Archive for the 'Waste Discharge' Category

Discussion Rainwater Catchment and Use of Greywater

Hi all,
The email below came in response to the one I sent out earlier on rainwater harvesting. I had also sent it to folks on a list of people working at the County of Sonoma level on developing a graywater policy that ideally should bring on incentives (vs. the huge disincentives currently in place) for graywater and then the topic next our group plans on talking about is rainwater/roofwater harvesting. Currently, since the county has no category for rainwater – they technically consider it “graywater”. I had pointed this issue out to the group as an indication of how much catching up we have to do at the county level and was happy to have the folks in SF reply with the following back up!

Anyway, I thought some folks may be interested in this response from an official in San Francisco’s Urban Watershed Management Program!!

Some hope out there…

Brock

Hello all,

I work in the San Francisco PUC’s Wastewater Enterprise. I have been following your progress in Sonoma County on greywater with great interest and look forward to attending the next meeting and learning from your efforts. I’m sorry I have been unable to participate thus far!

I wanted to make a few comments about rainwater harvesting, a practice that we are promoting here in San Francisco along with other LID strategies. Rainwater is the most overlooked part of our water portfolio. We are promoting the use of rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing, washdown areas, and irrigation. We are working with our Departments of Public Health and Building Inspection to permit rainwater harvesting systems in San Francisco without requiring treatment to potable standards - only a first flush diverter will be required for non-potable uses. Our Department of Public Health has rightly agreed that rainwater is not the most dangerous thing in a person’s toilet. For systems that will involve body contact or drinking water, potable standards still apply.

As you all know, the benefits of rainwater harvesting are numerous:
• Keep relatively clean water out of the combined sewer system and make it available for use

• Reduce the energy and chemicals needed to treat stormwater in San Francisco’s combined sewer and the energy expended transporting water from far away

• Reduce the volume and peak flows of stormwater entering the sewer, thereby reducing flooding and combined sewer overflows

• Reduce the volume of potable water (brought all the way from Hetch Hetchy!) used for non-potable applications such as irrigation, toilet flushing, vehicle washdown, and cooling systems
Tara Hui, mentioned in the article that was sent out, is working with us here at the SFPUC as part of our team to educate residents about rainwater harvesting and do demonstration projects to teach people how to install these systems themselves. We will also be doing a rain barrel giveaway, followed by a rain barrel discount program in partnership with Cole Hardware. Our hope is to expand into ever larger containers - the bigger the cistern, the greater the benefit. But we’re starting with a focus on rain barrels to get people started.

Looking forward to learning more about your greywater efforts,

Sarah

Hey Graywater group,

I wanted to send you all the following AP story and the announcement of Brad Lancaster’s upcoming talk and book signing for his second volume on Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands.
The first note below is an email that I was just sent from a citizen, which was sent to me to emphasize that fact that as stated officially by the County of Sonoma - “ we currently view rainwater as graywater”!!!
I really am looking forward to unpacking this issue sooner than later – “rainwater as graywater” – really!!! Wow??
I look forward to working with you all on changing that policy perception, as this issue has obviously been addressed by many many other municipalities.

Brock Dolman

Hi David

I added your name to the Graywater/Rainwater Collection Working Group. Attached are some policy references compiled by the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center. I hope Randy Leach and Zach Rounds can help you with your project to plumb rainwater back into the house. As we currently view rainwater as graywater, the only way you’d be able to permit the rainwater source back into the house would be to meet potable standards through treatment of some sort. Since we don’t permit water quality, I’m hoping Zach can help.

Thanks

James

Letter to State Water Board on Recycling Water Policy

River Friends;

Here is a letter (attached)  I just sent to the State and Regional Boards
about the State Recycling Policy.  I have not included the photos I sent or
the final Laguna Foundation Report on the Ludwigia Project (from last year)
in this email.  Please let me know if you want to see these and I’ll pass
them on separately.  (I don’t know how to condense them, and I didn’t want
to cause computer problems.)

I have also included a recent letter by Linda Sheehan on the State General
Permit for Recycling.  She really lays out the issues in a much clearer and
better way than I could have done, and I urge you all to read her comments.
Please forgive any duplications and feel free to pass this information on.

