Showing posts with label water planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water planning. Show all posts

Friday, July 8, 2011

Water Headlines for the week of June 27, 2011

This is a good synopsis of national water happenings from the EPA.  You can subscribe yourself - there are directions at the bottom of the post.

Water Headlines is a weekly on-line publication that announces publications, policies, and activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water

In This Week’s Water Headlines:

1) Federal Agencies Partner to Revitalize Urban Waterways In Communities Across The U.S.
2) Update on Waters of the U.S. Draft Guidance
3) EPA Seeks Public Comment on the Draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in NMFS’ Draft Biological Opinion on the Proposed Pesticides General Permit
4) New Tool to Support Community-Based Water Resiliency Initiative
5) “Sustainable Communities, Healthy Watersheds” 2010 Annual Report Available Online
6) Subscribe to Water Headlines

1) Federal Agencies Partner to Revitalize Urban Waterways In Communities Across The U.S.
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, White House Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes, Council for Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley and representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a new federal partnership along the Patapsco River in Baltimore on Friday where they participated in environmental education activities with Baltimore students. The partnership aims to stimulate regional and local economies, create local jobs, improve quality of life, and protect Americans’ health by revitalizing urban waterways in under-served communities across the country.

The Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP), an innovative federal union comprised of 11 agencies, will focus its initial efforts on seven pilot locations: the Patapsco Watershed (Maryland), the Anacostia Watershed (Washington DC/Maryland), the Bronx & Harlem River Watersheds (New York), the South Platte River in Denver (Colorado), the Los Angeles River Watershed (California), the Lake Pontchartrain Area (New Orleans, LA), and the Northwest Indiana Area. Each of the pilot locations already has a strong restoration effort underway, spearheaded by local governments and community organizations. Lessons learned from these pilot locations will be transferred to other cities in the country.

Americans use urban waterways like the Patapsco River as sources of drinking water and for a variety of activities including boating, fishing and swimming. Cleaning up and restoring these water resources is essential to protecting Americans’ health and improving their overall quality of life. Revitalizing these urban waterways will also reconnect citizens to open spaces, and will have a positive economic impact on local businesses, tourism and property values, as well as spur private investment and job creation in these communities.

For more information, visit www.urbanwaters.gov

2) Update on Waters of the U.S. Draft Guidance
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have extended the public comment period by 30 days for the draft guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act. In response to requests from state and local officials, as well as other stakeholders, EPA and the Corps will take additional comment until July 31, 2011 on this important draft guidance that aims to protect U.S. waters. These waters are critical for the health of the American people, the economy and ecosystems in communities across the country.

This change in the public comment period will not impact the schedule for finalizing the guidance or alter the intent to proceed with a rulemaking.

Public input received will be carefully considered as the agencies make final decisions regarding the guidance.  These comments will also be very helpful as the agencies prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The original 60-day public comment period was originally set to expire on July 1, 2011. The agencies will be publishing a notice of this 30-day extension in the Federal Register.

More information:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm

3) EPA Seeks Public Comment on the Draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in NMFS’ Draft Biological Opinion on the Proposed Pesticides General Permit
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to examine the potential impact of EPA’s pending Pesticide General Permit (PGP) on the nation’s threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat.  As part of this consultation, on June 17, 2011, NMFS submitted to EPA a draft Biological Opinion containing a suggested “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative” (RPA) that NMFS believes would avoid the likelihood that endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat would be jeopardized by the permit. EPA is taking public comment for 30 days on the draft RPA proposed by NMFS and will provide the public comment to NMFS for review. EPA is not making any final decision on the terms of the PGP at this time. Comments are due no later than July 25, 2011.

For additional information, visit:  www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides  or contact Jack Faulk, EPA Office of Wastewater Management via e-mail at faulk.jack@epa.gov.

4) New Tool to Support Community-Based Water Resiliency Initiative
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a new tool to support the Agency’s Community-Based Water Resiliency initiative.  The tool will raise awareness of drinking water and wastewater (water sector) interdependencies with other community services to support emergency preparedness and response efforts. Critical infrastructure sectors have interdependencies with drinking water and/or wastewater services.  Many community services fall under these sectors (such as hospitals and power plants), and their operations could be severely affected by a water service disruption.

