A blog about Marinwood-Lucas Valley and the Marin Housing Element, politics, economics and social policy. The MOST DANGEROUS BLOG in Marinwood-Lucas Valley.
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Friday, April 26, 2019
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Beer made from recycled wastewater passes taste test
Beer made from recycled wastewater passes taste test
By Peter FimriteOctober 23, 2015 Updated: October 23, 2015 9:00pm

Photo: Nathaniel Y. Downes, The Chronicle
From left, Brandon Cono and Wendell Smith, bartenders at the Annual Meeting of The Minds, an event where the future of urban sustainability is reviewed, work behind the bar in Craneway Pavilion on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015 in Richmond, Calif.
It was a tough call, but Hugo Von Meijenfeldt thought he detected a hint of astronaut wastewater in the beer that he had just gulped.
The consul general for the Netherlands — who, as representative of the second-largest exporter of beer in the world, purports to know his way around a brewery — declared with some authority that the robust brew he had just tasted was the one made out of recycled wastewater supplied by NASA.
MORE ON RECYCLED WATER



He was wrong.
“I liked the one that was less hoppy, which I thought was not the recycled beer,” said Von Meijenfeldt, one of two people on a five-judge panel at the Meeting of the Minds sustainability convention taste test in Richmond on Thursday who couldn’t tell one potation from the other.
The blind tasting was an attempt by Maverick’s Brewing Co., an affiliate of Half Moon Bay Brewing Co., to bring attention to the importance of using wastewater as a resource and combat what water officials call the “yuck factor.” The event was held in front of more than 400 leaders from 15 countries during an all-day conference at Richmond’s Craneway Pavilion to discuss various urban sustainability projects.
The prospect of treating sewer water and redirecting it back into faucets is considered by many the future of California. Such recycling, which involves treating what washes down the drain until it is pure, would save hundreds of billions of gallons that is now dumped into the Pacific Ocean annually.

Photo: Nathaniel Y. Downes, The Chronicle
Adam Lenz, a member of the Annual Meeting of The Minds, an event where the future of urban sustainability is reviewed, mingles outside Craneway Pavilion on Ford Point drinking beer made from recycled grey water on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015 in Richmond, Calif.
“I really wanted to showcase the value of recycling water and get the public’s attention,” said Russ Drinker, an architect and trustee for Sustainable Silicon Valley, who spearheaded the recycled beer project. “Going back to the Phoenicians, beer was the way they created safe water because brewing it requires boiling it.”
Drinker said his work in Singapore and in Saudi Arabia, which recycle virtually all of their wastewater, convinced him of its efficiency and showed him how out of the loop California and the rest of the United States are on the technology. It is currently illegal in California for water districts to send recycled water directly through the tap or for merchants to sell products that use it.
‘Obvious source of water’
“I was surprised and a little angry that California does not recycle its water, especially in the context of this drought,” he said. “To me, it was the most obvious source of water, and once you have it, it is a really valuable asset.”
Drinker recruited Lenny Mendonca, owner of the Half Moon Bay Brewing Co., who liked the idea of the recycled beer tasting. The problem was to find a source of wastewater. Drinker knew someone at NASA, which has long used recycled urine in space, and convinced agency officials to supply Mendonca with gray water — the flow from sinks, showers and washing machines — from one of its facilities.
There was no denying from the judges Thursday that the zesty concoction created from the space agency water warranted serious consideration — it was so good, in fact, that several jokesters in the audience stopped referring to it as “I Pee A Beer” after they tasted it.
“I thought it tasted great. It was delicious,” said beer judge Jennifer Biesty, the chef and owner of Shakewell, a Mediterranean-style restaurant in Oakland.
On a hunch, she correctly picked out the recycled beer because it was less hoppy and bitter than the other IPA she quaffed down. “I actually liked the recycled one better,” she said.
Bay Area testing
Biesty said she would happily serve beer made out of recycled water in her restaurant if it were legal.
Two water districts in the Bay Area — the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District — are testing systems that filter sewer water and purify it to the point that it can be consumed by the public. Orange County has a system in place that recycles 100 million gallons of wastewater a day — enough to quench the thirst of 850,000 people — by treating it and injecting it into aquifers.

Photo: Nathaniel Y. Downes, The Chronicle
From left, Wendell Smith and Brandon Cono, bartenders at the Annual Meeting of The Minds, an event where the future of urban sustainability is reviewed, add beer cans to the display on the bar in Craneway Pavilion on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015 in Richmond, Calif.
The problem is that California does not allow the public to drink recycled water directly out of a treatment plant, a rule that exists largely because of the yuck factor. Recycled water currently has to be injected into the aquifer and mixed with groundwater before it can be pumped up and used as drinking water. The process of leaching through the ground naturally cleanses water, but water officials say it isn’t needed because of advanced technology.
Legislation has been introduced to make it legal to purify sewer water and send it right back to consumers. The California Water Resources Control Board is expected to issue a report in December on the feasibility of such a system.
