What kills more women than AIDS and breast cancer? Dirty water.

Nearly 800,000 women die every year because they lack access to safe toilets and clean water, said the development organization WaterAid, which analyzed data from the Seattle-based Institute of Health Metrics research center.

“This completely unacceptable situation affects women and girls’ education, their health, their dignity and ultimately, in too many cases, results in an early and needless death,” WaterAid CEO Barbara Frost said in a statement.

The only conditions more fatal for women than the lack of decent sanitation are heart disease, stroke, lower respiratory infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, according to the report.

More than 1 billion women, or one in three women around the world, do not have access to a safe, private toilet, while 370 million – one in 10 – do not have access to clean water, according to WaterAid.

More than 2 billion people gained access to clean water between 1990 and 2012, but nearly 750 million remain still lack what the United Nations recognizes as a human right.

Dirty water and poor sanitation are at the root of problems such as maternal and child mortality, and sexual violence.

Many women in developing countries give birth at home without access to clean water, exposing themselves and their babies to infections.

Without safe toilets, women and girls have to venture outdoors to relieve themselves, often at night, putting them at risk of sexual harassment and assault.

Moreover, in many poor countries fetching water is considered a the responsibility of women and girls, who spend hours each day trekking to and from wells, keeping them from attending school or caring for their families.

Source: Reuters.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Installing the Bottom Drain in the Vortech Dome Hole Bottom Drain Tank from Pure Water Products

Referring to the pictures will make the installation easier.

After the tank has been removed from the box,

1. Lay the tank on its side on a table and remove the base from the bottom of the tank. This is usually accomplished easily by tapping downward on the base with a small hammer. Work around the circumference of the base, tapping until the base comes off.

2. Install the IN/OUT tank head (it should have a plug preinstalled in the “out” port) into the bottom hole of the tank and tighten until you have a firm fit. (Get it as tight as you want it now, because when the base is in place, it will be difficult to tighten it more.) Do not tape the threads on the tank head. The seal is made by the O ring on the head. The easy way to tighten the head is to screw the 5″ pipe nipple temporarily into the empty (IN) port of the head to use as a handle. Remove the nipple when the head is installed.

3. When the head is installed, put the base back on the tank. Be sure that the hole in the In/Out head is centered in one of the windows on the base, because you’re going to have to install the valve assembly through the window. The easy way to reinstall the base is to start it in the correct position, then set it upright and tap it against the floor. The weight of the tank will drive the tank into the base.

4. Assemble the remainder of the system. using teflon tape on all threads. The metal garden hose fitting can be installed if you want to hook to a garden hose; if you prefer to hook to a pipe, leave the garden hose fitting off.

The ball valve should stay in the off position (with handles at right angles with the pipe). To drain the tank, turn off the inlet water, remove the “dome hole” plug near the top of the tank to release the vacuum, and open the drain valve.

The bottom drain assembly installed.

View from the bottom.  

How the pieces go together.

Water loss: seven things you need to know about an invisible global problem

by Sarah LaBecque

A staggering 46bn litres of drinking water are lost globally every day. What can consumers, business and governments do?

  Iraqis fill drinking water and wash clothes at a broken water pipeline in a Shia district of Sadr City, Baghdad. 

While concerns over water conservation, access and hygiene feature high on the news agenda, the problem of water loss often gets overlooked. Yet this vital issue affects millions of lives. A recent live discussion hosted by Guardian Sustainable Business looked at the role business and government should play in addressing global water loss and where things are set to go next. Here’s what you need to know.

What do we mean when we talk about water loss?

Water loss is often referred to as non-revenue water (NRW) – water that is produced in a network but never reaches the consumer. This might be due to aging networks which haven’t been properly managed, metering inaccuracies, theft or unmetered authorised consumption, like water used from fire hydrants.

It’s not a problem restricted only to the developing world either – Montreal, for example, loses 40% of the water it produces (pdf).