The tool will assist water utilities and all community stakeholders in increasing their preparedness for all-hazards impacting the water sector and their ability to respond to and recover from water service interruptions.  The electronic tool has a self-assessment feature which enables stakeholders to assess the strengths and weaknesses of current resiliency efforts, and provides a summary report with tailored recommendations for using resources within the tool that would aid in enhancing resiliency. Individual modules have been developed for water utility owners and operators; the healthcare and public health sector; the emergency services sector; state or tribal drinking water primacy agencies; elected officials; community members, and other non-water sector entities.

To access more information about the initiative and to download the new tool, go to: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/communities/index.cfm

5) “Sustainable Communities, Healthy Watersheds” 2010 Annual Report Available Online
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) has released its 2010 Annual Report titled “Sustainable Communities, Healthy Watersheds.” Sustainable Communities and Healthy Watersheds are two major themes for EPA's national water program.

The report contains information about EPA's work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the development of new draft guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act (also known as the Waters of the U.S. Draft Guidance), progress in better protection of water quality in Appalachia from the harmful effects of surface coal mining operations, and advancement in the work of the National Ocean Council.  The report also includes information about OWOW's response to the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill through data monitoring evaluation, design monitoring plans and other efforts. Information about efforts to address nitrogen and phosphorus pollution through the development of a recommended Framework for states  as well as a new guidance that addresses polluted runoff from federal land management activity in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are also included in this publication

The report can be viewed at: http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/upload/owowannualreport2010.pdf

For information about the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds: http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/

6) Subscribe to Water Headlines
Please forward this message to your friends and colleagues who share an interest in water-related issues and would like to hear from EPA's Office of Water. To subscribe to the Water Headlines listserv:  Send an email message, leave the subject line blank, and address it to:  waterheadlines-join@lists.epa.gov

In the body of the message write:
Subscribe Water Headlines first name last name
(Please leave one blank space between each word, do not include any other message, and use your actual name - i.e. Subscribe Water Headlines Robert Jones)

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Water, Volume 3, Issue 2 (June 2011), Pages 445-717 Released

Here's the latest from:

Water, Volume 3, Issue 2 (June 2011), Pages 445-717 at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/

Table of Contents:

Michael D. Dettinger, Fred Martin Ralph, Tapash Das, Paul J. Neiman and Daniel R. Cayan
Article: Atmospheric Rivers, Floods and the Water Resources of California
Water 2011, 3(2), 445-478; doi:10.3390/w3020445
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/445/

Lisa J. Lucero, Joel D. Gunn and Vernon L. Scarborough
Article: Climate Change and Classic Maya Water Management
Water 2011, 3(2), 479-494; doi:10.3390/w3020479
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/479/

Erick Butler, Yung-Tse Hung, Ruth Yu-Li Yeh and Mohammed Suleiman Al Ahmad
Review: Electrocoagulation in Wastewater Treatment
Water 2011, 3(2), 495-525; doi:10.3390/w3020495
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/495/

Alvaro Calzadilla, Katrin Rehdanz and Richard S.J. Tol
Article: Trade Liberalization and Climate Change: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of the Impacts on Global Agriculture
Water 2011, 3(2), 526-550; doi:10.3390/w3020526
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/526/

R. O. Abdel Rahman, H. A. Ibrahium and Yung-Tse Hung
Review: Liquid Radioactive Wastes Treatment: A Review
Water 2011, 3(2), 551-565; doi:10.3390/w3020551
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/551/

Daniel J. Bain, Jennifer A. S. Arrigo, Mark B. Green, Brian A. Pellerin and Charles J. Vörösmarty
Communication: Historical Legacies, Information and Contemporary Water Science and Management
Water 2011, 3(2), 566-575; doi:10.3390/w3020566
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/566/

Olga E. Scarpati, Maria I. Botana, Alberto D. Capriolo, Veronica Pohl Schnake, Yamile Puga and Edgardo Salaverry
Article: Present Characteristics of Northwestern Patagonia (Argentina)
Water 2011, 3(2), 576-589; doi:10.3390/w3020576
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/576/

Joe Magner
Article: Tailored Watershed Assessment and Integrated Management (TWAIM): A Systems Thinking Approach
Water 2011, 3(2), 590-603; doi:10.3390/w3020590
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/590/