“I think it’s an awesome concept,” Biesty said. “It makes sense, especially with the drought and global warming.”
Good enough to sell
Mendonca, who is allowed to use his recycled beer only for free tastings, said that the new brew is good enough to sell and that the water used to make it should be available to the public.

Photo: Nathaniel Y. Downes, The Chronicle
Ken Homer takes his first sip of a recycled grey water beer being sampled at the Annual Meeting of The Minds, an event where the future of urban sustainability is reviewed, in Craneway Pavilion on Ford Point on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015 in Richmond, Calif.
“If people can drink a beer that tastes good, why not drink the water,” Mendonca said, explaining that all the water on Earth has been recycled from the beginning of time. “This is not something new. It’s back to the future.”
Von Meijenfeldt, whose diplomatic post covers 13 Western states, including California, is expected to keep his job despite confessing to a preference for craft beer over Heineken. He was among a large crowd who stayed after the conference to have another go at the astronaut ale.
“I chose the wrong one for the wrong reasons,” said the Dutchman, as he slurped the heady hooch, “but two times wrong makes for a positive.”
Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: pfimrite@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @pfimrite.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Why Californians Will Soon Be Drinking Their Own Pee
Why Californians Will Soon Be Drinking Their Own Pee
It’s a much better option than desalination.
- 414Shares
- Share on Facebook
- Tweet

OAKLAND, Calif.—California has a lot of coastline. So why all the fuss about the drought? Desalination to the rescue, right?
Not quite. The largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere is currently under construction in Carlsbad in San Diego County at great expense. The price tag: $1 billion.
Right now, San Diego is almost totally dependent on imported water from Sierra snowmelt and the Colorado River. When the desalination plant comes online in 2016, it will produce 50 million gallons per day, enough to offset just 7 percent of the county’s water usage. That’s a huge bill for not very much additional water.
Desalination is not a new technology, but it’s still expensive. Despite the cost, its uptake is growing as dry places look to secure drought-proof sources of water. A new desalination plant built on reverse-osmosis microfiltering (the same method as the Carlsbad plant) will supply one-third of Beijing’s water by 2019. Desalination is already a major source of water for Australia, Chile, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other drought-prone coastal regions. Smaller solar desalination plants are also gaining appeal in California.
When regional water agencies first considered a Bay Area desalination plant more than a decade ago, they briefly considered making it more than double the size of the plant currently under construction in San Diego County. Since then, the idea for the Bay Area plant has been scaled back to about 10 percent of the original size based on the maximum intake capacity of the local water district. A tentative location has also been chosen: Mallard Slough, near where the Sacramento River meets the Bay. The plant is now on indefinite hold pending local demand, though studies have proven it’s technically feasible.
“We’re nowhere near done doing all the environmental impact reporting,” said Abby Figueroa of East Bay Municipal Utility District, one of the partners of the would-be Bay Area desalination plant. “There are other options that are more likely for us to use in the short term. We’re counting on conservation as one of those supplies.”
Still, the drought may force a decision sooner rather than later. “This is year one [of the drought] for us. Other parts of California are in year three or four. The real pressure for us is going to come next year if it doesn’t rain.”
Which brings us to the pee-drinking.
This year’s drought has motivated California to invest $1 billion in new money on water recycling efforts statewide, a much more cost-efficient way of increasing potable water supplies. But reusing purified sewer water for brushing your teeth is not without its own set of issues. National Journal describes the biggest holdup:
Earlier this year, the city of Portland, Oregon (in one of the most Portland-y moments in recent memory) nearly drained a local 38-million-gallon reservoir after a teen was caught urinating in it. Slate’s Laura Helmuth made a brilliant calculation that the poor lad would have had to pee for 40 days straight to raise the reservoir’s nitrate levels above EPA-allowable limits and make the water unsafe to drink.
The good news is that this hurdle isn’t permanent. Psychologists have foundthat when cities reintroduce purified municipal wastewater into natural aquifers, streams, or lakes for later withdrawal, public acceptance of the fact that yes-it-was-once-pee improves. Since 2008, Orange County has recharged a local aquifer with billions of gallons of recycled sewage via the largest potable water reuse facility in the world.
They’ve also had a large public awareness campaign. This clip from Last Call at the Oasis, a 2012 documentary on global water issues that mentions Orange County’s water recycling efforts, features Jack Black in a spoof ad for “Porcelain Springs: Water from the most peaceful place on Earth”:
Not quite. The largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere is currently under construction in Carlsbad in San Diego County at great expense. The price tag: $1 billion.
Right now, San Diego is almost totally dependent on imported water from Sierra snowmelt and the Colorado River. When the desalination plant comes online in 2016, it will produce 50 million gallons per day, enough to offset just 7 percent of the county’s water usage. That’s a huge bill for not very much additional water.
