With Great Lakes stuck at historic lows, talk turns to adapting

By Nick Manes and Joe Boomgaard

Adsorption of Water Contaminants: How Filter Carbon Works

According to the Wikipedia,  “Adsorption is the adhesion of atoms, ions, or molecules from a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid to a surface.  This process creates a film of the adsorbate on the surface of the adsorbent. This process differs from absorption, in which a fluid (the absorbate) permeates or is dissolved by a liquid or solid (the absorbent).  Note that adsorption is a surface-based process while absorption involves the whole volume of the material.”

Explained more graphically:

This man has adsorbed a pie.

This man is absorbing a pie.

In water treatment, activated carbon is the main adsorbing agent.  This is true because filter carbon has an amazing amount of surface area and a strong ability to attract and hold organic chemicals.  Most of the surface area is internal.

Enlargement of granular carbon shows countless pores that adsorb contaminants. The surface area of the pores is exceptional. A single pound of activated carbon has more surface area in its pores than 100 football fields. 

Carbon’s amazing ability to adsorb organic chemicals varies according to the chemical in question and conditions of the water. In general, chemicals of high molecular weight and low solubility are most easily adsorbed.  The lower the concentration of the chemical, the higher the adsorption rate by carbon.  Also, the fewer the interfering organic compounds present in the water the better.  The pH of the water is also significant, with acidic compounds being most readily adsorbed at low pH.  And, as with most other aspects of water filtration, rate of flow of the water being treated is extremely important with carbon adsorption. The more residence time the better.

In regard to specific chemicals, one source lists dozens of common chemicals and ranks them according to the likelihood that they will be removed by carbon adsorption.  Here are a few of the more common items from the list:

Very High Probability of Adsorption: Atrazine, Malathion, 1, 3-dichlorobenzene,  DDT, Lindade.

High Probability of Adsorption: Toluene, styrene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, vinyl acetate,  phenol.

Moderate Probability of Adsorption: Chloroform, vinyl chloride, acetic acid.

Unlikely to be adsorbed by carbon:  Isopropyl alcohol, dimethylformaldehyde, propylene.

It should be remembered that although carbon has great chemical reduction capacity because of its ability to attract and hold chemicals on its surface,  it acts in other ways as well.  Chlorine, for example, is reduced mainly by catalytic reaction with the carbon, not by the “grab and hold” process of adsorption.

Old bathtubs found to pose lead exposure risks for children

   by Valerie Wigglesworth

Eric and Laura Rudeseal had already started tearing out the baseboards and door frames in their Arlington home when they realized there might be lead-based paint.

With two young children and a third on the way, they recognized the need for safety while remodeling the 1964 home Eric Rudeseal grew up in.

They tried a home test kit but still weren’t sure whether they were dealing with lead. So they ordered blood tests for 2-year-old Trevor and 6-year-old Kassidy. Results indicated both had been exposed to the toxic heavy metal. But to their surprise, paint wasn’t the source.

A  lead testing kit can show spots where lead is present in bathtubs.

After a lot of expense and help from an expert, they found the problem: their bathtubs.

Dean Lovvorn, a Plano-based lead risk assessor, specializes in finding the source of low-level lead exposure in children. He said the No. 1 source today is still lead-based paint, even though it has been banned since 1978. But he’s finding through his work in the Dallas-Fort Worth area that bathtubs are the second most common culprit.

The lead comes from cast iron or steel tubs coated with a porcelain glaze. As the glaze wears down from age and use, the lead in the glaze can leach into bath water. Young children who drink bathwater or put their wet hands or toys in their mouths during bath time are at greatest risk.

There is no safe level of lead exposure in children. Even a small amount can cause damage that lasts a lifetime.

Exposure is measured through a blood test. A blood lead level of less than 5 in children can cause decreased academic achievement and a lowered IQ as well as problem behaviors and attention deficit disorders. Blood lead levels less than 10 in children have been linked to delayed puberty, decreased IQ and decreased hearing.

Tests in August showed Trevor and Kassidy had lead levels of 4.4 and 4.5. They had been taking baths when they stayed overnight at the home while their parents did the remodeling. A separate test also showed lead leaching from the bathtub in their existing Arlington home.

“It was kind of a surprise,” said Laura Rudeseal, who is familiar with lead poisoning because of her training as a registered nurse. She said she’d never heard of the dangers from old bathtubs.

Her children only take showers now. The couple hope to eventually replace the tubs in their home to remove any risk from lead.

“It’s infuriating to me that it’s still an issue,” Eric Rudeseal said.

Tamara Rubin knows well the dangers of lead. Two of her sons have brain damage from lead poisoning suffered in 2005 due to unsafe practices by a painting contractor. She has since founded the nonprofit Lead Safe America Foundation and is putting the finishing touches on a documentary, MisLEAD: America’s Secret Epidemic, which will be released next year.

She said she often finds bathtubs tainted with lead — they are everywhere. Yet people don’t know about the risks.

“It’s always tested as a last resort in a family that has an exposed child,” she said.

The use of porcelain glazes containing lead is not regulated, although many American companies have voluntarily stopped using them. The Healthy Homes and Lead Safety group, which is based in North Carolina, states that some manufacturers were using lead in the glaze of certain bathtubs as recently as 1995.

Adding to the problem is the number of building supply centers that recycle old bathtubs for installation in newer homes, Rubin said.

Lovvorn’s 1992 Plano home has a tub that leaches lead. The 1977 home in Dallas’ Lake Highlands area where his daughter and grandchildren live also has a lead-glazed tub.

Officials with the Texas Department of State Health Services say lead found in the glazes of bathtubs is a potential hazard, but it’s unclear how much of a hazard.

A home test kit available in the paint section of most hardware stores can detect the presence of lead. Lovvorn is quick to point out that the chemicals in the test kit may permanently stain the bathtub. He recently covered his daughter’s tub with pink and red blotches while sampling for lead. It serves as a reminder, he said, to keep the kids out.