Manoj Kumar Jha
Article: Evaluating Hydrologic Response of an Agricultural Watershed for Watershed Analysis
Water 2011, 3(2), 604-617; doi:10.3390/w3020604
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/604/

Claudio Cassardo and J. Anthony A. Jones
Editorial: Managing Water in a Changing World
Water 2011, 3(2), 618-628; doi:10.3390/w3020618
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/618/

Yung-Tse Hung, Erick Butler and Ruth Yu-Li Yeh
Review: Chemicals and Allied Products Waste Treatment
Water 2011, 3(2), 629-648; doi:10.3390/w3020629
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/629/

Phil Rowland, Colin Neal, Darren Sleep, Colin Vincent and Paul Scholefield
Article: Chemical Quality Status of Rivers for the Water Framework Directive: A Case Study of Toxic Metals in North West England
Water 2011, 3(2), 649-666; doi:10.3390/w3020650
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/649/

Marko Stenroos and Tapio S. Katko
Article: Managing Water Supply through Joint Regional Municipal Authorities in Finland: Two Comparative Cases
Water 2011, 3(2), 667-681; doi:10.3390/w3020667
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/667/

John Crowther, Danyel I. Hampson, Ian J. Bateman, David Kay, Paulette E. Posen, Carl M. Stapleton and Mark D. Wyer
Article: Generic Modelling of Faecal Indicator Organism Concentrations in the UK
Water 2011, 3(2), 682-701; doi:10.3390/w3020682
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/682/

Ludovico Spinosa, Azize Ayol, Jean-Christophe Baudez, Roberto Canziani, Pavel Jenicek, Angelique Leonard, Wim Rulkens, Guoren Xu and Lex van Dijk
Article: Sustainable and Innovative Solutions for Sewage Sludge Management
Water 2011, 3(2), 702-717; doi:10.3390/w3020702
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/3/2/702/

End of the issue.

Friday, November 19, 2010

World Toilet Day 2010!

Did you know that November 19 is World Toilet Day?

World Toilet Day is designed to acknowledge the life-saving power of the toilet and appreciate the toilets in our lives. Believe it or not, more people on earth have cell phones than have access to a toilet! Which may be a sad commentary on where our priorities are - but maybe this is a call to use that ubiquitous communication device to get the word out.

Not long ago, New York, London, and Paris were centers of infectious disease, facing the same water problems that cities like Mumbai, Lagos, and Rio de Janeiro face today. Life expectancy was low and child death rates were as high then as they are now in much of Sub-Saharan Africa. It was sweeping reforms in water and sanitation that enabled human progress to leap forward.

This also ties into my post a couple days ago about the Paul Simon Water for the World Act that you can learn about here.

Lack of sanitation is the world’s biggest cause of infection and a big cause of water pollution. This means people must relieve themselves in open streets, fields, or dangerous back alleys. In India alone, the number of people who practice open defecation is double the population of the U.S. You can imagine how this affects health not only because of direct contact with diseases from sewage but also from pollution of water supplies used for drinking, cooking and washing. And, it is sad to say, but there are still people in the United States that are not hooked to a sewer system or septic system that will help protect water quality or their health.

The purpose of World Toilet Day is to raise a stink about this lack of sanitation that causes not only embarrassment, concerns for safety, and lack of dignity, but preventable disease, illness, and all too often, death.

Water.org is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization committed to providing safe drinking water and sanitation to people in developing countries. Learn more by visiting their website at www.water.org.

Monday, November 15, 2010

The Water We Drink

The Water We Drink: Small Community Outreach Campaign, which offers information about maintaining safe, sustainable, and secure water supplies in small and rural communities, has added new content to its website.

The website, located at www.nesc.wvu.edu/waterwedrink/, is a joint effort by the Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) and the National Environmental Services Center (NESC), located at West Virginia University, and is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

New articles about source water protection, setting water and sewer rates, water and energy, and the benefits of joining your state’s Water and Wastewater Agency Response Network (WARN) are available to complement previous articles related to pharmaceuticals and personal care products in our waters, impending labor shortages, and aging infrastructure. The articles are written especially for those who oversee local water and wastewater services, and may be downloaded at no charge and used for educational purposes, such as reprinting in newsletters and magazines, training sessions, and websites.