Desalination is not a new technology, but it’s still expensive. Despite the cost, its uptake is growing as dry places look to secure drought-proof sources of water. A new desalination plant built on reverse-osmosis microfiltering (the same method as the Carlsbad plant) will supply one-third of Beijing’s water by 2019. Desalination is already a major source of water for Australia, Chile, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other drought-prone coastal regions. Smaller solar desalination plants are also gaining appeal in California.
When regional water agencies first considered a Bay Area desalination plant more than a decade ago, they briefly considered making it more than double the size of the plant currently under construction in San Diego County. Since then, the idea for the Bay Area plant has been scaled back to about 10 percent of the original size based on the maximum intake capacity of the local water district. A tentative location has also been chosen: Mallard Slough, near where the Sacramento River meets the Bay. The plant is now on indefinite hold pending local demand, though studies have proven it’s technically feasible.
“We’re nowhere near done doing all the environmental impact reporting,” said Abby Figueroa of East Bay Municipal Utility District, one of the partners of the would-be Bay Area desalination plant. “There are other options that are more likely for us to use in the short term. We’re counting on conservation as one of those supplies.”
Still, the drought may force a decision sooner rather than later. “This is year one [of the drought] for us. Other parts of California are in year three or four. The real pressure for us is going to come next year if it doesn’t rain.”
Which brings us to the pee-drinking.
This year’s drought has motivated California to invest $1 billion in new money on water recycling efforts statewide, a much more cost-efficient way of increasing potable water supplies. But reusing purified sewer water for brushing your teeth is not without its own set of issues. National Journal describes the biggest holdup:
The problem with recycled water is purely psychological. Despite the fact the water is safe and sterile, the “yuck factor” is hard to get over, even if a person understands that the water poses no harm. In one often-cited experiment, researchers poured clean apple juice into a clean bedpan, and asked participants if they’d be comfortable drinking the apple juice afterwards. Very few of the participants agreed, even though there was nothing wrong with it. It’s forever associated with being “dirty,” just like recycled wastewater.While it’s not quite correct that every glass of water contains dinosaur pee, it is true that every source of fresh water on Earth (rainfall, lakes, rivers, and aquifers) is part of a planetary-scale water cycle that passes through every living thing at one point or another. In a very real way, each and every day we are already drinking one another’s urine.
Earlier this year, the city of Portland, Oregon (in one of the most Portland-y moments in recent memory) nearly drained a local 38-million-gallon reservoir after a teen was caught urinating in it. Slate’s Laura Helmuth made a brilliant calculation that the poor lad would have had to pee for 40 days straight to raise the reservoir’s nitrate levels above EPA-allowable limits and make the water unsafe to drink.
The good news is that this hurdle isn’t permanent. Psychologists have foundthat when cities reintroduce purified municipal wastewater into natural aquifers, streams, or lakes for later withdrawal, public acceptance of the fact that yes-it-was-once-pee improves. Since 2008, Orange County has recharged a local aquifer with billions of gallons of recycled sewage via the largest potable water reuse facility in the world.
They’ve also had a large public awareness campaign. This clip from Last Call at the Oasis, a 2012 documentary on global water issues that mentions Orange County’s water recycling efforts, features Jack Black in a spoof ad for “Porcelain Springs: Water from the most peaceful place on Earth”:
Thanks to public support, Orange County will add another 30 million gallons of drinking-quality recycled water per day via a new $142 million expansion due to come online in 2015. Factoring in the costs of the current plant, Orange County will soon produce twice as much water for less than one-third of the average cost of San Diego’s new desalination plant. Reusing water that’s already been pumped to Orange County over mountain ranges also uses half the energy as importing new water.
The conclusion here is easy: If drinking purified pee weirds you out, don’t live in a desert.
California had a water problem long before climate change came around. Now, with growing demand from both cities and agriculture along with dwindling supplies, something’s gotta give. Conservation and common-sense measures like municipal water recycling can happen immediately. Grass on golf courses and lawns can be severely restricted, immediately. Agriculture can get smarter, immediately. Groundwater pumping can be regulated, immediately. All of these improvements can be had for very little change in quality of life. California’s water problems could diminish practically overnight.
New dams? Over the next 10–30 years you’d need to double the capacity of reservoirs that currently exist, just to replace the snowpack that will be lost due to climate change.
Barring a miracle, desalination is among the least desirable options. There are significant economic, environmental, energy, and political barriers. Desalination is the Alberta tar sands of water resources. When you look closely at the choices, it’s clear the future of Western water supplies is toilet water.
For all its issues, here’s another thing Tucson, Arizona, is doing right: Since 1984the city has been offsetting drinking water imported across hundreds of miles of desert with recycled water for grass lawns and golf courses. Why there are still grass lawns in Tucson is anyone’s guess. (In fairness, Tucson gets about three times the average annual rainfall as Las Vegas, a far worse offender in the desert-lawn-growing category, even though it also recently started using recycled water.)
If the West wants to get serious about water, there are many things they can start doing right away, like drinking their own pee.