This is a critically important issue.  Regional Board staff have expressed
significant concerns about this.  Please let me know if you received it okay
and whether you have any questions or comments.  The State Board has not yet
developed language on “incidental runoff”, the sticking point of this whole
recycling policy and the thing I’m most concerned about.  Please consider
the importance of this item.

Hope you are having a good holiday weekend.

Brenda

Tam Doduc, Chair and Members
State Water Resources Control Board

Email:  commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov

Dear Chair Doduc and Board Members:

We understand that you will be taking information from stakeholder groups at
your meeting next Tuesday, Sept. 2nd.  We will not be able to attend but
would like to provide our perspective on this issue. We also wish to support
the comments made by Linda Sheehan.  We realize that we may be too late to
have our letter considered for the meeting, but since this is an on-going
process, we would like our letter entered into the record and considered
during future deliberations.  Please advise us as to the status of this
communication and whether we need to resubmit this information at a later
date.

We attach our letter,  the final Ludwigia Report, a few newspaper articles
on irrigation, and 8 pictures on Ludwigia and over-irrigation.  Because of
the number of attachments, WE WILL SEND TWO EMAILS WITH DIFFERENT
ATTACHMENTS IN EACH, to make sure they go through.  Please let us know if
you have received them okay or whether we need to resend in a different
format.

Thank you for your consideration.  We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Brenda Adelman

New Book on Water Recommended

Hey Water lovers,

I just wanted to let you all know about a brand new book: Water Consciousness: How We All Have to Change to Protect Our Most Critical Resource

The breadth of content by big name eco-thinker/writers is amazing and I am honored to say that I, as well, have but a small chapter in the book!

Have a look at the website for the book and to order your own copy!! http://waterconsciousness.com

Mostly Water,
Brock Dolman

Brock Dolman
WATER Institute Director
Occidental Arts and Ecology Center

Official Comments on DEIR for Water Use

Marc Bautista,

SCWA

Please find attached Word .doc file containing my comments re NBWRA DEIR.

Please let me know if there are any problems with the receipt of this document by the end of the public comment date.

Just as an added comment, I am of the opinion that events and conditions are changing at such a pace that this DEIR will be hoplessly dated by the time it is completed. This might be a good place to stop further waste of public funds.

Thank you,

Tom Yarish

Mill Valley

nbwra-eir-8-24-08

Comments on Santa Rosa’s Leaky Pipes

Dear Brenda,
As usual you are right on the target. The leaking gravity sewer collection
mains act as giant French Drain collectors of ground water, reducing the
recharge while polluting the ground water with ex-filtration at times. Small
diameter STEP systems would not and cost less to install and operate.

Northern California River Watch has been addressing the issue of
infiltration/ ex-filtration in its environmental litigation for many years.

The same problem is occurring in many of the vineyard plantings that have
installed tile or under-drains. These drains quickly drain off the fields
making land that would otherwise be seasonally wet sponge stay relatively
unsaturated. The result is very evident in the increased flashy flooding we
experience in Graton and other parts of the county. Instead of soaking into
the former apple orchards and pastures, the rain water is drained off
quickly. vineyards develop a plow pan and this limitsthe rate of percolation
down into the water table. Quickly draining off the water and limiting the
depth of the sponge means that far less water is retained going into summer.
By late summer when the smaller creeks are drying out, the problem is
further exacerbated by irrigating from wells adjacent to these same creeks.
This agricultural practice of draining off most of the winter flows needs to
be addressed or floods will continue to get worse while summer flows will
continue to drop.

Bob Rawson

Here’s a letter I just sent to the PD

Brenda

Dear Editor:

Richard Dowd, Chair of Santa Rosa’s Board of Public Utilities, was quoted in
a recent article stating, “If we can shut off the infiltration and inflow,
we don’t have to collect it, treat it or dispose of it. The savings could
be substantial.” This was in reference to the many old, leaky pipes that
collect the City’s sewage and send it off for treatment.

