Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
July 26, 2007
4. Water Quality
DELTA TOXICITY:
Toxic Conclusion; A state study found the Delta highly polluted, particularly the Grant Line Canal, where the long-ago banned pesticide DDT still lingers - Tracy Press
RUNOFF VIOLATIONS:
Boeing may be fined for water runoff violations - Ventura County Star
TREATMENT PLANT COMPLETED:
YC’s water just got better; At $24 million, it’s one of city’s most expensive projects - Marysville Appeal Democrat
WATER SOFTENERS:
Hard choice on water softeners;
DRINKING WATER:
Don't touch the water; Report: District water may increase ‘cancer & kidney toxicity’ -
DELTA TOXICITY:
Toxic Conclusion; A state study found the Delta highly polluted, particularly the
Tracy Press – 7/26/07
By Bob Brownne, staff writer
The man-made
The canal runs across
An environmental group that tracks water quality says the latest report is further evidence that stricter regulations on farmers are needed. Meanwhile, a local farm group insists that more vigilant testing in the past four years has uncovered pesticide residue that previously would have gone undetected.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board allows farms to send runoff into waterways while cities and industry must apply for pollution discharge permits. In 2003, the state took a step toward stricter regulation by requiring agricultural watershed groups to test water and report the results in lieu of pollution discharge permits.
Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said even if there were only one or two high readings, that should prompt state regulators to impose stricter rules on farmers.
“If you get one hit, you’re guaranteed to get other hits,”
“This monitoring program isn’t rigorous enough to define water quality,” he said, “but this is the first snapshot, and it says we have serious problems.”
Bruce Blodgett, executive director of the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation, said farmers have improved their use of pesticides so that there is less toxic runoff.
“We’ve seen improvements in the testing process,” he added. “We can detect more and we’ve seen improvements in practices on the ground.”
He added that the expense the regulation environmental groups seek would put farmers out of business.
“Their (CSPA’s) position has not changed, and we suspect that their position will never change,” he said.
“What we did suggest is that every farmer file a notice of waste discharge,” he said. “Every farmer needs to do a pollution action plan for his farm.”
In the report released two weeks ago,
Most of the 58 test sites had less than 10 cases of high pesticide levels. In all, 58 test sites showed 209 cases of elevated levels of pesticides.
Those who work with farmers say the report is a valuable first step.
“Things are better than they were two years ago,” said John Meek, chairman of the San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition, which tests the water and reports the results to the state and tries to pinpoint where pollution comes from.
“Part of the program is to get people aware of what they’re doing and make sure they’re doing it properly,” he said. “We’re meeting with the growers and said, ‘Look guys, you need to be aware of what’s going on here,’ and a lot of them took it to heart.”
Ken Landau, assistant executive director of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, said the coalition groups spare individual farmers the expense of these tests and reports.
“Trying to deal with tens of thousands of individual farmers, and what’s coming off their property, is daunting,” he said. “We’ve come to the conclusion that that level of regulation is unnecessary.”
He added that stricter regulation in the future is an option, but the effort to have coalition groups gain waivers for members is a long-term effort.
“The time frame for dealing with this is in years. We’re in the process of identifying problems, and it will take a while.” #
http://tracypress.com/content/view/10326/2242/
RUNOFF VIOLATIONS:
Boeing may be fined for water runoff violations
By Teresa Rochester, staff writer
Boeing Co., which owns the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, is facing a proposed $471,190 fine for violating permits limiting the contaminants in water running off the property in the hills south of
The fine was recommended by the staff of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in response to Boeing racking up 79 violations of the California Water Code during an 18-month period.
The board is expected to decide whether the fine should be levied at a meeting in October. If it does impose a monetary punishment, Boeing Co. has 90 days to appeal the decision.
The aerospace company purchased the former rocket engine and nuclear test site in 1996. The 2,800-acre field laboratory has been the site of a massive cleanup effort for more than a decade.
From October 2004 to January 2006, wastewater and stormwater runoff coming from the lab had increased levels of chromium, dioxin, lead, mercury and other pollutants. The contaminated water flowed into Bell Creek and the
The runoff violated a permit issued by the board on July 1, 2004, that allowed the lab to release wastewater and stormwater runoff as long as it didn't contain high levels of pollutants.
A Boeing Co. spokeswoman said the company is evaluating the proposed fine.
Deborah Smith, interim executive officer of the board, said in a statement that federal and state clean water laws must be "carefully followed and rigorously enforced" to protect the environment and human health.
Dan Hirsch, co-founder of the watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap, applauded the proposed fine but suggested it would be a slap on the wrist for the company.
"On the one hand, it's a stunning indictment of Boeing's gross disregard for environmental laws," Hirsch said. "On the other hand, it's about an hour's worth of Boeing's annual income." #
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/26/boeing-may-be-fined-for-water-runoff-violations/
TREATMENT PLANT COMPLETED:
YC’s water just got better; At $24 million, it’s one of city’s most expensive projects
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 7/25/07
By John Dickey, staff writer
Completion of
The project won’t let people take a stroll on a downtown street, or a splash in a park – as do two of the city’s more high-profile projects involving
But when residents using city surface water turn on their faucets, the recent $24 million investment in the city’s water treatment plant will provide more safety and reliability, said Utilities Director Bill Lewis.
On Monday, the state Department of Public Health gave
The project also installed two pumps and a large-diameter pipeline, added a water storage tank, and reworked the sedimentation tanks.
