Daily Archives: June 6, 2012

USA Water contamination news: The Perth saga: Perth Amboy to upgrade sewer system [njtoday.net/EPA]

Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3


News Posting
Vol.III
No.140

savethewater

 

Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

savethewater”,

For your surfing
pleasure here
are some links in our revamped web site

Educational All Levels
Current Sponsors
Resources
Join Our Link Exchange 

Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
Become A Sponsor

To Donate A Gift
Please Contact Us


The material posted is
courtesy of:
njtoday.net
EPA
Katherine Fenech
Save the Water™
Education Dept.
and is shared as
educational material only

Perth Amboy to upgrade sewer system

Perth Amboy To Upgrade Sewer System

Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

June 6th 2012: njtoday.net

PERTH AMBOY — The City of Perth Amboy has agreed to make major improvements in its combined sewer system to protect people’s health and water quality under a legal agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Under the agreement, which was lodged by the Department of Justice in federal court today, the city will reduce the amount of sewage and other pollutants that flow out of 16 combined sewer points into the Raritan River and Arthur Kill. Combined sewer systems are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe.

Perth Amboy violated the Clean Water Act and its New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection discharge permit by failing to properly maintain and operate its sewer system, conduct regular inspections and have a pollution prevention plan in place. The city also violated a previously issued EPA order to address Clean Water Act violations.read more

Previous related article

Power cut blamed for river sewage spills

Power cut blamed for river sewage spills

Posted April 2, 2010 11:08:00

A power cut has been blamed for a big sewage spill into several rivers during a storm in Perth in late March.

It has been revealed that 21 million litres of sewage overflowed into the Canning, Southern and Swan Rivers during last week’s storm.

Fish died and marron crawled out of the river, as oxygen levels dropped after an inflow of fresh rain water and sewage.

The Environment Minister, Donna Faragher, has told parliament sewage flowed into the river after power was cut by the storm.

I’ve been advised by the Water Corporation that 21 million litres of waste water overflowed into the Canning, Southern and Swan Rivers, because of prolonged loss of main power to 130 waste water pumping stations across Perth,” she said.

She says The rivers have been given the all clear.

“Perth waterways are again safe for public use after testing of the ocean and rivers across the metropolitan areas showed water quality had returned to normal levels.”

Past article

Perth could be drinking recycled sewage by 2015

Katherine Fenech November 30, 2010

Perth could be drinking recycled sewage by 2015

Water Corporation’s water source planning manager Nick Turner with a bottle of recycled water.

Perth residents could be drinking water recycled from toilets, showers and washing machines as early as 2015, according to the Water Corporation.

The first step in the scheme is already underway with a $50.9 million trial plant, which pumps treated water into the Gnangara aquifer, starting operations just over two weeks ago. read more

EPA Story

Perth Amboy to Upgrade Sewer System; Agreement Reached with the EPA to Address Violations of the Clean Water Act Affecting the Raritan River and the Arthur Kill

Release Date: 06/06/2012
Contact Information: John Martin (212) 637- 3662, martin.johnj@epa.gov

(New York, N.Y.) The city of Perth Amboy, N.J., has agreed to make major improvements in its combined sewer system to protect people’s health and water quality under a legal agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Under the agreement, which was lodged by the Department of Justice in federal court today, the city will reduce the amount of sewage and other pollutants that flow out of 16 combined sewer points into the Raritan River and Arthur Kill. Combined sewer systems are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe.

Perth Amboy violated the Clean Water Act and its New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection discharge permit by failing to properly maintain and operate its sewer system, conduct regular inspections and have a pollution prevention plan in place. The city also violated a previously issued EPA order to address Clean Water Act violations.

“This settlement will require vital investments in sewer infrastructure that will help the City of Perth Amboy achieve compliance with the nation’s Clean Water Act. More than 70 percent of these repairs will take place in and benefit lower-income areas of the city,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “This agreement will ensure that Perth Amboy’s Combined Sewer System is properly operated and maintained to minimize the number of untreated discharges to the Raritan River and the Arthur Kill River.”

“Combined sewer overflows are a very serious public health and environmental problem in a number of New Jersey communities,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “The improvements that Perth Amboy will make under the agreement with the EPA will improve water quality and protect community residents from exposure to raw sewage. Sewer upgrades made pursuant to this settlement are a long-term investment in public health and clean water.”

Water & Wastewater Treatment Systems, PerthDuring periods of heavy rainfall or snow melt, the volume of wastewater in a combined sewer system can exceed the capacity of the sewer system or wastewater treatment plant. When this happens, combined sewer systems overflow and discharge sewage directly to nearby water bodies. These overflows can contain not only storm water, but also untreated human and industrial waste, toxic materials and debris. It is estimated that almost 370 million gallons of sewage flow into the Raritan River and Arthur Kill River through Perth Amboy’s combined sewer system each year. Across New Jersey, 30 combined sewer systems discharge 23 billion gallons of sewage and other pollutants each year into all of New Jersey’s major water bodies.

Under the agreement, Perth Amboy will spend about $5.4 million for the repair, upgrade and expansion of the city’s combined sewer system, and will additionally pay a $17,000 penalty. The city has agreed to increase the amount of wastewater that reaches the treatment plant and reduce its combined sewer overflows into the Raritan River and Arthur Kill. In addition, under the agreement, Perth Amboy will conduct annual inspections of all of its combined sewer system control facilities and will develop and implement a combined sewer overflow pollution prevention plan.

