A New Ocean Outfall at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware

Despite the Delaware Chapter's best efforts the City of Rehoboth Beach, DE recently chose to pursue building a new ocean outfall to dispose of its wastewater. Meanwhile, the Chapter is continuing their campaign to build support for Land Based Application (LBA) of the wastewater instead. LBA would allow the water to be recaptured and used primarily on agricultural fields through spray irrigation.

Local media coverage of this issue follows. For more info on the Chapter's campaign, visit their website.

Delaware beaches: Ocean sewage plan stirs questions Critics say Rehoboth outfall could affect water, deter tourists By MOLLY MURRAY The News Journal When Jean Miller heard that Rehoboth Beach officials had decided to send their treated wastewater through a pipe into the ocean, it took her back to Puerto Escondido, Mexico. Miller, of Wilmington, recalled standing on a resort balcony on Mexico's south Pacific coast. She looked out at the water and saw a yellow line, several yards off the beach, which she learned was the area's sewage being discharged on the outgoing tide. For Rehoboth, she had one question: "I wonder what the cost is going to be ultimately?" Each summer, the weekend population of Rehoboth Beach swells from 1,495 to 20,000, most drawn to the city's reputation for soft sand and clean water. Delaware typically scores high marks on ocean water quality from national environmental organizations and rarely are there advisories against swimming at any of the state's resort communities. That's why some folks are questioning the city commissioners' unanimous decision to pipe treated waste into the ocean, replacing a system that has contributed to pollution problems in Rehoboth Bay. Sen. George Bunting, D-Bethany Beach, said he was surprised the city would risk the possible impact on tourism to save on future sewerage rates. "We've worked all these years to get them out of the bay," he said. "The issue is more about money than the science of it." The long-term impact is impossible to gauge, said Russ Merritt, whose group -- the Delaware Chapter of the Surfriders -- opposed the plan. "It may be a decision we don't know to regret yet," he said. Dozens of municipalities safely use ocean outfalls along the Atlantic Coast and more often than not, they operate without problems. The wastewater is heavily treated, with solids removed and the liquid heavily disinfected before discharge -- often a mile or more off the coast, a scenario that is far different from what Miller witnessed in Mexico. In New Jersey, there are 14 ocean outfalls from Sandy Hook south to Wildwood. Sussex County operates an ocean outfall at the south end of Bethany Beach, and Ocean City, Md., has an ocean outfall. All operate with pollution discharge permits and must meet standards for the water that flows out the end of the pipe. And on the West Coast, ocean outfalls have been a way of life for decades. Los Angeles, for instance, started dumping its waste into the Santa Monica Bay in the late 1800s and continued to dump the untreated waste through the 1920s until area residents began complaining about it. Still, some places are beginning to rethink the old adage that "the solution to pollution is dilution." In June 2008, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signed into law legislation to ban new ocean outfalls and expansions of the existing ones in South Florida. The concern: the impact excessive nutrients have on marine life and a growing need to reuse water in the heavily populated region. The six existing south Florida ocean sewer outfalls have until 2018 to significantly reduce nutrients coming from their pipes and must eliminate the outfalls entirely by 2025. Some 60 percent of the flow -- all told, 300 million gallons a day -- must be redirected to beneficial reuse. In Massachusetts, officials with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority spent more than a decade in court to win permits for a new outfall that discharges through a 9 1/2-mile tunnel into 100 feet of water in Massachusetts Bay. Authority officials are required to do special monitoring as part of their permit to make sure the discharge doesn't impact endangered northern right whales, which are found seasonally in an area 16 miles away. Any sewer system that discharges to a waterway is problematic, said Thomas P. Fote, with the Jersey Coast Anglers Association. Industrial dischargers pretreat their waste to remove harmful chemicals, but that doesn't happen with the waste from homes, he said. People flush old prescription medications and household cleaners -- all substances that can cause significant problems in the aquatic environment -- and they linger. "It's what's coming out of our homes," Fote said. "The drugs we take, the cleaners we use." Estrogen in some medications is one example. "We know it's affecting the sex lives of fish," he said. Rehoboth's proposed outfall would be close to Hen & Chicken Shoals -- an essential fish habitat. "That's where they are most vulnerable," he said of the area's fisheries. But the bottom line, Fote said, is "no matter where you put it, it's going to have an impact. ... It's not an easy solution." Still, Rehoboth officials believe the outfall can be operated safely and is the most cost-effective option. It also will allow the city to have control over future fees and rates. The area is so rich with groundwater that reuse really isn't an issue, according to Mayor Samuel Cooper. Besides, he said, state environmental officials haven't come up with a method or system that allows for beneficial reuse. City Commissioner Dennis Barbour said his decision was prompted by the environment, the interests of the larger community outside Rehoboth, public perception and the fiscal impact on the citizens of Rehoboth. Barbour said the other option -- to apply the treated waste to the land -- "does little, if anything, to address long-term environmental concerns about the health of the bay. I am convinced that wastewater disposed of in the ground will simply make its way back to the bay in due time, along with its harmful elements. "On the other hand," he said, "I am equally convinced that current technologies ensure that ocean outfall will not have any significant, measurable negative environmental impact. I have expressed concern that science might one day identify harmful pathogens in wastewater, now unknown or unmeasurable, that may force us to abandon ocean outfall." But, Barbour said, in the end he was satisfied that this concern was speculative. At a hearing in November, the majority of city residents on hand supported the proposed ocean outfall as a less-costly alternative and one that gave city officials control over future costs and operations. Much of the citizen opposition came from people who lived outside the city limits -- folks who worried about the potential for water quality problems both short- and long-range. Among the most vocal opponents: the local chapter of the Surfriders. More than 500 of their members nationwide sent e-mails to the city opposing the outfall plan. In addition, the Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce favored sending the wastewater inland, to be sprayed on land, rather than out to the ocean. "It had nothing to do with safety or water quality," said Carol Everhart, president of the chamber. "It had everything to do with perception ... and a concern that it could lead to a loss of visitation." Everhart said now that the decision has been made, chamber officials will work with the city to make sure the public is well-informed about the safety of the proposed outfall. "That's our job now," she said. "If anything were to wash up on the beach ... you have to be prepared." Rates will rise The average city homeowner pays $325 a year in sewer fees. Under any of the alternatives city officials considered, sewer rates would rise. The range of price for the ocean outfall is $550 to $630 annually. The land application price range was $1,010 to $1,420. Rehoboth is under a court order to alter its wastewater discharge. The city currently discharges into the Lewes & Rehoboth Canal a few hundred yards from Rehoboth Bay. The city's treatment plant is considered a major source of the nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus that fuel algae growth in the bays. As the aquatic plants die and decompose, oxygen levels drop. When oxygen gets too low, fish die. The decomposition can also cause bad odors and a thick mat of seaweed. Some of the microorganisms can be toxic in high numbers. Under the court order, the city must stop discharging treated waste into the canal by December 2014. Over the years, state environmental regulators have pressured the city to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the discharge, but environmental problems -- ranging from fish kills to algae blooms -- continue in the Inland Bays and their tributaries. And as Sussex County has worked to remove hundreds of failing septic systems from Dewey Beach and the north and west sides of Rehoboth Bay, and area farmers have taken steps to reduce their nitrogen and phosphorus runoffs, pressure has mounted on Rehoboth Beach. With the ocean outfall option, it is likely the city could continue to use its current treatment plant. The city is routinely in compliance on bacteria standards, according to monitoring reports that the city files with the state. Ironically, ocean outfalls are easier to permit under federal Clean Water Act standards than other wastewater treatment options, said James May, a professor of law and graduate engineering at Widener University. May said that while the permits may be more difficult to obtain politically, they need only meet primary treatment standards -- technologies that date to the 1920s. The idea is that the ocean is so big, any pollution is rapidly mixed in the ocean water column, he said. Rehoboth has struggled with nitrogen and phosphorus at its current plant. But Sussex County's South Coastal Regional Treatment Plant -- which has an ocean outfall south of Bethany -- doesn't have a limit for nitrogen and phosphorus in its permit. The idea, said Heather Sheridan, director of environmental services for Sussex County, is that there is so much mixing once the treated wastewater reaches the ocean, there is little need to worry about nitrogen and phosphorus levels. A federal Environmental Protection Agency study that looked at environmental impacts of ocean sewer outfalls found there was no impact on fish. The scientists found that the "benthic community," the animals that live on the sea floor, had a dual impact from outfalls. During the winter, the population stayed the same. But in the summer, diversity in the community decreased while the number of remaining animals went up. They found there was no difference in the water quality or the bottom sediments. State's decision It will be up to the state to decide whether to allow the discharge and what pollution limits it will impose on Rehoboth, May said. "We'll be looking at national standards, our own water quality standards," said Kathy Bunting Howarth, state director of water resources. "It's not just a state permitting process. It's got to be federal as well." The permitting likely will include the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers, among others. City officials plan to request funding next month for the project through the state's Clean Water Advisory Council. Robert Stickels, the former Sussex County administrator who serves as Sussex County's representative on the state's infrastructure funding council, said he believes the city likely will qualify for a low-interest loan. With the outfall, Rehoboth "is really making a long-term commitment," Stickels said. Stickels, a former town manager in Georgetown, recalled his permit struggles as that town tried to get a discharge permit for a local tax ditch. He said that although the county has a stellar operating record with its ocean outfall, the county has moved toward land-based treatment with the facilities it has built over the last 20 years. Rehoboth's steps, he noted, will be closely watched. "Rehoboth's a financial jewel for Delaware," he said. "This decision is greater than the boundaries of their town limits." Gerard Esposito, executive vice president of Tidewater Utilities and a former state director of water resources, said he is concerned that the costs of the options haven't been fully vetted and city leaders may find out that ocean outfall is more expensive than they think. The cost estimates are based on historic information because "hardly anybody is building ocean outfalls anymore," said Esposito, whose company had proposed a public-private land-treatment option. And the potential for delays -- if the city is challenged in court or runs into permitting issues, could make the cost rise as well, he said. Rehoboth's consulting engineers, Stearns & Wheler LLC, say the highly treated effluent won't be a health or environmental problem. They suggest that even in a worst-case scenario -- a situation in which there would be a power failure -- the outfall would be environmentally sound because with no power, pumps would fail to send wastewater to the outfall. Dagsboro businessman and charter boat captain Paul Henninger said he couldn't see a down side to the resort city's decision on using an ocean outfall. "Actually, I think it'll benefit the fishermen," Henninger said. "There's already a wastewater pipeline off Bethany. I have the coordinates. I fish there already, and sometimes the fishing is pretty good right there." Henninger, who has sailed the 33-foot Amethyst on fishing runs from Indian River Inlet for 26 years, said nutrients from the pipe may make food chains in nearby waters slightly more productive and interesting to fish of all kinds. Harry Haon, vice chairman of the state Sierra Club's Southern Delaware Group, said the environmental organization took no position on the issue, but also had not encountered widespread or strong opposition. "We had concerns about the spray irrigation approach, and if we'd taken a vote, it probably would have been for ocean outfall, but we were never very active on that," Haon said. Discharges to the ocean will be controlled by state and federal limits on pollutant concentrations in the pipeline, Haon said. Those same pollutants already have been discharged for years into the far more confined and vulnerable upper Rehoboth Bay. "There's a long track record on ocean outfall being done successfully not only in Delaware, but in Maryland, Florida and elsewhere," Haon said. While Rehoboth prepares to run the permitting gantlet, Gov. Jack Markell and his environmental secretary, Collin O'Mara, remain circumspect. "We anticipate receiving a permit application and look forward to working with the city," O'Mara said, "so that our Inland Bays will benefit from reduced amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus and a new system meets our standards to protect public health and the environment."

