A total of 63 communities across Idaho will receive funding for clean water projects ranging from the evaluation and repair of current water distribution to removing lead water pipes. 

The Idaho Legislature allocated millions of dollars to Gov. Brad Little’s “Leading Idaho” initiative, which uses record surplus funding in the state’s budget to address issues like tax relief, education and water improvement projects. Through the initiative, many long-term water quality improvement projects and the construction of safer water systems around Idaho have received funding. 

“Families, farmers, ranchers, and all Idaho residents rely on clean, efficient water and wastewater systems,” Little said in a press release. “These systems are not only a crucial part of our way of life but our economy as well. Funding for these projects from my Leading Idaho plan aims to ensure that Idaho residents – especially those in our rural communities – can depend on our water and wastewater infrastructure for generations to come.”

Other funds for water improvement projects have also been made available through the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality as loans, grants from the American Rescue Plan Act and other state financial assistance.

Here are a few examples of how the funding will be used:

Water improvement funds from the American Rescue Plan Act

Country Haven Utilities Association Inc. in Blackfoot, Terrace Lakes Water Company in Garden City, and the city of Juliaetta were granted by the DEQ nearly $83,000 in funding from the $2 million American Rescue Plan Act. The funding will be used to fund upgrades and evaluate any deficiencies the water systems may have. 

Country Haven and Terrace Lakes will use the funds to determine improvements for drinking water systems, while Julietta will use the funds to improve its wastewater systems. The funds will cover half of the total costs for each project, with the recipient covering the other half. 

Water system improvement loans statewide

The DEQ awarded a nearly $6.9 million low-interest drinking water construction loan to the Kidd Island and Harbor View Joint Sewer Board in Kootenai County to drastically improve the existing water treatment and collection system. The loan funds are to be used for the “design, acquisition, construction, and installation of improvements” as well as any necessary “the acquisition of easements and/or rights-of-way,” according to a press release from the DEQ.

Another $5.3 million loan was approved by the DEQ for “a new duplex intake pump system, including backup power and radio telemetry system; new ultrafiltration membrane water treatment plant; new duplex treated water transfer pumps” and more for the Laclede Water District’s booster station in North Idaho, according to a DEQ press release.

A third sum of $2.7 million was loaned to Grand View in Owyhee County by the DEQ for repairing a well, implementing water testing, installing a water treatment system and improving water distribution systems, according to a DEQ press release.

State revolving fund assistance for water improvement

In May, the DEQ also awarded $37,916 in drinking water construction assistance to Little Blacktail Ranch Water District in Kootenai County in the wake of disconnected water lines after a road washed out. The assistance funding was sourced from the DEQ’s State Revolving Fund, which requires no repayment and is funded by grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a press release from the DEQ. Another similar grant was awarded by the DEQ to St. Maries to replace lead water piping.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

California has a number of formal acts in statute. Water Code Division 26 provides for the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Floor Protection Act. It is contained in Section 79000 to 79222. Division 26 was added in 1999 by Chapter 725. Section 79000 names Division 26 as the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000.

Chapter 2 provides Definitions. Chapter 3 establishes the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Floor Protection Bond Fund. Chapter 4 establishes the Safe Drinking Water Program. Article 1 contains Definitions. Article 2 creates the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Article 3 creates the Safe Drinking Water Program.

Chapter 5 provides for the Floor Protection Program. Article 1 creates the Floor Protection Account. Article 2 contains the Floodplain Mapping Program. Article 2.5 provides the Flood Protection Corridor Program. Article 3 contains the Delta Levee Rehabilitation Program. Article 4 creates the Flood Control Subventions Program. Article 5 has the Urban Stream Restoration Program. Article 6 provides the Capital Area Flood Protection Program. Article 7 is the San Lorenzo River Flood Control Program. Article 8 has the Yuba Feather Flood Control Program. Article 9 has the Arroyo Pasajero Watershed Program.

Chapter 6 provides the Watershed Protection Program. Article 1 establishes the Watershed Protection Account. Article 2 contains the Watershed Protection Program. Article 3 has the Water and Watershed Education Program. Article 4 provides the River Protection Program. Article 5 is the Southern California Integrated Watershed Program. Article 6 contains the Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watershed Program. Article 7 is the Coastal Watershed Salmon Habitat Program.

Chapter 7 provides the Clean Water and Water Recycling Program. Article 1 establishes the Clean Water and Water Recycling Account. Article 2 provides the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Article 3 has the Clean Water Program. Article 4 is the Water Recycling Program. Article 5 contains the Coastal Nonpoint Source Control Program. Article 6 provides for Seawater Intrusion Control.

Chapter 8 establishes the Water Conservation Program. Article 1 provides Findings and Declarations. Article 2 contains General Provisions. Article 3 is the Agricultural Water Conservation Program. Article 4 provides the Groundwater Recharge Facilities Program. Article 5 contains the Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program. Article 6 contains the Urban Water Conservation Program.