The plant is 95 percent completed and will give the growing city some additional water treatment capacity, increasing the current 30 million gallons per day to 42 million.
Last summer’s 26 million gallon per-day usage was close to maxing out the plant, which has a lower working capacity than the 30 million gallon per-day rating.
“We can’t run flat out at capacity,” said Lewis.
While the water coming out of faucets probably won’t taste different, it may be better protected against harmful bacteria.
“The biggest advantage is the security of filtration,” said Lewis. “It’s just a safer way to remove the bacteria.”
It will also conserve the city’s share of
Costs of the plant project are paid with impact fees that the city charges for water hookups.
“This is the biggest capital project the city’s ever done as far as dollars,” said Lewis.
In this case, new technology is cheaper than old – a conventional plant expansion would have been more costly, requiring more concrete, said Ian Pietz, associate engineer with the city’s Utilities Department.
The City Council awarded a $21.6 million contract in August 2005 to C.W. Roen Construction Co. of
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/city_51688___article.html/water_million.html
WATER SOFTENERS:
Hard choice on water softeners;
By Melissa Murphy, staff writer
Seeking to eliminate the salinity in it's wastewater,
The Wastewater Project Committee, formed to help the city find a solution to its wastewater problems, recommended three options Tuesday to the City Council that would help reduce the salinity discharged into the sewer system.
Herb Cross, chairman of the committee, wanted the council to be aware of the group's informal report as it makes a decision on how to proceed.
The committee recommended to:
• Begin a study necessary to create an ordinance to prevent future salt-based water softeners and to move forward with creating such an ordinance;
• Begin the process to create an educational component aimed at informing the general public as to what constitutes unnecessary pollution of the wastewater and what measures households can take to prevent such pollution, and;
• Commence a study that will assess the feasibility of an incentive program that would motivate a switch from salt-based water softeners to non-salt-based water softeners.
Under state law, a community can enact laws to ban such softeners, but must first conduct a study that proves that prohibiting them will help the city comply with wastewater discharge requirements and water reclamation requirements, according to a staff report to the council.
The goal is to reduce the salt reaching the groundwater in the
The City Council unanimously agreed with the committee's recommendations and directed staff Tuesday night to move forward with the study to eliminate the salt-based water softeners.
"We have to provide the study first before we try to educate the community," said Mayor Mary Ann Courville.
An ordinance to prevent the salt-based water softeners would apply to future installation of the softeners, City Manager Warren Salmons explained.
"We need to provide information to motivate a change," said Vice Mayor Michael Smith.
An effort to raise sewer rates to fund an expansion at the wastewater plant was overturned by voters last November. Since then, the Wastewater Project Committee has been looking at options for improving the city's plight. #
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_6468853
DRINKING WATER:
Don't touch the water; Report: District water may increase ‘cancer & kidney toxicity’
By Jason Campbell, staff writer
Everybody who works at the
But it might not even be safe to touch.
In a district-wide e-mail distributed Wednesday, Director of Operations Steve Trantham informed the employees that the water system that supplies the taps throughout the complex does not meet drinking water standards established by the federal government. The water is showing higher than normal numbers for the amount of nitrates as well as elevated levels of gross alpha and absorbable uranium.
While the water has been known to contain levels of elevated nitrates for some time, the e-mail states that both the gross alpha and uranium are radioactive minerals. They may emit a form of radiation that isn't an immediate risk but over time may raise the risk of developing cancer and kidney toxicity.
According to Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Michael Dodge, Wednesday's e-mail - which includes instructions to share the information with anybody in a district department that might not have access to the document - was in addition to a notice sent out to employees in February that informed them of the high levels and what was being done to correct the situation.
"In February we sent out a letter to all of our staff to let them know of the findings," Dodge said. "It let people know that there wasn't an immediate risk, but that over time exposure may have an increased risk cancer and kidney toxicity."
According to the results of a water sample received on Jan. 4 of this year, the district was well above the standard maximum containment level for both Gross Alpha and Uranium. The tests measured in at scores of 29 and 39 when the respective safe marks were 15 and 20.
Trantham brought up the issue of uranium in the water during the board meeting Tuesday night. He noted that the district has been providing waterless hand sanitizers in bathrooms ever since the elevated levels were discovered.
But several phone calls to The Bulletin Wednesday from district employees painted a different picture. They indicated that they weren't informed of the findings of the previous report and had no knowledge about hand-sanitizers or the reasons for their use.
The district has been diligently working to bring their facility on-line with the City of
Recommendations on the informational flyer that district officials say was distributed in February - a month after the water tests were done - urges employees who have other health issues concerning the consumption of the water, they wish, to consult their doctor. The flyer noted that the district is working with the San Joaquin Environmental Health Department to evaluate the water supply and search for options to correct the problem.
Dodge said that the contamination is one of the reasons that the district has been looking into bringing themselves on-line with the City of
"We don't know what we would find if we were to search for a well elsewhere on our property," he said. "There's a chance that we'd pick a spot and find that it has exactly the same things that are in the water now."
Phone calls to several board members Wednesday night were unsuccessful.
To resolve the issues currently facing the district in terms of water supply, the board voted 4-3 Tuesday to apply for annexation to the City of
The district office is located next door to a former World War II magnesium plant site.
http://mantecabulletin.com/main.asp?SectionID=28&SubSectionID=58&ArticleID=859
No comments:
Post a Comment