For years Russian River Watershed Protection Committee has been requesting
emphasis on pipe repair and replacement rather than continued construction
of expensive infrastructure that increases river discharges. What never
gets mentioned is all the potable rain water that gets wasted when it could
be recharging our aquifers. The article mentions that flows can go as high
as 100 million gallons a day. This is almost seven times higher than normal
and represents wasted potable water supplies.

In light of global warming concerns and many summer flow problems in the
Russian River, this rainwater could provide a heretofore unconsidered and
greatly needed additional water resource.

Furthermore, while Santa Rosa has a good treatment system as compared to
many others, their wastewater still contains many unregulated contaminants
that could be contributing to problems for endangered salmonid species and
drinking water supplies. Fixing leaky pipes should be prioritized over
massive and expensive new infrastructure that would bring direct discharge
to the Russian River at Healdsburg or Forestville.

Brenda Adelman

Links to Comments on SR’s Recycled Water Project

Here’s the link to comments received by SR on the Discharge and Storage options. Please forgive duplications.

Brenda

Incremental Recycled Water Program (IRWP) Update
August 5, 2008

Comments received on the City of Santa Rosa’s Discharge Compliance and Seasonal Storage Projects Draft EIRs are now available on the City’s web site as noted below. Responses to these comments are currently being prepared. Both documents are scheduled to be certified this Fall (2008) and will be fully noticed prior to the meetings;

• Discharge Compliance Project EIR - Comment Letters http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/utilities/irwp/discharge/Pages/studies_reports.aspx

• Seasonal Storage Project EIR - Comment Letters http://www.recycledwaterprogram.com/departments/utilities/irwp/storage/Pages/studies_reports.aspx

Additional information is available at: IRWP http://www.recycledwaterprogram.com/ (http://www.SRCity.org/IRWP).

If you know others who would like to receive periodic e-mail updates on the Incremental Recycled Water Program, please have them send an e-mail request to: SRrecycledwater@DataInstincts.com.

Please contact our office if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Mark Millan

North Bay Water Recycling Program

Dear friends -

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority has gone ahead and just released their Notice of Preparation for the North Bay Water Recycling Program, the subject of HR236 and S1472. They are expediting public meetings next week to solicit comments on the scope of the project, and what should be covered in the Draft EIR. All scoping comments are due by Aug. 25th.

All of our negotiations to get a more meaningful and comprehensive list of Project Objectives were ultimately weakened significantly when SCWA’s and Napa Sanitary District’s representatives to the NBWRA decided in late May that the objectives we had negotiated since January were too detailed and restrictive for them to use in the NOP. The NBWRA’s final Project Objectives list is below.

Marc Holmes (The Bay Institute) urged them and the EIR consultants (Environmental Science Associates, Petaluma) to give us the opportunity for a more detailed discussion of scoping comments, in a special meeting with them. They have agreed to do that, to try to capture our thoughts, critiques, and more detailed objectives.

Our Scoping Meeting with them will be held next week, very likely in Petaluma. The proposed date and time is: Wednesday 8/6, 10 - 11.30 am, Petaluma (location to be determined)
Please confirm your availability a.s.a.p. - email me at my address above, so I’ll know how large a room we need. (if you have a better location central to all of us, please let us know)

This is our next real opportunity to try to shape this project to protect our source waters of the Russian & Eel Rivers and S.R. Plain groundwaters. Please let me know asap of your availability. In part they are using this meeting to gauge our fortitude and the breadth and depth of concern beyond my own presentations to them, so a good turnout with strong comments is very important. This is our chance to tell them what should be included in the Draft EIR. (and get it on the record).

Absent your ability to attend this small group meeting, you will need to get your written comments to SCWA by Aug. 25.

FYI, the Senate bill S1472 (Feinstein) is currently on hold, pending the Bureau of Reclamation’s review of the engineering and financial feasibility, and their recommendation for this project’s eligibility on the Title XVI Water Recycling list of projects. USBR has until 12/23/08 to make that recommendation, but could act earlier (as is being urged by SCWA and other supporters).