Chapter 9 provides the Water Supply, Reliability, and Infrastructure Program. Article 1 establishes the Water Supply, Reliability, and Infrastructure Account. Article 2 provides the Groundwater Storage Program. Article 3 is the Bay-Delta Multipurpose Water Management Program. Article 4 is the Interim Water Reliable Supply and Water Quality Infrastructure and Management Program.

Chapter 10 contains Fiscal Provisions.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

ESSEX, Md. (WJZ) — A recreational water quality advisory put a damper on Independence Day plans for some at Cox’s Point Park.  

Baltimore County’s Department of Health Division of Environmental Health Services posted a warning sign at the park on Riverside Drive in Essex.  

READ MORE: Star Spangled Celebration: Fourth Of July Fireworks Light Up Baltimore’s Skyline Once Again

The recreational water quality advisory states that water-related activities may pose an increased health risk.  

The county suggests using your “stream sense” by following certain precautions, including avoiding or minimizing contact with natural waters whenever cloudy.  

“If the quality’s not good then we don’t want to put ourselves at risk,” said Komivi Allagan, who went to the park to fish with his family.  

On June 29, Baltimore County’s Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability said water samples taken from Cox’s Boat Ramp had 275.5 most probable number or MPN of bacteria present.  

According to the EPS, a single sample maximum of E. coli concentrations recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or USEPA for recreational waters has a standard of 235 MPN. 

READ MORE: BWI Fares Well Amid Mass Flight Delays, Cancellations Over Holiday Weekend

The sample taken at Cox’s Point Boat Ramp is in yellow, meaning it may not be suitable for activities involving direct contact with the water.  

Rainfall can elevate bacteria level, the EPS said. 

As a precaution, 14-year-old Jammar Jones said he stayed on shore.  

“We can’t go swimming in it,” Jones said. “We was looking forward to swimming but then my mother, she told us that.” 

The water advisory is in effect until further notice, according to Baltimore County.  

MORE NEWS: Mother Of Abandoned Newborn Receives 18-Month Sentence

For more information, you are being directed to contact Baltimore County: 410-887-3663. 

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Sociodemographic of respondents

A total of 140 households completed surveys with a response rate of 45.0%. The respondents were comprised of 48.6% males (n = 68) and 51.4% females (n = 72) in the general population aged 18 to 64 years, which were differentiated into five age groups: ≤19 (1.4%); 20–29 (22.1%); 30–50 (67.1%); 51–59 (5.0%); ≥60 (4.3%). There was a variation in terms of education levels and employment status; the majority of respondents were Bachelor-degree holders (at least 45%) and working as government servants (60.0%), as tabulated in Table 1. The accounted median monthly household income of Putrajaya is RM 7512 (~USD 1803, mean monthly household income of RM 10401, ~USD 2496), exceeding the national level (RM 4585, ~USD 1100)26. The survey covered household groups: bottom 40% (B40), middle 40% (M40), and top 20% (T20), classified into income groups ≤RM 2999, RM 3000–4999, RM 5000–6999, RM 7000–8999, RM 9000–10999, RM 11000–12999, and ≥RM 13000, where RM 1 approximately equivalent to USD 0.24 in average. On an average, respondents had lived in Putrajaya for seven years.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics about risk perception of drinking water supply security with potential EDC contamination.

Human morphology and drinking water consumption patterns

The present study involved 140 households with 257 total respondents (n = 257), consisting of infants (n = 4, aged less than 1 year; birth–5; 6–11 months), children (n = 77, aged 1 to 9 years; 1–3; 4–6; 7–9 years), adolescents (n = 37, aged 10 to 19 years; 10–14; 15–19 years), adults (n = 133, aged 20 to 59 years; 20–29; 30–50; 51–59 years) and elderly (n = 6, aged more than 60 years) (Table 2). Age groups were categorized based on previous studies27,28,29,30.

Table 2 Age groups and respective mean body weight, body height, body mass index, daily water intake, and daily water intake per body weight.

There were no significant differences between males (n = 125) and females (n = 132) in terms of body weight (t(235) = 1.671, p = 0.096), body height (t(225) = 0.804, p = 0.422), body mass index (t(246) = 1.116, p = 0.266), and daily water intake (t(255) = 0.483, p = 0.629). Surprisingly, males consumed more water than females in the United States and Australia19,31. Body weight showed a significant positive correlation to height based on Pearson product-moment correlation test (r = 0.861, p < 0.001). Moreover, daily water intake was observed positively correlated to body weight (r = 0.376, p < 0.001) and height (r = 0.347, p < 0.001), indicating the potential influence of human morphology and growth in daily water consumption. Table 2 depicts the mean body weight, body height, body mass index, daily water intake, and daily water intake per body weight of the respective age group in the present study. Age groups had a significant difference in term of body weight, body height, body mass index, and daily water intake (one-way analysis of variance, p < 0.001). Malaysian frequency of exposure to pollutants in tap water was 1 (365 days/365 days, 95th-percentile value).