In response to the EPA’s earlier enforcement efforts, Perth Amboy has already completed a thorough inspection and engineering assessment of its sewer system. As a result of that study, the city will develop a plan to fix problems identified and do further work to separate the pipes so that some pipes will only carry wastewater from buildings to the wastewater treatment plant instead of a combination of domestic wastewater and stormwater. Work already underway and work that will be conducted under today’s agreement will be completed by December 31, 2016.

The consent decree is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval. It can be viewed at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

To learn more about combined sewer overflows, read a copy of EPA’s report, “Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public’s Water,” available here: http://www.epa.gov/region2/water/

For more information about the combined sewer overflow problem in New Jersey, visit http://www.epa.gov/region2/water/sewer-report-3-2011.pdf

For more information about combined sewer overflow systems, visit http://estuaries.noaa.gov/Estuarylive/VideoGallery.aspx?ID=43

Follow EPA Region 2 on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/eparegion2 and visit our Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/eparegion2

 

Search Site

Hot Topics
Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Chemical Spills And Ground Water: Do You Know About The Water Below Your Feet?
    Good News
  • Good News For Our Vets & Our Water: EPA and Department of Veterans Affairs to Connect Veterans with Jobs in Water Sectors
  • Research Opens Doors To UV Disinfection Using LED Technology
  • The Glass is Already Half-Full for Nano-Based Water Treatments
    Education
  • Day In The Life Of A Scientist
  • CEO Discusses The Water Crisis
  • Junior Education Resources
  • Intermediate Education Resources
  • Senior Education Resources
  • Water Resource Index
  • Water Facts
  • Chemical Facts
  • The Perils Of Plastic
  • Pink Water
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education Save the water Thanks You For Your Support

    Comments Off

    USA water crisis: Twin Falls: Idaho storage reservoirs are still critically low. [Twin Falls, Idaho (KMVT-TV)]

    Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3


    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No.137

     

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

    savethewater”,   “save the water”, “what is contaminated water”, “dirty water”, “water research”, “water”, “clean water”, “safe water”, “drinking water”, “water treatment”, “water testing”, “water analysis”, “bacteria”, “fluoride”, “pesticides”, “herbicides”, “organic chemicals”, “arsenic”, “ inorganic chemicals”,  “tap water”

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange 

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is
    courtesy of:
    Paul Johnson
    By Andrew Reed Twin Falls, Idaho
    (KMVT-TV)

    and is shared as
    educational material only

    Reservoir drinking water still considered Critically Low for Twin Falls

    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    Reservoir Drinking Water Still Considered Critically Low For Twin Falls

    By Paul Johnson

    Story Updated: Jun 5, 2012 at 10:17 AM MDT
    Twin Falls, Idaho (KMVT-TV) Although Idaho Power crews have restored power to the city’s water pumps, all of the pumps have not been restarted. Even then, storage reservoirs are still critically low. It is imperative that city of Twin Falls residents follow the rules of the emergency declaration. Water must only be used for domestic consumption purposes. Once the pumps are started, it will take some time to fully recharge the reservoirs. The order to not use water in Twin Falls is still active. Joshua Palmer, the Public Information Officer for Twin Falls said that even with the order residents continue to use the water and now the supply is considered critically low at the primary water source at Blue Lakes Springs.

    Related Story

    City of Twin Falls Declares Emergency, Residents Need To Conserve Water

    VIDEO at end of article

    By Andrew Reed
    Story Updated: Jun 5, 2012 at 8:49 AM MDT Twin Falls, Idaho (KMVT-TV)

    The City of Twin Falls has lost electrical power to its primary water source at Blue Lakes Springs.

    Due to this emergency, the City is able to generate only a small percentage of the water required for normal activity in the City.

    An emergency is hereby declared, pursuant to the Twin Falls City Code 7-8-12, and it is ordered that use of the City’s potable water system is limited to essential uses.

    This order is effective immediately, and all use of water for industrial uses and irrigation is prohibited until further notice.

    Previous Story:

    All residents of the City of Twin Falls are being asked to cease any unnecessary use of City water.

    Strong winds damaged electrical lines that provide power to pumps, which maintain a majority of the City’s water supply.

    Crews are working to restore power to the pumps, however, the City’s water reservoir levels have reached critically low levels.

    “Basically, we are using more water than we are bringing in and the (water) levels are dropping fast,” said Twin Falls City Manager Travis Rothweiler. “We are asking residents and local industries to cease any unnecessary use of city water.”

    City officials began contacting large industries at 5 a.m. Tuesday, asking them to shut down their water use—in some case that means industries have been forced to shut down operations.

    Residents are asked to use water only for drinking or other necessary purposes. All sprinklers systems, washing machines, car washes and other non-essential services should cease using water until further notice.
    “This is critical,” said City Engineer Jackie Fields. “Right now, if you are using water for a shower, you could be taking water that the hospital may need for an emergency.”

    The City of Twin Falls will provide updates to residents through local media and on its website.


    Water Directories

    Fracking

    Related Information on Fracking

    Related Information Regarding Fracking:

    Additional EPA information:

    Other federal government information:

    Tribal Water Resource Directory

    + opens topic menu
    - closes topic menu

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Rule Monitoring Placards

    Rule Monitoring Placards – check to make sure you download the correct placard for your public water system type PDF

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

  • Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Document (PDF) (26 pp, 198K)
    EPA 816-B-09-002
  • Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Each compliance report discusses the violations at public water systems on Indian reservations; EPA’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities with respect to Tribal PWSs; and the financial assistance EPA has provided to facilitate the provision of safe drinking water to Tribes.