This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Saturday, June 3, 2017
The Legacy of Toilet to Tap
Political Analysis: The Legacy Of Toilet To Tap
Editor's Note: Below is a transcript from an NPR show on "Toilet to Tap". The smarmy host and journalist rip apart opposition to "Toilet to Tap Water" as ignorance and fear mongering. What they don't tell you that such purification systems cannot possibly remove all the pharmaceuticals and pollutants from the water supply- endangering your long term health. Do you really want to drink water with the same quality as chlorinated pool water for the rest of your life?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Audio
Aired 8/4/10
After years of being drowned in the YUCK factor of "Toilet To Tap," San Diego moves forward on water recycling. We'll trace the political story behind the water recycling reformation. GLORIA PENNER (KPBS Political Correspondent): Good morning, Maureen. What a luscious subject to start the day off with.
CAVANAUGH: Well, you know, there has been enormous opposition in years past to water recycling in San Diego. When have city officials tried to introduce this idea before?
PENNER: Oh, I can track it back to 1989, that’s 21 years ago, when a city ordinance mandated the widespread use of recycled water. And then it was hot again in 1998 when the city grappled with the issue and it became an issue in several closely contested city races, and that’s when project opponents developed slogans to get negative public response. So in 1999, the city council voted to halt the recycled water project when it was surfaced—and this was the key—that there was certain stakeholder groups unfairly targeted to use the purified—the so-called purified—water. In other words, there were allegations of racism. Yes.
CAVANAUGH: In what sense?
PENNER: In what sense? That the water would be sent to areas of the community where minorities live.
CAVANAUGH: Oh.
PENNER: Right.
CAVANAUGH: And what year was that that…?
PENNER: Oh, that was 1999. And then 8 years later, in October 2007, there was lots of debate, public discussion, you know, we were concerned about the drought. The city council voted to approve it’s called the Indirect Potable Reuse project, indirect meaning the water wouldn’t go directly into our homes, it would be going into reservoirs and aquifers for purification. Potable meaning drinkable. Reuse, water is being reused. And then a couple of weeks later, Mayor Sanders vetoed the resolution and then about, oh, a month later the city council voted to override the mayor’s veto. This is all in 2007. And then a year later, in November ’08, the city council approved a temporary water rate increase to fully fund the demonstration project and then last year, the PUC, the Public Utilities Department, not PUC, Public Utilities Department issued a request for proposals and then in January of this year, the city council directed the mayor to execute an agreement between San Diego and a group called the RMC Water and Environment to perform public outreach on this, project management and on and on. At the June 16th meeting, a city council committee issued the contract to build the facility. It was blocked from going to the full council because council members Sherri Lightner and Carl DeMaio still had objections to the basic premise of the project. And then on July 31st, a special follow-up meeting took place to address those questions. Sherri Lightner didn’t even show up for that meeting. Carl DeMaio didn’t ask any questions, and only reiterated that he remained steadfastly opposed. And then a few weeks (sic) later the project was approved by the full council. That’s the history.
CAVANAUGH: And that’s a long history…
PENNER: It is. It is.
CAVANAUGH: …in San Diego. Now one of the big bumps in that history, Gloria, was when the plan got dubbed toilet to tap. Tell us how that happened.
PENNER: I had to do some interesting research and I finally came up with it. It came from a man named Gerald Silver. He was an angry Encino homeowner’s association president who used the phrase in 1995 during a debate over IPR, again IPR is the Indirect Potable Reuse project, and that was in Los Angeles. So there was a debate and somehow he came up with it. You know, I don’t want my water going from my toilet to the tap. And it quickly became the term that most opponents used to refer to the idea of IPR. And then in San Diego when the plan was put to public review in 1998, all that – 12 years ago? 13 years ago? Angry protestors including then—get this—city council member George Stevens, Assembly member Howard Wayne, who’s running for political office this year, and former San Diego City Council member Bruce Henderson, they used the term to state their opposition to IPR and it was born again in San Diego.
CAVANAUGH: That name practically destroyed the issue in San Diego.
PENNER: It did. Yeah.
CAVANAUGH: Where did the opposition to this idea of water recycling, what prominent figures – you just named a few but have there been others in the community that have just really resisted the idea of water recycling?
PENNER: Well, I think the one that we really need to look at is Mayor Jerry Sanders. He has restated his opposition to using treated sewage to supplement San Diego’s drinking water supply and he said that he would oppose any effort to bring about toilet to tap. He says if there’s neither—this was a while back—there’s neither the money nor the public will to support such a program. And when you have the mayor of the city taking that position, that’s really all you need. For almost two decades San Diego has debated this. Water officials at the San Diego County Water Authority, local water districts within the county, academics, private business experts, they all agreed that the reuse of water for drinking was safe and affordable and necessary. But there was the yuk factor, you know…
CAVANAUGH: Umm-hmm.