As we’ve noted in earlier comments on this project:• This Project would send some 22-30,000 acre feet of recycled water, originally taken from the Eel and Russian Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater by SCWA and used by its contractor cities, then treated and pumped through a massive pipeline project mostly to benefit grape growers who have overdrafted their local water supplies in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys and Solano county. We strongly believe that the highest priority for reuse of treated wastewater is to use it locally by cities to greatly reduce current and future urban demands for water from our North Coast rivers, not to create new vineyard customers. This Project dis-incentivizes local reuse by paying dischargers to pump it elsewhere.
• This SCWA-Bureau of Reclamation Project would use 5-11,000 new horsepower for pumps, but deliver only 1400-1459AF/Yr of recycled water to displace potable water demands in Novato and Sonoma. There is no proposal to offset or reduce the GHG generated by this pumping.
• The Project cost is estimated at $311-512M in capital costs, with $10-12M/yr operating costs.
• Support current and future urban reuse needs, instead of relying on new water supplies pumped from the rivers and wells. Displacing potable water now used for irrigating parks, playfields, medians, landscaping, etc, for industrial heating and cooling processes, for instance, as well as for ‘purple plumbing’ for toilets and urinals, should be the first priority for the recycled water.

• As SCWA’s own literature states: “Less is More, any time of the year. Using less water means more water in Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, and the Russian River. We rely on these sources for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.”

The NBay Water Reuse Authority is now also claiming that as wastewater treatment agencies, they have no control over trying to reduce water consumption by the water supplying agencies/contractors, so much of our concern about reducing impacts on source waters is beyond their control. “Not my problem…” Yet, the biggest fish in this pond is SCWA itself, which is the largest water purveyor on the North Coast. We will need to puncture this defensive and myopic institutional view of water resources and restoration.

Thank you for your continued support and hard work to try to make this project a showcase for reuse, instead of a 1950’s style ‘pump and pipe’ project to serve new customers.

David Keller

Scoping Meeting on North Bay Water Reuse, Petaluma

The special scoping session for our comments on the Notice of Preparation for the North Bay Water Reuse Program will be tomorrow:

Wednesday, 8/6, 10am - 11.30am

ESA Consultants Office  (preparers of the EIR/EIS)
1425 N. McDowell Blvd, Suite 105 (Redwood Business Park)
Petaluma, 94954
Phone: 707/ 795-0900

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=%221425+n.+mcdowell,+petaluma%22&ie=UTF8&ll=38.277203,-122.666345&spn=0.016104,0.026608&t=h&z=15

To All,

This is our opportunity to provide comments on what we believe should be included in the scope of review in the Draft EIR/EIS.

For instance:

- What alternatives should be included in their documentation, beyond their current 3 project options, “big, bigger and biggest”?
- What impacts, primary and secondary, should be examined?
- Are there better uses for this treated wastewater?
- How important is it for the Draft EIR/EIS to address impacts on the source waters (Russian R, Eel R, groundwater basins)?
- Should NWBRA member sanitary districts (and SCWA) be working to reduce through-put of water/wastewater before trying to build a system to recycle and use as much as possible, in Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano Counties?  Are there incentives to reduce potable water demands in the first place, or is this a vehicle to find long-term, new customers for more water usage?
- Who should pay for storage and distribution costs?
- Should this EIR/EIS be addressing ways to reach zero carbon footprint?  reduced GHG emissions?  lessened horsepower for pumping?

Please take the time to come to this important scoping session - if it’s not suggested, don’t expect SCWA and NBWRA to include your ideas.

See you tomorrow morning.  Thanks again for all your help and interest.

Sincerely,
David Keller

Scoping Meeting for North Bay Reuse, Aug. 6, 10-11:30

Dear friends -

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority has gone ahead and just released their Notice of Preparation for the NBay Water Recycling Program, the subject of HR236 and S1472.  They are expediting public meetings next week to solicit comments on the scope of the project, and what should be covered in the Draft EIR. All scoping comments are due by Aug. 25th.