    Links

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

     

    cactus
    reg10

    History of the Tribal PWSS and UIC Programs

    In 1974 the United States Congress passed legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), designed to maintain and improve the quality of the nation’s drinking waters. Two major regulatory programs were created in the SDWA: the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.

    Congress authorized EPA to delegate responsibilities to states for implementing and enforcing national standards within their jurisdiction. States must apply to EPA if they want this “primacy” responsibility and must develop PWSS or UIC programs that meet national requirements. EPA is still responsible for developing national regulations, overseeing state primacy programs and implementing programs in states without primacy.

    Because of their unique status, Indian tribes were not eligible to assume primacy in the original Act. Instead EPA regions were responsible for primary enforcement authority of PWSS and UIC programs on Tribal lands. This changed in 1986 when the Amendments to the SDWA added provisions that allow federally recognized tribes to assume primacy for the PWSS and UIC programs. Section 1451 (“Indian Tribes”) of SDWA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states and to assign primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to qualified tribes.

    The PWSS and UIC programs are very complex and costly to operate. For many tribes (especially those that do not have a large number of public water systems or underground injection wells), the costs and resources required to achieve and maintain a regulatory program may far exceed the benefits from achieving primacy. Due to such difficulties, currently the only tribe that has sought and obtained primacy for the PWSS program is the Navajo Nation. There are a few tribes that are pursuing primacy in the PWSS and UIC programs.

    Today´s Tribal Direct Implementation Program

    States and tribes that do not obtain PWSS and UIC program delegation continue to be directly implemented by the EPA region in which the State or reservation is located. All EPA regions, excluding Region III (which has no federally recognized tribes), operate tribal PWSS and UIC programs to manage public water systems or underground injection wells on Indian lands.

    EPA’s 1997 inventory shows that there are nearly 1000 public water systems (740 community water systems, 90 nontransient noncommunity water systems and 130 transient noncommunity water systems) that the EPA regional offices manage on Indian lands serving a population of nearly 500,000. There are also over 5,300 injection wells (one Class I well, 4,300 Class II wells, 0 Class III wells and 1,042 Class V wells) on tribal lands that are managed by regional UIC staff.

    As the primary enforcement authority for tribal public water systems, EPA regions are responsible for enforcing against those systems that do not comply with federal drinking water regulations. A formal enforcement action is taken as a last measure. EPA regions dedicate a great deal of resources to provide tribes with technical assistance to help their systems or wells comply with federal standards. Regional staff visit reservations as often as possible to provide compliance assistance on site. Many Regions also fund circuit rider programs which enable other qualified persons the opportunity to provide technical assistance and training directly to tribes.

    For more information on the Tribal PWSS and UIC programs, please contact your program representative.

    Source water assessment and protection programs

    Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 required states to develop and implement source water assessment programs (SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public drinking water throughout the state. Using these programs, most states have completed source water assessments for every public water system — from major metropolitan areas to the smallest towns. Even schools, restaurants, and other public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies have been assessed. A source water assessment is a study and report, unique to a water system, that provides basic information about the water used to provide drinking water. States are working with local communities and public water systems to identify protection measures to address potential threats to sources of drinking water.

    EPA publications and resources

    Wellhead protection program

    Wellhead Protection Program

    The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect underground sources of drinking water. The national WHPP was established under section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA amendments. The law specified that certain program activities, such as delineation, contaminant source inventory, contingency planning and source management, be incorporated into state WHPPs, which are approved by EPA prior to implementation. All states have EPA-approved state WHPPs. Although section 1428 applies only to states, a number of tribes are implementing the program as well.

    WHPPs provided the foundation for many of the state source water assessment programs required under the 1996 SDWA amendments. Most states also use the wellhead protection program as a foundation for assessing and protecting ground water systems. State WHPPs vary greatly. For example, some states require community water systems to develop management plans, while others rely on education and technical assistance to encourage voluntary action. Other states have mandatory requirements for wellhead protection at the local level. Guidance, publications and other resources are available on state source water web sites.

    EPA publications and resources

    Non-EPA publications and resources

    State ground water protection program

    State Ground Water Protection Programs

    Many states have also developed programs that are focused specifically on ground water protection. Several states developed formal Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP), which were designed as a management tool for states to use to integrate all programs that affect ground water quality, thus allowing better decisions to be made. Although most states are no longer pursuing formal approval of a CSGW pp, virtually all states are pursuing at least some of the individual elements necessary for comprehensive ground water protection. Within EPA, the source water protection program is working with the underground storage tank program to address potential threats to ground water posed by leaking tanks.

    Publications and resources

    Sole source aquifer protection program

    Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

    A sole source aquifer supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for a given aquifer service area for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources, should the aquifer become contaminated. Designation as a sole source aquifer protects an area’s ground water resources by requiring EPA to review any proposed projects within the designated area that are receiving federal financial assistance.

    Watershed-based protection program

    Watershed-Based Protection Program

    The goal of source water protection is to protect the drinking water resource by protecting and preserving the environmental quality of the watershed above the intake (or the aquifer around the well). The assessment is the first step in the process to protect the resource. Once a watershed has been assessed to determine its current condition and the extent of the threats to the system, a watershed plan can be developed and implemented.

    EPA’s Office of Water has numerous programs that focus on watershed protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act includes programs such as the Nonpoint Source Program, National Estuary Program, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Each of these programs encourage states to develop programs to promote watershed-based protection, and they have elements that support watershed-based planning and implementation. The federal programs are generally implemented at the state level.