But Louise Whiting from WaterAid was keen to make sure the word “lost” is properly defined. “Very often”, she said, “water is used but then returned to the system in virtually the same quantity”.

So when we speak of water loss in an industrial sense, we’re referring to that which is not returned to the system through natural processes like, for example through plant transpiration.

There isn’t a one-size fits all reason which explains water loss

Plain, old-fashioned leaky pipes have much to answer for in explaining why NRW costs utilities about $14bn (£9bn) per year, but Marco Fantozzi, water loss regional representative for south east Europe for the International Water Association, says not all NRW is due to leakage.

Distribution systems in many parts of the world are not efficient enough, he says, and there is a lack of “state of the art technologies, not enough awareness of best practice methodologies and not enough training”.

So addressing this global issue means looking at infrastructure, but also at utilities, and if they’re embracing new technologies and investing in staff training.

Newer cities might have better rates of loss as well, like in the US where most distribution systems are younger than 100 years. These systems “may have less loss due to improved materials of construction and better construction techniques”, said Dale Jacobson, governor of the World Water Council.

Consumers have a part to play in this issue

In the UK, the majority of consumers feel that their utility is not doing enough to reduce leakage – 70% in fact, according to Tony Smith, chief executive of the Consumer Council for Water. This perspective in turn affects consumers’ motivation to conserve water themselves.

“Two thirds of water customers feel their efforts to save water make little difference when so much is being lost through leakage”, offered Smith. At the end of the day, industrial water loss is a public policy issue which must be addressed by business and government, but consumers can put the pressure on. And they can do their part when it comes to conserving water at home and when on holiday.

Governments should be imposing targets on utilities to reduce losses

In the UK, OfWat, which is responsible for regulating water usage, has targets in place which water companies must meet as regards water loss reductions. Fantozzi mentioned that this was something European governments should be replicating. “UK utilities are in general more efficient than the average European utility,” he said.

The very fact that water loss isn’t a widely known or understood problem means policymakers and government need to integrate targets into country and international-level agreements, but political will sometimes lacks.

Technologies and solutions are available

First of all, you must address the more “low-hanging fruits” – active leakage control and pressure management, said Morten Riis, business development manager at Grundfos. Maintaining stable pressure in pipes within a distribution network “has proven to have a positive and immediate effect on reducing the water loss.” And technologies like intelligent water pumps and distributed sensor systems for leak detection offer great opportunities for efficiency improvements.

Jacobson also highlighted water audit programs offered by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the International Water Association (IWA). “The IWA/AWWA Water Audit Method features sound, consistent definitions for the major forms of water consumption and water loss encountered in drinking water utilities. It also features a set of rational performance indicators that evaluate utilities on system-specific attributes such as the average pressure in the distribution system and total length of water mains.”

The private sector will play an important role in reducing water loss in the developing world

Governments in the developing world don’t necessarily have the financial resources to invest in network infrastructure – their efforts would more likely be centred around issues of hygiene or access. Indeed, Leong Ching, senior research fellow at the Institute of Water Policy, University of Singapore says the likelihood of developing countries being able to finance new and impoved infrastructure developments is slim. 7% of the world’s population was served by private water companies in 2009, whereas that figure is projected as 23% for 2015, she says.

Jacob Tompkins, managing director at WaterWise said: “There is a big role for public-private sector collaboration, but … the key is appropriate regulation of this process – this is where NGO and community group involvement is essential.”

Are corporates getting involved?

Selma Spaas, program leader of the International Water Leadership Programme at Nyenrode Business Universiteit brought up this important question. The burden of managing water loss is often naturally pinned to utilities and government, but corporations can get their feet wet too, or dry in this case. “I won’t mention them by name,” said Smith, but there are “‘major retail household brands’ operating in the UK and overseas” who have done a lot. In an effort to save money and as part of their corporate social responsibility strategy, Smith mentions that supermarkets in particular are communicating to their customers about water conservation.

