of terminating mining and reclaiming the disturbed land for other uses was not feasible, and (3) provide an adequate discussion of alternative gravel sources including importation of gravel from outside the County and development of existing and proposed quarries within the County.
Boyd called Syar’s requested extension a contradiction of “the very essence of the project history,” and called their argument “circular.”
In response to the Board of Supervisor’s finding that the ARM should be extended because alternatives are infeasible, Boyd stated, “An agency cannot find an alternative infeasible simply because the developer does not want to do it.”
David Spielberg, attorney for Syar, was unsure what the company’s next steps will be.
“At this point, we’re still looking at it and evaluating what our response ought to be and what our options are,” he said. “Right now, we’re still trying to digest the decision.”
Terrace gravel mining stopped in 2006 while Syar waited for a decision on the extension.
“This decision is a great victory for the people of Sonoma County who rely on the Russian River and adjacent water aquifer for their drinking water,” said Marc Bommersbach, President of Westside Association to Save Agriculture (WASA). “Years of strip mining in the aquifer of the Russian River have severely impacted this precious resource that supplies the drinking water to 700,000 people in Sonoma and Marin Counties.”
Opponents of Syar’s gravel mining also argue that there are less costly and more environmentally sound ways to supply gravel for construction and road projects.
“It has been clearly demonstrated that the county has supplies of gravel to support projects like roads and buildings without relying on mining gravel in the county’s drinking water aquifer. They haven’t mined there since 2006 and the freeway project has not come to a halt,” Bommersbach said.
McEnhill said the ruling is a big win for the river.
“We feel like this ruling will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to try and go back and dig up the aquifers,” he said. “We think the biggest win is for our future water supply and for ag along the river.
“This is a victory that’s been a long time coming. It’s a historical win,” McEnhill said.

Getting to Know the New Stormwater Permit

Published on January 13, 2010 in Environmental Impacts and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

Good Afternoon

Please go to the links below to download copies of the materials presented at the December 8th “Getting to Know the New Stormwater Permit” program in Sonoma County.  One of the presentations is quite large, so it may take a few minutes to download.

  1. Mona Dougherty’s “Municipal Storm Water Permit”:
    http://sfbayaep.org/20091208aepstormwatermonadoughertyrwwqcb.pdf
  2. Reg Cullen’s “What you need to know about the new NPDES MS4 storm water permit when seeking a building, grading, or other permit from PRMD”:
    http://sfbayaep.org/20091208aepstormwaterregcullenprmd.pdf

Happy Holidays

Terri

Terri McCracken

CalAEP SF Bay Chapter Board Member

Project Manager
terri.mccracken@cajaeir.com

Christopher A.  Joseph & Associates
Environmental Planning and Research
www.cajaeir.com

Petaluma Office
179 H Street
Petaluma, CA 94952

707.676.1907 direct
707.676.1900 main
707.283.4041 fax
707.217.6818 mobile

Sonoma County Waste Management System Discussion

Published on January 5, 2010 in Environmental Impacts and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

Sonoma County Waste Management System Discussion

Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 5-7 pm,
Sonoma County Environmental Center
55A Ridgeway, west of Cleveland Ave.
Santa Rosa, CA, 95401
www.envirocentersoco.org
Free; Healthy snacks will be served. Donations welcome to help cover costs.
Featuring:
Peter Anderson, Center for Competitive Waste Industry
Kevin Drew, City of San Francisco Zero Waste Program
Dan Knapp, Urban Ore, Inc.
Facilitated by Portia Sinnott, LITE Initiatives & The Waste Reduction Project
The recent Sonoma County landfill divesture debate brought up lots of questions that weren’t directly answered by the process. Thankfully the Board of Supervisors has embraced a more balanced strategy; one which will involve the whole community and support our sustainability related goals.
Before the next round begins, let’s all get on the same page. This preliminary discussion is designed to introduce relevant terms and concepts – such as flow control and indemnify from liability, diversion mandates and material bans, and green purchasing and zero waste. At the same time, we will be discussing how other municipalities are dealing with these issues, and how Sonoma County could further maximize diversion and reduce costs.
The target audience for this discussion is elected officials, municipal staff, activists and interested members of the public.
Panelists:
Peter Anderson is Executive Director of The Center for a Competitive Waste Industry, President of RecycleWorlds Consulting, Senior Lecturer at the University of Wisconsin Department of Applied Economics, and Chairperson of the National Recycling Coalition Policy Workgroup. He received his B.S. in economics from Cornell University and his M.S. in solid waste planning and industrial organization of the solid waste industry from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Kevin Drew is Residential and Special Projects Zero Waste Coordinator, San Francisco Department of Environment, former Executive Director of San Francisco Community Recyclers and General Manager at Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council Recycling Center.
Dan Knapp, PhD, is founder and owner of Urban Ore, Inc in Berkeley, CA, a designer of integrated resource recovery facilities, and a popular speaker on discard management systems options and zero waste.
Portia Sinnott is Executive Director of LITE Initiatives and a self employed consultant who has been helping cities and counties develop cutting edge waste reduction and recycling programs since 1983.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 5-7 pm,55A Ridgeway, west of Cleveland Ave.Santa Rosa, CA, 95401www.envirocentersoco.orgPeter Anderson, Center for Competitive Waste IndustryKevin Drew, City of San Francisco Zero Waste ProgramDan Knapp, Urban Ore, Inc.Facilitated by Portia Sinnott, LITE Initiatives & The Waste Reduction ProjectThe target audience for this discussion is elected officials, municipal staff, activists and interested members of the public.Peter Anderson is Executive Director of The Center for a Competitive Waste Industry, President of RecycleWorlds Consulting, Senior Lecturer at the University of Wisconsin Department of Applied Economics, and Chairperson of the National Recycling Coalition Policy Workgroup. He received his B.S. in economics from Cornell University and his M.S. in solid waste planning and industrial organization of the solid waste industry from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.Portia Sinnott is Executive Director of LITE Initiatives and a self employed consultant who has been helping cities and counties develop cutting edge waste reduction and recycling programs since 1983.