Poseidon Resources’ Carlsbad Ocean Desalination Proposal: The Truth – and Nothing But the Truth

Here is the first of a series of blog posts to help the tax-payers, water agencies, policy makers, and interested parties understand one of the most ill-conceived projects in the history of Southern California: The Carlsbad Desalination Project, by Poseidon Resources. 

We hope you post comments, and ask questions so we can clarify and articulate our position as needed.  Thank you!

Poseidon Resources’ Carlsbad Ocean Desalination Proposal: The Truth – and Nothing But the Truth!

Poseidon Resources is a capital venture-type of corporation proposing to construct and operate the largest ocean desalination facility in the Western Hemisphere. This proposal has been under consideration for many years and the corporation has made numerous public relations claims over that period that, to date, have been misleading if not utterly false.


It is critical to the decisions of our elected representatives, government agencies with permitting authorities and duties, communities expecting to receive this product water, and communities affected by the facility itself that the truth be known.


We will be posting a series of reports into the claims Poseidon Resources has made to the public and scrutinizing them for their factual accuracy – or lack thereof.


The Truths discussed will include:


•    the project DOES NOT have final approval of the entitlements and permits;


•    the project IS NOT environmentally benign as Poseidon claims;
            - update: their claim of carbon neutrality is baloney 



•    the proposal IS NOT completely privately financed and DOES NOT offer the public benefits Poseidon claims;
 - update: the subsides they need from the Metropolitan Water District are in jeopardy 6/22/201



•    the assumption that diversity is beneficial in a water supply portfolio IS NOT an argument in favor of THIS project;


•    this proposed project IS NOT necessary. There are preferred alternatives to this project that offer multiple benefits and, if fully implemented, would alleviate the need for this expensive and unreliable proposal altogether;
 

•    the project WILL NOT lower water costs, despite all the subsidies and tax-exemptions, (there is no such thing as a free lunch);
- update: finally we are seeing this "investment" for what it is: a bad deal for rate-payers/tax-payers.



•    this project comes with a huge Buyer Beware sign for not only the water agencies and customers, but for any potential investor.




We will conclude the series with a summary of the dramatic shifts in the lack of truth Poseidon Resources has employed in their public relations and lobbying efforts over time – as well as an interesting correlated shift in growing opposition to the proposal. We will also compare ocean desalination proposals in California that have had relatively easy times getting approval, as well as support from public-interest groups – in stark contract to the Poseidon proposals in Carlsbad and Huntington Beach.


Check back repeatedly, or subscribe on the top right, as we attempt to clear away all the fog Poseidon Resources has created and let the light of Truth shine on this proposal.

Surfrider’ s response to Poseidon Resources lackey, Ted Owen.

Here is our response to the editorial "written" by Mr. Ted Owen in the NC Times.


By JOE GEEVER -- Surfrider Foundation

The Perspective article, "Enough is enough with desalination lawsuits," written by Ted Owens and published in your paper Jan. 10 contains enough offensive inaccuracies that it demands a response. It is unfortunate that Mr. Owen, rather than focusing his comments on what he sees as merits of the Poseidon proposal, or the actual reasons why the project continues to be scrutinized and challenged by our state regulatory agencies, instead resorts to personal attacks.

