Foresight, nearsight, poor sight, sigh...

Here, Oregon lawmakers illustrate the breadth of their forward looking-ness, as do some citizens (in their comments) about the future of sustainability in our state.  Obviously Oregon is no longer the home of forward thinking and innovation in terms of public services, policies, and rhetoric.  The enemy is indeed us...

Outside the Box - 1

I've gotten a few heads' ups over the last few weeks that I've been turning around in my head (as opposed to getting things posted in cyberspace). One came from a professional venting a spleen about institutional stupidity, another from a resident venting along similar lines, and a third from a newspaper article that seemed remarkably well timed considering the first two events. Also coincidentally, each of these comes from Central Oregon, which makes me wonder what's in the wind. Or perhaps the folks that care about what I say are concentrated there. Dunno.

The first that I'll talk about comes from a citizen that had a conversation about a commercial development in Bend that often suffers from sewage overflows because the development was approved in an area that does not have the sewage line capacity to take what this commercial area doles out. This person asked why the city doesn't require that the commercial development treat its wastewater and reuse it on the landscaping that is required for all commercial developments. This approach has been taken in other places in the country and has the effect of reducing demand on an overloaded collection system and increasing capacity at the treatment plant to serve other areas that perhaps are more easily served.

Here is the City of Bend's response:

The City Engineer said that the City would allow alternate sewage treatment systems for these types of facilities, provided they met DEQ and EPA standards. However, the City would require a hookup to the City's system as a backup in the event of failure of the on-site system. The City does not want to be put into the position of having to take over these systems if they fail -- it would not be an efficient use of resources.

Any alternative system would have to meet standards. The water has to be treated to an appropriate level so that it meets the standards of wherever it will be discharged/applied. There will be solids that will have to be applied in a permitted location.

The City's existing treatment plant currently treats wastewater to a high level, and the solids and liquid are disposed of with minimal environmental impact. One concern the City has is whether any alternative system would meet the same standards as the City's treatment system. However, if the City is satisfied that the alternate system meets applicable standards, the City would cooperate in reviewing and approving the system.

In essence the City requires that the developer of such a system obtain the appropriate permits to operate a wastewater treatment system (perhaps under the same permit system that the city itself operates under) AND pay to hook up to the city system. Firstly, it appears that the city is assuming DEQ/EPA authority in specifying permits and permit requirements, which I would be curious if they in fact have that authority. That would take some more research on my part to figure out. Secondly, the city is requiring a hook up immediately, rather than waiting for a potential problem to manifest itself. This smacks of greed because they want the hook up fee now rather than later. Not surprising from a city that has exhibited similar greed in the past. Thirdly, there is a bald statement that a separate system would not be efficient if the city had to take over its operation. Why would the city ever have to take over operation of a private facility if the DEQ were doing its job? Why is this necessarily inefficient? I, for one, would be interested in seeing a cost-benefit analysis of operating a separate system versus blasting big holes for miles in bed rock to increase collection system capacity.

Stay tuned for part 2...

Take Back the Power!

Or, How We Can Really Make the Power Companies Even More Dependent on We the Ratepayers

This posting is ostensibly about power generation, so why am I, Oregon Water Thorn, tackling this topic?  Because the issue of distribution and big utilities can, naturally, be translated to water or sewage distribution/collection.  Think about the parallels:

I have a friend that lives over in Bend that was griping the other day about the local electric utility raising rates. A normal response, in fact, a great response, because the rate hike prompted a declaration that the family would lower their electricity use to avoid paying more. Assuming that the electric utility's goal was to cover the increasing costs of electricity generation, then this family's response is perfect. After all, conservation is the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to increase system capacity regardless of whether a given distribution system delivers electricity or water services. In short, these kinds of homeowners end up working towards the utility's goal of maximizing the resource in the cheapest way possible.

But I know that most homeowners don't understand the real power that comes with distributed power generation. And I use the dualistic word "power" in this context in the "We the People" sense because without we the ratepayers, utilities would not exist.

Given this fundamental linkage between paying rates and the big utility (to draw the obvious comparison for you, paying taxes and the big guv'mint), I don't understand why Tea Party types don't all have grid- or non-grid-tied photovoltaic, or wind, systems on their land. This is the common person's arena where they can jump in to free themselves of the big utility. Free themselves of rate increases. Become independent in that true American homesteading fashion. And, with grid-tied systems, an individual property becomes part of the electric production network which makes the utility just that little bit beholden to you for their stock in trade.