Hannah Greig, private sector advisor at WaterAid was a bit more sceptical, however. “Corporates are recognising water is an increasing risk but action isn’t yet following at the same pace – and even fewer corporates are including the impact on communities as part of their risk assessments,” she said.

Considering the World Economic Forum ranked water crises as the top global risk in its 2015 Global Risks Report, business would be wise to engage in reducing water loss.

Source: The Guardian.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

 Gazette Technical Wizard Pure Water Annie Takes on the Persistent Questions about TDS Measurement in Home Reverse Osmosis Units

 How do I know when to change my RO membrane?

Some sellers say every two years, other say every three.  Actually, the only really good way to know is to own a TDS tester, test the water from the unit once or twice a year, and change the membrane when the meter tells you it’s time.  Membranes can last many, many years, and there is no reason ever to change a membrane that is performing well.

What does TDS mean, and what’s a TDS meter?

TDS stands for “Total Dissolved Solids.”  It is basically a measurement of all the “solids,” or minerals, dissolved in the water.  The “dissolved solids”  consist mainly of calcium and magnesium (hardness minerals) and sodium, chloride, and sulfate.  A TDS tester for home use is a small electronic tester that measures these solids by passing a weak electrical current through the water and determining how well the water conducts electricity.  The higher the dissolved solids content, the more easily the water conducts electricity and the higher the number shown on the meter.

Does my RO unit remove the TDS from the water?

Yes, a healthy RO membrane will normally “reject” 90% or more of the dissolved solids and send them down the drain pipe.  RO units and distillers lower dissolved solids. as do “deionizers.” Filters don’t removed dissolved minerals.  No matter how many sediment filters or carbon filters you run the water through, the TDS reading will remain the same.

Is TDS bad?  How high should it be?

Within the normal range of fresh water, TDS isn’t a big health issue.  The EPA sets a limit of 500 parts per million Total Dissolved Solids as a drinking water standard, but many US cities violate that and their citizens do fine. Obviously, there is a point where water starts tasting bad. This varies depending on which minerals are involved. Naturally soft water with a TDS of 500 that’s mainly sodium, for example, can taste very good.  There is, of course, a limit: sea water is over 30,000 parts per million and is undrinkable. When water gets over 1000 ppm TDS you normally won’t like the way it tastes.

My local tap water is 250 ppm Total Dissolved Solids.  If you’re saying this isn’t “bad for me,” why bother to measure my RO unit’s dissolved solids performance?  What does it matter whether the RO unit reduces the TDS or not?

TDS measurement is the standard way of evaluating overall performance of the RO unit.  The assumption is that if the unit is making a 90% reduction of calcium and sodium, it’s also reducing arsenic and fluoride with equal effectiveness.  As it loses its ability to reduce TDS, it loses its ability to remove chromium. In other words, TDS readings are taken to determine how well the membrane is working.

What does “% rejection” mean?

Percent rejection is a calculation used to express how well the RO unit is working.  It is determined as follows:

TDS of the feed water (determined by testing your tap water at the kitchen sink) minus the TDS of the permeate (the water that comes out of the RO unit’s faucet) divided by the TDS of the feed water and multiplied by 100.

So, for example, if your tap water reads 280 and your RO product water reads 15, you determine the percent rejection of the RO unit by subtracting 15 from 280 to get 265, dividing 265 by 280 to get 0.946, then multiplying by 100 to get 94.6% rejection.  Your RO unit is running well.

You actually don’t have to work through this whole formula to know if you’re RO unit is running well.  If the RO water tests 1/10 or less of the tap water, it’s doing fine. If your tap TDS is 280 and the RO water reads 28 or less, leave the membrane alone.

At what TDS reading should you change the membrane?

That’s a personal choice and there isn’t a specific answer that fits all situations.  Consider, for example, that if your tap water TDS is only 65  you might want to cut your membrane some slack and not stick strictly to the 10% rule.

Are there factors that affect TDS readings that should be considered?  