RCAP’s Director of Training and Technical Services Joy Barrett, Ph.D., says, “Our main message is that local leadership is essential in protecting water resources and maintaining critical water and wastewater services, and there are practical options for ensuring the short- and long-term viability of these systems. The new articles encourage local officials and small water utility board members to be proactive in working with local utilities to determine adequate rates, prevent water pollution, conserve water and energy, and partner with neighboring utilities to plan and respond to emergencies.”

The website also offers a brochure, a PowerPoint presentation and instructor’s guide, and fact sheets about keeping pharmaceuticals and personal care products out of our waterways. The Water We Drink project strives to raise awareness about crucial water issues and solutions, and invites everyone to use the articles and resources to support or complement state and local efforts.

Learn more by going to www.nesc.wvu.edu/waterwedrink/.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Permeable Pavement Webinar

I had the good fortune to tune in to a webinar sponsored by the Center for Watershed Protection and the Chesapeake Stormwater Network. The webinar contained lots of practical information about performance, installation and maintenance of permeable pavement systems that can be used either on the homeowner or huge commercial scale. While I see many potential applications for the city surrounding me, my overwhelming feeling upon leaving the gathering place for the webinar was to break up concrete and invest in creeping thyme.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Pamplona has Nothing on this Bull Run

Here's a nice piece on one of my favorite watersheds:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/bull_run_watershed_journey_to.html

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

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...

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

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.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Video on Building Green: A Success Story in Philadelphia

Video on Building Green: A Success Story in Philadelphia

EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) announced the availability of a new 11-minute video, "Building Green: A Success Story in Philadelphia," which highlights innovative efforts by green builders in Philadelphia who are helping protect and restore environmental quality and beautify the city. By installing cisterns, green roofs, porous pavers, solar panels, and Energy Star appliances, the builders are capturing rainwater, reducing stormwater runoff, and saving energy.

In the video, Howard Neukrug, Director of Philadelphia’s Office of Watersheds, explains the importance of green stormwater infrastructure. The city is now offering incentives to builders and developers to use
green techniques to help meet clean water and other environmental goals.


The video is available on-line at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/video.html. A high resolution Digital Betacam version is also available upon request. For more information, contact Patty Scott at scott.patricia@epa.gov.


Whatever the heck high resolution Digital Betacam is - I guess this old fogey better visit Wikipedia or something.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Non Point Source Pollution and Stream Health in Urban Areas

New USGS study examines effects of urban development on stream ecosystem health in 9 metropolitan areas across the U.S.

A new USGS study examines effects of urban development on stream ecosystem health. Findings show that aquatic insect communities demonstrate little, if any, initial resistance to low levels of urban
development that were previously thought to be protective of aquatic life. By the time a watershed reaches about 10 percent impervious cover in urban areas, aquatic insect communities are degraded by as much as 33 percent in comparison to aquatic insect communities in forested watersheds.

Comparisons among the nine metropolitan areas show that not all urban streams respond in a similar way. Land cover prior to urbanization can affect how aquatic insects and fish respond to urban development and is important to consider in setting realistic stream restoration goals in urban areas.

The USGS determined the magnitude and pattern of the physical, chemical, and biological response of streams to increasing urbanization and how these responses vary throughout nine metropolitan areas, including Portland, OR; Salt Lake City, UT; Birmingham, AL; Atlanta, GA; Raleigh, NC; Boston, MA; Denver, CO; Dallas, TX; and Milwaukee, WI.

For more information, including access to USGS reports and video podcasts, please visit http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/urban/

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

USGS WaterAlert - Instant Information about Your River or Well

A nice new service, particularly as the boating season gears up...
 
USGS WaterAlert - Instant Information about Your River or Well

             
Receive instant, customized updates to your phone or email about water conditions by subscribing to WaterAlert , a new service from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Whether you are involved in managing floods or droughts; interested in water conditions for optimal and safe boating and other recreation, or concerned about the quality of water in your well, WaterAlert  allows users to receive updates about river flows, groundwater levels, water temperatures, rainfall and water quality at any of more than 9,500 sites where USGS collects real-time water information.

How to sign up:  Go to  http://water.usgs.gov/wateralert Select a specific site; preferred delivery method (email or text); frequency of delivery (hourly or daily); data parameter(s); and parameter threshold(s).  Users can set the system for alerts when conditions are above a value, below a value, and between or outside of a range.

For more information, contact: Robert Mason, rrmason@usgs.gov , (703) 648-5305.
Or contact the USGS Water Science Center in your state, which can provide detailed information on water conditions and USGS response to local events.
 
For access to the USGS press release: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2464 .

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

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)

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

DEQ and Groundwater Management

Interesting to note the Environmental Quality Commission meeting agenda for this week includes an informational item about the Lower Umatilla Groundwater Management Area (staff report is available here).  The opening of the staff report states, "Oregon’s 1995 Groundwater Protection Act requires DEQ to declare a 
groundwater management area if groundwater contamination, resulting at least in part from nonpoint source activities, exceeds certain contamination levels." The staff report goes on to say that it is worth continuing to use voluntary methods to control contamination in the region even though groundwater nitrate levels have not declined and in fact show increasing trends. 

Perhaps I noticed this item because within the same week I received a notice that the DEQ is holding a public meeting about establishing a steering committee for what they are calling the S. Deschutes/N. Klamath Groundwater Protection Project.  On the map on the web site for this project it shows a statewide map of the incidence of detected nitrate-nitrogen levels in groundwater around the state and there several bright red spots of 10+mg/L around the state.  

What does a Groundwater Management Area get us as citizens of Oregon?  Voluntary action while groundwater contamination increases .... establishing yet another steering committee while groundwater contamination continues ... sometimes it is time to call a spade a spade and put that spade to work improving things.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Help Oregon Develop an Integrated Water Resources Strategy

Just a reminder that OWRD's Spring 2010 open houses are coming up!
Four state agencies have been given responsibility for developing an integrated water resources strategy for Oregon by 2012, with 5‐year updates thereafter. This spring, these agencies, along with commissioners and local partners, will host a series of evening open houses throughout Oregon
communities, serving three purposes:
 
1. To ensure that participants receive information about the statewide strategy, the project timeline, and the many opportunities to participate.

2. To gather input from community members, in terms of water resource challenges, opportunities, and recommended actions.

3. To highlight successful, local examples of water resource solutions currently underway in Oregon communities.

Various stations will allow participants to engage in individual conversations and facilitated discussions, listen to presentations, and to ask questions about current issues and local projects. A “kid’s center” will allow younger attendees to participate in water‐related activities.

More info at:

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

WSWC Report: Exempt Well Issues in the West

This is an issue near and dear to my heart - how many stirring straws can you stick in a slurpie before you start to run out of sugar water?  Thanks to Michael Campana and Todd Jarvis, from whom I stole this posting...

 WSWC Report: Exempt Well Issues in the West

Here is a timely report if there ever was one. It's by Nathan Bracken of the Western States Water Council. Hot off the press - thanks toTodd Jarvis.
Here is the Executive Summary:

There are over a million exempt domestic and livestock wells
located throughout the West. Although these wells are an important
source of water for a large number of water users, they also pose
significant regulatory and administrative challenges that have the
potential to impact the sustainability of water supplies, surface flows,
and water quality. In June 2008, the Western Governors’ Association
and the Western States Water Council issued a report entitled
Water
Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future: Next Steps
, which
contained recommendations on how the states and federal government
should address the ever-increasing challenges associated with water
management in the West. Item 3(D) of the
Next Steps report’s
Executive Summary recommends that states “should examine their
related laws and institutions and evaluate the merits of . . . [permitting
and monitoring] exempt domestic and livestock wells as part of water
rights regulatory schemes.” The WSWC’s Legal Committee
subsequently commissioned this Report, which addresses 1) the
statutory and regulatory authority among WSWC member states
regarding exempt domestic and livestock wells, 2) the ways in which
these wells can complicate or compromise water resources allocation,
administration, and quality, 3) the specific challenges WSWC member
states are facing with respect to exempt wells, 4) the relative costs and
benefits associated with mintoring wells that are currently exempt,
and 5) the potential approaches to mitigate the adverse impacts of
exempt wells.

Perhaps I should have saved this post for April Fools' Day.
"We never know the worth of water till the well is dry."  ~Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732