Power to the people, by the people, for the people.

The photovoltaic, or PV, system on the roof of our state capitol building is a most elegant representation of this concept and, in my opinion, one of the best investments Oregon has ever made. And it makes me wonder, why aren't more of us free of monthly power bills?

I suspect it is because of the upfront investment that's needed to take back the power. In a sense, it is the very corporate concept that it takes money to make money that prevents a lot of cash-strapped folks I know from making the investment. But I also know a lot of non-cash-strapped folks that could easily make the investment and that are the classic Tea Party type complainers.

So I have to ask, what is freedom worth? What is it worth to a nation of so-called rugged individualists to be truly independent in such a fundamental part of their lives? Apparently it is not worth much if the ever increasing complaints about rates are any measure.

So to return to my by-line, do I need to draw the parallel with water and wastewater? What is it worth to the folks that want small government to reduce the capacity of our water and wastewater systems? What is it worth to get off the grid of our municipal water and wastewater plants by using less, by harvesting rainwater, by reusing wastewater or greywater on our land? What is it worth to be free of that tie? Again, apparently not much, given the number of people I know that want to tie themselves to the big wastewater treatment system.

Oregon DEQ Subverts the Process and Wastes True Believers in Greywater

Sad news from Rainbow Todd Jarvis about the DEQ's graywater advisory committee:

http://rainbowwatercoalition.blogspot.com/2010/05/wasting-true-believers-in-greywater.html

with commentary from AquaDoc, Michael Campana

I am happy to report that Todd Jarvis appears to be safe and sound despite his recent experiences with DEQ - he didn't drink the Kool-Aid.

Protecting the Public, Protecting the Profit, or Profiting from Power?

Stolen from Rainbow Water Coalition...

 

Monday, May 3, 2010

Protecting the Public, Protecting the Profit, or Profiting from Power?

A consistent message is being spread by the wastewater industry about greywater which I have been perplexed by, but think I am starting to understand why.  Take, for example, this article from The Daily Lobo (The Independent Voice of University of New Mexico since 1895) where they quote Katherine Yuhas who is the water conservation officer at the Albuquerque Water Authority:

“The state regulates gray water. And, in 2003, the state made it legal to use up to 250 gallons of gray water per day,” Yuhas said. “It’s not very popular at all, frankly. We don’t promote the gray water program. We don’t offer rebates for it. The reason is that we treat water at our water reclamation plant to a much higher standard than you could in your yard.”

I did not realize that someone's yard was in competition for water "treatment" with a wastewater treatment plant. Ms. Yuhas is silent whether or not the treated water is available for the homeowner to reuse in their yard, which I think is the idea behind greywater reuse.  (see remainder of post at link above)

Greenwalls

Thanks to Rainbow Todd for this info:

I am intrigued by the concept but admit that I found the blog site referenced annoying in that it only talked briefly about the potential environmental benefits of such an installation, the sum total that I found was:

"... located at the Vancouver International (YVR) Airport’s SkyTrain station.  The first Canadian airport to install a greenwall, international visitors to this beautiful city are greeted by the living tapestry, just one of the sustainable initiatives and ecological solutions for the airport.  Since YVR is situated within the estuary of the Fraser River on Sea Island, a large conservation project was created here to offset the environmental impact the airport causes, including a wildlife preserve and public beaches."

The blogger tended to go about the architectural aesthetic so interested persons will have to look elsewhere for substantive information.  I wonder if this gets rainwater, greywater...?

Greywater research from Colorado State

I noticed that the Oregon Onsite Wastewater Association was holding its annual conference in Portland this year. On the agenda were many things related to wastewater (perhaps a "duh" statement) but one item that caught my eye was a couple of presentations by Sybil Sharvell, Ph.D., and Larry Roesner, Ph.D. Dr. Sharvell's talk in particular was interesting because there was some data about cost savings for households in avoided sewer charges and some water quality data. The other interesting thing was that they avoided the use of kitchen sink wastewater altogether. Kitchen sinks were not included in their definition of greywater because greywater that includes kitchen sink water contained organics, nutrients and pathogens at levels that rival blackwater. Therefore, their thinking was, a wastewater stream that would meet the definition of residential strength wastewater should be treated in a full-service wastewater treatment system. The corollary being that the resulting greywater from this approach could be reused on a property with minimal treatment.