National Lead Poisoning Prevention Week, which starts Sunday, aims to raise awareness about lead poisoning and the risks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers it the most preventable environmental disease among young children.

Rubin said what’s most surprising is how uneducated people are about the risks from lead poisoning. Most of the lead hazard information is directed at low-income families, but lead poisoning strikes at every income level, she said.

“Education needs to have a broader base,” Rubin said. “That’s why I made the film, because I wanted to reach out to the whole country and not just limit it to low-income families.”

Many children exposed to lead will not show any obvious symptoms. That’s why some health experts recommend that all children be tested.

The state of Texas requires lead testing only for children on Medicaid and those living in targeted neighborhoods with a large number of older homes. But even those children aren’t always tested.

“If all children had their blood tested, they would see a big outcry,” Lovvorn said.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Source: Dallas Morning News

Not far from Lake Michigan, city yearns for water

By JOHN FLESHER, AP Environmental Writer

WAUKESHA, Wis. (AP) — Lake Michigan is just 15 miles from this city of 70,000 in the Milwaukee suburbs. But these days it seems like a gigantic, shimmering mirage, tantalizingly out of reach.

The aquifer that has provided most of Waukesha’s drinking water for the last century has dropped so far that what’s left has unhealthy levels of radium and salt. The city would like to draw from the Great Lakes, just as more than 40 million people in eight states — from Minnesota to New York — and two Canadian provinces do every day.

If only it were that simple.

This photo taken Sept. 13, 2013, shows Hobo Spring, located in a park in Waukesha, Wis. It was among many springs in Waukesha, which once was famous for its mineral-rich waters, but the city is now seeking permission to draw from Lake Michigan to meet its needs. The aquifer that has provided most of Waukesha’s drinking water for the last century has dropped so far that what’s left has unhealthy levels of radium and salt. The city would like to draw from the Great Lakes, but the states with rights to it have always guarded them jealously and aren’t in a generous mood after more than a decade of abnormally low levels. Their permission is required to tap in from outside the watershed, and approval for Waukesha _ which lies barely on the wrong side of the line _ is far from certain

Though the lakes are so vast they hold one-fifth of all the fresh water on the earth’s surface, the states with rights to it have always guarded them jealously and aren’t in a generous mood after more than a decade of abnormally low levels. Their permission is required to tap in from outside the watershed, and approval for Waukesha — which lies barely on the wrong side of the line — is far from certain.

The ban on piping Great Lakes water beyond the boundary was established five years ago to keep the drought-stricken Sun Belt from siphoning off the region’s greatest resource. But it’s also creating winners and losers in the economically strained states around the lakes.

Waukesha’s request is a test case of whether the ban will cause neighbor-versus-neighbor clashes as cities in the Midwest fight for any advantage in luring jobs and people. Many hope to build economies around water-based technology, even as heightened demand and climate change create shortages.

A recent report identified at least seven other cities in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio that are in the same predicament as Waukesha and may come calling for lake water.

“The Great Lakes aren’t a cooler full of water to parcel out,” said Joel Brammeier, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, which produced it. “They’re a globally unique ecosystem.”

Waukesha’s leaders say the city’s future depends on tapping the lake.

“It doesn’t make sense to locate a business in a place that doesn’t have safe drinking water,” said Brian Nemoir of the Waukesha County Business Alliance.

What separates the haves from the have-nots is a curving watershed boundary that encircles the five inland seas, edging almost to their shores in some places and more than 100 miles away in others. Hard-luck Waukesha is a scant 1.5 miles west of it, in the Mississippi River drainage basin.

But because it’s in a county that straddles the line, Waukesha could qualify for an exception, according to the region’s water use rules. The challenge is convincing the states.

Waukesha is a bustling community that’s home to several small colleges and large manufacturers including medical equipment maker GE Healthcare. Its tree-lined downtown sidewalks run past a pleasant mix of restaurants, taverns and shops, some with painted murals celebrating electric guitar pioneer and native son Les Paul.

Years ago, its mineral-rich springs drew streams of visitors — former President Ulysses Grant and Mary Todd Lincoln among them — in search of their reputed healing powers. A plot to pipe Waukesha water to Chicago for the 1893 world’s fair was foiled when outraged locals repelled a trainload of laborers.

But development and pumping took their toll.

Under a federal order to find a new source, the city is applying to use 10.1 million gallons a day from Lake Michigan. A veto by just one of the eight states would scuttle the request.

Waukesha also could draw from the Fox River, which flows through town, but that would damage wetlands, and the river’s flow is unreliable, said Dan Duchniak, general manager of the Waukesha Water Utility. Other options, including desalination, would be hugely expensive.

The request is the equivalent of “a teaspoon out of an Olympic-sized swimming pool,” said Duchniak, which no one disputes.

But some skeptics suggest Waukesha wants a license to sprawl and others fear setting a precedent for countless other communities.

“If you do it for one, why shouldn’t you do it for another?” said Keith Hobbs, mayor of Thunder Bay, Ontario, a city on Lake Superior.

The resistance illustrates how attitudes about water differ between regions, said Noah Hall, a Wayne State University law professor who helped draft the water use compact.

In the Southwest, people believe in hauling resources where they’re needed. In the Great Lakes, he said. “Our culture and our legal system are based on keeping the water where it naturally occurs and using it where it’s found.”

There is also the economic rivalry between Milwaukee and its suburbs, which some feel have siphoned off jobs from the city.

The lake states are mostly noncommittal now, said Tim Eder of the Great Lakes Commission.

“They will be very cautious about tipping their hand until they have to.”

Article Source:  SF Gate.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Chlorination of Water–History and Practice  

by Pure Water Annie

A new instalment in Gazette Technical Writer Pure Water Annie’s Water Treatment 101 Series

Not all micro-organisms found in water are harmful to human health.  In fact, most are not.  There are, however, disease-causing micro-organisms that we have learned to protect ourselves against.  These are called pathogens.