First, never test your TDS immediately after changing your filters.  You’ll get an artificially high reading because of impurities that your eye can’t see being put out by the new post filter.  Also, keep in mind that cold water reads lower than warm and a stopped up pre-filter can rob the membrane of pressure and diminish its performance. Lots of things can affect TDS readings, so don’t pull the plug on your membrane if you get one bad test reading.

Major Study in Great Britain Links Fluoride in Water to Hypothyroidism, and A New US Study Links Fluoride ot ADHD in the United States

Gazette Introductory Note: A bad week for promoters of water fluoridation saw two significant research publications.  One, from the prestigious British Medical Journal, reported a significant increase in hypothyroidism in fluoridated areas in the UK as compared with unflouoridated; the second, from the journal Environmental Health, revealed a rise in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder  (ADHD) in American children exposed to artificial water fluoridation.  These studies both received wide press attention at a time when fluoridation is being rejected or discontinued in a growing number of American cities.–Hardly Waite.

A major new fluoridation study was published this week in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health–a British Medical Journal (BMJ) publication—and it has already received major media attention.  The study, entitled Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?  A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water, is the first study to ever look at fluoridation and hypothyroidism in a large population (in this case, England).  The study found a relatively strong and statistically significant effect, with General Practice (GP) areas being 62% more likely to have high rates of diagnosed hypothyroidism if their drinking water fluoride levels were above 0.7ppm compared to areas with fluoride levels below 0.3ppm.  This was after researchers had accounted for key variable, which are other factors that influence hypothyroid rates.

In an additional comparison of two large metropolitan regions, one that is artificially fluoridated at a level of about 1.0 ppm (greater Birmingham area), and the other which is nearby and similar demographics but is not artificially fluoridated (greater Manchester), the study found a 94% greater probability that GPs in fluoridated Birmingham would have high hypothyroidism rates compared to Manchester.

For all of England, the prevalence rate of hypothyroidism was almost 10% greater in.those GPs with higher fluoride levels compared to those with lowest levels .

The findings led to the researchers calling for a “rethink of public health policy to fluoridate the water supply,” adding “consideration needs to be given to reducing fluoride exposure, and public dental health interventions should stop [those] reliant on ingested fluoride and switch to topical fluoride-based and non-fluoride-based interventions.”

Read the report of the study.

Additional studies on thyroid and fluoride:

Here are other media articles reporting on the BJJ study:

-The Telegraph, Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists

-Newsweek, Water fluoridation may increase risk of underactive thyroid disorder

-The Yorkshire Post, Fluoride in water increases risk of thyroid illness ‘by 30 per cent’

-Boots WebMD (Boots is the largest pharmacy in the UK), Scientists call for rethink on fluoride in water

-The Telegraph, The extent of water fluoridation in the UK

Just when you thought we wouldn’t get any more bombshells this week, a study was published later in the week linking fluoridation to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States.

The study entitled, “Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association,” was published in the journal Environmental Health.  According to the authors:

“State prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 significantly positively predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003, 2007 and 2011, even after controlling for socioeconomic status.

A multivariate regression analysis showed that after socioeconomic status was controlled each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011. Overall state water fluoridation prevalence (not distinguishing between fluoridation types) was also significantly positively correlated with state prevalence of ADHD for all but one year examined.

Conclusions: Parents reported higher rates of medically-diagnosed ADHD in their children in states in which a greater proportion of people receive fluoridated water from public water supplies.” 

Reference: Fluoride Action Network.

A Thirsty, Violent World

by Michael Specter

Angry protesters filled the streets of Karachi last week, clogging traffic lanes and public squares until police and paratroopers were forced to intervene. That’s not rare in Pakistan, which is often a site of political and religious violence.

But last week’s protests had nothing to do with freedom of expression, drone wars, or Americans. They were about access to water. When Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the Minister of Defense, Power, and Water (yes, that is one ministry), warned that the country’s chronic water shortages could soon become uncontrollable, he was looking on the bright side. The meagre allotment of water available to each Pakistani is a third of what it was in 1950. As the country’s population rises, that amount is falling fast.