Drinking water ingestion pattern varied between life stages (Fig. 1). The difference was due to the changes in human behavioral and physiological characteristics (development and age-specific) under varying environmental conditions19. The early life stage (infants and children) had greater drinking water ingestion on a body weight basis compared to adolescence and adulthood. Further, Fig. 1 depicts the comparison of daily water intake per body weight in the present study to US EPA19 guidelines for exposure assessment. American adolescents consumed drinking water at the lowest rate; meanwhile, the present study reported the elderly (≥60 years of age) to have the lowest water intake rate. Both studies revealed the constant daily drinking water intake per body weight throughout adulthood. The lower daily water intake rate of elderly Malaysians was related to the younger retirement age and thus the lower energy consumption and water restoration. Thus, the application of regional data for exposure and health risk assessment may be less relevant in some regions because of the variation in contamination, human growth, and drinking water intake across the world. The limitation of not having detailed particulars on drinking water intake and body weight of the local population was highlighted in a previous study18. Therefore, data collection and analysis on the local human morphology, drinking water consumption patterns, and household practices regarding tap water as drinking water were done to better reflect local exposures to EDCs.

Fig. 1: Comparison of consumers’ daily water intake per body weight in the present study to US EPA guideline.

Human growth and drinking water intake vary. The variation concerns the relevance of the application of regional data for exposure and health risk assessment. Data from US EPA guidelines are based on ref. 19.

Household practices on tap water as drinking water

A majority of households (52.9%) were observed taking both bottled and tap water as their daily drinking water sources. The remainder chose either only tap water (35.7%) or bottled water (11.4%). A high percentage of households (87.1%, n = 122) practice tap water treatment before daily consumption as drinking water (Fig. 2a). Other households (n = 18) do not treat water as drinking water as most of them (16 out of 18 households) were consuming only bottled water, whereas only two of them had a direct intake of tap water without any treatment. Comparatively, bottled water was primarily chosen among consumers in other countries such as the United States, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden32,33.

Fig. 2: Household practices for using tap water as drinking water for adults and children.

Majority of households purified tap water before daily consumption as drinking water. a Adults. b Children.

There were a higher proportion of males in the profiles of (i) both bottled and tap water (54.4 and 51.4% of males and females, respectively) and (ii) individual tap water (36.8 and 34.7% of males and females, respectively), but not that of individual bottled water (8.8 and 13.9% of males and females, respectively). The least selected option, consumption of bottled water, was only slightly more preferable by females compared to males (5.1% difference). Choice of tap water only was more favorable among houseworkers and retired people who stay at home for longer than those who chose otherwise; thus, it was the elderly (aged ≥60 years) with the highest proportion at 66.7% (the remaining 33.3% preferred tap water mix with bottled water). Up to 83.3% of T20 consumers (household income ≥RM 13000) were prone to drink tap water only (in contrast, the other 16.7% chose bottled water only), whereas B40 and M40 consumers (household income ≤RM 12999) preferred to mix the use of bottled and tap water (47.6–60.0%), followed by tap water only (27.3–47.6%). People with postgraduate qualification (Masters and Doctorate) prioritized the option of tap water only at a proportion of 48.1 and 66.7%, respectively, which was higher than the other education levels (ranged between 22.9–38.1% versus 50.0–68.6% for the combination of bottled and tap water). The association between demographic characteristics and household choices of drinking water was similar to the previous study, except that a higher proportion of males were recorded as choosing bottled water only5.

Based on the survey, attachment of home purification systems, i.e., point of use (connected directly to the tap) and point of entry (connected where the water enters the house) were common among the households. As shown in Fig. 2a, treatment with a purification device was the most practical treatment method (76.2%). Some households tended to further boil the purified tap water for their daily drinking water consumption (7.4%). Meanwhile, 16.4% responded that boiling was their only treatment practice. A chi-square test found no significant association between demographic characteristics and household choices about drinking water (p > 0.05); that is, households of different demographic groups made choices about daily drinking water sources and treatment which were independent of their group categorization. Surprisingly, age and gender were the significant variables in choosing bottled water as the source for drinking water32.

Among the respondents, 67.9% were married (n = 95, only 73 of whom had children), followed by those who were never married (31.4%, n = 44) or divorced (0.7%, n = 1). All parents had the same drinking water sources and practices regarding tap water as for their children’s daily water intake. Over half of the parents (52.1%) provided their children with bottled and tap water in combination, followed by tap water (39.7%) or bottled water (8.2%) only. Filtration using a purification device was the most preferred practice (79.1%) before allowing children to drink water, followed by boiling (17.9%) and employment of both filtration and boiling (3.0%), except for those consuming only bottled water with no household treatment (Fig. 2b). Moreover, there was an association between the age group of parents and their practices preparing tap water for their children to drink (χ2(6) = 13.24, p = 0.039). Parents aged 20–29 years choose equally between filtration and boiling method. A higher proportion of respondents in age groups 30–50 and 51–59 (at least 80.0% among them) preferred filtration using a purification device. Nonetheless, up to 33.3% of parents in the age group ≥60 years chose a combination of filtration and boiling, although filtration was the preferred method (66.7% among them).