    EPA,Federal /non-governmental programs

    EPA, Federal / Non-governmental Programs

    There is no single federal program for implementing source water protection plans and activities. However, many federal, tribal, regional, and local programs have tools and resources that can be used to focus on protecting drinking water. Source water protection can benefit, and benefit from, other EPA programs, other federal programs and non-governmental programs:

    • Other programs can use source water assessments and identified protection areas to set priorities for ongoing prevention efforts.
    • Identifying source water protection areas increases federal, state and local managers’ awareness of other programs where participation might increase the protection of human health.
    • Protecting sources of drinking water can help various federal programs, states, organizations and communities meet other environmental and social goals, such as green space conservation, stormwater planning, management of nonpoint source pollution and brownfields redevelopment.
    • The benefits that EPA and other federal programs can provide to state and local source water assessment and protection efforts are potentially very large. These include information, technical and financial resources, and communication networks and enforcement authorities.

    EPA program links

    Other Federal Programs and Non-Governmental Organizations

    Tribal programs

    Tribal Programs

    EPA is firmly committed to helping tribes to assess the rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers that serve as tribal public water supplies and to implement measures to protect against contamination of these water resources.

    You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  • Search Site

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Chemical Spills And Ground Water: Do You Know About The Water Below Your Feet?
    Good News
  • Good News For Our Vets & Our Water: EPA and Department of Veterans Affairs to Connect Veterans with Jobs in Water Sectors
  • Research Opens Doors To UV Disinfection Using LED Technology
  • The Glass is Already Half-Full for Nano-Based Water Treatments
    Education
  • Day In The Life Of A Scientist
  • CEO Discusses The Water Crisis
  • Junior Education Resources
  • Intermediate Education Resources
  • Senior Education Resources
  • Water Resource Index
  • Water Facts
  • Chemical Facts
  • The Perils Of Plastic
  • Pink Water
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education Save the water Thanks You For Your Support

    Comments Off

    Water treatment news: Recycling sewage to drinking water could save city of San Diego money: Study [North County Times]

    Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3


    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No.138

    save the water

     

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

    savethewater”,   “tap water”

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange 

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor

    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us


    The material posted is
    courtesy of:
    BRADLEY J. FIKES
    nctimes.com
    Save the Water™
    Education Dept.
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    Water contamination news:

    Recycling sewage to drinking water could save city of San Diego money: Study[North County Times]

    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    Recycling sewage to drinking water could save city of San Diego money

    June 02, 2012 5:00 pm • By BRADLEY J. FIKES bfikes@nctimes.com

    The city of San Diego could save hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrade and expansion costs for its Point Loma sewage treatment plant, and get more drinking water in the bargain, according to a final draft study given to the city in late May.

    With the savings, recycling sewage to drinking water standards costs roughly the same as importing more water, according to the final draft of the San Diego Recycled Water Study. The precise numbers depend on what assumptions are made about which costs can be avoided.

    If the study’s recommendations are followed, new sewage treatment plants would be built in Point Loma, University City and the South Bay. The cost of upgrading the existing Point Loma sewage plant would drop from an estimated $1.2 billion to $710 million.

    Release of the final draft study comes as the county’s main water supplier is in the late stages of negotiating for another new water supply, desalinated sea water from a plant to be built off the coast of Carlsbad.

    Poseidon Resources Corp. is negotiating a water purchase agreement with the San Diego County Water Authority, which supplies most of the water used in the county. The authority says it expects to get a completed contract ready this summer for a 60-day public review before a final vote is held.

    Under the draft study, sewage treated to drinking water standards would yield 100 million gallons a day, about 20 percent of the region’s water use. Assuming the study’s numbers are accurate, the net cost to the city per unit of water amounts to about half that estimated for water from the proposed desalination plant.

    The study presented three scenarios for the cost of repurified sewage in dollars per acre foot. One acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons:

    • $1,200, counting avoided costs from reduced usage of the Point Loma sewage treatment plant,
    • $1,100, including a “salt credit” for removing salt from the treated sewage
    • $700, including those savings along with avoided costs of upgrading of the Point Loma plant, which discharges treated sewage into the ocean.

    “These costs compare well to the existing untreated water cost of $904 per acre foot, and are more economical than most other new water supply concepts being proposed,” the report stated.

    Peace with local environmentalists would be another potential benefit. Environmentalists have long complained that the treated sewage, expelled into the ocean 4.4 miles off the coast at a depth of 320 feet, harms marine life. The city disputes the claim.

    Livia Borak, an attorney from Coast Law Group, urged the city to forgo the Poseidon desalination proposal and choose sewage recycling instead. Borak spoke at a May meeting of the Water Authority, She pointed out that the city has great leverage with the agency because of its weighted vote.

    City clout

    The city of San Diego contains a little more than half the 3.1 million population of San Diego County, with proportionate clout on regional agencies such as the Water Authority. So what San Diego decides to do will greatly influence the water supply picture for the whole region.

    Moreover, the city faces water- and sewage-related financial considerations that don’t apply to North County.

    San Diego’s potential costs for upgrading the Point Loma plant exceed $1 billion. So far, the city has obtained waivers, the latest of which expires in 2015. There is no guarantee the city, already reeling from high water bills, will receive another waiver.

    Counting those avoided costs, the net cost to the city of San Diego for recycled sewage amounts to about half that of buying water from the proposed desalination plant.

    In water industry jargon, recycling sewage to drinking water standards is called indirect potable reuse, or IPR. The purified sewage is sent to reservoirs or underground storage, then drawn off with new supplies for treatment and distribution. This contrasts with direct potable reuse, in which reclaimed water is directly put back into treated drinking water pipelines.