Environmental Forum — Saturday, Jan. 2, 2010

Published on January 2, 2010 in Climate Change, Environmental Impacts, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Hi,

I love every part of the below series of presentations…  What is MOST UNUSUAL AND EXCITING is that Jon Love, ~the co-founder/creator of the Awakening the Dreamer symposium will be presenting!  WOWso if you can only join us for a part of the day I would say 3 PM to 5:30 PM is the most amazing opportunity.  Be the Change immediately following will be a further extension… and very valuable as well!

Thank you.
Happy 2010 and Warmest Regards,
Veronica Sorry for duplications… but this is an amazing opportunity and I think there is something for just about every topic on the listserves I have included!

Environmental Forum — Saturday, Jan. 2, 2010
An all-day series of activities:

— Have Fun

— Connect with our community

— Find ways to be more effective

— Ask How Low Can We Go to reduce our carbon footprint

Join in one or all of the day’s activities.

SCHEDULE:
9 AM – 9:15 AM — Bike Ride on the Greenway to City Hall
Meet at the benches in front of Aroma Roasters near 5th St. and Wilson in Railroad Square at 9 AM.

We will ride a loop around the block at City Hall to get a message out to the community encouraging biking and walking.  Dress in fun and noticeable attire and display signs encouraging anything green!

9:30 AM – Noon — Safe & Green

Learn how to stay alert and safe when walking, cycling, taking the bus or train.  Experienced Safety instructor Marty Callahan of Academy of Shotokan Karate.

A sense of security is important for families & individuals who choose not to use their cars for every errand.  Santa Rosa City Hall Council Chambers.

Noon – 1:30 PM — Potluck and Green Home Update
Meet Jennifer Schwab via webcam.  As Director of Sustainability, Jennifer is responsible for all enviro information, education and initiatives at Sierra Club Green Home.www.sierraclubgreenhome.com Santa Rosa City Council Chambers.

1:30 PM – 3 PM Water Saving Opportunities for Now & the Future!
Participate in a discussion of Greywater Reuse, Rainwater Harvesting and
Water Conservation.  Presenters from Santa Rosa Utilities Dept. and Sonoma County Water Coalition.  Santa Rosa City Council Chambers.

3 PM – 5:30 PM  Awakening The Dreamer, Changing The Dream Symposium
For relief from the gloom, doom and crisis in the news, learn about a possible new way of life.  This event guides us through inquiry from “Where are we?” and “How did we get here?” to “What is possible for the future?” and “What can we do?”  There is a video presentation, interactive exercises, networking & discussion.  Please register at www.awakeningthedreamer.org (suggested donation $15, but no one turned away for lack of funds) and bring a snack for yourself.  Questions: contact Laura Baker at 707 322-7778 or atdsoco@sonic.net.  Santa Rosa City Council Chambers.

5:30 PM – 8 PM Be the Change!
Network, strategize, share updates on local sustainability and transition projects such as Energy Wise Neighbors, alternative transportation, Youth Green Jobs, Solar Sonoma County and the steps individuals are taking to reduce their carbon footprints.  Santa Rosa City Council Chambers.

The Santa Rosa City Council Chambers are located on Santa Rosa Ave between Sonoma and 1st Street, Next to Room ~10 at the top of the stairs.  There is no charge for any events except a suggested donation for Awakening The Dreamer.  See www.redwood.sierraclub.org/sonoma for updates and additional information.  RSVP 544-7651 or email Veronica Jacobi at VJacobi@sonic.net