Households were taking both bottled and tap water at the same time, and resorted to bottled water when they lost trust in tap water quality for drinking7,32,33. Also, households were most likely to purchase bottled water and use home purification systems; this is attributed to the households’ perception of the better quality, safety, taste, health characteristics, and naturality (mineral water), with affordability, convenience, and social values7,8,32,33,34,35. However, these perceptions and claims were debatable in terms of the actual quality and long term effects of exposure on a regular basis. For example, the dominant presence of contaminants such as mineral ions (e.g., sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and EDCs (e.g., plasticizers) in bottled water (mineral and drinking water) with relatively low physicochemical parameters of the drinking bottled water36,37. Moreover, the efficiency of purification devices is of great concern when the diverse organophosphate flame retardant contamination and exposure have been attributed to water purifiers16. Meanwhile, the households’ choice of using tap water as the main daily drinking water source in the present study raises concerns for human exposure to EDCs through daily consumption of drinking water since treatment systems (both treatment plants and home devices) have been proven to be inefficient in removing these emerging contaminants.

Actual risk of EDCs in drinking water

Given that EDCs are present in tap water, a primary choice of drinking water supply among the consumers, humans are potentially exposed to EDCs via drinking water intake. Therefore, regional database profiling is useful to better reflect local exposure and health risk. This involves further incorporating collected data into human health risk assessment with monitoring data, as shown in the following equations. The estimation of human life-stage health risks with varying local age-specific exposure was able to reduce uncertainty in the exposure assessment and provide a more conservative worst-case scenario. A risk quotient (RQ) value greater than 1 indicates a possible risk of exposure through drinking water.

$${{{mathrm{RQ}}}} = {{{mathrm{C}}}}_{{{mathrm{s}}}}/{{{mathrm{DWEL}}}}$$

(1)

$${{{mathrm{DWEL}}}} = left( {{{{mathrm{ADI}}}} times {{{mathrm{BW}}}} times {{{mathrm{HQ}}}}} right)/left( {{{{mathrm{DWI}}}} times {{{mathrm{AB}}}} times {{{mathrm{FOE}}}}} right)$$

(2)

where Cs is the maximum detected concentration (ng/L, to be obtained from monitoring work); DWEL is drinking water equivalent level; ADI is the acceptable daily intake (ng/kg/day); BW is body weight (kg); HQ is the hazard quotient; DWI is the drinking water intake (L/day); AB is the gastrointestinal absorption rate; and FOE is the frequency of exposure (days/365 days)38,39. Table 3 shows the exposure factor definitions and values used in human health risk assessment.

Table 3 Exposure factor definitions and values used in human health risk assessment.

Residues were categorized into four groups: (a) residues with all life-stage RQs > 2.5 × 10−3, (b) residues with all life-stage RQs between 2.5 × 10−4 and 2.5 × 10−3, (c) residues with at least one life-stage RQ between 2.5 × 10−5 and 2.5 × 10−4, and (d) residues with all life-stage RQs < 2.5 × 10−5. Lifetime RQ profiles from birth to 60 years of age in relation to daily water intake per body weight are depicted in Fig. 3. The estimated RQs of the nine EDC residues via drinking water were ≤1.30 × 10−2, with the highest at age ≤5 months under dexamethasone exposure. RQs in early life stages, i.e., infants and children (birth to 9 years) were higher than the RQs of adolescents (at least 1.6–3.2 times), adults (at least 2.0–3.4 times), and elderly (at least 2.7–4.4 times), respectively. Among the life stages, infants (birth to 5 months) possessed the highest health risks, whereas the elderly (≥60 years) exhibited the lowest health risks. The potential exposure levels and human health risks were constant throughout adulthood. Human health life-stage RQ profile was highly dependent on the daily water intake per body weight (Fig. 3). RQ of the EDC mixture was estimated based on the summation of individual RQ values of each EDC, accounted highest at 3.28 × 10−2.

Fig. 3: Human health life-stage RQ profile of detected mixture and individual EDC residues in tap water in relation to daily water intake per body weight.

There was no potential risk of EDC exposure to all the life stages via drinking water intake (RQ < 1) in the present study. a EDC mixture and residue with all life-stage RQs > 2.5 × 10−3. b Residues with all life-stage RQs between 2.5 × 10−4 and 2.5 × 10−3. c Residues with at least one life-stage RQ between 2.0 × 10−5 and 2.5 × 10−4. d Residues with all life-stage RQs < 2.5 × 10−5. DWI/BW Daily water intake per body weight, RQ Risk quotient.

RQ values less than one estimated that there were no potential risks to all the life stages under present exposure to individual and mixture EDCs via drinking water consumption. However, increasing application and unregulated discharges of EDCs based on the (i) inadequate evidence (epidemiological studies) about the risk of human exposure, (ii) underdeveloped risk communication and governance (regulation and public participation), and (iii) unknown risk perception and its role in adopting risk prevention and intervention, will further increase contamination and human exposure9. Nevertheless, the present study presented a questionnaire survey in regional database profiling, which is supportive in human health risk assessment of reducing the environmental pollution of EDCs and managing human exposure to them through drinking water ingestion.

Perceived risk of drinking water supply quality

Mean perception of risk, at 2.42 ± 0.71, was between the points “unsure” and “agree” to the issue of present drinking water supply security with the potential of EDC contamination. The public perceived every water quality and health issue as significantly different (F(3, 556) = 38.844, p < 0.001). Notably, up to 85% of the population was highly concerned about tap water quality (2.81 ± 0.50); however, the concern was less likely attributed specifically to the presence of EDCs (2.57 ± 0.64) (p = 0.013). The public was relatively unsure whether tap water was safe to drink (2.02 ± 0.78), as well as the capability of the Malaysia Drinking Water Quality Standard to regulate EDCs in tap water (2.29 ± 0.70). Approximately 39.3% perceived that the Malaysia Drinking Water Quality Standard was capable of regulating EDCs in tap water, although most of the EDCs were not currently regulated under the guideline.

The influence of sociodemographic group on actual or perceived proximity to a potential risk was observed with the affected risk perception of drinking water quality (amplification or attenuation effects)6,25,40. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the mean score of public risk perception of drinking water supply security with the potential EDCs contamination and the statistical difference for each of the sociodemographic variables. Overall, a significant difference was observed only in gender, where males (2.49 ± 0.66) perceived a higher risk than females (2.35 ± 0.75) (t(555) = 2.321, p = 0.021). In this context, males were more confident that Malaysian tap water was safe to drink (2.24 ± 0.74) and the Malaysia Drinking Water Quality Standard was capable of regulating EDCs in tap water (2.44 ± 0.58) than females (1.82 ± 0.78 and 2.14 ± 0.68, respectively). An independent-samples t-test showed that the differences between the genders were significant (t(138) = 3.253, p = 0.001 and t(138) = 2.822, p = 0.005, respectively).

To illustrate the differences between individuals who had a high or low perception of risk of EDCs in tap water, they were classified into different risk perception communities as follows: low risk perception (i.e., scored ≤2.00 on average; this constituted 27.1% of the respondents) and high risk perception (i.e., scored ≥2.75 on average; this constituted 35.7% of the respondents). Figure 4 depicts a comparison of mean responses of the low- and high-risk perception communities about drinking water supply quality. The low- (1.87 ± 0.74) and high-risk perception communities (2.90 ± 0.30) perceived risk concerning drinking water supply significantly differently at t(188) = −16.141, p < 0.001.

Fig. 4: Comparison of mean responses between low- and high-risk perception communities about drinking water supply quality.

Error bars represent standard deviation.

Most of the males (45.6%) perceived high risk regarding the daily supply of drinking water; meanwhile, there was a higher proportion of low-risk perception females (2.8% higher than the high-risk perception females). Figure 5 shows the proportion of each risk perception community within different groups of demographic characteristics. The high-risk perception community was mostly comprised of the working groups such as government servants, private workers, and self-employed individuals, as well as the retired workers. Similarly, the elderly (aged ≥60 years) had a higher risk perception than the other younger respondents (Fig. 5 and Table 1). Different education levels made up the greater proportion of the high-risk perception community, in which field of study could be an underlying factor. Wealthy people had different risk perception to lower income people; notably, the high-risk perception community had no T20 income group. Also, up to 60% of the M40 income group were in the high-risk perception community. Moreover, the B40 income group had relatively high risk perception (30.3 and 24.2% of high- and low-risk perception groups, respectively). Nonetheless, the chi-square test found no significant influence of demographic characteristics in the distribution of risk perception communities (p > 0.05). Beside the sociodemographic factors, the variation in public-perceived risk of EDCs in drinking water was expected due to the different risk processing either based on a rational system (analytical processing system) or a nonrational system (experiential processing system)9. Further, future studies on comprehensive conceptualization of the risk processing system and predictors (e.g., cognitive and affective) are required for in-depth analysis of the public responses to the risk perceived in the emerging drinking water quality issue.

Fig. 5: Proportion of low- and high-risk perception community within different groups of demographic characteristics.

The chi-square test found no significant influence of demographic characteristics in the distribution of risk perception communities (p > 0.05), whereby the risk processing system could be the influencing factor.

The present study observed the current risk perception level with the presence of a low-risk perception community and a group of people who were unsure of the emerging drinking water quality issue. The situation indicates the lack of effective communication and governance in developing countries since the broad scope of EDCs had been widely detected in global drinking water supply, particularly pharmaceuticals in Malaysian tap water39. Further, it is not a worldwide practice to raise awareness and regulate emerging contaminants in drinking water. Subsequently, development of risk behavior (preparedness, reduction, prevention, and mitigation) and adoption of public participation in a multi-barrier approach in the monitoring and management framework of the drinking water supply system are challenging. Thus, the present study, which contributes empirical and theoretical outputs, facilitates the conceptualization of effective communication and governance, targeting the dissemination of information on safe drinking water quality and public involvement in regard to EDCs. This supports the national water sector in accomplishing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that target clean drinking water and sanitation, and safeguard public health for all.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Businesses operating in the Boardman area are stepping up to help local families living with contaminated water. The pollution in their well water will persist, but they will now have reliable water for home use.

Guadalupe Martinez, of Boardman, says a reverse-osmosis filter installed under the sink doesn’t work properly, and the whole-house filter behind her has been broken for years. (Kathy Aney/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

In response to the groundwater nitrate emergency in Morrow County, a coalition of food processors, an industrial dairy and an energy company working out of the Port of Morrow will pay for water filters for hundreds of people with contaminated wells.

The Boardman Chamber of Commerce released a statement Friday saying Beef Northwest, Boardman Foods, Calbee America, Lamb Weston, Oregon Potato, PGE, Threemile Canyon Farms and Tillamook County Creamery Association will contribute to the Morrow County Health Department’s Safe Drinking Water Filtration Project.

That project involves distributing reverse-osmosis filters to people who have well water testing higher than federal water safety limits. Reverse-osmosis filters are specialized systems that cost about $220 apiece and are typically installed beneath a sink. They separate nitrates and other contaminants from water molecules.

Morrow County well users draw water from the Lower Umatilla Basin, which has become increasingly contaminated with nitrates during the last 30 years from farm fertilizers, animal manure and wastewater from the Port of Morrow and other area food processors. About 1,300 households in Morrow County draw water from that basin. Many who rely on those wells for drinking water are low-income and Latino.

Water high in nitrates consumed over long periods can lead to stomach, bladder and intestinal cancers, according to the National Cancer Institute, as well as miscarriages and “blue baby syndrome,” inhibiting oxygen from moving through an infant’s bloodstream. 

Most of the businesses in the coalition were involved in the launch of a well water testing effort last month in coordination with the County Health Department. County Commissioner Jim Doherty said about 30 water samples were submitted a day for testing early in the effort. They are now getting about 10 to 12 samples each day to test. Doherty said up to 200 samples have come back with nitrate levels above 10 parts per million, the limit established by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Most of the businesses in the coalition, located in a port-managed industrial complex, contribute to the nitrate contamination in the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Area. A management committee responsible for tackling the nitrate problem estimates that about 70% of the contamination is from farms, about 20% from dairy and cattle operations and about 5% is from food processors and the port.

Two fines since January

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality recently found that the port had pumped 260 tons of excess nitrogen onto area farms, violating state restrictions. The agency fined the port $1.3 million in January, then last month increased the fine by $800,000 after concluding that the port continued to pump illegal amounts of nitrogen onto farms even after the January enforcement action was taken. Port officials were contesting the original penalty. 

The action followed an investigation by the Capital Chronicle which found that the port’s contamination had persisted far longer than three years, and with little enforcement from DEQ until recently.

County Commissioner Jim Doherty said the business coalition has pledged, to start, at least $80,000 for filters and installation costs. Residents who rely on wells, and where the well water tests higher than the federal standard for nitrates, can pick up a filter from the County Health Department and install it themselves or hire a county approved plumber. The county will reimburse the plumbers, Doherty said. 

Officials plan to distribute around 350 filters over the next year. The Health Department has 30 available that can be distributed next week, Doherty said. The county has also contracted with Desert Springs Bottled Water in nearby Echo to deliver water in 5-gallon jugs for up to three months to people who are waiting for the filters. 

Doherty will seek funding from the Legislature’s Emergency Board in September to help pay for tests and filters before the private money runs out. 

“I’m hoping to push through the same money Klamath got for theirs, which was $4 million,” Doherty said. Klamath County received funding in 2021 to help with the costs of new wells at homes with dry wells. Klamath County also recently received money from the state Legislature for emergency water deliveries for people with dry wells.  

“We have the right amount of water,” Doherty joked, “but it’s the wrong kind.”

Read previous coverage: 

Powerful port pollutes water for years with little state action

Water contamination worsened as DEQ went easy on Port of Morrow 

Morrow County declares emergency over groundwater nitrate pollution 

Troubled by inaction, Morrow County commissioner makes safe water a top issue 

Port of Morrow continued to pollute after January fine, now faces $2.1 million fine, state says

Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Les Zaitz for questions: [email protected] Follow Oregon Capital Chronicle on Facebook and Twitter.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Drone wasteshark removes plastic waste and biomass

 

Autonomous surface vessel (ASV) WasteShark by company RanMarine Technology vacuums and cleans plastic waste and biomass from water bodies using drone technology. Modeled after a shark, the water vehicle-looking vacuum is designed to be deployed with preset mission routes on the user’s chosen waterbody. By selecting WasteShark’s operating route and predetermining its path, its user covers the region they require waste or data collection. The routes can be saved and re-run as often as needed, depending on the user. The ASV drone also uses GPS routes to navigate to the desired areas and to return home. Light detection and ranging system can be added to the device to avoid collision and enhanced data gathering from the environment. The company – which specializes in the design and development of industrial ASVs for ports, harbors, and other marine and water environments – says that the design of WasteShark allows it to be efficient, long-lived, non-threatening, and unobtrusive, with zero greenhouse and carbon emissions that alter climate change and in-house clean technology tools used for cleaning water. Because of these, the all-purpose waste and data collection ASV can be used in urban, rural, industrial, and leisure environments.