    The study’s numbers for IPR seem reasonable, said water policy expert David Zetland, who has long researched Southern California’s water infrastructure. Zetland said he did not review the study, but was making a general observation about the cost of indirect potable reuse compared to seawater desalination.

    “IPR can easily be cheaper than desalination, as it takes partially-treated wastewater and further cleans it for consumption,” said Zetland, a senior water economist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. “That’s why the “marginal” cost will be quite low. A new IPR plant can also be cheaper than desal, since there are fewer salts to remove.”

    The desalinated ocean water from the Carlsbad plant would cost about $1,865 per acre-foot, according to an estimate made last year by Poseidon Resources, based in Stamford, Conn.

    While the city of San Diego would not directly buy the desalinated water, the plant’s 50 million gallons a day capacity would increase the region’s total supply by about 10 percent. Desalinated water from Carlsbad would also bring a new source of local water to the arid county, which has seen its traditional sources of imported water threatened by drought, environmental restrictions, over-optimistic assumptions, and legal challenges.

    Recycling sewage to drinking water would also provide a reliable local supply to the county. But the city’s leaders and the San Diego Union-Tribune, now U-T San Diego, have rejected it because of discomfort of what’s been dubbed “toilet to tap.”

    Regardless, the approach is being used in Orange County, and scientists have said evidence indicates indirect potable reuse can provide water as safe as that from untreated imported water. A new report from the respected National Research Council encouraged exploration of its use.

    “The report presents a brief summary of the nation’s recent history in water use and shows that, although reuse is not a panacea, the amount of wastewater discharged to the environment is of such quantity that it could play a significant role in the overall water resource picture and complement other strategies, such as water conservation,” the NRC study stated.

    With water costs skyrocketing and imported supplies increasingly more difficult to come by, the city of San Diego commissioned the study to get a fresh look at the pros and cons of repurified sewage.

    Water Directories

    Fracking

    Related Information on Fracking

    Related Information Regarding Fracking:

    Additional EPA information:

    Other federal government information:

    Tribal Water Resource Directory

    + opens topic menu
    - closes topic menu

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

    Rule Monitoring Placards

    Rule Monitoring Placards – check to make sure you download the correct placard for your public water system type PDF

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification

    Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

  • Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Document (PDF) (26 pp, 198K)
    EPA 816-B-09-002
  • Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

    Each compliance report discusses the violations at public water systems on Indian reservations; EPA’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities with respect to Tribal PWSs; and the financial assistance EPA has provided to facilitate the provision of safe drinking water to Tribes.

    Links

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

    Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

     

    cactus
    reg10

    History of the Tribal PWSS and UIC Programs

    In 1974 the United States Congress passed legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), designed to maintain and improve the quality of the nation’s drinking waters. Two major regulatory programs were created in the SDWA: the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.

    Congress authorized EPA to delegate responsibilities to states for implementing and enforcing national standards within their jurisdiction. States must apply to EPA if they want this “primacy” responsibility and must develop PWSS or UIC programs that meet national requirements. EPA is still responsible for developing national regulations, overseeing state primacy programs and implementing programs in states without primacy.

    Because of their unique status, Indian tribes were not eligible to assume primacy in the original Act. Instead EPA regions were responsible for primary enforcement authority of PWSS and UIC programs on Tribal lands. This changed in 1986 when the Amendments to the SDWA added provisions that allow federally recognized tribes to assume primacy for the PWSS and UIC programs. Section 1451 (“Indian Tribes”) of SDWA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states and to assign primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to qualified tribes.

    The PWSS and UIC programs are very complex and costly to operate. For many tribes (especially those that do not have a large number of public water systems or underground injection wells), the costs and resources required to achieve and maintain a regulatory program may far exceed the benefits from achieving primacy. Due to such difficulties, currently the only tribe that has sought and obtained primacy for the PWSS program is the Navajo Nation. There are a few tribes that are pursuing primacy in the PWSS and UIC programs.

    Today´s Tribal Direct Implementation Program

    States and tribes that do not obtain PWSS and UIC program delegation continue to be directly implemented by the EPA region in which the State or reservation is located. All EPA regions, excluding Region III (which has no federally recognized tribes), operate tribal PWSS and UIC programs to manage public water systems or underground injection wells on Indian lands.

    EPA’s 1997 inventory shows that there are nearly 1000 public water systems (740 community water systems, 90 nontransient noncommunity water systems and 130 transient noncommunity water systems) that the EPA regional offices manage on Indian lands serving a population of nearly 500,000. There are also over 5,300 injection wells (one Class I well, 4,300 Class II wells, 0 Class III wells and 1,042 Class V wells) on tribal lands that are managed by regional UIC staff.

    As the primary enforcement authority for tribal public water systems, EPA regions are responsible for enforcing against those systems that do not comply with federal drinking water regulations. A formal enforcement action is taken as a last measure. EPA regions dedicate a great deal of resources to provide tribes with technical assistance to help their systems or wells comply with federal standards. Regional staff visit reservations as often as possible to provide compliance assistance on site. Many Regions also fund circuit rider programs which enable other qualified persons the opportunity to provide technical assistance and training directly to tribes.

    For more information on the Tribal PWSS and UIC programs, please contact your program representative.

    Source water assessment and protection programs

    Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 required states to develop and implement source water assessment programs (SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public drinking water throughout the state. Using these programs, most states have completed source water assessments for every public water system — from major metropolitan areas to the smallest towns. Even schools, restaurants, and other public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies have been assessed. A source water assessment is a study and report, unique to a water system, that provides basic information about the water used to provide drinking water. States are working with local communities and public water systems to identify protection measures to address potential threats to sources of drinking water.