PENNER: …associated with the concept of drinking treated sewage water and the belief by many—and this still continues—that trying to blend sewage water into the drinking supply is a recipe for disease and a public health disaster.
CAVANAUGH: One of the outlets in our city, the San Diego Union-Tribune, was very, very relentless and vocal in its opposition to this idea of water reuse, this toilet to tap project that we heard about over and over again.
PENNER: Yeah, they ran an editorial a number of years ago. It said your golden retriever may drink out of the toilet with no ill effects. Yuk. But that doesn’t mean human beings should do the same. San Diego’s infamous toilet to tap plan is back once again, courtesy of water department bureaucrats who are prodding the city council to adopt this very costly boondoggle. And that was from the Union-Tribune. So you had the major newspaper and you had the mayor and this was powerful.
CAVANAUGH: There were some people who spoke up in support of this, in fact during this most recent – the city council meeting about the water recycling plan, Councilwoman Donna Frye said she’s been speaking out for water recycling since she was 9 years old. There were a number of people who came out in support of these earlier recycling proposals.
PENNER: Well, yes. Absolutely. The city attorney then, Mike Aguirre, was very much in favor of it. He felt that it was needed to bolster the reservoirs. He urged the public, he urged elected officials to embrace it. He said, right now the City of San Diego is facing a water crisis—this is about two years ago—and we’ve entered into a period of uncertainty. We know there will be substantial cutbacks in water supplies beginning in the spring. And I think what he was talking about was, remember the federal judge’s ruling to limit the amount of fresh water that could be pumped from the San Joaquin River in an effort to protect the delta smelt, an endangered fish. And so when he said, you know, we are facing a water cutoff threat and keeping us in the system in which we’re dependent on imported water from faraway sources is not a prudent approach.
CAVANAUGH: Right.
![]() |
The plan for the urbanization of Marin is looking worse and worse each day. |
PENNER: And I’ve got a copy here of a memo that he wrote to Mayor Jerry Sanders dated August 4th, 2008, in which he wrote I’m writing to ask you to please explain your office’s behavior with regard to implementing the Indirect Potable Reuse pilot project. It was stalled in the mayor’s office. And he actually implied, maybe he went further than implying, that he was concerned that the mayor’s office may be frustrating the city’s council (sic) desire to pursue the project because of close ties to Poseidon resources. Poseidon is a project to desalinate water and put that into the water supply. He said it’s been suggested, this is Aguirre, that IPR is viewed as competition by Poseidon. So he is basically pinpointing the mayor and the mayor’s office relationship with Poseidon.
CAVANAUGH: Not only did there – was there political intrigue involved in the earlier versions of this water recycling proposal, but you talk most specifically about the yuk factor, the idea that people think there’s just something wrong with the idea of sewer water being able to be retreated up to drinkable standards and yet there has been some psychological work done about how communities can introduce this idea by – and get over that initial gut reaction.
PENNER: There’s been psychological work done, certainly, and then there’s been, you know, very basic work done. I kind of favor the rationale of a sixth grade teacher who would take his sixth grade class to waterways to discuss nature and water and life cycle of all living things. And he said, I would have them look at the life in the water and think about the water they were playing in or drinking. I would remind them that the water they were studying was the same water—get this—that the dinosaurs had once drank and lived on. All water is recycled and the same water that was around 5 million years ago is still with us. There’s no such thing as new water. I mean, if that concept can get into sixth graders and stick there, then they won’t look at their toilet water with such horror. Some of the methods for making reclaimed water more palatable are to design systems that purify water in people’s minds through association with environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, and taking advantage of emotions’ power over reason. One way is by incorporating a short stretch of river in the water recycling plant. It gives you a clearer, cleaner picture. Or by injecting treated water into an aquifer. Here’s a case in point. Residents of cities on the Rio Grande River in South America do not give much thought to the fact that a town directly upstream is discharging processed waste water almost directly into their water intake.
CAVANAUGH: And I know that up in Orange County they put their recycled water into the aquifer to kind of take the edge off the idea that, indeed, it’s being recycled.
PENNER: Well, the way they do it in Orange County and they do it in El Paso and they do it in Tucson and many other western communities where water is scarce, is that the water agencies recycle by dumping treated effluent on the ground so that it can soak in and recharge the aquifers and after that water’s been underground for a while, it’s then pumped up for drinking water use. So it is used that way.
CAVANAUGH: Well, back here in San Diego and back last week to a very different city council vote where water recycling was approved and one of the most amazing things about that meeting was that no one spoke against the plan.
PENNER: This is true. And that’s probably because an unusual coalition of people came together. There was Judy Swink of Citizens Coordinate for Century 3. She says, here we are 33 years later still dumping it. Environmental groups like Surfrider and Coastkeeper, now they joined with Amy Harris of San Diego Taxpayers Association. That is an unusual coalition. And she basically said, it’s a sobering fact the San Diego region cannot sustain these water rate increases and continue to import the amount of water that we do. So there was the financial factor. And Donne Frye, the city councilwoman, joked that she’d been, as you said, fighting for full water recycling since she was 9 years old. But Councilman Tony Young was one of those who said he has only just come around to the idea so that people like Marti Emerald were careful to point out that public education is a key element of the demonstration project, and it really is. And the two councilmembers that still are resistant, Carl DeMaio, Sherri Lightner, they don’t think that they’re ready to vote for it. Lightner doesn’t want to see water recycling put ahead of other strategies to tackle a future water shortage.
CAVANAUGH: So does this mean that we’ve heard the last of toilet to tap, do you think, Gloria?
PENNER: Well, it will depend on whether groups that oppose it, groups that might have a financial stake in not wanting to see it happen, if they can mobilize and come together in the kind of powerful coalition that I was just talking about. But remember, this is a demonstration project, that’s all it is, a pilot project. And I think it’s going to depend on the results of that pilot project and whether the outreach allows it to be sold to the public in a way that the public can really embrace it because I know when I’m out there, Maureen, I’m speaking to people and I tell them, you know, one of the projects I’m working on is looking at the history of this and the politics of it. They still look at me and say, yuk.
CAVANAUGH: Still have a ways to go.
PENNER: Yes.
CAVANAUGH: I want to thank you so much. I’ve been speaking with Gloria Penner, KPBS political correspondent and host of Editors Roundtable and San Diego Week. Thanks, Gloria.
PENNER: You’re welcome. Thanks to you.
![]() |
The elites don't care what water you are forced to drink... |
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
The Solution to California's Drought: A Free Market in Water
"If you're going to be serious about using markets to allocate water, the first thing you have to do is let the market determine the price," says Reed Watson, the executive director at the Property and Environment Research Center, or PERC, a nonprofit think tank is based in Bozeman, Montana.
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Your Dog Won’t Be the Only One Drinking From the Toilet in the Future
Your Dog Won’t Be the Only One Drinking From the Toilet in the Future
The drought is forcing Californians to look at recycled water in a whole new way.
(Photo: Peter Dazeley/Getty Images)
The next big source of drinking water may be your toilet.
As a record-breaking drought drags on in California and elsewhere, regulators and residents are overcoming squeamishness about recycling wastewater—yes, sewage—to boost scarce water supplies. These so-called toilet-to-tap projects have been taking hold in the American West, Australia, and Europe, and the state of California is now considering vastly expanding such efforts.
ADVERTISEMENT
When wastewater is recycled, it first goes to a sewage treatment plant—just like all wastewater. Then it gets sent to another facility connected to the treatment plant that’s been equipped with technologies to purify the water to a much higher quality. Water has been recycled for agricultural and industrial purposes for decades, and in those cases it isn’t treated to drinking water standards—it’s just treated to eliminate pathogens and other public health concerns.
But the newer facilities are aiming higher: They are looking to more thorough and more advanced treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis and potentially zero-liquid discharge, to get the water to near-distilled quality. These projects are costly. The most advanced technologies are very expensive, and there are a lot of materials involved—miles and miles of pipes, for example—and especially in urban settings, there’s also the cost and disruption of tearing up roads to lay down those pipes. But, said Randy Barnard, chief of the recycled water unit for California’s State Water Resources Control Board, as the costs of new sources of water continue to climb, the costs of laying the infrastructure for water recycling look more affordable.
California has about eight recycled water projects—in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Orange counties—that use what’s called groundwater replenishment: Treated wastewater is added to reserves of groundwater, which is pumped to a treatment plant that supplies a city with its water. In Orange County, which is thought to operate the largest potable water reuse system in the world, water is sent from the wastewater treatment plant to a facility that uses three treatment steps: microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and then ultraviolet light mixed with hydrogen peroxide, which destroys any trace compounds that survived the first two steps. The water is then sent out to basins in Anaheim, where it filters through sand and gravel and into the underground aquifers. The facility has been up and running since January 2008 and can produce 70 million gallons of water a day—enough for about 600,000 residents.
The state has set a target to recycle 815 billion gallons of water a year by 2030. (The current rate is about 408 billion gallons annually, up from 163 billion gallons in 2002.) Barnard said that although the target represents a fraction of the state’s water consumption, it diverts a huge amount of wastewater from being dumped in the ocean.
California is now exploring regulations that would allow cities to eliminate the middle step of groundwater filtration. Under “direct potable reuse,” wastewater is treated more to meet drinking quality standards and then piped directly into the city’s water supply.
It’s not just California: Cities around the world and across the country, mainly in Southwestern states, have water reuse projects in place, and others, including Brownwood, Texas, and Cloudcroft, New Mexico, may get under way soon. The state of Texas has approved a direct potable reuse project for Brownwood. If built, it could supply 30 percent of the city’s water.
Public relations, not technology, has been one of the biggest challenges.
When San Diego proposed a recycled water project a decade ago, media coverage scared people off. “Then San Diego did all kinds of outreach, workshops,” said Barnard. “That turned the public perception around. Now, 10 years later, it’s been a total 180. If the local population doesn’t want recycled water, they’re not going to vote for it, and it won’t move forward.”
ADVERTISEMENT
San Diego, which relies on the Colorado River and Northern California for 85 percent of its water, hopes recycled water will supply a third of its needs by 2035.
In the meantime, the city continues to explore the potential for both indirect and direct potable reuse projects. Sarah Mojarro, a spokesperson for San Diego’s Public Utilities Department, said the city is partnering with the WateReuse Research Foundation to investigate two other treatment processes—ozonation and biological activated carbon filters—as additional safeguards to protect and ensure water quality.
In Orange County, officials say residents were surprisingly receptive to the idea of the groundwater replenishment project from the start. In an opinion poll released earlier in the year, the San Diego County Water Authority found that 73 percent of people favored the idea of supplementing the drinking water supply with recycled water.
The state has long had to be mindful of how it sources its water, but as supplies grow increasingly scarce, more people are realizing it makes more sense to capture and recycle their wastewater than send millions of gallons of it to the ocean every day.
“It’s much easier to move to potable reuse in places like California and New Mexico than it is to start piping water from the Great Lakes,” said Adam Krantz, chief executive of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. “Think about how many miles of pipe, how much energy, that would take. The argument for potable, industrial, and agricultural reuse is only more obvious given the ongoing drought.”
Friday, May 6, 2016
Toilet to Tap Water is coming to Marin Soon.
The latest issue of the Las Gallinas Sanitary District Newsletter extols the virtues of Toilet to Tap drinking water. Check it out HERE
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Water Planning, California Style
Water Planning, California Style
4 Replies
Thanks to the wonders of government planning, San Diego County residents have to pay more for water they are not allowed to use. California, as everyone knows, is suffering a drought, so the state legislature mandated water conservation statewide, whether it is needed or not.
San Diego is one place where it isn’t needed, as that county has 99 percent of its normal amount of water. Yet residents are still required by state law to “let their grass die.” The costs of providing water haven’t declined, so the reductions in water usage due to mandatory conservation measures have forced the county water authority to raise its rates to cover those costs.
But it gets worse. San Diego is about to get an overabundance of water that is more costly than ever as a new $1 billion desalination plant is about to open that will increase the county’s water supply by as much as 10 percent. The plant is privately financed, but was built only after the county signed a contract agreeing to buy water from the plant whether it needed it or not. The water authority expects to spend $114 million next year buying water that was previously costing it only $45 million. This has led it to increase in water rates yet again.
The real solution to California’s water problems is not desalination plants but water pricing. If supplies fall, prices should go up, which might lead private entrepreneurs to develop desalination plants without government promises made at taxpayers’ expense, but more likely would lead to more cost-effective combinations of conservation and increased supplies.
Farmers use 80 percent of California’s water, yet they are exempt from the state-mandated water conservation measures. They are not only exempt, they are legally obligated to use that water or lose the right to use the same amount of water in future years. This use-it-or-lose-it requirement forces farmers to install inefficient irrigation systems and forbids them from selling water to cities and others who may value it more.
A water pricing system would allow farmers to continue to grow crops but still provide plenty of water for cities in drought years. Farmers would have incentives to use water more efficiently, making more available to other users. Since farmers who don’t have water rights under today’s regime could buy water from farmers who do, agricultural production might actually increase and water shortages would be things of the past. Unfortunately, the state politburo legislature has never considered such a radical free-market solution to the state’s periodic water crises.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Op-Ed Go ahead, water your lawn
Op-Ed Go ahead, water your lawn
Sprinklers watering the lawn in front of a house in Beverly Hills. (Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)
By DONALD R. HODEL, DENNIS R. PITTENGER
Opinion
Commentary
Have you watered your yard lately? You probably should.
Such a recommendation might seem irresponsible in the face of the California drought, but the recent rush to slash urban landscape water use, and in the process let trees, shrubs and lawns decline or die, is shortsighted, foolish, expensive and, most tragic of all, unnecessary.
Buddy, can you spare a rate hike?
It's shortsighted because the urban landscape provides numerous benefits and amenities that add immeasurably to the quality of our lives. To list just a few, trees, shrubs and lawns provide: beauty and ornament; shade and energy savings in heating and cooling; privacy; food; wildlife habitat; oxygen; jobs; carbon sequestration to help mitigate global warming; rain capture for dust and erosion control; enhanced property values; recreational opportunities; cultural and historic value; and even psychological well-being.
One Canadian study this year showed that having 10 more trees on a city block improves health perception (or the feeling of wellness) in ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $10,000, moving to a neighborhood with a $10,000 higher median income, or being seven years younger.
It's foolish because urban landscape irrigation accounts for such a small part of the water used in California. Although it's true that 50% of residential water use takes place outdoors, data show that less than 9% of the developed water used in California ends up on the urban landscape. So if we never watered another tree, shrub, ground cover, lawn or flower again in California, the state would save at the most 9% of its water.
It's expensive because, as landscapes go dry, the direct costs could be enormous to manage and clean up dead and dying trees, retrofit irrigation systems and replant landscapes. Also, numerous indirect or hidden costs are associated with this strategy, including lawsuits over property damage and human injury or even death from failing trees, increased fire risk and, in the long-term, lost jobs and reduced economic activity for gardeners and landscapers.
The poorly crafted landscape water conservation rules, such as watering only two days a week ... are horticulturally unsound.-
It's tragic because research at the University of California over the last 30 years shows that through appropriate landscape water management — the right amount, at the right time — we can reduce water use 30% or more. We could therefore meet most of the mandated cutback goals yet still retain our trees, shrubs, ground covers and, yes, even some area of lawn. It's absolutely unnecessary to let them go brown and die. It's also unnecessary to make wholesale changes in our landscape palette, ripping out established flora and replanting with “drought tolerant” plants, to save water. Our research has shown that most of our trees, shrubs and ground covers in California if planted, established, and cared for and irrigated properly are already quite drought tolerant.
The poorly crafted landscape water conservation rules, such as watering only two days a week and/or only 15 minutes of run time per station, are horticulturally unsound, because they do not take into account sprinkler precipitation rates, soil types, soil water-holding capacity, plant type or rooting depth, among other factors. The no-water-on-lawn-medians decree takes the prize for ignorance, though, because most cities have stopped watering their medians entirely without making provisions for the trees. As the lawns go brown, the trees are declining and dying.
Lawns have of course been especially singled out as water-wasting culprits and borne the brunt of the anti-water scorn — but this, too, is unscientific. They account for only about 3% to 5% of all the water used in California. And our research has shown that warm-season grasses need 20% less water than tall fescue, the most common lawn grass; thus, significant savings can be attained without doing away with lawns completely and instead simply changing them from tall fescue to a warm-season grass.
Replacing lawns with artificial turf isn't a good idea; turf, in fact, has serious environmental drawbacks, among them increased surface temperatures, heat collection and retention, lack of carbon sequestration, no absorption of greenhouse gases, and increased water run-off — as well as the fact that turf is plastic-based and thus a petroleum product.
Official but unacknowledged state policy for the last decade has been to support water demand for future growth primarily by trying to wring out savings through urban landscape water conservation. But with the state projected to add 10 million people by 2025, and with landscape irrigation accounting for such a small portion of the water used in the state, any sixth-grader can do the math and see that this is a nonsensical approach.
What's the policymakers' agenda here? The strategy is not so much to achieve significant statewide water savings — because there simply isn't that much to save — but rather to put the screws to homeowners so they will feel inconvenienced and, therefore, be more willing to support future controversial state water projects, like the gigantic twin tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Urban dwellers and homeowners make easy targets because there is no one unified voice with abundant resources that can advocate for them. But it's misguided to single out urban landscape water use. Even in this historic drought, landscape and especially trees are worth having and saving. We can have our landscape — and still save water.
Donald R. Hodel and Dennis R. Pittenger each have more than 30 years of experience as UC Cooperative Extension advisors who specialize in the selection and management of trees and landscape plants, including irrigation.
Lawns have of course been especially singled out as water-wasting culprits and borne the brunt of the anti-water scorn — but this, too, is unscientific. They account for only about 3% to 5% of all the water used in California. And our research has shown that warm-season grasses need 20% less water than tall fescue, the most common lawn grass; thus, significant savings can be attained without doing away with lawns completely and instead simply changing them from tall fescue to a warm-season grass.
Replacing lawns with artificial turf isn't a good idea; turf, in fact, has serious environmental drawbacks, among them increased surface temperatures, heat collection and retention, lack of carbon sequestration, no absorption of greenhouse gases, and increased water run-off — as well as the fact that turf is plastic-based and thus a petroleum product.
Official but unacknowledged state policy for the last decade has been to support water demand for future growth primarily by trying to wring out savings through urban landscape water conservation. But with the state projected to add 10 million people by 2025, and with landscape irrigation accounting for such a small portion of the water used in the state, any sixth-grader can do the math and see that this is a nonsensical approach.
What's the policymakers' agenda here? The strategy is not so much to achieve significant statewide water savings — because there simply isn't that much to save — but rather to put the screws to homeowners so they will feel inconvenienced and, therefore, be more willing to support future controversial state water projects, like the gigantic twin tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Urban dwellers and homeowners make easy targets because there is no one unified voice with abundant resources that can advocate for them. But it's misguided to single out urban landscape water use. Even in this historic drought, landscape and especially trees are worth having and saving. We can have our landscape — and still save water.
Donald R. Hodel and Dennis R. Pittenger each have more than 30 years of experience as UC Cooperative Extension advisors who specialize in the selection and management of trees and landscape plants, including irrigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)