 

WasteShark has a 10-hour swim time, 5km range of run, and waypoint planning, and it can clear up to 500 kilos of debris per day, run for 3km/h and for six hours in autonomous mode. The company installed 4G technology into its ASV with a 3km radio-controlled guidance and two electric thrusters which it guarantees are mounted with RanMarine proprietary thruster guard technology. RanMarine Technology’s WasteShark is one of the many ASVs the company desires to create in the future to clear plastics, bio-waste, and other debris from waterways. It says that the data enablement of its products allows customers to closely monitor, in real-time, the environment and makeup of their water, producing an accurate picture of the water’s DNA to pinpoint any unquantified concerns. RanMarine Technology products are also designed to be used manually via an onshore operator or autonomously with online control and access such as WasteShark. 

images from RanMarine Technology

 

 

drone wasteshark clears the bodies of water

 

Three missions form part of RanMarine Technology’s philosophy. Through WasteShark, it targets marine waste as the source to remove 500 kilograms of waste per day from all types of waterways. Its compact size makes it portable, and it can be operated safely and securely from virtually anywhere through its autonomous features. The company says that the build of the WasteShark has been purposely designed to be able to reach areas that other vessels and trash reclamation units cannot get to. It is small enough to get into tight spaces where trash generally collects in the water yet big enough to make a sizeable difference in the amount of waste that is removed as the company puts it. 

 

Next in its line is the quality of water, which has received a tremendous impact from human waste and pollution entering the bodies of water. ‘As all our water is connected, this is everyone’s problem, which means it is up to all of us to monitor and manage the quality of our water, starting right in our backyards,’ says the company. To keep an eye on the quality of water, the company collects data via WasteShark and DataShark, which geo-tag and timestamp the collected data to give an accurate picture of the water quality health within an ecosystem. This allows everyone to accurately monitor the quality of water near their areas to help verify compliance with pollution regulations, identify potential contaminants early to minimize the impact on the environment, and, as the company believes, ‘make your water safe for everyone to enjoy.’

autonomous-drone wasteshark vacuums plastic waste and biomass from water

 

 

drone wasteshark supports sustainable development goals

 

The last mission in line is dedicated to the removal of biomass at the water’s surface. WasteShark’s autonomous technology uses waypoints to guide itself in the water and remove biomass in its way with minimal oversight. The company says that WasteShark removes biomass at the surface, which helps preserve nature with minimal disruption, while also ensuring that facilities and equipment can continue operating efficiently and safely. ‘By monitoring nitrogen buildup, dissolved oxygen, and pH levels amongst others, we are able to offer a clear map of what is present in the waterbody and pinpoint where these problems exist. Equally, the build-up and bloom potential of blue and red toxic algae can be monitored and addressed,’ says the company.

 

RanMarine Technology supports the Sustainable Development Goals on life below water, sustainable cities and communities, clean water and sanitation, climate action, and decent work and economic growth. It does its best to commit to producing environmental, social value, and economic value by making products that clean up the mess causing significant animal population and environmental decline and by collecting data to forecast water health issues. ‘With 33% of seafood containing plastic and an increasing global population, healthy water has never been so important for the future of species on our planet,’ states the company. With WasteShark, it has taken one step forward in actualizing its mission and vision.

WasteShark in action

autonomous-drone wasteshark cleans biomass from water

the company installed 4G technology in autonomous-drone wasteshark

close-up view

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Klaipeda will provide free water to business serving customers from the tap

This is part of a national campaign to promote the high-quality water available in Lithuania and to ditch the packaged version

To Lithuanian local authorities, it is still inconceivable that many people prefer bottled water in favour of tap water. That is why, the water supply companies of the country’s three largest cities – Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipeda – have initiated a promotional campaign (called ‘Water is life. Share’) which will enlist local businesses to spearhead the movement against plastic bottles.

For this purpose, the participating catering establishment will offer their customers free glasses of tap water. What’s more, the city of Klaipeda has announced that participating businesses will get free of charge their first 1000 litres of water every month.

Lithuania enjoys some of the best tap water in Europe

The trend toward consuming bottled water has arisen out of a concern for safety in some parts of the world, but in other places, it is just the result of successful marketing. The Lithuanian municipal water suppliers claimed that the country has some of the best tap water in Europe.

“The quality of tap water in Lithuania is enviably high, compared to other countries. We are one of the few countries in Europe that uses only underground water resources for public water supply. We need to make more use of this advantage. And while the world is “suffocating” from plastic, while Europe is charting a clear direction for the Green Course, choosing to drink tap water is an effortless but significant step towards a conscious society,” confirmed the country’s Minister of the Environment, Simonas Gentvilas.

‘Plastic suffocation’ is a phenomenon in the small Baltic country, as well. It is estimated that Lithuanians throw away as much plastic waste as the weight of four television towers per year, and only a third of this waste goes to recycling plants. 

That’s how the idea was born to have local businesses operating in the hospitality sector become valuable partners in the change of habits by serving their customers a glass of tap water for free. The public is encouraged to drink tap water with confidence and reduce the environmental impact of plastic pollution.

“We can assure both residents and businesses that the water supplied in Klaipėda is indeed of good quality, the amount of minerals in it is equal to the daily norm, which is necessary to ensure a high-quality and healthy lifestyle. We check the water quality daily in the laboratory. We hope that this campaign will encourage businesses to become aware, to abandon plastic, which is produced in the world over 350 thousand tons per year, and will encourage residents to use more water, which is necessary for our bodies, especially in summer,” said Benitas Jonikas, general director of the Klaipeda’s water management company.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Scientists seeking to determine whether nitrates in drinking water have an impact on unborn babies have received $1.2 million to undertake a study of 700,000 births in New Zealand.

The researchers, from Otago University, will map pregnant people’s exposure to nitrate during pregnancy, to determine any links to premature births.

In doing so, they will create a national database of contaminants in drinking water in New Zealand for the first time – opening the door to other research into how water impacts other health issues.

Dr Tim Chambers, the study lead, applied for the grant from the Health Research Council after mounting evidence from overseas suggested that nitrate was linked to pre-term births, and possibly to birth defects.

READ MORE:
* Nitrates in drinking water could be killing 40 Kiwis each year, study finds
* Environmental groups team up to call for stricter water nitrate limit
* Urgent action needed as studies link nitrates to adverse birth outcomes – Greens

To be considered safe, drinking water in New Zealand needs under 11.3 milligrams of nitrate-nitrogen per litre (mg/L).

That level was set to ensure families avoid blue baby syndrome, or methaemoglobinaemia, after it was discovered nitrates in baby formula were making babies sick, because the nitrates limit oxygen supply to a developing infant.

However, studies now show there may also be a link between nitrates and unborn babies – and that it may occur at much lower levels.

Ross Giblin/Stuff

Public health researcher, Professor Tim Chambers, from University of Otago, Wellington.

One study from California, involving 1.4 million babies, caused particular concern. It tracked the nitrate levels women were exposed to in subsequent pregnancies, meaning that while other research had struggled to separate the influence of nitrates from other factors like alcohol, genetics or smoking, for siblings born to the same mother, those factors were likely to be constant.

The results found the risk of early preterm birth (where an infant is born at least nine weeks early) increased by half when nitrates in drinking water were above 5mg/L. If nitrate levels were above 10mg/L – still less than the “safe” level here – the odds of a preterm birth more than doubled.

After the study was released, the Liggins Institute, New Zealand’s authority on pregnancy and baby health, was commissioned by the Ministry of Health to do a review of the evidence on nitrate and birth outcomes.

It concluded the current evidence was “uncertain” and findings from different studies were “inconsistent”, but urged more work was needed.

Chambers’ team now plans to undertake that work, by creating a drinking water database that combines the disparate sets of information from New Zealand’s 57 local councils, mapping it against 700,000 births over 15 years to measure nitrate exposure levels.

He said the work would take three years, and would not have been possible without the grant.

“Obviously we are completely stocked to be funded to do this work,” Chambers said. “It’s nice to see the council funding environmental health work because it’s an area of growing importance.”

Dominico Zapata/Stuff

The rise in intensive agriculture, mainly in dairy farming, has been linked to higher nitrate levels in water.

Data shows an increasing number of rural families are drinking water across Aotearoa with levels that are considered unsafe even by current measures – most of it from unregulated, private bores, owned by people who aren’t experts in water management.

One analysis said as many as 138,000 New Zealanders could be on water supplies with nitrate levels above 5mg.

Nitrate is one of the most common drinking water contaminants in New Zealand, largely driven by agricultural activity.

Nitrates leaching into water from dairy farming has increased substantially since 1990.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Thane: The Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) officials have informed all the residents of Dombivali East and West that there will be 12-hour water cut on Tuesday, July 5.

Kiran Waghmare, executive engineer, water supply department from KDMC said, “We will be carrying out the necessary urgent repairs at the 150 million litre water treatment plant on Netivali Hill at Kachore near Kalyan which supplies water to Dombivli city. For this work, the water supply of Dombivali East and West city will be shut off from 8 am to 8 pm on Tuesday.”

Waghmare appealed, “As the water supply will be cut off throughout the day on Tuesday, a low-pressure water supply is expected the next day. Therefore, the residents should store enough water for one day.”

Earlier, water was being supplied to Dombivli city from a water treatment plant at Barave. Considering the growing population and urbanization of Dombivli city, eight years ago, the municipality set up an independent water purification centre for Dombivli on the hill at Netivali. The centre supplies water to the city of Dombivli.

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. To receive it on Telegram, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper’s PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

In the NT, predominantly white towns such as Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine have a regulated and safe drinking water supply, but in Indigenous communities drinking water supply is unregulated, with many residents needing to resort to buying bottled water. And far from being an unavoidable consequence of life in remote communities, this is the result of ongoing failure by successive NT governments to plug gaps in water regulation. Towns in the NT are serviced by the government-owned Power and Water Corporation, which is subject to legislation, licensed by the Utilities Commission, and has enforceable obligations and service standards. Outside town boundaries, however, responsibility shifts to an unregulated, unlicensed and opaque subsidiary corporation, without enforceable standards. These gaping holes in the regulatory system treat urban, predominantly non-Indigenous populations differently to remote, predominantly Indigenous populations.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here