News Posting
Vol.III
No.138

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

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 store

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.

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

What's New In Fracking

EPA: WHATS NEW IN FRACKING

May 2012: Draft Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels
- Draft guidance and information about opportunities to provide input
- Press release
April 2012: EPA Issues Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards
April 2012:
Memorandum of Agreement among the U.S. Departments of Energy and Interior and U.S. EPA about Collaboration on Unconventional Oil and Gas Research (PDF)

Natural Gas Extraction-Hydraulic Fracturing

EPA: Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing:

Related Information on Fracking

Related Information Regarding Fracking:

Additional EPA information:

Other federal government information:

What is shale gas? (U.S. Energy Information Administration)
Review of emerging resources: U.S. shale gas and shale oil plays (U.S. Energy Information Administration)
U.S. Department of Energy Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
- Subcommittee website shalegas.energy.gov
- Final report (PDF) (23 pp, 3.5 MB)

Hydraulic Fracturing Study

EPA’s Hydraulic Fracturing Study:

Stakeholder involvement on draft UIC guidance for permitting oil and gas hydraulic fracturing activities using diesel fuels
Testimony:
- Testimony of Cynthia Dougherty, Director, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, before the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, October 20, 2011 (PDF) (5 pp, 28 K) — Discussion of EPA’s role in ensuring that public health and water quality are protected during natural gas extraction and production activities.
- Testimony of Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, before the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, April 12, 2011 (PDF) (7 pp, 35 K) — Discussion of EPA’s role in ensuring that public health and the environment are protected during natural gas extraction and production.

Tribal Water Resource Directory

+ opens topic menu

- closes topic menu

Tribal Programs – Drinking Water

On this page

Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

Treatment in the Same Manner as a State for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program
- An Overview (PDF) (12 pp, 50K)
- Factsheet (PDF) (3 pp, 39K)
- Frequent Questions (PDF) (3 pp, 30K)
Building Water System Capacity: A Guide for Tribal Administrators (PDF) (6 pp, 3MB) EPA 816-K-01-006, July 2001
Preventive Maintenance Tasks for Tribal Drinking Water Systems (booklet) (PDF) (35 pp, 78K) EPA 816-F-01-017, June 2001
Preventive Maintenance Tasks for Tribal Drinking Water Systems (log sheets) (PDF) (96 pp, 99K) EPA 816-F-01-017, June 2001
You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more.

Rule Monitoring Placards

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

Total Coliform Monitoring Requirements
- Community Water Systems Serving 1,001 – 10,000 People (PDF) (1 pp, 56K)
  EPA 816-F-08-004, January 2008
- Community Water Systems Serving 25 – 1,000 People (PDF) (1 pp, 53K)
  EPA 816-F-08-005, January 2008
- Noncommunity Water Systems Serving 1,001 – 10,000 People (PDF) (1 pp, 54K)
  EPA 816-F-08-006, January 2008
- Noncommunity Water Systems Serving 25 – 1,000 People (PDF) (1 pp, 53K)
  EPA 816-F-08-007, January 2008
Surface Water Treatment Rules Monitoring Requirements (SWTR/LT1ESWTR):
- Systems Serving Less than 10,000 People Using Conventional or Direct Filtration (PDF) (1 pp, 40K)
  EPA 816-F-08-001, January 2008
- Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People Using Slow Sand, Diatomaceous Earth, or Alternative Filtration (PDF) (1 pp, 40K)
  EPA 816-F-08-002, January 2008
- Unfiltered Systems Serving Less than 10,000 people (PDF) (1 pp, 40K)
  EPA 816-F-08-003, January 2008
Nitrate Monitoring Requirements:
- Community and Noncommunity Water Systems (PDF) ( pp, K)
  EPA 816-F-08-008, January 2008

Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification

Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Final Guidelines:
- Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Final Guidelines (PDF) (15 pp, 121K)
  EPA 816-R-05, May 2005
- Federal Register Notice: Notice of Availability: Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Final Guidelines
Tribal Operator Certification Program Draft Guidelines: March 2000 Federal Register notice of availability of the draft guidelines | Public comment draft (PDF) (20 pp, 66K)
Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program | PDF Version (1 pp, 46 K)
This notice announces the program details of EPA’s voluntary Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program, effective October 1, 2010. The program enables qualified drinking water operators at public water systems in Indian country to be recognized as certified operators by EPA.

Application (PDF) (15 pp, 149K)

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

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.

EPA Annual Compliance Reports

Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

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

Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Final Guidance (PDF) (160 pp, 486K)
Describes the elements of an EPA-approved state Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP), as well as EPA’s recommendations for what should be included in a state Source Water Protection (SWP) Program. The document also provides an overview of how source water assessment and protection integrates with other Safe Drinking Water Act programs and efforts and how other EPA and other federal programs can assist states in developing and implementing assessment and protection programs, and vice versa.
EPA 816-R-97-009
Office of Inspector General Report: Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Show Initial Promise, But Obstacles Remain (PDF) (56 pp, 625K)
Source Water Protection Training through the Drinking Water Academy
Delineation tools
Potential contaminant source inventory tools
Susceptibility determination tools
Protection tools

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

Protecting the Nation’s Ground Water: EPA Strategy for the 1990s (PDF) (11 pp, 1M)
State 305(b) reports
National Water Quality Inventory, 1998 Report to Congress, Ground Water and Drinking Water Chapters
Report that is the primary vehicle for informing Congress and the public about general water quality conditions in the Untied States.
- Ground Water Protection Programs Chapter (PDF) (47 pp, 584K)
- Complete Report (PDF) (99 pp, 2M)
- Drinking Water Quality Programs Chapter (PDF) (11 pp, 196K)
- Ground Water Quality Chapter (PDF) (35 pp, 730K)

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.

Sole Source Aquifer page

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

Related links: Includes links to non-EPA organizations that are related to source water protection.

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.

Protecting Drinking Water: A Workbook for Tribes
The Water Education Foundation recently completed this national water quality publication using a grant from EPA. The Workbook includes background information on the importance of protecting source water from pollution and includes a step-by-step work plan for tribes interested in developing a plan for protecting their drinking water.
Source water protection fact sheet and EPA regional contacts for tribes (PDF) (4 pp, 80K)
Provides more information on source water protection, how to get started, and funding available.
Tribal drinking water programs and UIC program
Other water pollution control funding sources
Provides information on drinking water, wastewater and watershed protection funding sources.
Nonpoint source pollution control grants to tribes
Describes opportunities to fund projects to control polluted runoff.

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.