Dozens of other countries face similar situations—not someday, or soon, but now. Rapid climate change, population growth, and a growing demand for meat (and, thus, for the water required to grow feed for livestock) have propelled them into a state of emergency. Millions of words have been written, and scores of urgent meetings have been held, since I last wrote about this issue for the magazine, nearly a decade ago; in that time, things have only grown worse.

The various physical calamities that confront the world are hard to separate, but growing hunger and the struggle to find clean water for billions of people are clearly connected. Each problem fuels others, particularly in the developing world—where the harshest impact of natural catastrophes has always been felt. Yet the water crisis challenges even the richest among us.

California is now in its fourth year of drought, staggering through its worst dry spell in twelve hundred years; farmers have sold their herds, and some have abandoned crops. Cities have begun rationing water. According to the London-based organization Wateraid, water shortages are responsible for more deaths in Nigeria than Boko Haram; there are places in India where hospitals have trouble finding the water required to sterilize surgical tools.

Nowhere, however, is the situation more acute than in Brazil, particularly for the twenty million residents of São Paulo. “You have all the elements for a perfect storm, except that we don’t have water,” a former environmental minister told Lizzie O’Leary, in a recent interview for the syndicated radio show “Marketplace.” The country is bracing for riots. “There is a real risk of social convulsion,” José Galizia Tundisi, a hydrologist with the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, warned in a press conference last week. He said that officials have failed to act with appropriate urgency. “Authorities need to act immediately to avoid the worst.” But people rarely act until the crisis is directly affecting them, and at that point it will be too late.

It is not that we are actually running out of water, because water never technically disappears. When it leaves one place, it goes somewhere else, and the amount of freshwater on earth has not changed significantly for millions of years. But the number of people on the planet has grown exponentially; in just the past century, the population has tripled, and water use has grown sixfold. More than that, we have polluted much of what remains readily available—and climate change has made it significantly more difficult to plan for floods and droughts.

Success is part of the problem, just as it is with the pollution caused by our industrial growth. The standard of living has improved for hundreds of millions of people, and the pace of improvement will quicken. As populations grow more prosperous, vegetarian life styles often yield to a Western diet, with all the disasters that implies. The new middle classes, particularly in India and China, eat more protein than they once did, and that, again, requires more water use. (On average, hundreds of gallons of water are required to produce a single hamburger.)

Feeding a planet with nine billion residents will require at least fifty per cent more water in 2050 than we use today. It is hard to see where that water will come from. Half of the planet already lives in urban areas, and that number will increase along with the pressure to supply clean water.

“Unfortunately, the world has not really woken up to the reality of what we are going to face, in terms of the crises, as far as water is concerned,” Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, said at a conference on water security earlier this month. “If you look at agricultural products, if you look at animal protein, the demand for which is growing—that’s highly water intensive. At the same time, on the supply side, there are going to be several constraints. Firstly because there are going to be profound changes in the water cycle due to climate change.”

Floods will become more common, and so will droughts, according to most assessments of the warming earth. “The twenty-first-century projections make the [previous] mega-droughts seem like quaint walks through the garden of Eden,” Jason Smerdon, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said recently. At the same time, demands for economic growth in India and other developing nations will necessarily increase pollution of rivers and lakes. That will force people to dig deeper than ever before into the earth for water.

There are ways to replace oil, gas, and coal, though we won’t do that unless economic necessity demands it. But there isn’t a tidy and synthetic invention to replace water. Conservation would help immensely, as would a more rational use of agricultural land—irrigation today consumes seventy per cent of all freshwater.

The result of continued inaction is clear. Development experts, who rarely agree on much, all agree that water wars are on the horizon. That would be nothing new for humanity. After all, the word “rivals” has its roots in battles over water—coming from the Latin, rivalis, for “one taking from the same stream as another.” It would be nice to think that, with our complete knowledge of the physical world, we have moved beyond the limitations our ancestors faced two thousand years ago. But the truth is otherwise; rivals we remain, and the evidence suggests that, until we start dying of thirst, we will stay that way.