It is completely inaccurate to characterize the scope of opposition to the project as "two fringe environmental groups." Surfrider Foundation and San Diego Coastkeeper are local grassroots organizations that have taken a lead in challenging this proposal. But there is a growing coalition of organizations opposed to this poorly designed facility ---- ranging from water management policy institutions to organizations representing the fishing community to groups protecting public health to environmental organizations like ours. The scope of concerns over this project, and the organizations opposing it can hardly be described as "fringe".

Mr. Owen also characterizes us as "obstructionists" who are the cause of delays in the project's final approval.

First, we are opposed to this project for sound public policy reasons. But we are also advocates for meeting our local water needs through alternatives that are cheaper for ratepayers, reduce reliance on imported water and are sustainable from both an economical and environmental perspective ---- including advanced recycling and conservation.

These alternatives reduce pollution, costs and energy demand while ensuring a local and reliable future source of freshwater. This in stark contrast to ocean desalination which requires more energy than the current most energy-intensive water supply option in Southern California (pumping water from Northern California).

More to the point, the delays in final approval of the project are the result of Poseidon withholding information that was critical to a thorough analysis of the project prior to issuing the permits. Ironically, it is Poseidon's pattern of secrecy that has resulted in the latest round of re-consideration of the project's permits.

As new facts are revealed, it mandates reconsideration of prior approvals to ensure the integrity of the approval process.

Surfrider Foundation has attempted to bring facts and sound science to the deliberation of this project from the beginning. We will continue this effort until the public and our decision-makers have all the facts right so that the laws protecting our coast and ocean are fully enforced.

Mr. Owen is wrong that the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is simply a voluntary commitment by Poseidon out of the goodness of its heart. Global warming, sea levels rising and ocean acidification are all threats to our coast and ocean, and the California Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission are mandated by law to protect against these threats.

Mr. Owen ventures into pure imagination and fantasy when he states, "... Surfrider abandoned its legal strategy when it determined that a significant number of its members did not agree with its position. ..."

We are a grassroots organization with local chapters nationwide. Our San Diego chapter has not "abandoned" anything. We continue to oppose this project, and we're simultaneously continuing our advocacy for preferred water management alternatives that meet our mission of restoring and protecting our coast and ocean.

Finally, Mr. Owen asserts that our efforts are aimed at undermining Poseidon's efforts to get government subsidies and finance the project through the sale of corporate bonds. Nothing could be further from the truth. Investors and the communities planning on this new supply of water should know that none of the permits or entitlements is final. Investments in the financial markets come with risks. We will leave it to individual investors to decide whether a project with so many outstanding "clouds" on the project entitlements is a wise use of their money.

Like Mr. Owen, we "look forward to getting on with the business of creating high-paying jobs and providing a reliable water supply."

We respectfully disagree that Southern California's water supply portfolio demands this project, and we will continue advocating for sound alternatives that provide multiple benefits like reducing wasted energy, pollution prevention and protection of marine life and healthy coasts and oceans. We also look forward to getting on with the state's efforts to restore and protect our precious marine life and reduce the multiple threats of climate change.

We hope Mr. Owen will join the Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Coastkeeper and more than 40 other statewide groups to ensure we meet this critical goal.

JOE GEEVER is the California policy coordinator for the Surfrider Foundation based in San Clemente.

Poseidon desal’s spin machine has been working overtime!

We’re not sure if everyone caught it, but SDNN ran an editorial by Mr. Ted Owen at the Carslbad Chamber of Commerce basically attacking Surfrider and our friends at Coastkeeper on Sunday. One of the comments at the bottom pointed out that Poseidon paid for the letter. We haven’t seen a hard copy of the letter, but if that’s the case, the Poseidon spin machine is working overtime as usual.

Our friends at Coastkeeper responded today with the truth about the Poseidon Desalination project, and our chapter agrees with every point in it. Cheers, Coastkeeper!

And while we’re at it, we would just like to point out that we fully support our friends at CERF too. Mr. Owen speculates that our former attorney, founder of CERF, and Surfrider Foundation member, Mr. Gonzalez, is a ‘lonewolf’ and, “his legal conduct are why we parted ways with him”. This is simply nonsense and nothing more than a figment of Mr. Owen’s imagination. We respect the work of Mr. Gonzalez and Coastkeeper and remain committed partners in a growing coalition of organizations that have objections to the design and location of this proposed facility. As previously stated, we are committed to fighting this ill-conceived desalination project, and Mr. Gonzalez and his team are our colleagues and partners in this effort. We look forward to many joint projects in the future with CERF.

When we have time, we’ll take apart all of Mr. Owen’s speculations and misrepresentations to help him understand why the project he so desperately endorses is not a fit for San Diegans.

In short, not only is the protection of our coast and ocean important to the environment and the quality of life in our community – it is an equally important asset to local businesses. It seems ironic that the business community attracted to our region because of our beautiful coast and ocean would go to such extraordinary lengths to support a project that adversely impacts the very reason we live and work here. Our suspicion and hope is that Mr. Owen’s inflammatory and simply false personal attacks are not reflective of the larger business community.

We have engaged in a respectful debate about the merits of the project, and suggested superior alternatives for meeting the water needs of San Diegans. We will maintain that level of civility and refuse to be “baited” into personal attacks that distract from legitimate concerns about Poseidon’s proposed ocean desalination factory.

Surfrider San Diego is committed to fighting bad desalination projects like Poseidon

Recently the Surfrider Foundation removed ourselves from the State Lands Commission lawsuit regarding the Carlsbad desalination plant but we remain committed to the desalination campaign and feel our efforts can be better utilized elsewhere. Removing ourselves from the lawsuit is in no way an abandonment of the campaign or our partnership with San Diego Coastkeeper. We are simply reallocating resources to where they can do the most good. We, along with Coastkeeper are planning to divide the work on this important issue so we can be most effective in fighting against this desalination plant. Surfrider Foundation will continue advocating to improve marine life protection and fighting harmful desalination projects along the California coastline.

Instead of desalination, Surfrider advocates conservation efforts and recycling water to drinking standards. These two important steps should be taken before we go down the path to building desalination factories that cost the taxpayer more money, and contribute to climate change.

Desal and “Carbon”ated Water: Coastal Commission Should Make the Carlsbad Project Offset All of Its Carbon Impacts

Another great article that points out why Poseidon's proposed desalination factory is not the answer to San Diego's water supply needs. The important parts are in bold for your reading pleasure!

Coastal Commissioners: are you paying attention?


By Jonas Minton
Planning and Conservation League

Carbon emissions and water supply are two sides of the same coin. In California nearly 20 percent of our electrical energy is used to move water around the State, treat it for use and then treat it again for disposal.

All of that energy generation emits huge amounts of carbon to our atmosphere. So when Poseidon Corporation claims that its proposed desalination plant in Carlsbad will have a “zero carbon footprint” it may sound too good to be true. Well, that’s because it is.

In February the Coastal Commission will be reviewing the accuracy of information submitted by Poseidon for its permit to build the largest desalination facility in the Western Hemisphere in Carlsbad, California. The issue is Poseidon’s claimed CO2 offsets.

Ocean desalination is the most energy/carbon intensive way to provide water - even more than pumping water more than 400 miles all the way from Northern California, up over the Tehachapi Mountains and on to San Diego. Poseidon’s proposed ocean desalination plant would require 30 megawatts of generation. Producing this much energy would emit an additional 120,000 to 154,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year into our atmosphere.