    EPA publications and resources

    Wellhead protection program

    Wellhead Protection Program

    The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect underground sources of drinking water. The national WHPP was established under section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA amendments. The law specified that certain program activities, such as delineation, contaminant source inventory, contingency planning and source management, be incorporated into state WHPPs, which are approved by EPA prior to implementation. All states have EPA-approved state WHPPs. Although section 1428 applies only to states, a number of tribes are implementing the program as well.

    WHPPs provided the foundation for many of the state source water assessment programs required under the 1996 SDWA amendments. Most states also use the wellhead protection program as a foundation for assessing and protecting ground water systems. State WHPPs vary greatly. For example, some states require community water systems to develop management plans, while others rely on education and technical assistance to encourage voluntary action. Other states have mandatory requirements for wellhead protection at the local level. Guidance, publications and other resources are available on state source water web sites.

    EPA publications and resources

    Non-EPA publications and resources

    State ground water protection program

    State Ground Water Protection Programs

    Many states have also developed programs that are focused specifically on ground water protection. Several states developed formal Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP), which were designed as a management tool for states to use to integrate all programs that affect ground water quality, thus allowing better decisions to be made. Although most states are no longer pursuing formal approval of a CSGW pp, virtually all states are pursuing at least some of the individual elements necessary for comprehensive ground water protection. Within EPA, the source water protection program is working with the underground storage tank program to address potential threats to ground water posed by leaking tanks.

    Publications and resources

    Sole source aquifer protection program

    Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

    A sole source aquifer supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for a given aquifer service area for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources, should the aquifer become contaminated. Designation as a sole source aquifer protects an area’s ground water resources by requiring EPA to review any proposed projects within the designated area that are receiving federal financial assistance.

    Watershed-based protection program

    Watershed-Based Protection Program

    The goal of source water protection is to protect the drinking water resource by protecting and preserving the environmental quality of the watershed above the intake (or the aquifer around the well). The assessment is the first step in the process to protect the resource. Once a watershed has been assessed to determine its current condition and the extent of the threats to the system, a watershed plan can be developed and implemented.

    EPA’s Office of Water has numerous programs that focus on watershed protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act includes programs such as the Nonpoint Source Program, National Estuary Program, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Each of these programs encourage states to develop programs to promote watershed-based protection, and they have elements that support watershed-based planning and implementation. The federal programs are generally implemented at the state level.

    EPA,Federal /non-governmental programs

    EPA, Federal / Non-governmental Programs

    There is no single federal program for implementing source water protection plans and activities. However, many federal, tribal, regional, and local programs have tools and resources that can be used to focus on protecting drinking water. Source water protection can benefit, and benefit from, other EPA programs, other federal programs and non-governmental programs:

    • Other programs can use source water assessments and identified protection areas to set priorities for ongoing prevention efforts.
    • Identifying source water protection areas increases federal, state and local managers’ awareness of other programs where participation might increase the protection of human health.
    • Protecting sources of drinking water can help various federal programs, states, organizations and communities meet other environmental and social goals, such as green space conservation, stormwater planning, management of nonpoint source pollution and brownfields redevelopment.
    • The benefits that EPA and other federal programs can provide to state and local source water assessment and protection efforts are potentially very large. These include information, technical and financial resources, and communication networks and enforcement authorities.

    EPA program links

    Other Federal Programs and Non-Governmental Organizations

    Tribal programs

    Tribal Programs

    EPA is firmly committed to helping tribes to assess the rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers that serve as tribal public water supplies and to implement measures to protect against contamination of these water resources.

    You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

  • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
    View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
  • Explanation of Index:
  • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
  • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
  • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
  • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
  • Search Site

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis
  • Drinking Water Fears After Chemical Spill In North Bay
  • North Bay Ontario Chemical Spill/Residents Evacuated, Driver Dead, In Contamination Rollover On Highway 63
  • Canadian British Columbia Water Crisis Issues
  • Water Crisis Worsens in Hyderabad
  • Jamaican Water Issue: No need to panic! Asbestos cement pipes safe, says NWC
  • Improved but Not Always Safe: Despite Global Efforts, More Than 1 Billion People Likely at Risk for Lack of Clean Water
  • Current: European Report on Development: The Case of Lake Naivasha
    Water Contamination
  • Issue: Navy: Contaminant Found in Drinking Water at Parts of Sigonella
  • Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public?
  • Formaldehyde Pollution Disrupts Water Supplies in Eastern Japan
  • Drinking-water wells were not contaminated by the Kalamazoo River oil spill, state report says [past related articles included]
  • Chemicals In The Water: Problems and Solutions
  • Making Endangered River Safe For Drinking. Potomac Tops List of Endangered Rivers in U.S.
  • EPA to Work with Drinking Water Systems to Monitor Unregulated Contaminants [Thomas Net News]
    Fracking
  • What Is Hydraulic Fracturing Water Usage?
  • What chemicals are used in fracking? Part I
  • Whats Fracking All About? Part 2
  • Study has has raised concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale
  • Fracking: Natural Gas Fracking Fizzles in Michigan / Includes an EPA Fracking Directory
    Fluoride
  • Where can you get all the facts about fluoride contamination?
  • Fluoride News In America [Aspen Times] & [KREX News Room]
  • OKOTOKS: Canada Fluoride News: Town Coucillors Want Oral Health Program in Place
    Questions and Answers
  • What do you need to know about chloramine-treated water?
  • What Are The True Facts About Fluoride And Your Health?
  • Chemical Spill: Formaldehyde 101: What Are The Facts?
  • “How Dangerous Is The Chemical Formaldehyde ?”
  • What Are The Facts About (Bisphenol-A) / BPA, Water And Health Risks?
  • What are some of the known water pollutants?
  • What Are Some Facts About Water? Over 100 Facts You May Not Know.
  • Chemical Spills And Ground Water: Do You Know About The Water Below Your Feet?
    Good News
  • Good News For Our Vets & Our Water: EPA and Department of Veterans Affairs to Connect Veterans with Jobs in Water Sectors
  • Research Opens Doors To UV Disinfection Using LED Technology
  • The Glass is Already Half-Full for Nano-Based Water Treatments
    Education
  • Day In The Life Of A Scientist
  • CEO Discusses The Water Crisis
  • Junior Education Resources
  • Intermediate Education Resources
  • Senior Education Resources
  • Water Resource Index
  • Water Facts
  • Chemical Facts
  • The Perils Of Plastic
  • Pink Water
  • Savethewater Water Research and Education Save the water Thanks You For Your Support