Source: The New Yorker.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

 Pure Water Annie’s FAQ Series

Gazette Technical Writer Pure Water Annie Answer’s the Persistent Questions about Water Treatment

This Week’s Topic: Regenerating Water Softeners with Potassium Chloride

Why do some people use potassium chloride rather than salt to regenerate their water softener?

The main reason is to avoid using  sodium–for health or environmental reasons.  In fact, some cities require its use in an effort to limit sodium levels in wastewater.

How does the cost compare with standard softener salt?

Potassium chloride (KCl) is more expensive, considerably more expensive in some areas. Also, salt is more readily available.  Since potassium is used in farm fertilizer, it’s in much shorter supply and it may eventually get very expensive.

I’ve heard you have to use more potassium chloride than standard softener salt to regenerate the softener.  Is this true?  

In theory, it would seem to be true, but research has shown that this isn’t a big factor.  In one study, when using 15 lbs. of salt per cubic foot of resin for regeneration, standard salt was only about 2% more efficient than potassium chloride.

Are there problems with potassium chloride?

Other than the cost and in some areas the lack of availability, one issue is the tendency under certain conditions (mainly temperature swings when softeners are installed in unheated areas) for a condition called recrystallization to occur.  This is similar to the condition called “salt bridge,”  with regular salt, but when temperatures fluctuate potassium chloride can precipitate and drop to the bottom of the brine tank forming a solid mass beneath the salt grid platform. There are strategies to alleviate this which include insulating the brine tank or elevating the tank on a wooden platform.

I have a reverse osmosis drinking water system.  They told me it takes the sodium out of my softened water.  Is this true?

Yes.  It will also remove potassium, so if you have an RO unit for drinking water, your choice of a regenerant has no health implications.

And if I don’t have an RO unit?

The amount of sodium you ingest in softened water is pretty insignificant when compared with your total sodium intake, so drinking softened water normally isn’t important. For people trying to eliminate all sources of sodium, of course, it may be a different story.

If I want to try potassium chloride in my softener, do I need to make modifications?

No,  salt and potassium chloride both work well in standard water softeners.

How razing the rainforest has created a devastating drought in Brazil

Twenty million people in Sao Paolo now face severe rationing due to the disruption of the far-away Amazon’s rain-making machine,

by Geoffrey Lean

 ^{The vast forest generates its own rain, which then falls across the country.}

Arsenic, nitrates among pollutants in California drinking water

California’s public drinking water systems violated safety levels for contaminants more than 1,000 times during the 2012-2013 fiscal year says a report that cites high levels in some water systems of arsenic, nitrates and other pollutants.

The report, ordered by the state Senate’s Environmental Quality committee, is part of a broader effort to improve compliance with drinking water regulations, prompted by criticism of the state’s oversight and a court settlement.

“Although the vast majority of Californians who receive drinking water from a public water system receive water that met quality standards in recent years, there are still many who may have consumed unsafe water,” Senate researchers said in the report, which was released on Wednesday.

According to the report, about 98 percent of water provided by the state’s public water systems met standards for water quality in 2013. But the systems regulated by the state, which provide water to 38 million Californians, were subject to about 1,800 enforcement actions by state regulators during the fiscal year 2012-2013.

Water in California violated federal quality standards more than 1,000 times during the fiscal year, triggering reports to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the report said.

The most common violations were for high levels of such contaminants as arsenic, nitrates, naturally occurring radioactive minerals and perchlorates, which are natural and man-made chemicals used in rocket fuel and explosives, the report said.

The nitrates, which can cause serious illness, including blue-baby syndrome in infants, tend to come from fertilizer run-off, sewage leaks and erosion, the report said.

Arsenic, which causes skin damage, circulatory system problems and increased cancer risks, occurs naturally, but when present at high levels usually involves a human component, the report said.