All of our negotiations to get a more meaningful and comprehensive list of Project Objectives were ultimately weakened significantly when SCWA’s and Napa Sanitary District’s representatives to the NBWRA decided in late May that the objectives we had negotiated since January were too detailed and restrictive for them to use in the NOP.  The NBWRA’s final Project Objectives list is below.

Marc Holmes (The Bay Institute) urged them and the EIR consultants (Environmental Science Associates, Petaluma) to give us the opportunity for a more detailed discussion of scoping comments, in a special meeting with them.  They have agreed to do that, to try to capture our thoughts, critiques, and more detailed objectives.

Our Scoping Meeting with them will be held next week, very likely in Petaluma.  The proposed date and time is:
Wednesday 8/6, 10 - 11.30 am, Petaluma (location to be determined) Please confirm your availability a.s.a.p. - email me at my address above, so I’ll know how large a room we need. (if you have a better location central to all of us, please let us know)

This is our next real opportunity to try to shape this project to protect our source waters of the Russian & Eel Rivers and S.R. Plain groundwaters. Please let me know asap of your availability.  In part they are using this meeting to gauge our fortitude and the breadth and depth of concern beyond my own presentations to them, so a good turnout with strong comments is very important.  This is our chance to tell them what should be included in the Draft EIR. (and get it on the record).

Absent your ability to attend this small group meeting, you will need to get your written comments to SCWA by Aug. 25.

FYI, the Senate bill S1472 (Feinstein) is currently on hold, pending the Bureau of Reclamation’s review of the engineering and financial feasibility, and their recommendation for this project’s eligibility on the Title XVI Water Recycling list of projects.  USBR has until 12/23/08 to make that recommendation, but could act earlier (as is being urged by SCWA and other supporters).

As we’ve noted in earlier comments on this project:
This Project would send some 22-30,000 acre feet of recycled water, originally taken from the Eel and Russian Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater by SCWA and used by its contractor cities, then treated and pumped through a massive pipeline project mostly to benefit grape growers who have overdrafted their local water supplies in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys and Solano county.  We strongly believe that the highest priority for reuse of treated wastewater is to use it locally by cities to greatly reduce current and future urban demands for water from our North Coast rivers, not to create new vineyard customers. This Project dis-incentivizes local reuse by paying dischargers to pump it elsewhere. This SCWA-Bureau of Reclamation Project would use 5-11,000 new horsepower for pumps, but deliver only 1400-1459AF/Yr of recycled water to displace potable water demands in Novato and Sonoma. There is no proposal to offset or reduce the GHG generated by this pumping. The Project cost is estimated at $311-512M in capital costs, with $10-12M/yr operating costs. Support current and future urban reuse needs, instead of relying on new water supplies pumped from the rivers and wells. Displacing potable water now used for irrigating parks, playfields, medians, landscaping, etc, for industrial heating and cooling processes, for instance, as well as for ‘purple plumbing’ for toilets and urinals, should be the first priority for the recycled water.

As SCWA’s own literature states: “Less is More, any time of the year. Using less water means more water in Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, and the Russian River. We rely on these sources for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.”

The NBay Water Reuse Authority is now also claiming that as wastewater treatment agencies, they have no control over trying to reduce water consumption by the water supplying agencies/contractors, so much of our concern about reducing impacts on source waters is beyond their control. “Not my problem…” Yet, the biggest fish in this pond is SCWA itself, which is the largest water purveyor on the North Coast.  We will need to puncture this defensive and myopic institutional view of water resources and restoration.

Thank you for your continued support and hard work to try to make this project a showcase for reuse, instead of a 1950’s style ‘pump and pipe’ project to serve new customers.

David Keller

New Pharmaceutical Screening Technique

The scientific community - Prescription drugs are wreaking havoc on the environment and a solution to this problem must be found

Plato - “Necessity is the Mother of invention”

Swedish researchers - Eureka! We may have found a solution!

ACS Publications - June 2008
A new screening technique from researchers in Sweden compares genomes from animals, plants, and other organisms to those of humans in an effort to quickly determine whether particular drugs could be toxic in the environment. … Researchers say that once the technique is validated, it may provide hints about pharmaceuticals that could harm specific species.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/html/es801614k.html

Dan