    Comments Off

    Fluoride news: Fluoridation to end this summer Okotoks: Council approved program to prevent tooth decay [Western Wheel]

    Save the water News Postings Save our water  Volume 3

     

    News Posting
    Vol.III
    No.139

     

    Despite many successful water projects, billions of people still lack adequate water and sanitation

    savethewater”,   “save the water”, “what is contaminated water”, “dirty water”, “water research”, “water”, “clean water”, “safe water”, “drinking water”, “water treatment”, “water testing”, “water analysis”, “bacteria”, “fluoride”, “pesticides”, “herbicides”, “organic chemicals”, “arsenic”, “ inorganic chemicals”,  “tap water”
     

    For your surfing
    pleasure here
    are some links in our revamped web site
     

    Educational All Levels
    Current Sponsors
    Resources
    Join Our Link Exchange 

    Help fund STW™ laboratory by shopping on line at our storeProceeds go to funding our Lab
    Become A Sponsor
    To Donate A Gift
    Please Contact Us

    The material posted is
    courtesy of:
    Don Patterson
    Okotoks Western Wheel
    Save the Water™
    Education Dept.
    and is shared as
    educational material only

    Fluoridation to end this summer

    Okotoks: Council approved program to prevent tooth decay

    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    May 31, 2012 07:58 pm | By Don Patterson | Okotoks Western Wheel

    Don Patterson/OWW

    Don Patterson/OWW

    Okotoks resident Christine Cameron fills a jug with water from a special filter in her home. She is happy town council voted to remove fluoride from drinking water.

     

    Okotoks’ drinking water will be free of fluoride sometime this summer.

    Town council voted 6-1 in favour of a bylaw to remove fluoride from water in town last week, while also deciding to work with Alberta Health Services to create a program to help prevent tooth decay for those most at risk in the community.

    Coun. Florence Christophers, who first proposed ending fluoridation in Okotoks earlier this year, is happy with council’s decision.

    “I’m excited and confident in the go forward strategy of Okotoks in partnership with AHS and I fully expect that oral health outcomes in our community will improve in years to come,” she said.

    After last week’s vote, the Town must now notify Alberta Environment of its decision and it will take around two months before fluoridation ends.

    Council also voted unanimously to use the $8,000 each year spent on adding fluoride to drinking water on a program to fight cavities in the community.

    Christophers said the financial support from the Town and participation of Alberta Health Services should help its success.

    She said there’s more to preventing cavities than adding fluoride to water, including diet, regular dental check ups and prevention education is also important.

    “It’s not just a matter of brushing your teeth,” said Christophers. “We know that 80 per cent of cavities that happen even in families where they floss, they brush their teeth twice a day and they visit a dentist regularly.”

    Mayor Bill Robertson cast the lone vote against removing fluoride from water in town. He continues to support fluoridation as a way to help protect people in the community most at risk of tooth decay.

    “I still believe that the overall benefits to the community regarding fluoride outweigh the detriments,” he said.

    Robertson supported the dental health plan. He said it would mitigate the impact of removing fluoride from the Town’s drinking water.

    The Town will work with health authorities and the Healthy Family Resource Centre and will provide funding for a part-time person to provide preventative support for children and others at risk of tooth decay.
    The program will also involve educational components to raise awareness about how to protect and improve dental health.

    The Town will also ask Okotoks be included in an AHS study of dental decay in Calgary. A review of the program will be done in three years with the results to be brought back to town council at the time.

    A timeframe for roll-out of the program hasn’t been determined yet.

    Debbie Posey, Family and Community Support Services team leader, expects the Town will meet with officials from other agencies to draw up details this year and have something in place around the end of the year.

    She said the Town hopes to leverage the $8,000 in annual funding by working with Alberta Health Services and some of the services it provides for at risk residents.

    “If that provides two days a month where one day is for education and another day is for a topical varnish for more at-risk people, which we know is effective, then that will be something that works really well,” said Posey.

    If the Town is accepted in the AHS cavity study, she said the funds could potentially cover any cost to the Town for participating.

    “There shouldn’t be a huge cost for a program analysis if we continue to work with Alberta Health Services,” said Posey.

    She said studies of other communities that withdrew fluoride from drinking water show a potential for a three per cent increase in cavities after fluoride has been removed from a community’s drinking water.

    Posey said the review will help the Town know how effective the program has been and whether any changes will be needed.

    “I think in three years we’ll know, is this really successful and if it’s made a difference in the community, or are we finding if it’s really not something that’s sustainable,” she said.

    Opponents of fluoridation in town are happy with the decision.

    Okotoks resident Christine Cameron is happy council finally voted to eliminate fluoride.

    She doesn’t like that the Town now has to wait to remove fluoride, despite council’s approval. She aid it should be entirely up to the Town.

    “I just don’t understand why it’s such a slow process,” she said.
    >Cameron said the Town should be focusing on education about dental health with the program.

    “I think that’s where the answer lies, is in educating parents,” she said. “I hope they’re conscientious enough to use the suggestions that are given to them.”

    James Reeves said:

    Of course it’s time to retire fluoridation because it doesn’t work, wastes money and is harmful to health. Drinking it to prevent tooth decay is as foolish as drinking sunscreen to prevent sunburn. People should not be forced to consume a drug against their will.
    Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. It heals noting or cures nothing but is one of the most poisonous substances on Earth. No adult has ever walked out of their doctor’s office with a prescriptlion for the fluoride drug because the body has no known use for it. The industrial toxic waste fluoride used (Hexafluorosilicic acid) has never been tested or approved by FDA (in the USA) as safe and effective for human ingestion. It contains contaminants of lead, arsenic, mercury, radium and much more. This chemical will burn through concrete, and if a worker put his hand in it, he would quicky die.
    In the U.S.A., the CDC reports that fluoride causes 41% of all children to have damaged enamel, called dental fluorosis. In this group, 15% have such severe damage that the dental repair costs from $10,000 to $30,000. The families have to pay this cost. Why won’t the dental community or the government agencies which forces everyone to consume this poison volunteer to pay for this damage?

    Previous article posted

    Council delays removal of fluoride from water

    Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

    Okotoks: Town councillors want oral health program in place

    May 23, 2012 12:33 pm | By Don Patterson | Okotoks Western Wheel
    Wheel file photo
    Okotoks Coun. Florence Christophers

    The Town of Okotoks is close to removing fluoride from drinking water, but the issue is on hold until later this month as concerns linger whether a proposed oral health program will go ahead.

    Town council passed two readings of a bylaw to remove fluoride from Okotoks’ drinking water on May 14, but there wasn’t enough support to move forward to the third and final reading. Support from five councillors was needed in order to hold three readings in one meeting, but Mayor Bill Robertson and councillors Stephen Clark and Ed Sands opposed proceeding to third reading.

    The bylaw will come back to town council for third reading at its next meeting on May 28.

    Coun. Florence Christophers first proposed removing fluoride earlier this year and she said she doesn’t want council to delay on removing fluoride any further.

    “I do believe this council has said we will remove fluoride from our water, I see no reason to delay that,” she said.

    If the bylaw is approved, administration will apply to the Province to stop fluoridation and it will take approximately 90 days before the fluoride will be removed.

    Opinion in the community is also divided on the issue, but there is support for removing fluoride from drinking water in town. A survey on the Town’s website showed 66 per cent of respondents opposed fluoridation.

    Opponents of fluoridation say the chemical contributes to a range of health problems including florosis of the teeth and creating brittle bones. Supporters of fluoridation say it’s a low-cost public health program to prevent tooth decay, especially among low-income families who may not be able to afford dental care.

    Councillors voted 6-1 on April 23 to stop adding fluoride to drinking water, but they still need to approve a bylaw at a future meeting before the practice is halted.

    Council also approved a motion to consult with Alberta Health Services to ensure a program is in place to provide fluoride toothpaste or topical treatments for people at risk of dental decay. Okotoks’ municipal manager Rick Quail told council the Town has contacted Alberta Health Services, but no details on progress were available by the May 14 meeting.

    Christophers said the Town can stop fluoridation while continuing to set up a program to provide fluoride treatments, such as toothpaste or mouthwash, to people who need them.

    “I think the first step is to have a conversation with Alberta Health Services to say, ‘What are you doing to reach at risk families and individuals?’,” she said, adding the Town can look to fill in any gaps in the community.

    Sands supported the first two readings of the bylaw, but wouldn’t support proceeding to the final reading last week.

    He said his concern is fluoride could be removed without an oral health program in place. He supported postponing third reading until the Town hears back from Alberta Health Services.

    “I want to have the information from Alberta Health Services as to what kind of a program they can put together for our at-risk individuals before we go to third reading,” said Sands.

    Robertson said he also wants to ensure an oral health program providing fluoride to at-risk residents in Okotoks is in place before fluoridation is eliminated.

    He said he is concerned about low-income residents who may not be able to afford dental care and others who are most at risk of tooth decay.

    “If it comes out I want to make sure that we did as we said we would,” said Robertson.

    Opponents of fluoridation don’t want the Town to wait any longer.

    Okotoks resident Christine Cameron wants fluoride removed from Okotoks’ drinking water sooner rather than later.

    “I’m in favour of getting rid of fluoride as soon as possible because of its deleterious effects on the human body,” she said.

    Cameron said she was raised without fluoride in drinking water and she didn’t have any more cavities as a result.

    Instead of a program providing fluoride, she would rather see an education program to teach parents about the causes of tooth decay and proper diet.

    Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.
     

    • How to navigate STW ™ postings:
      View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.
    • Explanation of Index:
    • This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.
    • Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.
    • RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.
    • Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.
      [/three_fourth]

     

    Search Site

    Hot Topics
    Global Water Crisis

     

     

    Savethewater Water Research and Education Save the water Thanks You For Your Support

    Comments Off
    Do you need quick support ?

    Welcome

    * required
    Send Message