Pathogens in raw water from rivers, lakes and wells can be transmitted to humans who consume the water causing waterborne diseases. Today some 80% of the developing world’s illness can be attributed to waterborne pathogens and poor sanitation.

In municipal water treatment, chlorination can and often does take place at various points in the treatment process. Chlorine can be added at the very beginning of the treatment process  to eliminate algae and other forms of aquatic life so that they will not interfere with the equipment in later stages of the treatment.

If chlorine is added in the next stage when water is in sedimentation tanks, where solids are allowed to settle from the raw water,  it  will also oxidize any iron, manganese and/or hydrogen sulfide that are present, so that they, too, can be removed in the sedimentation and filtration stages.

Disinfection with chlorine can also be done just after the sedimentation phase but before filtration.   This accomplishes the same goal but does not protect equipment during sedimentation.

The most common point of chlorination, however,  is at the final stage of treatment so that the chlorine can disinfect the treated water and keep it pathogen-free as it travels through the distribution system.  Chlorine can also be added along the way to the final user to maintain the proper chlorine residual.  Chlorinating water that is already treated is more economical because less chlorine is required after unwanted organisms have been removed by sedimentation and filtration.

Chlorine had been in use for several decades before it was learned that when chlorine combines with organics in water a large number of spin-off chemicals are formed.  These unwanted by-products of chlorination are called THMs, which stands for trihalomethanes, or sometimes DBPs, which stands for disinfection by-products. Many are cancer causers and are monitored by the EPA.  Many municipal water supplies are now switching from chlorine to chloramine as their disinfectant in an effort to meet EPA standards for trihalomethanes.

Lake Roosevelt: The dam-made lake holding a century of pollution

 Editor’s Note:  The story of Lake Roosevelt illustrates the power that large business interests have in avoiding their obligations.  In this case, slag containing zinc, mercury, and arsenic has been dumped for decades into the Columbia River in spite of repeated efforts by natives to stop the pollution.  The polluter has profited hundreds of millions of dollars while paying a pittance for cleaning up its mess. –Hardly Waite.

INCHELIUM — Imagine bringing your kids to the lake and wondering if they’d be better off at home, watching TV.

Or washing your garden-grown vegetables and wondering if it would be healthier to eat canned ones.

Or digging for clams and mussels and wondering if they’re laden with lead and zinc, mercury and arsenic.

These are the worries of some who live along the upper Columbia River, especially Lake Roosevelt, a 150-mile-long stretch of the Columbia River, and the repository for much of the 10 million tons of slag that a Canadian smelter just north of the border dumped into the river for decades.

Over the last 20 years, several studies have been done to find out if Lake Roosevelt’s water is safe to swim in, its beaches are safe to play on, and its fish are safe to eat. So far, only a fish advisory warns people to limit the number of fish they eat. But additional risk assessments are needed before the issues to human health are known.

Studies are now under way to test the toxins in river sediment. More studies are planned to test for heavy metals in upland soils polluted from years of fallout from the smelter’s smokestacks.

 Black Sand Beach on Lake Roosevelt.  Officials look at new slag that had gathered there since the beach was cleaned up in 2010.

So far, everyone agrees that visitors on this popular camping lake have little to worry about.

But officials from the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation say that doesn’t mean it’s safe — day in and day out for years on end — to eat food grown in nearby soils, create steam with its water for a sweat lodge, or let children play in its sand every day, as if this were just any sand.

“We just want to see the river cleaned up, and I would like to think this is the vision of everybody that’s close to this,” said Michael Finley, chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.

Last December, a federal judge ruled that Teck Metals Inc., which has operated a smelter in Trail, B.C., for more than a century, is is liable under U.S. law for assessing pollutants in the lake. But with the court process still incomplete, tribal officials worry Teck will continue to fight the ruling, and it will be years before any real cleanup begins.

“We haven’t really begun to wrap our arms around how big this is,” Finley said of the looming cleanup. He said the Colvilles have taken the lead to push for action out of a concern for future generations. “My kids, my grandkids and everybody else who’s going to make use of the river” will benefit.

Finley said despite lean budgets, the Colville Business Council has always voted to continue to fund the studies and legal battle to restore Lake Roosevelt. “We are up to tens of millions of dollars since it started. We’re going to continue to fund it until we get the resolution we think we’re going to get.”

The push for cleanup

It’s been 14 years since the Colville Tribes petitioned the federal government to clean up Lake Roosevelt.

After an initial investigation, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an order in 2003 to Teck Cominco Metals under the U.S. Superfund law requiring it to fund studies and clean up the river. Now called Teck Metals Ltd., the Canadian company’s zinc and lead smelter in Trail, B.C., is among the world’s largest.

When the company didn’t respond to EPA’s order, Colville Tribal leaders filed a lawsuit against Teck for failing to comply with the federal order.

Last year — nine years after the lawsuit was filed — U.S. District Court Judge Lonny Suko found that for 65 years, Teck intentionally polluted the Columbia River, and that company officials knew that heavy metals from their smelter and refining operation would settle out in this dam-made lake in the United States.

Suko also found that Teck knew its actions would likely cause harm, and determined that the company is liable to the Colville Tribes and to Washington state for assessing, and — if necessary — cleaning up the pollution.

Even by the early 1990s, when Washington state and EPA officials started pressuring Teck to stop dumping slag into the river, Teck did not stop, Suko wrote. “Profits were ‘excellent’ — $100 million per year — and it continued to discard slag at a rate of 400 tons per day and sewer effluent flowed from its facility 24 hours a day,” his findings state.

Company officials, he wrote, “recognized that Trail had, essentially, been using Lake Roosevelt as a ‘free’ ‘convenient disposal facility’ for its wastes.”

The slag dumping came to an end in 1995. “Teck was forced to cease slag river discharge when the government of Canada investigated the toxicity of its slag and demanded that it stop,” Suko wrote.

David Godlewski, vice president of environment and public affairs for Teck American Inc., said the company has spent over $55 million on studies and cleanup efforts since a 2006 agreement with the EPA to work on reclaiming Lake Roosevelt under Superfund laws, without admitting liability.

He said the studies have been thorough and complex, and numerous parties have been involved, adding to the length of time it’s taken. “As a company, we’ve never missed a deadline on anything we’ve submitted,” he said, adding, “My goal is to make sure we fulfill the settlement agreement.”

Finley said that agreement was made without input from the Colville Tribes, and is taking the bite out of their ability to force compliance through their recent court victory. Nearly a year after Suko’s decision, he and other tribal officials remain frustrated that cleanup still seems like a distant dream.

The magnitude of pollution

Suko’s ruling confirmed that Teck dumped at least 9.97 million tons of slag into the Columbia River between 1930 and 1995.

At least 8.7 million tons of it traveled into Washington. The other 1 million tons is still in Canada, and continues to make its way south. After years of disputing it, Teck admitted that the slag is not inert, but continues to leach toxins into the water.

State and federal officials say it’s hard to describe the magnitude of pollution from the smelter.

“I think the facts speak for themselves,” said Mary Sue Wilson, a senior assistant for the state Attorney General. “We’re talking about such high volumes, over a long period of time, and it all ended up in the upper Columbia River, and Lake Roosevelt. Just given the nature of the substances and the high volume, it is of significant concern to the state,” she said.

The state joined the Colvilles early in the case. It has taken longer than most, Wilson said, largely because the pollution originated in Canada, so they had to convince a federal judge that the company is still liable under U.S. law.

“It’s been a priority for the state, and I think, worth the effort,” she added.

Studies so far have focused largely on human health issues.

In 2009, the state Department of Health conducted what it called “the most extensive and thorough chemical monitoring effort in Washington state to date,” evaluating data on 385 chemicals from some 2,300 fish samples, including nine species taken from six areas on Lake Roosevelt. The advisory found that mercury and PCBs were found in high enough levels to recommend limited meals, ranging from 2 meals of large-scale suckers per month, to three Kokanee per week. Those levels are slightly higher than levels seen in other fished waters in the northeastern part of the state, the agency says.

In other studies, the state Department of Health concluded that people can touch, breath or accidentally eat sand from its beaches, assuming they are exposed only two days a week for four months, or 35 days a year. Dust in the air when lake levels are low, and the wind picks up slag dust has not yet been evaluated.

Water from three water systems around the lake were deemed safe for drinking, cooking, and showering or bathing.

Brook Beeler, spokeswoman for the state Department of Ecology, said even if no human health issues are identified, Lake Roosevelt and its shores are polluted, and need to be cleaned up.

“There’s been damage to the environment, and it’s our job to protect that, and make sure it gets restored, the best it can be,” she said.

Beeler said that the issue impacts more than just the Colville Tribes. “It’s part of a larger watershed,” she said. The Columbia River basin, she said, “is a huge state resource.”

If it’s polluted, people won’t go there to fish or recreate. “It’s not just for the people who live around there,” she said. “It impacts our economy.”

At Black Sand Beach, just three miles south of Canada, Teck paid to have 9,100 tons of sand removed and replaced with clean sand in 2010. Although the site was never deemed a public hazard, its black sand is the result of decades of slag deposits. Tribal officials say it’s the only place on the 150-mile long lake where any cleanup has occurred. And already three years later, evidence of continued slag deposits can be seen in the water and along the shoreline.

Lake Roosevelt is not a Superfund site, but due to a 2006 agreement between Teck and theEPA, it is being assessed under Superfund laws.

But there are still many studies to conduct, including an in-depth look at heavy metals in surrounding soils that is now underway, said Laura Buelow, EPA’s project manager for the site.

A study on metal concentrations in mussels and crayfish may occur in 2015, she said. There may also be follow-up studies to conduct. “By the time we have a document out with a risk assessment, we’re looking at another five-plus years,” she said.

She said 10 million tons of slag that Teck dumped into the Columbia River system is certainly a lot by any standards. “The big question is, really, how hazardous is that? That is what we’re working on.”

Source: The Wenatchee World.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Argentina Blindly Exploiting Groundwater, Scientists Warn

Reprinted from TierraAmerica.

BUENOS AIRES, Oct 10 2013 (IPS) – Half of Argentina is supplied with water by invisible underground aquifers, which are crucial in the country’s arid and semi-arid regions, experts say. But Tierramérica discovered that nobody – not even the government – has any accurate scientific data on these groundwater reserves.

Beyond the Guaraní Aquifer, the vast underground body of fresh water shared by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, little is known about the groundwater reserves of this country with a wealth of highly visible water resources, including the rivers of the Rio de la Plata Basin, Iguazú Falls, and the majestic glaciers of Patagonia.

The Guaraní Aquifer became well known due to a monitoring planfunded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), “but in Argentina there are other aquifers that are exploited much more intensively” and support regional economies, said Ofelia Tujchneider, a geologist from the National University of the Littoral.

In arid places like Tilcara, in the Quebrada de Humahuaca, Jujuy, groundwater reserves play a crucial role.

In terms of the quantity and quality of its water, the most important is the Puelches aquifer, which lies beneath part of the province of Buenos Aires, in eastern Argentina, Córdoba in the centre of the country, and Santa Fe in the northeast.

According to the Environmental Atlas of Buenos Aires, the depth of the Puelches aquifer ranges from 40 to 120 metres, and it supplies 9,900 cubic metres of water a day. It is located between the Pampeano aquifer, which is closer to the surface, and the deeper Paraná aquifer, whose water is salty and used primarily by industry.

In the eastern region of the country are the Ituzaingó, Salto and Salto Chico aquifers. And in the province of Neuquén, in the western part of the southern region of Patagonia, groundwater reserves provide water for the oil, gas and mining industries, explained Mario Hernández, a hydrogeologist from the National University of La Plata.

There are also aquifers in the southern province of Santa Cruz. And in the northwest, an arid region with little rainfall, these groundwater deposits are recharged by river water.

In the western provinces of Mendoza and San Juan, water is supplied primarily by underground reserves. As a result, the aquifers here are studied and protected, and subject to regular monitoring, because the local wine industry depends on the water they provide.

“Groundwater resources play a key role in arid and semi-arid regions. If it weren’t for the aquifers, massive engineering works would be needed to supply water for irrigation or residential use,” Tujchneider told Tierramérica.

Groundwater is abundant, of good quality, tends to be better protected from pollution, and can be found in large volumes even beneath arid, desertified or desert areas.

The Rio de la Plata Basin encompasses 85 percent of the country’s surface water resources, according to the book “Agua: Panorama general en Argentina” (Water: A general overview in Argentina), published by the non-governmental organisation Green Cross. But this network of rivers only extends to 33 percent of the country, in the northeast, and flows into the large estuary that gives the basin its name and empties into the Atlantic Ocean.

Much of the rest of the country is arid or semi-arid, with areas where the available water supply is less than 1,000 cubic metres per person per year, the measure used to define water scarcity by the United Nations Development Programme.

In 2010, 82.6 percent of the population, currently estimated at 41 million, was served by the drinking water supply system.

According to Hernández, half of the country is supplied with water by aquifers, which provide water for the irrigation of cereal and grain crops as well as the industrial and mining sectors and a large share of household consumption.

However, he stressed to Tierramérica, there are no accurate measurements or statistics on Argentina’s groundwater reserves.

The only available data is from a 2000 World Bank report, which estimated that groundwater resources account for 35 percent of the water used for irrigation, livestock farming, industry and household consumption.

Tujchneider believes that the current level of groundwater use is “quite a lot higher than 35 percent,” particularly because of an increase in irrigation and in rice production in recent years.

However, because of the lack of recognition of the immense value of this resource, there is a danger that groundwater reserves can become contaminated with agrochemicals, industrial waste or wastewater, or that they will be exploited beyond their recharge capacity.

The water stored in an aquifer may have been there for a very long time. If it is extracted without limits, it could run out, as is already happening in Mendoza, warned Tujchneider.

Hernández noted that aquifers are “more protected from contamination than surface water” but they are also “more fragile, and once they are contaminated, they are much more difficult to clean up than rivers.”

“There is a lack of knowledge. They are not valued, and they don’t teach about them in schools. Children think that water comes from a tap,” he commented.

The Federal National Groundwater Plan aims to put an end to this lack of visibility, said its coordinator, Jorge Santa Cruz, who has a PhD in natural sciences and headed up the studies on the Guaraní Aquifer. The first step will be the organisation of diagnostic workshops in the country’s different provinces, he told Tierramérica.

The objectives of the plan, which is being overseen by the Undersecretariat of Water Resources, include the development of a database of hydrogeological data so that aquifers are viewed as reserves of a resource that is “known, predictable and reliable,” even if it cannot be seen.

* This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network.

Source:  TierraAmerica.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

High Nitrate Levels Found in Groundwater

SAN DIEGO, Calif. — Nitrate was detected at high concentrations in 10 percent of the aquifer system used for public supply in coastal areas of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey report. Trace elements, such as naturally occurring arsenic and molybdenum, were found at high concentrations in 27 percent of the aquifer system. In comparison, elsewhere in California high concentrations of nitrate have generally been found in less than 1 to 8 percent of the groundwater used for public supply, and trace elements in 6 to 28 percent.

As part of a statewide study assessing groundwater quality, scientists analyzed untreated groundwater from wells — not treated tap water. Groundwater is typically treated by water distributors prior to delivering it to customers to ensure compliance with water quality standards.

For this study, “high” concentrations are defined as being above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s or California Department of Public Health’s established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), or above other nonregulatory health-based levels for chemicals without MCLs.

“High nitrate concentrations have been detected in eight to 15 percent of the aquifer system used for public supply in other groundwater basins located in the South Coast and Transverse Ranges, so it was not surprising that high nitrate was prevalent in this area,” said Carmen Burton, a USGS hydrologist and author of the report prepared in collaboration with the California State Water Resources Control Board.

The trace elements most commonly detected at high concentrations were arsenic and molybdenum. Arsenic was detected at concentrations greater than the MCL in 7 percent of the aquifer system. Molybdenum was detected at concentrations greater than the nonregulatory EPA health advisory level in 25 percent.

Elevated concentrations of nitrate generally occur as a result of human activities, such as applying fertilizer to crops or landscaping. Septic systems, as well as livestock in concentrated numbers, also produce nitrogenous waste that can leach into groundwater. Arsenic and molybdenum are naturally present in rocks and soils and in the water that comes in contact with those materials. The Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Priority Basin Project has found that high molybdenum concentrations are more prevalent in the southern part of the South Coast Ranges than in most other parts of the state.

“The South Coast Range–Coastal study is important because we are providing a quantitative assessment of the type and amount of natural and human-made constituents that occur in the deeper groundwater that is used for public-drinking water supplies,” said Dr. Miranda Fram, chief of the USGS Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program. “This information can be used by managers to ensure that our drinking water supply remains safe.”

The study was part of the statewide GAMA Program’s Priority Basin Project, which was designed to assess groundwater quality in aquifers that may be used for public water supply, and to better understand the natural and human factors affecting groundwater quality. USGS scientists drew samples from wells in 2008, looking for as many as 289 chemical constituents in areas including the Santa Ynez River Valley, San Antonio Creek Valley, Santa Maria River Valley, Los Osos Valley, and San Luis Obispo Valley groundwater basins, and also in parts of the surrounding upland areas in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

The USGS California Water Science Center is the technical lead for the State Water Resources Control Board GAMA Program’s Priority Basin Project. The USGS is monitoring and assessing water quality in 120 priority groundwater basins, and groundwater outside of basins, across California over a 10-year period. The main goals of the State Water Board’s GAMA Program Priority Basin Project are to improve comprehensive statewide groundwater monitoring and to increase the availability of groundwater-quality information to the public.

The full report and the accompanying nontechnical Fact Sheet are available online.

Source: USGS

Reprinted from Stormwater.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

The Health of our Oceans Is “Spiralling downward,” and Still We Act Like Nothing Is the Matter 

by Philip Hoare

This week’s review from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean is a salutary warning.  According to the IPSO, the evidence is clearer than ever that the effect of climate change is being felt most acutely by the world’s seas.  Whilst their vast expanses absorb heat and CO2 – thereby ameliorating the effect on us land-dwellers – the results are having disastrous effects on marine life.  The oceans are increasingly acidifying; warmer water holds less oxygen; and combined with overfishing and pollution from heavy metals, organochlorines and plastics, the outlook is darker than ever.

All this because we seem to ignore the great expanse of water on which we depend.  90 per cent of the earth’s life is to be found in its oceans; its phytoplankton provides 40 per cent of our oxygen.  A large percentage of our food comes from the sea; it carries our trade: 90 per cent of the UK’s trade is conducted via the oceans.  And yet by the very fact of our increasing disconnection from the sea, we allow it to be polluted and ravished.  

In the past month I’ve taken part in three events at which experts in their fields have painted a gloomy prognosis for the oceans.  At the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth, the ‘Beagle Debate’ used a game-show format in which 5 experts evangelise for five marine species – shark, ocean sunfish, plankton, coral, and whale.  The shark won – on the gruesome and emotive statistic that 100 million die each year to provide Asian diners with shark fin soup.

But we also learnt, from coral expert Dr Kerry Howell of the Marine Institute, that in cold water reefs only identified in British waters last year, spires of these ancient, slow-growing animal colonies up to 4,000 years old were being mindlessly destroyed by trawlers.  That same week, a panel convened by Horatio Morpurgo in Bridport, constituting of myself, George Monbiot and the eminent marine biologist, Callum Roberts, examined the state of play of one of Britain’s only marine protection zones in Lyme Bay, on Dorset’s Jurassic Coast.  The measured despair of us panellists was not matched by one member of the audience, who shouted out that the best way to stop the trawlers was to dump old cars in the bay, thereby snagging their nets.  A great piece of direct action – if somewhat drastic.   

And a few days ago, the Natural History Museum called a day-long conference marking 100 years of records of cetacean strandings.  It was a unique opportunity to hear the latest, state-of-the-art research on why whales and dolphins appear to ‘commit suicide’ by beaching themselves.  One positive aspect which emerged was the notion that more strandings are being reported because the public are actually more aware of their plight – and less likely to hoick the carcasses off to render down for their fat, as was common in earlier days. 

But here too was depressing news.  Dr Paul Jepson, of the Zoological Society of London, delivered a lecture which showed that PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, used as flame-retardants, among other things, and now banned but still heavily present in the oceans) in the waters around Europe have begun to affect resident populations of killer whales to the extent that none of the pods of these magnificent, apex predators have given birth to calves in the last ten years.  As a result, it may be that European killer whales – off Scotland, in the North Sea, and the Mediterranean – are doomed to extinction.

Is there any good news to be had?  Well, the mere fact of these three events, all in the past month, all attended by packed audiences, shows the extraordinary concern of the general public.  But they also demonstrate how appallingly we are being let down by our politicians.  Earlier this week we had Owen Patterson proclaim that climate change might actually be good for us (tell that to the soon-to-be drowned Pacific islanders of Kiribati), while earlier this summer his fellow minister, Richard Benyon, agreed to implement just 31 of 127 recommended marine protection zones on the south coast, as advised by the UK Wildlife Trusts and other expert bodies.  And even then Defra have not proposed any timetable for their implementation. 

Britain is a maritime nation.  We should be leading the way in creating the conditions for cleaner, cooler seas – if only out of self-interest.  The fact is that without drastic action, there really might not be any more fish in the sea.  I only hope we don’t have to resort to dumping old bangers in the Channel to get our way.

Source: The Independent.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement.

Research: Fight against bacteria is harming environment and humans

By Judy Benson 

Unregulated, potent, germ-killing chemical triclosan, commonly found in cleaning products and cosmetics, breezes through sewage treatment plants to enter waterways, including Thames River

Editor’s Note: The article we’re reprinting here from The Day  focuses on the essentially useless and potentially very dangerous “antimicrobial” chemical called triclosan,  but the overall issue involves the many unregulated chemicals commonly found in cleaning products, antibacterial soaps and additives, cosmetics, articles of clothing, and regular household items that are collectively referred to as “emgerging contaminants.” The problem is that the “emerging contaminants” are being introduced into the environment much faster than regulating agencies can evaluate their safety. This poses a weighty problem for wastewater treatment facilities. – Hardly Waite.

Every time you brush your teeth with Colgate Total, coat your underarms with Arm & Hammer Essentials deodorant, or wash your hands with Dial Complete liquid soap or your dishes with Dawn Ultra, you may be polluting the Thames River.

These and dozens of other cleaners and cosmetics, along with toothbrushes, socks, underwear, yoga mats, hockey helmets, cutting boards and other items carrying labels like “Biofresh,” “Microban,” and “antimicrobial,” contain triclosan. This powerful chemical kills bacteria but also is the target of growing concern about its harmful effects on human health and the environment.

This summer, The Day worked with University of Connecticut environmental engineering professor Allison MacKay to collect and test samples from the river and from the effluent that’s discharged into the river by the region’s largest sewage treatment plants. For the past year and a half, MacKay has been researching the presence of 11 chemicals from medications and cleaning products, including triclosan, in two other rivers in the state. In the Thames River tests, triclosan showed up in three of the four wastewater samples.

University scientists take samples from Connecticut’s Thames River

“This is a stupid use of a toxic chemical,” said Mae Wu, attorney for health programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit group with a pending lawsuit to force the Food & Drug Administration to regulate and curtail use of triclosan and its close cousin, triclocarban.

First introduced into products in the 1970s, triclosan became a common ingredient in the 1990s when antibacterial hand soaps became popular, but the FDA, which declined to comment on this story, has left it unregulated.

As the use of triclosan has increased, mounting evidence has shown that the chemical may interfere with important hormonal processes in wildlife and humans, and it may spur the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, Wu said.

“The government needs to say it’s safe or get it off the shelf,” she said. “Why are they making guinea pigs out of all of us?”

The problem with triclosan – and with other chemicals in pharmaceutical, health and cleaning products used every day – is that sending it down the drain means tiny amounts enter the environment. Traces of antidepressants, birth control pills, pain killers and other medicines have been found in treated wastewater – samples that appear crystal clear and meet all state and federal quality regulations – as well as in the waterways that receive the discharges. These are the leftovers of drugs that people take every day, but that don’t get fully metabolized. Instead, they pass through with urine, get flushed into sewage treatment systems and emerge in minute quantities at the end of the process.

Collectively known as “emerging contaminants” or “contaminants of emerging concern,” these byproducts of human consumption are getting a lot of attention from researchers worldwide who are trying to understand what their presence means for wildlife and people.

“People are often surprised to find out that when you take drugs, your body doesn’t use all of it,” said MacKay, who has been focusing her examination of wastewater and river samples from Vernon and Southbury on how emerging contaminants break down in sunlight. “There’s no question that many of these pharmaceuticals have some very important public health benefits. But wastewater treatment plants were not designed to remove these compounds.”

‘Committed to the environment’

In August, MacKay and The Day collected samples from the Thames and from four of the five sewage plants that empty treated wastewater into the river. Officials at the Montville plant refused to provide a sample of treated effluent for the project, citing concerns that the results would lead to orders for new and costly upgrades.

The Thames, a large tidal estuary that flows from Norwich to New London and empties into Long Island Sound, is much larger and more complicated than the other rivers MacKay has tested. At the outset, she acknowledged that because of this, the chances of finding traces of any of the 11 compounds – including antibiotics, over-the-counter pain medications and triclosan – were slim. Indeed, the river water tests, collected at three depths near the Norwich and New London wastewater outfall pipes on a bright, late summer day, revealed no detectable quantities.

“It’s a little bit like finding the needle in the haystack,” she said after a morning boat trip on the river to collect the samples.

Just because the needle doesn’t turn up after a single search of the haystack doesn’t mean the needle’s not there. A week after the river samples were collected, The Day visited the Norwich, Groton Town, Groton City and New London wastewater plants, al of which agreed to provide samples of treated effluent just before it entered the river. The samples had been through the multi-stage settling, biological and chlorination processes at the plants that remove all the obvious contaminants people send down their drains every day.

“We’re the first responders to human health,” said Kevin Cini, chief plant operator of the Groton City plant, which discharges 2 million gallons of treated wastewater daily into the Thames. “I tell young people who tour the plant all the time that (emerging contaminants) are probably the next thing we’re going to have to bes dealing with.”

At the New London plant, where 6 million gallons a day from the city, Waterford and East Lyme are treated and discharged into the river daily, Joseph Lanzafame, director of public utilities, said he and other plant operators are looking for direction from federal and state regulators as to what to do about emerging contaminants.

“If these things end up being regulated, we’ll upgrade,” he said. “We’re committed to the environment.”

Highest level in Groton City

After samples were collected from the four plants, they were stored on ice and taken that day to the Environmental Engineering Lab at UConn in Storrs. There, Laleen Bodhipaksha, who is pursing his doctorate in chemistry, began the tests.

Bodhipaksha has been working with MacKay, running dozens of the advanced, highly sensitive tests known as ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. As the name suggests, it is a multi-step, complicated process requiring expensive equipment and advanced analytical chemistry skills.

It is only over the last 15 years or so that the techniques and equipment needed to detect minute quantities of drugs and consumer chemicals have become available, MacKay said, so in many ways, the technology has driven the rising concern about emerging contaminants. They’ve been getting into waterways for years, but no one knew.

“It’s a new problem, but it’s not a new problem,” she said.

The tests detected triclosan in the samples from Norwich, Groton City and New London. The Groton City sample, which had the highest level, also contained small amounts of ibuprofen – the main ingredient in Advil and Motrin – and gemfibrozil, a blood pressure regulator. None of the 11 compounds showed up in the Groton Town sample, probably because of the four, that plant has had the most recent upgrade and is able to treat to a higher standard the 2.9 million gallons a day it takes in, John Carrington, Groton’s manager of water pollution control, said.

MacKay said the levels of triclosan, ibuprofen and gemfibrozil locally were in the same range she has seen in her other testing, and also were similar to national results. Since the triclosan is in the treated wastewater, it’s clearly getting into the Thames, which daily receives about 18 million gallons of effluent from the five plants. True, the tests found what amounts to a tiny speck of the stuff per bucketful – 493 nanograms per liter was the highest level found – but day after day, in a steady stream, those specks taken together may be significant.

“This is definitely a compound that’s high on our radar,” said Dana Kolpin, senior research hydrologist and team leader at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Contaminants of Emerging Concern Project. “It’s fairly common to find triclosan in effluent, but the big question is, in these concentrations, does it mean anything?”

Kolpin, who began researching emerging contaminants in 1998, is considered one of the nation’s experts on the issue. He noted research that shows triclosan can spur the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, as well as findings that it degrades in the environment into methyltriclosan, “a dioxin-like compound.” Dioxin exposure can cause cancer and immune and developmental disorders, among other effects.

“It’s not just the active ingredient,” Kolpin said. “It’s that it can degrade into something just as bad. It’s very tricky chemistry.”

Triclosan, he said, is an unnecessary product additive. It washes out of socks and underwear treated with it, and liquid soap with triclosan doesn’t work any better than hot water and soap at getting hands clean and bacteria-free, he said.

“We’ve gone crazy with these products,” he said. “We just don’t need them.”

Marc Zimmerman, hydrologist at the USGS’s Northborough, Mass., office, said one of the issues with persistent triclosan contamination is that the chemical is causing incremental changes in ecosystems. He studied the issue in Cape Cod’s waterways.

“It’s disturbing the bacterial ecology,” he said.

Company reactions

At the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, a professional organization of 300 municipal wastewater treatment plants, curtailing the use of triclosan is considered a “no-brainer,” Chris Hornback, the group’s senior director of regulatory affairs, said. Figuring out what to do about all the emerging contaminants may take more research and significant effort on the part of regulators, but enough about triclosan is already known, he said.

“It’s a good place to start,” Hornback said. “We need to do more to limit how much is getting into the systems in the first place.”

In May, his group sent a letter to an Environmental Protection Agency panel reviewing triclosan.

“NACWA members are concerned about the environmental impacts of triclosan in wastewater and the potential of triclosan to harm the beneficial micro-organisms that treat wastewater,” wrote Cynthia Finley, director of regulatory affairs for the group. In other words, the chemical may be killing off the good bacteria that are key to the treatment plant processes, potentially causing plants to fail water-quality tests, “resulting in substantial costs for utilities.”

Since treatment plants have no control over what comes in, Finley argued, EPA and FDA regulations limiting use “are the most practical means of controlling discharges of these chemicals into wastewater and preventing adverse impacts to (plants), human health or the environment.”

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group is a strong ally of NACWA’s position. Citing evidence from its own water tests in San Francisco and tests of blood samples from 20 teenage girls showing that triclosan and other emerging contaminants are getting into the environment and into people’s bodies, the nonprofit group began calling for a ban on all non-medical uses of triclosan.

“Triclosan targets the thyroid system of humans and wildlife,” said Sonya Lunder, senior analyst with the group. “The potential for human harm is high, and there’s a real concern for the aquatic environment. The benefits of triclosan are minimal, if any.”

She and others noted that Johnson & Johnson announced in 2012 that it would stop using triclosan in its products. This year, Proctor & Gamble followed suit, pledging to phase it out by 2014.

Also this year, Minnesota became the first state to ban purchases of triclosan-containing products by state agencies. The action came in response to a University of Minnesota study that found the dioxin-like breakdown products of triclosan in sediments of lakes that receive treated wastewater, along with studies linking it to antibiotic resistance and endocrine disruption.

As the concerns mount, the Personal Care Products Council is resisting calls to ban or curtail the use of triclosan. A request for comment from the group, which represents health and beauty products companies, was directed to a sister organization, the American Cleaning Institute. That group acknowledged The Day’s request but did not comment.

The Personal Care Products Council articulated its position on triclosan in a 2010 statement to the FDA and in a 2011 announcement, both on its website. It argued that triclosan-containing products are effective and critical in reducing people’s risk of disease and cited a 2011 study in the International Journal of Microbiology Research showing no increase in the presence of antibiotic-resistant staphylococcus bacteria in users of antibacterial hand soaps compared to non-users. The research was supported by the council and the cleaning institute.

“After decades of use, antibacterial wash products continue to play a beneficial role in everyday hygiene routines for millions of people around the world,” Francis Kruszewski, director of human health and safety at the cleaning institute, said in the statement.

Consequences of choices

At the EPA, research into triclosan and other emerging contaminants continues, but it’s expensive and highly complicated, said Katrina Kipp, manager of the ecosystems assessment unit at the agency’s New England office.

“There isn’t yet a regulatory framework for controlling emerging contaminants, and states don’t have the water quality criteria they need,” she said. To regulate these chemicals, researchers would have to figure out what levels are harmful, among many other questions. Still, there is ample published research showing that exposure to some of these contaminants causes male fish to develop female characteristics, results in changes in fish behavior and affects thyroids in frogs, among other findings, so there clearly is a need for more studies, she said.

“Even at very low levels, there have been effects,” Kipp said.

In Connecticut, the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is aware of the emerging contaminants issue but doesn’t appear ready to recommend actions such as those taken in Minnesota. The state Department of Administrative Services, which sets supply purchase policies for state agencies, did not respond to a request for comment about products containing triclosan.

“At this point, we are following the science and analyzing all available data, but we do not yet have enough information to recommend any specific regulatory action,” DEEP spokesman Dennis Schain said. “This issue does point to the fact that choices we all make as consumers can have consequences for our environment, and people should try to make informed decisions about the products they purchase.”

Traci Iott, supervising environmental analyst at DEEP, said her agency is using public education to try to keep pharmaceuticals and personal care products from being flushed down the drain and to encourage people to bring unused products to community collection events.

While scientists and regulators continue to work on the emerging contaminants problem, MacKay sees a larger lesson for the public. People can become aware that their choices about products affect the larger environment, she said. They can decide not to use products with triclosan, and they can be more careful with their pharmaceuticals. And, if these compounds are able to survive the sewage treatment process, how much greater are the effects of chemicals people carelessly spill or dump directly into waterways?

“This is a rather indirect pathway to the environment,” she said, “and I would hope that people might be more conscious in their decisions about products that would have more direct pathways, like lawn care products and things you use working on your car.”

Source: The Day

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement