Every day, 110 million gallons of water makes its way through miles of pipes to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, on the shores of the Bay in Alviso. This is the water that we flush down toilets, run through dishwashers and washing machines, and every other drop that enters the sanitary sewer system in a 300-square-mile area that includes San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno. About half of this is water gathered from the Sierra snowpack and conveyed through the Delta, and made drinkable at one of three water treatment plants. The rest is water that has fallen as rain in local mountains, been briefly detained in a reservoir, then released in a local stream to recharge the groundwater basins that underlie the Santa Clara Valley, and later pumped from a well to flow to our homes and businesses. Then, in that brief, 12-inch journey from the faucet to the drain, it turns from a precious natural resource to a waste product to be disposed of.
Or maybe not. Of that huge flood of wastewater, all of which receives advanced tertiary treatment at the plant, 10 million gallons are further treated and sent back out as recycled water in the “purple pipe” system that delivers non-potable, but still very useful, water to over 100 customers for cooling towers, outdoor irrigation and toilets.
With our Delta supplies already curtailed, and climate change poised to wreak havoc on the Sierra snowpack and change patterns of rainfall and runoff, it’s time to make full use of this resource. As with anything relating to water, taking full advantage of this under-utilized source will require new kinds of cooperation between different entities with differing jurisdictions and, sometimes, differing interests.
San Jose, Santa Clara and their partner communities built the South Bay Water Recycling program in the mid-1990’s because the water treatment plant was discharging too much fresh water into the bay and affecting endangered species habitats. At the time, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) chose not to participate. Now, I’m happy to say, all parties recognize the value of this program and have embarked on a cooperative effort to reduce salts and other residual impurities in the water by using reverse-osmosis, ultraviolet light and microfiltration to further clean it to a level that exceeds drinking water quality standards.
The SCVWD’s goal is for 5% of the water supply to come from recycled water by 2010 and 10% by 2020. This second goal is too modest. As well as making full use now of existing purple pipe by hooking up more industrial uses, office building toilets and outdoor irrigation to the present system (over which the cities have jurisdiction), we must commit to do much more through stream-flow augmentation and groundwater recharge once the Advanced Recycled Water Treatment plant comes online.
Orange County this year opened a state-of-the-art water recycling and groundwater recharge facility that augments drinking water supplies and guards against land subsidence and intrusion of seawater into the aquifer. Of course, this “opportunity water,” as Mayor Chuck Reed called it in a recent joint meeting between the city and the water district, must be absolutely safe before we use it in creeks or for groundwater recharge.
It’s not just population growth that requires us to find new sources of water. Our current supplies of imported water are also in danger—especially from Delta levee failures—and a comprehensive solution to Delta management is essential. At the same time, recycled water is also a critical part of the solution. Greater use of conservation and of recycled water is an entirely local solution that doesn’t depend on Sacramento politics. But it’s a solution that requires action, and cooperation, now.
Diana Foss is a candidate for District 2 Director of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. For more information, please go to dianafoss.com
Just a few lines into post #1 I already knew who its author was . . .
Novice,
About those shifting ocean currents: any idea about how we humans caused them? Are they the result of the increase in global commerce? Have all those huge container ships traveling the same shipping lanes somehow altered the natural currents? Or could it be those damn cruise ships, carting blue hairs up and down the coast of Alaska and young binge drinkers along the coast of Mexico?
Well, no use wasting time wondering; I’m sure it won’t be too long before someone comes along and tells us what we’ve done to cause it.
There has recently been a great deal of attention paid to the fact that excess pharmaceuticals are being discharged into the water system through excesses released in bodily discharges. In particular, excess estrogen has been directly linked to malformed frogs and other wildlife. Given the proof obtained from testing average discharge rates in a pristine lake in northern Canada, that quickly replicated the worst events observed in nature,it is more than idle speculation that these discharges could be having a drastic effect on human reproduction.
And this may be the tip of the iceberg because many of the most popular medications are essentially hormones. These problems while real for fully grown adults could be massive for developing infants, toddlers, and children.
As far as I know, there is no particular treatment being used to remove excess pharmaceuticals and until there is, I can’t see how we can call treated water truly potable.
Given the mess in the water district, I’ve been inclined to vote for you but if you are intent on pursuing this source of drinking water without addressing this issue completely, I’m afraid I will have to pass.
Wow. Finfan asking Novice for information. Talk about the blind leading the blind. Or maybe the correct phrase is, “An ostrich leading an ostrich”.
Keep those heads in the sand, or wherever else you have planted your heads.
Willow Glen Dad, I agree with you that the issue of endocrine disruptors in the environment is very, very serious. One of the problems pointed out by the AP study a few weeks ago is that most of these chemicals are not currently on the list of pollutants that water providers are required to test for. The advanced treatment methods proposed for the new ARWT plant can remove essentially everything except water molecules, but, clearly, advanced testing must go hand in hand with advanced treatment. Recycled water must be of the highest purity.
So if you disagree with Novice’s post, just bash him/her rather than address the issue. Even if you accept that humans have some impact on global warming, the current psuedo-religious panic over the matter is counterproductive. Read Bjørn Lomborg’s books and decide for yourself.
http://www.lomborg.com
Novice, Finfan,
I know it is a waste of time to try to use facts to confuse your doctrine, but I’ll try anyway. There are always short and long term climate changes due to natural processes. One of those may be coming in North America and Europe due to shifting ocean currents. That does not mean that the competing long term trend of global warming due to human activity is gone. It is just one of many mechnisms that affect global climate, which is a very complicated science. And while local temperatures in California might temporarily cool, what will be happening to overall worldwide temperatures? Can we coast along ignoring the problem if we are comfortable in California, even while polar ice caps continue to melt, causing irreversible changes to global topography and climate?
David wrote: “There are always short and long term climate changes due to natural processes.”
Right, and these natural changes will overwhelm any human-induced warming activity. 10,000 years ago, glaciers covered North America. Then we had global warming. What caused it? Wolly mammoths driving SUVs?
Dear Novice, Finfan and Hugh,
Did you know the same scientists that say global warming doesn’t exist also say using a PC causes finger cancer?
You should read the books of well-respected crackpot Bob “My grants are funded by the typewriter industry” Bullybohn.
I would bet that those of you who are the first to blame man for global warming are the first to condemn using nuclear power to cut down on greenhouse emmisions and cut our stranglehold that the Arabs have on our country. Fossil fuels are filthy to burn and thanks to the Sierra Club et al we are pouring millions of tons of pollution into the air, accelerating the very problem they pretend to be fighting against. We are losing jobs and our economy is in the toilet bordering on a depression due to our dependence on oil, thank you Sierra Club etc. We need to build nuclear power plants now. Solar power, wind power etc can supply only a fraction of the power needed, and that is if the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Unless we want to go back to the horse and buggy nuclear is the only alternative right now. France, Japan and India are using it very sucessfully. We are poisoning ourselves with fossil fuels and destroying our economy and way of life. If for any reason the Middle East terrorists cut our supply of oil, $4 a gallon for gas will be a distant memory. By the way, thanks to our federal representatives for the ethanol fiasco. That is a also a complete fraud and we are being screwed at the gas pump and grocery store.
#4 Willow Glen Dad,
“In particular, excess estrogen has been directly linked to malformed frogs”. Please cite a credible source where you found this information. I would like to read it. I have not seen too many frogs with well developed breasts on my recent walks along the river, but I have seen plenty of healthy frogs. Thanks.
“and climate change poised to wreak havoc on the Sierra snowpack and change patterns of rainfall and runoff”
This just in…
April 30 (Bloomberg)—Parts of North America and Europe may cool naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind, Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said.
Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.”
The funniest bit?
“Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,’’ Wood said in an interview. “Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there’s no global warming going on.’‘
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo
David:
I agree with you re: nuclear power. I was one of those people 35 years ago with the “nuclear plants are built better than jane fonda” bumper stickers.
Why do all of the global warming freaks refurse to even consider nuclear energy? Even the French have us beat on that one.
#15
Al Gore is only one person. #12 said all of the global warming freaks .
Are you saying that there is only one person who believes in global warming, and is opposed to nuclear power?
Diane-
Thanks for raising this issue.
It’s good to see a candidate doing her homework, but you don’t address an obvious question: What percentage of the area’s waste water should be recycled, and by what date?
You say that 10% by 2020 is “too modest,” which may well be true, but what would be a more realistic goal?
Another way to approach the issue might be: How much recycled water can the valley use?
Before investing in a larger, and costly, recycling program there should be analysis of goals, usage, etc.
What are your thoughts?
Gosh. Isn’t it the “progressives” who are always telling us that change is good?
But Climate Change seems to throw them into an hysterical panic.
Look. There may be many good reasons why we should all be looking for ways to conserve and for alternative energy sources. Just don’t try to tell me that you KNOW that humans are causing the climate to change and that you KNOW that these changes are going to be catastrophic and that human beings will suddenly lose our capacity to adapt to change.
#12
Why do all of the global warming freaks refurse to even consider nuclear energy?
Please provide a list of names of all the global warming freaks, and proof of their opposition to nuclear power. Or is this just another example of the fantasy world that deniers of global warming live in.
#13
Gosh. Isn’t it the “progressives” who are always telling us that change is good?
No.
MC, thank you for your comment. The short answer is that I think the Valley can use as much recycled water as we can produce. With the current level of treatment, we have miles of existing purple pipe to which we could hook up many more users: industrial, double-plumbed commercial buildings and outdoor irrigation. With advanced treatment, we can use purified water for streamflow augmentation and improve habitat for our native steelhead.
The current calculations on which source of water is most cost-effective are based on business as usual in the Delta, but it is clear that we’re headed for radical change in how the Delta is managed.
#14
This is a quote from the biggest fraud around, who has done more to damage our planet by the forced use of fossil fuel, Mr. Al Gore….
“I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable.”
The original post had nothing to do with nuclear power.
Water. We are really lucky because we get a lot of water from the Sierra snowpack. Snow falls on the mountains and it sits there and over time it melts and flows down into the flatlands where we live. We get a supply that lasts through the summer.
Given our climate, where we only get rain in the winter, we are lucky to have such a convenient natural water storage system.
But suppose that the average temperature rises. Then, instead of snow, the Sierras will get rain. It won’t sit there waiting to melt until summer, it will immediately flow down into the bay. Unless we build more dams to collect the water. But where would these dams go?
Plus dams destroy fish stocks. Are we willing to say let’s let the California fishing industry die so that we can water our non-native lawns? Are you willing to never again be able to eat salmon so that you can play golf on a nice lush green?
We need to take water policy seriously.
Look, it’s been decades since any Nuke plants were built. Jane Fonda and her friends shut down the nuclear energy in this country in this country back in the 1970s. Al Gore and his supporters are still bad mouthing nuclear power. I’m not going to bother providing you a list of all of the antinuke freaks, the simple lack of new atomic plants being built proves my point. The “environmental” crowd would rather give the money to OPEC.
Look at what Congreswoman Zoe Lofgren had to say about Joe Judge.. She understand this issue.
http://www.joejudge08.com/
Following up on David’s comments, see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120977344875064131.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
#16 Doten,
You say “The original post had nothing to do with nuclear power.” I disagree. If one thinks climate change is due to increased greenhouse emmisions, the main culprit, according to the Sierra Club mantra, is burning fossil fuels. The only alternative we have to burning coal and oil for our power is nuclear power. If we keep burning fossil fuel and it is linked to global warming, then our water situation and snowpack is directly impacted. Nuclear power would cut down on greenhouse emmisions, thus helping our water supply. When are we going to come to our senses and not allow the Sierra Club lawyers to continue lining their pockets with endless lawsuits, while we are being blackmailed by the Middle East countries for oil?
If we harness all the conservative hot air we can power the world forever. Then, for once, they would actually be accomplishing something useful and positive.
Personally, I do not have a total objection to nuclear power, but the plant has to be isolated, and on-site facilities for indefinitely storing the waste must be included. Also, they need to be paid for with private funds. No rate increases for PG&E to cover their mistakes.
Remember when PG&E built Diablo Canyon, used the wrong blueprints for the second reactor, built it backwards, and then had the balls to ask for, and get, a rate increase to pay for their mistake?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n9_v24/ai_12529976
Hugh,
Thanks for providing that article. It is absolutely dead on. The problem is that even articulate articles with objective facts do nothing to stop the hysteria and the power this holds with our judges and politicians, and the continued blackmail of our society. I read a recent poll that 75% of our citizens want nuclear power, yet we are still being held hostage. I went grocery shopping tonight, and the amount that the prices have gone up in a matter of a few months is absolutely frightening. Maybe when there are food riots, we paying $10 a gallon for gas, and our unemployment rate is in the double digits we will finally build the nuclear power plants and drill for oil in our own country.
David:
I couldn’t agree more. The “split wood, not atoms” crowd wants to take us back to the stone age and I suspect it will take a major crises, such as food or gas riots, to wake people up to the harm the environmental crowd is doing.
#24 Bluefox,
This is not a liberal vs conservative issue, it is a matter of the survival of our country.
The following article supporting nuclear power was written by Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace. who is hardly a conservative. Ironically, Moore broke off his ties with Greenpeace after it became nothing more than a way of making lawyers rich for filing endless frivolous lawsuits for which we are all now paying a price, including global warming, water shortages, and a war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html