Poseidon’s claim of carbon neutrality is a critical piece of their project for the Coastal Commission, which is charged with ensuring protection of California’s precious coast and marine environment from the multiple threats of climate change.

Now, the Coastal Commission staff and several public interest groups have uncovered evidence that the company’s carbon-neutral claim contradicts Poseidon’s agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Poseidon’s promise of a carbon neutral project, it turns out, is based on misrepresentations and Wall Street style math that just doesn’t add up.

In its permit application, Poseidon claimed that the desalted water they produce will “replace” water that would otherwise be delivered to the region from Northern California. By promising that its project would replace water pumped from the north, Poseidon was able to claim a large reduction in the plant’s “net” carbon footprint.

What the company withheld was that their financing contract with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California specifically disallows this replacement. Poseidon, it turns out, is claiming it can trade something it doesn’t have.

Metropolitan alone decides how much water it will pump from the north and it is protective of this right – so protective that it specified that the contract is void if Poseidon interferes with Metropolitan’s water rights or water deliveries from the north.

Metropolitan has stated publicly that it will pump as much water from Northern California as state and federal regulations allow. It is not going to reduce the amount of water that it is bringing down from Northern California based on what Poseidon produces or how much energy it uses. So Poseidon is using phony accounting to claim they will reduce their project’s greenhouse gas impact by “replacing” water that would otherwise be imported to the region.



The article appeared on California Progress Report, and can be viewed here.

Barrels!!!

No not that type... rain barrels! It's hard to think much about rain with the lovely spring-like weather we've been having lately, but eventually it will rain again and when it does we'll have the usual runoff, dirty water, bacteria, etc.

While we think of runoff coming mostly from our streets and parking lots, there's another impermeable surface out there that collectively accounts for hundreds of thousands of gallons of runoff water each year: rooftops. Every time it rains water runs off our roofs, down the gutters, into the street, and down our stormdrains collecting oil, bacteria, and other contaminants along the way.

There is an easy and attractive solution that not only reduces runoff pollution but stores that water for later use in the garden when things dry out again.

While an online search for rain barrels usually comes up with an array of industrial plastic barrels (usually blue), there are many materials that can be bought and/or customized to collect and save the water for future use. Recycled oak whiskey and wine barrels, glazed ceramic pottery, and hand painted recycled metal oil barrels are just a few ideas that are not only useful but make great focal points in the garden. Drill a few holes, add a spigot and a leaf screen and you can turn any of these containers into a working rain barrel.

For an even less industrial look, rather than hooking your rain barrel directly to a downspout, copper rain chains can be fixed to the roofline gutters to direct water into the barrel and give an even more decorative look to your water collection system.

For those wanting to get really serious about rainwater storage, you might consider installing a cistern (the underground type are least visually invasive) which uses a pump to distribute water and can save hundreds of gallons of rainwater at a time.

Check out http://www.harvesth2o.com/ for more resources and great information about rainwater harvesting and graywater around the country.

Come learn about IPR in San Diego at our Chapter Meeting 1/20.

Join us for a lively discussion on water, how fresh water intersects with Surfrider's mission, and more info on our Know Your H2O awareness program. Marsi Steirer, Deputy Director of the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department, will be there to talk about the Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Demonstration Project. The City is undertaking the pilot project in the hopes of reducing our dependence on imported water and decreasing the treated wastewater that is offloaded in the ocean.

Visit ICarPool for carpools and check out www.sdcommute.com for public transport options.

The City of San Diego is working to develop local solutions for future water supply reliability. They include the City of San Diego’s:

Recycled Water Program –
• Two water reclamation plants
• These plants treat wastewater to a level that is approved for irrigation, manufacturing and other non-drinking, or non-potable purposes. The North City Plant has the capability to treat 30 million gallons a day and the South Bay Plant can treat 15 million gallons a day. Recycled water gives San Diego a dependable, year-round, locally controlled water resource.

Indirect Potable Reuse/Reservoir Augmentation Demonstration Project -
• Evaluate the feasibility of using advanced water treatment on recycled water.
• Provide a locally-controlled drought-proof supply of high quality water to over half the region’s residents
• Increase recycled water use in the region
• Provide a supply of water with a smaller environmental footprint (including lower carbon emissions) than imported or desalinated water


Recycled Water Study -
• Identify opportunities to increase recycling of wastewater for potable and non-potable uses
• Determine implementation costs
• Determine the extent recycling can off-load the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant

The Oh Decade: Old water policies limit choices for future

By Peter Gleick
Special to The Sacramento Bee (quite relevant in Southern California and beyond)

We live in a fragile time and place. Californians started out in 1850 grossly abusing our water resources and we've never stopped.

The difference now, however, is that we can no longer get away with it. The complex, archaic system that California cobbled together to satisfy our competing demands for limited water resources is coming apart at the seams. Physically. Ecologically. And politically.

As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, we are faced with two stunningly different alternatives: disaster or reform. The bad news is that efforts at reform are moving too slowly now to rule out disaster.

It took a nine-year severe drought in Australia to transform how that country manages water. It took the collapse of the apartheid regime in South Africa in the early 1990s to produce a new way of thinking about water rights, allocations and environmental protection. I hope we'll be smart enough to solve our problems before such extreme events occur, but the signs are not good.

Over the past decade, California's water system has been pushed to the edge of collapse. Why? There is plenty of blame to go around: new demands for water, growing populations in the hottest parts of the state, legal decisions to protect a weakened and abused environment, a natural drought made worse by human-caused climate change, an ineffective management system, a conflicted public and ideologically rigid politicians.

Ten years ago, we thought we could continue to increase the amount of water taken from our rivers and groundwater without hurting our natural system. Exports of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta were boosted to record levels. We tapped the last drops of water from the Colorado River. And we dramatically increased our overdraft of groundwater.

Now we're paying the price and our ecosystems are collapsing. The plummeting populations of salmon, striped bass and other fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other California waterways are just one indication of this collapse.

Ten years ago, scientists were already telling water managers that climate change would have serious consequences for the state's water resources, but nothing has been done to prepare.

Now as temperatures continue to rise, our snowpack is beginning to diminish. As sea-level rise accelerates, our coastal aquifers and wetlands are facing contamination and inundation. And whether or not it rains a lot this winter, the last decade saw seven dry years in a period when the average should have been only three.

Ten years ago, there was an open exchange of ideas under way in public forums and a willingness to use the tools of science and fact in dialogues involving farmers, environmentalists, scientists, water agencies and others. Today, that dialogue has broken down. Facts and science are inconvenient truths generally ignored by politicians, and communication about water issues is almost entirely strident, ideological ranting. All of this has led to a marked worsening of tensions among different entrenched interests.

None of these things will be easy to change. But there are solutions. A sustainable California water future is achievable. Getting there will require a completely different kind of thinking, dialogue and action than we see today.

No single answer will solve our problems. We hear over and over calls for simple 20th century solutions. Build more dams. Let the fish die. Stop growing cotton and rice. Prohibit suburbanites from watering lawns or washing cars. People like these kinds of answers for two reasons: They are simple, and they focus the responsibility on someone else.

But really fixing our water problems is going to require more difficult decisions, agreements and actions by each of us. On the practical side, we must start doing all of the following things: We must measure and monitor and report all water use – both surface and groundwater. We must use our water far more efficiently than we do today, in all sectors.

We must develop new, innovative sources of water supply, including massive groundwater recharge, the complete reuse of treated wastewater, local rainwater harvesting and environmentally and economically sound desalination of both seawater and brackish water. We must price water properly to encourage efficient use and appropriate allocation. And we must reform and enforce water rights allocations.

At the same time, there are several things we must stop doing.

A small number of agricultural lobbyists and their new allies in the right-wing media must stop vilifying and scapegoating the environment while exploiting the plight of the farmworker and local communities in the process. Some urban users and environmentalists must stop generalizing about the wastefulness of farmers. Part of what makes California great is the remarkable bounty produced by farmers on millions of acres of the most productive cropland in the world. Given the right signals and adequate water, California farmers can be the most innovative and efficient growers in the world.

Politicians must stop hiding behind party politics and narrow special interests and come together in the public interest. This means overcoming the tendency to adopt "simple fix" positions without being willing to listen to other ideas. When was the last time that a politician even pretended to have an open mind on a complex issue?

Part of our growing cynicism about politics is the result of the public perception that politicians seem unable or unwilling to be swayed by fact rather than by the priorities of their campaign contributors, paid lobbyists and party ideologues, who have no incentive to find solutions that work for interest groups beyond their own.

Do I think these things are going to happen? I'm normally an optimistic guy, but having watched the California Legislature botch its best opportunity in decades to fix our water system this year (and Congress botch its best opportunity to fix health care; and the world community botch its best opportunity to tackle the coming climate catastrophe), no, I don't.

But I know we can do better, and I would love to be proved wrong before we're forced to act by a crisis.

http://www.sacbee.com/198/story/2426984.html

Coastal Commission Wearies of Poseidon Ocean Desalination Plan; $530 Million in Public Subsidized Funding is Next Hurdle

By Joe Geever
Surfrider Foundation

Yesterday, after hours of deliberation the California Coastal Commission voted to reject a request by public-interest groups to revoke a permit for the largest desalination plant in the western Hemisphere in Carlsbad.

The groups had brought the revocation request after it was revealed that Poseidon Resources submitted incorrect environmental impact data – drastically underestimating the amount of marine life that would be killed by the plant. After the vote Commission staff disclosed new allegations of wrongdoing related to the plants greenhouse gas emissions.

One Commissioner, who voted against revoking the permit this time, commented that the repeated disclosure of misleading information from Poseidon was having a “cumulative effect.” “It’s like a rain of new problems,” according to Commissioner Burke – signaling what may be a sense of weariness by the Commission over the project’s proponent’s lack of accurate disclosures.

Taking away a developers permit after it has been granted is an extraordinary move and the Commission rarely takes this step. But members of the Commission expressed serious concern that Poseidon had withheld information from Commission staff on how much marine life would be killed in the ocean water intake.

When that information finally came at the last hour, it turned out to be erroneous and far underestimated the marine life mortality. According to Commissioner Sara Wan, “This is the clearest case for revocation I’ve seen in my many years on the Commission.” Other members, however, were not convinced that Poseidon had “intentionally” submitted false information and so voted not to revoke the permit.

In the end it remains unclear how the next revocation request may be viewed by the Commission. If Commissioner Burke’s observations reflect those of a majority of the Commissioners, Poseidon is setting what appears to be a pattern of misleading and erroneous information on the project that may sway some to believe these multiple misrepresentations were intentional and the project really does require a second look.

The project’s next hurdle is at the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee, a panel that allocates tax-free bonds to fund projects with public benefits. Poseidon has similarly misrepresented the cost and financing, originally saying it would require no public financing and cost $270 million.

The company, however, is seeking $530 million in tax-exempt bonds (representing a $70 million taxpayer subsidy of the project) on top of $350 million ratepayer subsidy from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The committee, made up of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Controller John Chaing and Governor Schwarzenegger, will meet to decide if Poseidon should receive these funds on January 14.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe Geever is the Southern California Coordinator of the Surfrider Foundation, a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of our world’s oceans,waves and beaches.

See the full article

San Diego Ranks #9 in Cities with Worst Tap Water

• Cities with best and worst tap water
• EWG's water filter buying guide

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show

This article shocked me on how often people expect clean water and are exposed to water that does not pass basic safety tests. Perfect time for a quick reminder on how pure recycled water the goes through the Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) process: so pure that minerals needed to be added back in so it does not corrode pipes. The reverse osmosis step used kills all of the 'gender benders'/endocrine disruptors that people are rightly concerned about.

Full New York Time Article

quick excerpt:
"An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state. In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority."

Cycle of Insanity: the Real Story of the Water Cycle

About a year ago, the San Diego chapter began working with Surfrider’s California Policy Coordinator, Joe Geever, on a new program: Know Your H20. We wanted to raise awareness of how fresh water management issues create a lot of problems for our oceans and beaches.
One idea we had was to build a website, but because the content of the problem is so overwhelming, and somewhat boring, we decided to build a flash-animated website. The project grew over time, as more folks through-out our California chapters heard about it, and wanted to help.
Naturally, almost all of our CA chapters are faced with the same problem: water is delivered from over thousands of miles away using huge amounts of energy, and at a huge expense. The water is used (often only once,) sent to a waste-water treatment plant, and then dumped in the ocean. And now, we are spending billions of dollars to build ocean desalination factories to pump the water back out of the ocean that we just paid for and transported. To us, it seems like an insane cycle of wasted energy and water resources. We wanted to show people that by conserving, and planting climate appropriate plants that we could in fact use less water, and that by recycling it to drinking standards, we could re-use our water. Both of these solutions would mitigate our need for desal factories which use way more energy than transporting our water thousands of miles, and in the process, contribute to climate change.

Paul Jenkin, at our Ventura chapter, along with Joe, began working with us on the content. We presented the facts to the West LA/Malibu chapter, and they said, “we can help build that flash movie!” Then the South Orange County chapter agreed to help fund, as did Monterrey, and Newport Beach.
We began writing the script, creating story boards, and then our friends at Scripps Institute of Oceanography connected us to the actress, and environmentalist, Zuleikha Robinson from Lost, who agreed to narrate our film. We are still a few months from completion, but because the film is one of the few to offer actual solutions to our water issues, we believe it can have a great impact on our consumers, businesses and agencies.

Right now we need your help securing a grant for the film's website. We have applied for a grant from Free Range Studios, who had 400 applicants. To help them narrow down a winner, we need your vote! Can you go here, and give us all 3 of your votes? We just need to finish in the top 20, and right now, we are at around #23.

Ocean Protection Council Is Holding an Informational Panel on Ocean Desalination

The Ocean Protection Council (OPC), after many requests from Surfrider Foundation and our partners in the environmental community, is holding an informational panel on ocean desalination. The meeting is right here in San Diego:

November 30, 2009
10 a.m. – 5 p.m.
Scripps Seaside Forum
8610 Kennel Way (formerly Discovery Way)
La Jolla, CA

It is our hope this panel presentation and public input will lead to an informed resolution from the OPC to several government agencies that will finally set standards on the best technology and location for ocean desalination. But maybe more importantly, the resolution can identify a set of alternatives to ocean desalination that restore our coast and ocean while meeting our demand for freshwater.

We want to emphasize that ocean desalination, if not done properly, will unnecessarily kill marine life in the seawater intakes and because of it's enormous energy demand will increase the state's cumulative greenhouse gas emissions — undermining the state's efforts to restore healthy marine life populations and reduce climate change and all the threats it creates to our coast and ocean.

Before we race into building massive ocean desalination facilities, we should fully implement water conservation programs that not only lower our demand, but eliminate polluted urban runoff — like our Ocean Friendly Gardens program.

We should also eliminate partially treated sewage discharges to the ocean and purify that water for re-use. Between Ventura and San Diego, we discharge approximately 1.3 billion gallons of water a day from our wastewater treatment plants. Recycling just a fraction of that water would eliminate the need for ocean desalination. And for those of us who care about our coast and ocean, water recycling eliminates a source of pollution and dramatically reduces the current energy demand of importing water to the region. Ocean desal increases both the energy demand "embedded" in water, increases the water we waste by discharging it to the ocean — and kills fish in the process.

Join us in telling the Ocean Protection Council that we want California to prioritize alternatives to our water supply portfolio that are consistent with our goals to restore and protect our coast and ocean. The current so-called "water crisis" is a call for water management reform — not expensive and environmentally damaging "band-aid" fixes like ocean desal that only make the problems we're trying to solve worse.

Cape Coral FL reusing all of its wastewater in 2009 - good on ya!

Click Here for the story.

Nothing Cape Coral residents flushed this year went to waste.

The City of Cape Coral this year recycled all of its wastewater, Public Works Supervisor Chuck Pavlos said. The city has come close in the past, but this is the first year the city has reused all of its water.

The city five years ago launched a half-billion dollars worth of water and sewer treatment plant expansions. The facilities treat wastewater and pump it back through the city’s irrigation system.

The system is designed to reuse treated water instead of dumping it into nearby waterways. Beyond protecting the waterways, it assures the city has a reliable water sources all year.

“It’s a very good thing,” said state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman Rhonda Haag. “We’re very proud of them. Their wastewater program is a model for other cities.”

Dr. Peter Gleick on Carlsbad desal

This guys seems to have it right in my opinion....

"Water Number: $350 million in public subsidies to a private group. Earlier this week, one of the subsidies demanded by Poseidon was granted. The Metropolitan Water Board approved a subsidy of up to $250 per acre foot per year for 25 years, which will make MWD customers pay more for water than they would otherwise have paid, with the profits going to a private company. Up to $350 million over 25 years.

This decision by MWD effectively proves two things: first, that desalination, as envisioned and designed by Poseidon, remains a premature and expensive choice for California. Second, that for all of Southern California's claims of improved efficiency, it is still easier for water agencies to spend $2 (or $3 or $4) to build a water-supply project than to spend $1 to get the same water through water-efficiency programs."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail??blogid=104&entry_id=51464#ixzz0WhHmHSN9

EPA tests porous pavement to combat contaminated rain runoff

Wouldn't it be great if we had porous pavement in every town and city in Southern California? Imagine how much cleaner our oceans would be!

Replacing all the old hard surfaces might cost some money, but replacing it would create a few jobs too. Wow - cleaner oceans, rivers and streams, and green jobs!

This is a study we will definitely keep our eyes on.


EPA tests porous pavement to combat contaminated rain runoff
Scientific American-10/30/09
By Larry Greenemeier

In an effort to prevent polluted parking lot rain runoff from contaminating surrounding soil and underground water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday said it has launched decade-long test of permeable materials to find one that can filter out impurities in rainwater before it flows to its final destination.

Pavement tends to collect grease, oil, antifreeze and other chemicals leaked from the cars that park there. When a heavy rain or snowstorm passes over this area it tends to wash these toxins toward the nearest porous surface. Sometimes this water rushes to a storm drain but other times storm drains are overwhelmed and runoff keeps flowing until it reaches the nearest patch of soil or body of water.

The EPA's first test site is its Edison, N.J., facility, where the agency has replaced a 3,995-square-meter section of parking lot with three different types of permeable pavement—interlocking concrete pavers, porous concrete and porous asphalt—and planted several rain gardens (pdf) with varying vegetation for the study. (Note: Interlocking concrete pavers are often called porous pavers, although the pavers themselves are not porous.)

Researchers will over time evaluate the effectiveness of each pavement type and the rain gardens in removing pollutants from stormwater, and how they help water filter back into the ground, according to the agency.

This long-term porous pavement research is part of the agency's Green Infrastructure Research Program and expected to let the EPA document the performance and capabilities of three porous pavement systems simultaneously at the same site, according to an EPA document describing the study.

Each of the monitored porous pavement parking rows has subsections lined with an impermeable geotextile fabric to collect the infiltrating water as well as sections that infiltrate into the underlying soil. Each impermeable section has a perforated pipe that drains the accumulated runoff through pipes under the roadway to a dedicated collection tank to the side of the lot.

Pollution runoff from hard surfaces remains a complicated problem, an EPA spokesman says. In urban areas, polluted runoff often flows from pavement into storm drains. "When heavy rain events occur, polluted water is often released into rivers, streams and oceans through events called combined sewer overflows," he says. "In rural areas, polluted runoff can flow off of paved areas directly into water bodies or onto land that may be used for farming."

Regional Liquidity: A Virtual Panel Hosted by voiceofsandiego.org & Equinox Center

This virtual panel features several articles on San Diego water issues:

• The Game of Pricing Water in San Diego: What Is This?



• Win the Hearts and Minds to Get Recycled Water



• The Problems with Irvine Ranch's Celebrated Water Prices

More articles can be found at www.voiceofsandiego.org

City Eases Water Policies, State Discusses More Conservation

Via kpbs.org

Mayor Jerry Sanders announced this week that the city will modify its water conservation plan for the winter. San Diego residents have conserved more than the city expected, and will not be asked to reduce watering to one day a week. Meanwhile, state lawmakers are discussing ways to improve California's water delivery system.

You can listen to the roundtable discussion with JW August, managing editor of 10News, Leslie Wolf Branscomb, editor of San Diego Uptown News, and Scott Lewis, chief executive officer of voiceofsandiego.org at kpbs.org

Pee in the shower! Save the Atlantic Rainforest!

interesting psa from a Brazilian enviro group...

What Happens Upstream Don't Stay Upstream

Nothing like a warm cup of Earl Grey with a splash of Barium, Arsenic and Lead while reviewing the Old Testament. I'm over sugar and milk - bring on the heavy metals.

Check out an article from the New York Times on how solving one environmental problem can create a major issue for water quality by clicking here.

California water war spreads to Congress

Via The Associated Press

The House approved a seemingly benign water recycling program Thursday for the San Francisco Bay area, but only after Republicans fought to broaden drought relief to California's farm belt.

More...

How IPR can Enhance CEQA Compliance

WateReuse is sponsoring a workshop on how using IPR stands to help wastewater districts be compliant with CEQA requirements.

Email me if you are interested in learning more or going at jared@surfridersd.org

Jared

Council To Take On Water Conservation

via kpbs.org

By Katie Orr

October 5, 2009

SAN DIEGO — Water in San Diego is becoming more scarce and more expensive. The city council will begin to look at ways to deal with San Diego’s limited water supply at its meeting Monday.

Council President Ben Hueso called for a Water Action Day to solicit ideas from experts and the public on how to better conserve. Hueso says the city should always take conservation seriously, not just when there’s a drought.

“We need to put a policy in place that gets to sustainable conservation. Not just conservation when we have a crisis, but conservation that’s going to make water available in San Diego on a consistent basis,” he says.

Hueso says the city should look into tiered water rates that give people financial incentives to use less. He says San Diego should also find renewable sources of water that reduce the city’s dependence on the Colorado River and San Joaquin River Delta.

Consumers' cuts drying up revenue for districts

This was a particularly frustrating article - it showed on one hand what Surfrider's been preaching for years: that if we just conserve water, we can make a big impact on our demand and supply, and potentially won't need to build desal plants up and down our coastline. But, on the other hand, it also pointed out how water agencies seem to be retailers willing to keep selling us as much as we want to consume, and in fact, depend on us to consume as much as possible so they can keep 'growing.'

Some of the comments below the article were particularly poignant, so please read on past the article, and let us know what you think.


California's Water: A Vanishing Resource
Consumers' cuts drying up revenue for districts
By Mike Lee
Union-Tribune Staff Writer

2:00 a.m. September 13, 2009


Be careful what you ask for.

Since California's drought began three years ago, water districts have increasingly urged residents and businesses to reduce consumption. In San Diego County, most of those agencies ramped up their pleas in April and then introduced mandatory restrictions in July, with the overall goal of cutting usage by 8 percent to 10 percent.

Now, they're facing too much of a good thing.

Countywide water use has plummeted more than expected, slashing water districts' sales revenue. Several agencies have seen their sales drop about 20 percent from April through July compared with the same time a year ago.

Water managers attribute the high savings rates to several factors, including the mandates, rapidly rising water bills and recession-weary households trying to lower their expenses.

The districts might have to keep boosting prices, tap reserves and shrink operating expenses while still carrying out projects required by state and federal laws.

Some have decided to ease their conservation outreach efforts and relax irrigation rules — an awkward position because climate experts don't expect the drought to end soon.

In the short run, the districts could encounter a more pressing challenge if the forecast atmospheric phenomenon called El Niño brings better-than-average rainfall this winter and enables residents to further curb their outdoor water use. That would cut deeper into sales.

“We don't need to keep telling (customers) to do a better job,” said Bill Rucker, general manager for the Vallecitos Water District in San Marcos.

His agency's sales fell 20 percent in the April-to-July period compared with the same period in 2008. To make up for the downturn, the district will leave some positions vacant and roll back conservation education.

During a meeting of the region's top water managers in late August, “everyone was concerned about the lost revenues,” said Dennis Lamb of the Vallecitos district.

He said the decision-makers expressed support for allowing residents to continue watering their lawns and other landscaping a maximum of three days a week during the winter and spring, even though current regulations call for irrigation only once a week from November through May.

Lamb, Rucker and other water officials said it's too early to panic about the financial bottom line. The figures for countywide water consumption in August haven't been finalized, and the heat wave at the end of that month may have boosted usage closer to normal levels.

Kristen Crane, who oversees Poway's water conservation team, wonders whether residents downsized their consumption so quickly that they'll soon burn out and return to old habits.

“If they just shut their sprinklers off altogether, that was not our goal,” she said. “We don't know if it's a knee-jerk reaction or if it's sustainable.”

Poway's water use during the April-to-July period dropped 22 percent compared with the same time last year. Crane said usage has decreased about 30 percent since 2007.

“If the conservation levels continue at 30 percent, we would have to evaluate the impacts of that on our rates,” Crane said.

Bill Lampshire, a 20-year resident of Scripps Ranch, said he believes the recent surge in conservation will be long-lasting.

He has curtailed his water use by irrigating his roses with dishwater, letting his lawn die and pushing his family members to shorten their showers. The result: a year-over-year reduction of more than 40 percent.

Lampshire also is looking at installing artificial turf instead of reviving his lawn.

His neighbors seem to be conserving, too. Virtually every yard in his neighborhood has a brown lawn or drought-tolerant landscaping, including rocks and cactuses.

Lampshire doesn't extend much sympathy to water districts squeezed by falling revenue.

“If they are not earning enough money, well, shame on them. They have earned enough in the past,” Lampshire said.

Uncertainties such as how intent people are on long-term conservation, how long California will remain parched and how certain wildlife preservation efforts will affect water supplies leave district managers nervously monitoring their sales figures.

“When we are mandated to cut back 8 to 10 percent, ideally we cut back 8 to 10 percent,” said Bob Cook, general manager for the Lakeside Water District.

But Lakeside is exceeding expectations and is among the county leaders in conservation. Its water use was down 20 percent during the April-to-July period compared with the same time a year earlier.

“Our (customers) are at the forefront of this economic downturn, and I am certain that has something do with it,” Cook said. “I bet their electricity bills are down. I bet their gasoline bills are down, too.”

Water agencies' expenses typically are tied to state and federal quality standards, so the districts can't make significant budget cuts without threatening public health and risking fines.

In addition, as inventories shrink amid drought, retail water agencies statewide are having to pay more because wholesalers are spreading their fixed costs over fewer gallons.

The Lakeside district's leaders are weighing their options.

“In the short term, we are going to rely on reserves,” Cook said. “In the long term, nobody has come to a decision on that.”

San Diego, by far the largest retail water agency in the county, isn't hurting as badly as some of its neighbors, said utilities director Jim Barrett.

He said the city budgeted for a 15 percent sales reduction during the fiscal year that started in July. San Diego's actual savings was about 18 percent for the April-to-July period compared with the same time last year.

The city's sales estimate was driven by initial projections that water supplies could be cut by 15 percent or more in Southern California. That conservation target was lowered in April, but San Diego stuck to the original forecast.

Still, Barrett said, the district could relax its outdoor-watering protocol for November through May. One irrigation day per week “is probably a little bit too severe” amid the current conservation trend, he said.

At the Olivenhain Municipal Water District in Encinitas, officials plan to leave their three-day-a-week system in place at least through December.

The amount of water saved by the district's customers in July and August equaled the agency's target for the entire fiscal year, General Manager Kimberly Thorner said.

“We don't want to be reactionary to just a couple of months of reduced demand . . . but essentially, since we are already getting 23 percent reduction with three watering days, let's just keep it up,” Thorner said.

San Diego Council Steps In on Water After Mayor's Plan Falls Flat

Interesting article from the Voice of San Diego...

Sunday, July 19, 2009 | When the first reduction in San Diego's water supplies in two decades loomed earlier this year, a long list of people weighed in on Mayor Jerry Sanders' proposal to reduce citywide use.

Lobbyists lobbied. Economists critiqued. Concerned residents questioned.

One group was notably silent: The City Council.

That changed in early April after voiceofsandiego.org revealed misrepresentations that Water Department staff had made about the benefits of Sanders' proposal, which had based proposed cuts on residents' historic use. Very quickly, the council got a lot more interested in shaping a policy that had previously been entrusted to the Mayor's Office and Water Department staff to develop and market.

Then San Diego got a reprieve. The 20 percent supply cut the city had prepared for didn't manifest. Instead, the region is coping with an 8 percent reduction. But as the potential for cuts looms again next year, City Council President Ben Hueso is now prodding his colleagues to develop their own water-reduction strategy -- not rely on the mayor.

In a recent memo, he asked them to submit ideas for promoting water conservation and new supplies and has proposed a series of public meetings about water.

Click Here for the full VoiceofSanDiego.org article.

Microbiologist's view on water reclamation in SD

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 | As a professor of Microbiology and a concerned citizen of San Diego, I am extremely concerned about the reports Councilor Lightner has had a change of mind concerning the City's water reclamation plan. We have a serious and growing water crisis in the San Diego region and this plan is incredibly important to our region's water security. I have looked at the plans in detail and I know that the water we will be getting from this proposal will be significantly cleaner than our current water sources.

Remember, our current water source is already sewage contaminated from the run-off of upstream cities and is not nearly as heavily treated and filtered as the reclaimed water will be. People may think that desalination is safer option, but the ocean is loaded with bacteria that needs to be removed. With desalination, you not only have to get rid of the bacteria and virus, as with reclamation, but you also have to deal with all the salt making the process much more expensive and energy intensive. And if energy prices take off again, desalination becomes even more expensive.

I am not arguing against desalination; we will probably need that too along with much tighter water restrictions and loads of xeriscaping. However, we cannot afford to miss out on any source of water, especially from the relatively cheap and clean source provided by reclamation. San Diego will need every possible source of water in the future given our continuing drought, population growth and climate change.

People are afraid of this plan because of the psychological "yuck" factor: there is no scientific reasoning behind this fear. I hope the City Council members and the mayor are able to see past the temporary political ramifications and see the larger picture for the citizens of San Diego. We have a crisis here and we need intelligent and brave leadership to secure this most precious resource for future San Diegans.

Dr. Scott T. Kelley is the Associate Professor of Microbiology at San Diego State University

www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/07/09/letters/128lightner070709.txt

Re-Recycled Sewage Vote Fails

and it's a good thing! The IPR pilot project is still on track, although a little late. Thumbs up to Councilmember Kevin Faulconer for voting to honor the already issued contract.

From the Voice of San Diego...

The City Council voted 5-3 (on July 7th) to reject Councilwoman Sherri Lightner's request to revoke a $438,000 contract that's a key part of the city's examination of recycled sewage as a drinking-water source.

Lightner, Carl DeMaio and Tony Young voted in favor of revoking the contract; Donna Frye, Todd Gloria, Marti Emerald, Ben Hueso and Kevin Faulconer supported maintaining it.

Faulconer, who has opposed sewage recycling in previous votes, served as the swing vote. His spokesman said yesterday that Faulconer didn't support reneging on an already issued contract.

While some sewage recycling proponents worry that Lightner's request signals an end to their once solid majority on the council, Lightner said she does support the concept so long as it comes with "fiscal responsibility and public health protections."

Click Here for the Voice of SD article.

CLICK HERE for a more in-depth story about the vote and water resue that I just came across from the SD Union-Tribune. Here's part of it...

"More than a decade after San Diego started looking at how to turn wastewater back into tap water, the proposal remains in a political quagmire and city officials have lost a major chance to win federal stimulus money for it.

The City Council took a small step yesterday to preserve the latest water-reuse effort, which supporters call reservoir augmentation and critics dub “toilet to tap.” The council kept a $420,000 contract to study one part of the plan.

But the overall project's future is increasingly tenuous. Before the City Council's makeup changed in December, the concept was backed by five of the eight council members. Now three are opposed, four are in favor and Sherri Lightner says she is unsure."

Oh La La! Sexy Water Recycling Embraced in San Diego!

According to a San Diego County Water Authority Study, Attitudes and Perceptions are Changing Concerning Water Recycling

• Respondents (85 percent) are largely aware that recycled water is already in use in San Diego County for irrigation and other non-drinking water purposes. Residents (89 percent either strongly favor or somewhat favor) support the use of recycled water for non-drinking purposes, and this finding is consistent with previous surveys.

• Over one-half (53 percent) of respondents believe that it is possible to treat recycled water to make it is pure and safe for drinking, and over one third (35 percent) think that drinking water already contains recycled water. Among those who hold this belief, 22 percent feel this way because the water tastes or smells bad, and 18 percent learned about the use of recycled water through the media.

• Over three-fifths (63 percent) of the respondents either strongly favor or somewhat favor advanced treated recycled water as an addition to the supply of drinking water. Support for recycled water in all of its proposed or current uses is significantly stronger among those who know that it is presently being used in the County than it is among those without such knowledge. The interest in using recycled water for drinking purposes has increased substantially since 2005 when 28 percent either strongly favored or somewhat favored such use of recycled water.

• It is noteworthy that approximately 40 percent of those who were originally not strongly in favor of using recycled water for drinking purposes would find it acceptable if it received advanced treatment and upon learning about certain other safety provisions to be undertaken.

• More specifically, it is most interesting of all is that 30%-47% of those who are initially not
sure or somewhat opposed to the use of recycled water for drinking can be positively influenced.

2009 Public Opinion Poll Report Rea & Parker Research San Diego County Water Authority April, 2009

Backing water-reuse preferred over desal in Singapore

"SMART money prefers backing water-reuse projects over desalination ones, says a study done jointly by Singapore and foreign consultants.

This is because it is cheaper to purify the outfall from water reclamation plants than to turn sea water into drinking water."

Makes sense to me and something that transfers well to California. Think about the massive amounts of energy that we use to move water around the state coupled with the amount of energy that wastewater treatment plants use to cleanse it to secondary or tertiary standards. Why throw all of the energy down the drain or ocean outfall? Take a few more steps and add it back to our water supply. After conservation (think irrigation) I believe IPR is most vital for the future water supply.

Click Here for the full story from te Straits Times in Singapore.

H2NO: San Diego Going Dry

Catchy name for this in depth series from kpbs.org in San Diego about the current water 'situation'.

"California is teetering on the edge of the worst drought in the state’s history. The lack of rainfall and melting snowpack is causing reservoirs to shrink and rivers to run dry, and the water supply for millions of residents is being threatened. KPBS looks at the impacts of going dry."

CLICK HERE for the full story.

Smarter Showering

It’s hot, it’s steamy, and you do it every day — shower, that is. But do you get wet in the most eco-friendly way? Umbra Fisk drops some nozzle knowledge that’ll make your shower greener, and keep your hard-earned money from going down the drain.

Grist.org is a great website from the Pacific Northwest that has a cult-like following. Umbra is their question answerer. Toss her any sort of environmental question and she will logical solutions. Her latest installment covers showering...

Top 10 San Diego Water Users

San Diego News Network created a list of the top 10 water users in San Diego. The list includes Caltrans, UCSD, SDSU and SeaWorld. The City of San Diego is the largest single wholesale agency the Water Authority works with. The top 10 is beginning to change it's water usage and have come up with ways to conserve water. Click here for the rest of the list.

Desalination in Pendleton?

The San Diego County Water Authority, perhaps emboldened by the imprudence demonstrated the Regional Water Quality Control Board in permitting an atavistic approach to desalination, is exploring a desalination plant in Camp Pendleton. This would be the largest by volume of water produced and most expensive plants in the US by 3x.

This is a great time to start working with the County Water Authority to be sure that this massive project is progressive in approach. Come out to the June Know Your H20 meeting to speak with Toby Roy of the San Diego County Water Authority to be sure this is done right.

Check our Rob Davis of the Voice of San Diego's interview on the topic.

New San Diego Water Conservation Ordinance

As of June 1st the City of San Diego has enacted new rules and restrictions for water usage. There are new limitations on the amount of time and the days that San Diegans can water their lawns and plants. The City Council is asking that San Diegans only turn on outdoor water systems 3 times a week before 10am and after 6pm.

Homes with odd-numbered addresses will be permitted to water on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Homes with even-numbered addresses can water on Saturday, Monday and Wednesday. Apartments, condos and businesses can water only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

They are also asking that when washing cars that you use a bucket, a hose with a nozzel that shuts of automatically, or that you go to a local car wash service. San Diegans are also being told not to water down their driveways, garages, or sidewalks. There will be penalties for not following the new measures.

These are all new steps that the city hopes to instill in everyone so that they become conscious and aware of their water usage.