“Water is a basic human right and we need to do everything possible to protect it,” said Senate Democratic leader Kevin de Leon, who said the report will guide policy decisions as the state grapples with a drought that is entering its fourth year.

Lawmakers will use the report in deciding how to spend revenues from $7.5 billion in bonds authorized by voters to pay for projects to shore up the state’s water supply, de Leon said.

The State Water Resources Control Board, which last year assumed oversight of drinking water quality from the Department of Public Health, said Wednesday it was reviewing the report and would soon submit its own safe drinking water plan.

Source: Reuters.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Pollution concerns heighten hog conflicts

by David Pitt

From Washington state to North Carolina, federal lawsuits are challenging the efficient, profitable livestock industry to change its ways. The arguments found in the lawsuits are based on studies that increasingly show the impact phosphorous, nitrate and bacteria from fertilizer and accumulated manure have on lakes and rivers as well as air pollution that may be harmful to respiratory health.

Large-scale livestock farmers insist they’re using techniques to keep manure and fertilizer from draining into waterways, though fifth-generation farmer Bill Couser of Des Moines says, “We realize this is not going to happen overnight or in two years.”

However, those who rely on rivers and lakes for drinking water or live near such farms — especially in the top two hog-producing states of Iowa and North Carolina — are growing impatient, and their lawsuits serve to highlight the debate between the right to raise livestock and the right to clean water and air.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in eastern Washington ruled that an industrial dairy farm’s manure management practices posed an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to the environment and to thousands relying on well water. And Des Moines Water Works has filed a notice of intent to sue farmers in three counties populated by 1.2 million pigs and a million turkeys, as the water it sources from two central Iowa rivers must be run through a costly system to strip out nitrates.

About 68 percent of the nation’s lakes, reservoirs and ponds and more than half of its rivers and streams are impaired, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, whose reports show the main culprit is agriculture.

“Pork is cheap and cheap to produce in large factories because they don’t pay for cleaning up the Des Moines water supply and they don’t pay for the asthma neighbors get, they don’t pay for polluting downstream water that used to be potable and they don’t pay for the loss of property values,” said Steve Wing, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill epidemiologist.

The hog industry’s national shift from small family farms to large-scale farms is dramatic — from more than 200,000 in the early 1990s to just over 21,600 in 2012. A driving force behind some of the farms is Murphy-Brown LLC, which is part of China-based WH Group — the world’s largest pork producer. WH Group aims to feed China’s appetite for meat with cheaper hogs from the U.S., according to lawsuits.

Advocates of locally grown food and animal-rights and environmental activists are behind many of the suits, but in some cases, farmers are going after farmers.

Barb Kalbach has fought against the construction of huge hog operations in Iowa, where pork is a $7 billion industry and there are seven times more hogs than humans. “I have in the back of my mind this idea that we have thousands of miles of clean water, which is a gift in this state and we just throw manure in it,” the 61-year-old crop farmer said.

Hog farmer Matt Schuiteman said farmers care about the environment and are willing to work on improvements that will minimize impacts, but doesn’t think lawsuits are the best course of action. “Maybe we can all get to where we want to be together instead of drawing the battle lines and forcing the issue,” the 40-year-old from Sioux Center said.

In North Carolina, 10 million hogs produce as much fecal waste in a day as 100 million people, and Duplin County is the nation’s top county for hog production, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Treated, liquefied manure and urine is pumped to large sprinkler systems and flung on fields for fertilizer. The resulting odor is a daily drag for Richard Brown, whose home is nearly surrounded by fields that soak up hog effluent. Brown is among the roughly 500 people in who’ve joined the lawsuits against Murphy-Brown, alleging that the farms deprive them of enjoying their property.

Murphy-Brown encourages residents to raise concerns about operations, but only a handful do in a given year, the company said in a statement.

The choice, said Iowa State University economist Catherine Kling, will come down to consumers: “We don’t know how to produce food and fuel from this incredibly rich land without having nitrogen and nutrient pollution, so society has to figure out what balance it wants.”

Source: Des Moines Register.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement