REDDING — When she saw the picture of the discolored water in the Facebook post, First Selectwoman Julia Pemberton said she was “horrified by it” even though the condition is found in many parts of town.

The picture in question — posted to a community social media page on June 17 — shows an inflatable pool filled with dark red and brown water for field day at Redding Elementary School. The discoloration is a result of high iron levels in the school’s water system, according to officials.

“We have very high iron content in our water in many areas of Redding. Town Hall’s water is not potable,” Pemberton said. “If you leave a cup sitting with any of the water in it, when the water evaporates, what you are left with is a dark mineral stain, like a black.”

School officials have known about the high iron content in Redding Elementary’s water for more than four years; but it was not until a week before the field day event and the Facebook post that any action was taken to correct it.

Jason McKinnon, superintendent of the Region 9 school district, acknowledged “the color of the water at field day,” according to a letter he sent recently to the Redding Elementary School community.

He said the district would tackle the project. The Board of Education voted earlier this month to direct his office to prepare a proposal requesting $32,000 of the town’s allocation of federal COVID-19 pandemic-relief to install a new water filtration system at Redding Elementary School, according to his letter.

“For the past several years, there has been a high iron content in the water at [Redding Elementary School] which produces a red color. Staff and students drink bottled water, and the board has spent money in our budget each year to clean and rinse the water storage tanks.” said McKinnon, who became superintendent last October.

“We frequently test water quality and provide bottled water where needed,” he added.

At a Redding Board of Education meeting June 6, McKinnon explained how, in 2017, school officials learned of water quality issues at Redding Elementary School.

A March 2017 correspondence sent to the Redding Board of Education from the state Department of Public Health, or DPH, documented “significant deficiencies” in the school’s water-filtering systems.

“The school has experienced discolored water events and as a result has been on bottled water,” DPH said. “This office believes that part of the problem is that the water is treated after storage.”

“A much more common practice is to treat [the water] before and then store ‘clean’ water in the tank,” DPH said. “This avoids the concern of slugs of iron and maganese sediment being periodically released into the distribution system.”

Based on the information, “a recommendation was made at that time for a new water-filtration system,” McKinnon told the Redding Board of Education earlier this month.

“I expect the project will be completed this summer, and we will test water quality before the start of school,” he said.

Redding Public Health Officer Douglas Hartline said Wednesday the high levels of iron are “naturally occurring” and said the water in the schools is “treated with iron removal units and it has been going through filters for a long time.”

“The water is drinkable,” he said. “Whether they use it or not is entirely up to them.”

Chris Parkin, chair of the Redding Board of Education and a member since 2017, said in an email Wednesday, “The iron content at RES is a known issue, and the board authorized the administration to seek funding to remedy it earlier this month.”

He said he could not say how long the “iron content” at the school has been a “known issue,” adding, “I don’t know without researching the issue and don’t want to guess.”

“[Redding Elementary School] has used bottled water exclusively for drinking and cooking for several years and will continue to do so,” he added. “I’m not familiar with the health department’s view on treatment … and I can’t comment on what makes water potable or not.”

A ‘known issue’

According to minutes of Redding Board of Education meetings, school officials became aware of water quality issues in 2017 when it hired a consulting firm, Leggette, Brashears & Graham.. For $13,500, the firm completed its water-quality analysis at Redding Elementary School and John Read Middle School.

The Redding Board of Education’s Facilities Planning Committee reviewed the firm’s final analysis in August 2018 and “advised that remediation actions should be considered against the cost/benefits of continuing usage of bottled water.” It also “recommended professional evaluation of domestic water piping to assess potential for corrosion related issues and treatment options,” according to the committee’s meeting minutes.

The consultants found that the wells at both schools were contaminated with elevated levels of sodium and chloride that engineers said likely resulted from road salting, according to meeting minutes.

Obtained by the News-Times, a summary of the 2018 report into Redding Elementary School’s water quality shows the consulting firm found iron levels in the drinking water surpassed levels that affect its aesthetic, but not reaching limits that would make the water not potable.

The analysis also said “turbidity, iron, and maganese are settling in the 10,000-gallon atmospheric storage tank, which resulted in the need for quarterly cleaning.” It also recommended adding “water treatment equipment to reduce turbidity, iron, and manganese.”

Based on the investigation, the Redding Board of Education hired Ron Black of Watertown-based Water Systems Solutions and Designs Inc. as the school district’s “water system provider” in December 2019.

According to meeting minutes, Black maintained water systems for multiple districts, including the one at use at Joel Barlow High School. Nearly a year after he was hired, Black, who did not return a request for comment , presented an analysis of the water system designs at Redding Elementary and John Read Middle School.

In it, he “strongly” advised installing a “chlorination injection system” at the middle school to inactivate microorganisms, including bacteria and viruses, and recommended the school district drill new wells and to fund “quality and yield testing” at the existing wells.

In both schools, Black added, the design of the wells proved “inconsistent with the current codes and presents potential safety risks to technicians and staff servicing the equipment,” according to the minutes.

Later work performed at the middle school found a solution to the water-quality issues without requiring a new filtration system, but long-term recommendations to address the high iron content at the elementary school went unaddressed — creating short-term costs.

Recent budget documents for Redding Elementary and John Read Middle School show at least $35,000 allocated in the 2021-22 school year for items related to water quality.

Proposed figures for Redding Elementary School’s budget for this school year lay out $7,600 for its “water system operating contract;” $8,900 for “bottled water and supplies,” $3,600 for “water system repairs,” and $2,200 for “water testing.”

At John Read Read Middle School, this year’s budget includes line items for $7,200 for “bottled water and water cooler rentals,” $3,900 for the school’s “water system operator;” and, complete with an itemized caveat of a “possible increase needed” to a $2,200 line item for “water testing.”

ARPA request in the works

Pemberton said she was “not pointing the finger at anyone,” over the Redding Elementary School’s water quality issue. But criticism directed at the town for not supporting capital projects to improve the schools is unfair, she said. Neither the town’s voters nor the Board of Finance have “ever turned away a capital project that improved the water quality at a school,” she said.

“Everybody likes to point the finger at the town and what you are seeing on Facebook is, well, the Board of Finance ‘nickels and dimes’ the schools, and that is simply inaccurate,” Pemberton said. “If these problems are not presented by the school board to the town for resolution — we can’t address them.”

“It is the job of the Board of Education to adopt a capital plan for their schools. This would include resolution of any water issues that require capital funding,” she added. “That is solely in their purview.”

For now, the school board plans to pursue a new filtration system for the Redding Elementary School, with a request to draw $32,000 from Redding’s allotment of federal pandemic relief funding.

The town received $2.7 million from the federal government under the U.S. American Rescue Plan, or, ARPA.

As of June 2, a total of $462,567 had already been approved for six projects, including two submitted by the Redding Board of Education for $30,000 to support the outdoor learning space at John Read Middle School, known as Project COOL, and $40,000 to repave a recreation area outside Redding Elementary School.

Seven other requests recommended for approval from the Board of Selectmen total $503,489, including a proposal from the school district to use $39,922 in ARPA funding for a “Region 9 HVAC Tower,” according to town documents.

Redding’s school district has other projects it hopes to submit through the town’s ARPA review, but McKinnon told the school board that the water filtration system for the elementary school is the most “shovel ready.”

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

FCS&CA, Legal Metrology Inspects Petrol Pumps On NH; Review Toilet & Drinking Water Facilities

25 June, 2022, By Cross Town News

RAJOURI, JUNE 24: Assistant Director FCS&CA, Arief Lone and Assistant Commissioner Legal Metrology today inspected the petrol pumps on National Highway in the vicinity of Rajouri.

The inspection was carried out on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner Rajouri, Vikas Kundal to check provision of functional toilet and drinking facilities as per the government guidelines under Swachh Bharat Mission.

During the inspection, it was found that all the petrol pumps have these facilities but proper signages were missing. The inspection team asked the owners to install the signages for the convenience of the customers.

It is pertinent to mention that the Govt has issued guidelines to ensure that the fuel pumps adhere to the norms under Swachh Bharat Mission and measures are taken up to ensure availability of basic amenities like clean drinking water and proper toilets at the pumps.

The concerned officers also warned the petrol pump owners of legal action if they are found violating the Govt norms in this regard.

 

 

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

The city of Iqaluit will need to choose a new potable water source by the end of the summer. 

At a meeting Thursday night, council members were presented with two options for what that source might be.

Since about 2015, alarm bells have been sounding that the city’s current water reservoir— Lake Geraldine — is too small and unreliable to meet Iqaluit’s growing population. 

The new supply will come from either Unnamed Lake or the Sylvia Grinnell River. 

But Iqaluit’s chief administrative officer, Amy Elgersma, said staff recommend Unnamed Lake.

“We do have experience of course working with Unnamed Lake now, in the 2019 year where we did draw water from that water source,” said Elgersma. 

The city declared a second water emergency in 2019, when the Apex River was too low to restock Lake Geraldine. The city supplemented the water supply by pumping water from Unnamed Lake, about three kilometres from the Apex river, into Lake Geraldine. 

“It is a feasible option to be able to run a pipeline with minimal power requirements and infrastructure compared to some of the other options,” said Elgersma. 

Unnamed Lake summer pumping 

If the city council does vote to use Unnamed Lake as the water source they will also need to choose the system to collect the water. 

The recommendation by city staff is a summer-only pumping operation. That would mean the city would only collect water in the summer and store it in a reservoir. 

The summer-only pumping option would require the city to build a new reservoir because Lake Geraldine doesn’t have the storage capacity to sustain the growing population. 

“If we don’t have that, we can deliver all the water we want in the summer but without the reservoir we are running out of water by May,” said Walter Orr, a civil engineer with Stantec, who made the presentation to council. 

“The summer only projects require a reservoir in the near term.” 

The viability of Unnamed Lake is still being studied. Data has been collected since 2018 but more outflow measurements are needed to confirm the water balance, according to the presentation. 

Unnamed Lake is one option the city is considering as a new water source. If council chooses this option, they would also have to decide on a system for collecting the water. Summer only pumping is one suggestion. (Kieran Oudshoorn/CBC)

Unnamed Lake can support a population of 17,000 people. Iqaluit would reach that population as soon as 2040, according to the city’s high-growth population modelling. 

“I want a long-term water supply and what you are proposing is going to see kids who are alive today running out of water before they are out of high school,” said Coun. Kyle Sheppard. 

Elgersma said the city is proposing additional studies be done to ensure this is a long term water supply strategy. 

Unnamed Lake year-round pumping

Another extraction method from Unnamed Lake is to take water all year. 

This would mean filling Lake Geraldine to capacity and replenishing what is used daily from Unnamed Lake. 

It would be done by having insulated and recirculating water lines running from Unnamed Lake to Lake Geraldine. 

Nunavut communities of Rankin Inlet, Gjoa Haven, Cambridge Bay and Canadian Forces Station Alert all use this type of system. 

Lake Geraldine stores about three months worth of water in case of pipe breaking or freezing. 

Orr said in the presentation that recirculating systems rarely freeze and the communities on these systems usually only have one day supply of water if something were to happen. 

Unnamed Lake is about 100 metres uphill from Lake Geraldine and would require little energy to transport the water. 

“The water flowing in [the piping] would have enough energy in it as it flows that it would drive a small hydro plant,” said Orr. 

Sylvia Grinnell River

The other option for a water source is the Sylvia Grinnell River, but it would take a lot of money and energy for it to operate. 

The water from the river would need to be pumped about seven kilometres uphill for it to be transported to the reservoir. 

“What Sylvia Grinnell takes in terms of pumping effort is about 700 horsepower, running continuously for four months,” said Orr. 

The Sylvia Grinnell River is the second option to become the city’s new source of drinking water. The river would take a lot of money and energy to operate, however, because water needs to be pumped 7 kilometres uphill and transported to the reservoir. (Jane George/CBC)

The water capacity of the Sylvia Grinnell would be sustainable to meet the city’s needs for the foreseeable future. 

But pumping from this river would also only happen in the summer to protect fish habitat. This would also require the city to build another reservoir. 

In meetings this past month, and in 2018, the Amaruq Hunters and Trappers Association (HTA) said the Sylvia Grinnell as a water source is off limits because of its importance for Arctic Char fishing. 

“The HTA is strongly against the Sylvia Grinnell option and they made that quite clear,” said Elgersma. 

City council will vote on an option in August. Once a water source is decided the city will need to apply for a new water license with the Nunavut Water Board. 

This process will take at least a year.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

If you drink water, pay a water bill, or watch the news, you’ve undoubtedly heard or seen (but were likely unable to pronounce) the acronyms for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), two of the most recognized compounds within the family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Known as PFAS compounds, they were used pervasively in American manufacturing dating back to the 1940s and assumed the nomenclature “forever chemicals” because of their remarkable and arguably useful ability to not decompose. PFAS’ unique resistance to breaking down, according to experts, is the reason why these ubiquitous synthetic compounds are found today, over a half a century later, accumulating in surface water, drinking water, air, soil, and food.

Used pervasively in everyday products like nonstick cookware, carpet, grease-resilient food packaging, stain repellants, water-resistant clothing, fire-fighting foam and protective fire-retardant gear at military bases, fire departments and airports have catapulted manufacturers, municipalities and the U.S. government into a litigation frenzy from coast-to-coast amid a surge of lawsuits that claim everything from environmental contamination to personal injury.

Last week, following what the government considered an extensive review of the potential hazards of PFAS due to their longevity in the human body and environment, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled new and markedly stringent drinking water health advisories for PFAS contaminants. The advisories not only replace those issued by the EPA in 2016, but also effectively earmark the next generation of PFAS litigation.

In recent years, plaintiffs have attempted to link PFAS exposure to serious health conditions such as cancer, liver and kidney disease, reproductive problems, immunodeficiencies, and hormonal disruptions. These concerns led the EPA to issue a rule in December 2021 requiring public water systems that serve more than 3,000 people to test for 29 of the thousands of PFAS substances present in the environment today, including the four tagged in last week’s warning which were PFOA, PFOS, PFBS and GenX. 

The new testing is expected to begin in 2024 and early indicators suggest the tests will reveal more than 100 million Americans have been exposed to PFAS via tap water.

While this marks the first time GenX and PFBS levels have been targeted by federal regulators — which, indeed, is a cause for new concern — PFOA and PFOS have been under scrutiny for more than a decade. Nonetheless, EPA’s announcement is portentous in that it significantly lowers the levels at which PFOA and PFOS  are considered safe, and cites links to a wide range of health side effects previously alleged which suggest risk at exposure levels near zero or non-detect.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan did not sugar coat the agency’s announcement to slash acceptable PFAS levels in drinking water stating, “People on the front lines of PFAS contamination have suffered for far too long. That’s why EPA is taking aggressive action…to prevent these chemicals from entering the environment and to help protect concerned families.”

Specifically, last week’s monumental health advisory drastically reduced acceptable PFOA and PFOS water levels from 70 parts per trillion  (set in 2016) down to 0.004 parts per trillion for PFOA and 0.02 parts per trillion for PFOS. Notably, these levels are far more aggressive than those set in what are considered proactive states like New Jersey and New Hampshire, which were among the first to initiate safe drinking water standards for PFAS.

PFBS and GenX, which previously were not subject to drinking water health advisory limits, will now be subject to advisories of 10 parts per trillion for GenX compounds and 2,000 parts per trillion for PFBS. 

While industry leaders have labeled the EPA’s latest health advisories as fundamentally flawed and absent a proper formal review, it is expected the new thresholds will prompt a wave of new lawsuits. Plaintiffs will assuredly attempt to leverage the EPA’s updated drinking water health advisories — which indicate health problems may still occur with concentrations of PFAS in drinking water at near zero or even non-detect levels — regardless of the science. Meanwhile, the lens of scrutiny on PFAS is widening rapidly to include more known compounds, which will inevitably translate to new claims and a burgeoning docket of PFAS litigation.

While PFAS are not federally regulated, the EPA is set to issue proposed rules in coming months, and the recent warnings send a loud and clear message that the EPA not only takes PFAS contamination seriously, but also intends to make PFAS regulation its priority. The research supporting the EPA’s new warnings informs future aggressive regulatory action and suggests that PFAS contamination will soon likely be criteria of Superfund cleanups.  After all, one doesn’t need to read tealeaves to know that industry should be bracing itself for PFAS regulations given the EPA’s notice that it is releasing applications for states to apply for grants to address PFAS in drinking water with funds allocated from last year’s $5 billion bi-partisan infrastructure law. 

On the eve of the Clean Water Act’s 50th anniversary this fall, the timing of the EPA’s new warning for synthetic pollutants in drinking water is especially compelling. The nation’s first round of Bellwether PFAS environmental contamination lawsuits are gearing up for expert testimony which will undoubtedly attempt to utilize the reduced PFOA and PFOS levels, as well as the new GenX and PFBS thresholds, into consideration.

Likewise, as the court contemplates selection of the second pool of Bellwether cases, this time involving personal injury plaintiffs, the new PFAS health advisories will likely impact all parties on both sides, including water utilities, researchers, experts, municipalities, manufacturers, and insurers. Indeed, EPA’s latest announcement is proof that PFAS is gaining an increased amount of attention, on almost a daily basis, with no indication that the EPA, (nor the plaintiffs’ bar), will be letting its foot off the gas anytime soon.  

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

There is a good chance that climate change will cause more frequent periods in the future when less water flows through the Maas river, which could put the drinking water supply in the Netherlands and Belgium at risk. RIWA-Maas, which represents the interests of drinking water companies in the Netherlands and Belgium that extract 500 billion liters of water from the Maas every year, reported that on Friday. The Maas is the drinking water source for more than 7 million people.

The interest organization commissioned the knowledge institute Deltares to research the expected future availability of Maas water. The reason for the research is the Maas river’s low discharge in recent years and concerns that climate change will negatively affect the river’s water levels. 

In almost all studied climate scenarios and for all locations on the Maas, more extended periods of low dischargers emerged for the summer period. “The results of this research are worrying,” said RIWA-Maas director Maarten van der Ploeg. “We must increasingly consider that climate change will have a lasting negative impact on both the quantity and quality of our drinking water.”

At low water, the river is extra vulnerable to incidents or (industrial) discharges because contaminants are diluted less and are hardly washed away, said RIWA-Maas. According to the organization, this could lead to drinking water companies having to temporarily stop taking water from the Maas more and more often in the future. “A prolonged interruption of water intake could endanger the drinking water supply of seven million people,” said Van der Ploeg. 

According to Van der Ploeg, 2050 seems far away. “But we have already seen a long-term lower water discharge in recent summers. That is why we believe that the report is also a reason for other parties to take action. We must discuss with governments, water managers, research institutes, and water users at the national and international levels to reach better and stricter agreements about the management of the Maas and its tributaries. And to jointly take measures to reduce pollution caused by industrial discharges, for example.”

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

LONGVIEW, Wash. (AP) — A Longview, Washington grain terminal will pay nearly $1 million after settling a lawsuit with the Columbia Riverkeeper that claimed the terminal operated without necessary permits meant to monitor river pollution.

Export Grain Terminal, LLC., which operates a grain terminal out of the Port of Longview, will pay Seeding Justice $715,000 to benefit water quality projects after it settled with Columbia Riverkeeper on June 14 in the U.S. District Court.

It will also pay $220,000 to cover the Riverkeeper’s legal costs, the Longview Daily News reported.

The lawsuit claims EGT violated the Clean Water Act by not getting an industrial storm water permit that would have required it to monitor and report discharges from its facility.

EGT disputed the claims in a statement Wednesday, adding the Department of Ecology told EGT it did not need the industrial permit to operate.

“EGT is committed to be being a good corporate citizens, making operational decisions built on a foundation of ethical leadership, accountability and environmental stewardship,” EGT said.

In the settlement, EGT agreed to get the permit, send quarterly reports of storm water discharges to Riverkeeper for three years, draft a pollution prevention plan and reroute one of its spouts away from the Columbia River.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Editor’s note: This is one in a continuing series of guest opinions about fostering environmental stewardship. The series is coordinated by ACES, the Alliance of Climate and Environmental Stewards.

Bottled water use skyrocketed over the past couple of decades due to its convenience, the benefits of hydration, its ubiquitous availability and the perception it is better quality than tap water. Beverage companies have marketed bottled water as clean, fresh-tasting water that is so much better than our tap water.

But plastic bottle pollution is reaching critical levels here in the U.S. and across the globe. It’s astonishing how many plastic bottles do not get recycled and end up in our environment.

We all live in a seaside community where we can see evidence of plastic bottle pollution every time we walk the beaches. Single-use plastic bottles are bad for the environment, our oceans, aquatic life and now our own health.

Now, years later, we see the evidence building up in our landfills, our oceans and along our seashores. Several towns in Massachusetts, including Arlington, Concord, Brookline and several Cape Cod towns, have even banned the sale of single-use plastic bottles.

The call to action: Stop buying bottled water (and using single-use plastics in general).

What’s wrong with tap water? We all grew up drinking a glass of water from the kitchen sink. What changed?

Evidence mounted that even our tap water is not always safe to drink. The EPA and state agencies regulate the quality of our tap water by requiring testing and reporting of certain contaminants in our drinking water, and report to customers when there is a violation in the minimum quality standards.

Water departments are about to publish and mail this year’s required water quality report, which covers 2021. Watch for it in your mail. Many experts believe the standards set by the EPA are outdated and too loose, with many contaminants still going unregulated.

All of this contributes to our trust or lack of trust in our drinking water. Regardless, “More than 50 percent of thousands of Americans surveyed by the Environmental Working Group say their tap water is unsafe and 40 percent won’t or can’t drink it.” (www.EWG.org, May 2022)

The solution to both problems – refillable water bottles.

Start using refillable water bottles and use filtered/purified water. That is the best way to get clean, healthy, great-tasting water without the single-use plastic bottles. Most of the bottled water we buy is filtered, purified tap water anyway.

Sad reality of plastic bottles

Nearly 300 million metric tons of plastic waste are produced every year. That number is growing by about 9% per year. It takes up to 1,000 years for a single water bottle to decompose.

Our plastic bottles are not really getting recycled. The U.S. generates more than 35 million tons of plastics but recycles just 8.3% of it. Americans throw away 35 billion empty water bottles a year.

Plastics are entering our oceans at an alarming rate. Two billion plastic bottles “leaked” into the oceans in 2016. That’s the equivalent of a truckload of single-use plastics every minute of every day. By 2040, the amount of plastic waste in the ocean will triple and will equal the weight of fish and aquatic mammals.

Bottled water production and distribution has an enormous carbon footprint: It takes almost 2,000 times the energy to manufacture a bottle of water than it does to produce tap water. It takes three times the amount of water in a bottle of water to make it as it does to fill it. Then, each week, it takes 40,000 18-wheeler trucks on our roads just to deliver our bottled water.

Bottled water contains microplastics. Research at the State University of New York at Fredonia showed that 93% of tested bottled water had microplastics contamination. About 70,000 microplastic particles are consumed by an average person each year.

Local resource to consider

There are a variety of systems that are available from various retailers and companies. Blue Ribbon Water of Newburyport is one firm that is committed to the reduction of single-use plastic bottles in our environment by providing systems to filter your own water for refilling your bottles. They work to educate the public about plastic bottle pollution and posting the latest water quality data on their website www.blueribbonwater.com.

Bill Cooper is a co-founder of Blue Ribbon Water in Newburyport.

This column was coordinated by ACES youth corps member Caleb Bradshaw. To share any comments or questions, please send an email to [email protected]. To learn more about ACES and its Youth Leadership Initiative, visit https://www.aces-alliance.org.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

SAN DIEGO — 

San Diego County’s water supplies are in good shape in the face of severe statewide drought, but local and state leaders said San Diegans should still take steps to avoid water waste and limit outdoor irrigation.

“We’re here on a somber note, and that is as we move into summer… we are navigating across the American West, an unprecedented drought,” California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said.

On Thursday afternoon, the San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors unanimously adopted a resolution reaffirming the agency’s commitment to conservation, pledging to “sustain our most precious natural resource and protect the human right to water” and work with other agencies to achieve water savings.

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said the city has adopted more stringent water restrictions, including limiting irrigation to three days per week before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m., using shutoff nozzles or handheld containers for watering areas without irrigation systems, and ceasing to wash cars at home.

“I think these are small ways we can make a big difference when it comes to conserving this precious resource of water, and we are asking San Diegans to take these steps now so that we can avoid a more dire situation in the near-term future,” Gloria said.

He said the city has invested in water conservation projects including Pure Water San Diego, which will provide about 50 percent of the city’s water while cutting flows of sewage to the ocean in half. San Diego also works with various agencies to provide rebates for home conservation measures such as turf replacement, gray water systems and rain barrels.

“We are here in the arid Southwest, we’ve made smart investments, we’ve found additional in-region resources that are going to protect us, but we have to do even more,” Gloria said.

Water Authority Board Chair Gary Croucher said that “being at the end of the pipeline” for California’s water systems has forced San Diegans to be resourceful over the past 30 years. In addition to water efficiency improvements in urban areas, he said San Diego farmers have refined agricultural practices to produce 30 percent more crop with 30 percent less water.

Since the 1990s, San Diego County has reduced water use by 43 percent while diversifying its resources, said Kelley Gage, director of water resources for the Water Authority. Just over half the region’s water comes from a transfer agreement with Imperial Irrigation District, while the Poseidon Water desalination plant in Carlsbad provides another 10 percent.

“Simply put, nothing is more important than maintaining our water supplies; they’re absolutely essential to all of our communities,” said Jerry Sanders, president and CEO of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. “Our efforts have been recognized at the national level as a model for the arid West.”

Other areas of the state seek to replicate some of San Diego’s advances, Crowfoot said. Two other desalination plants are under consideration in Dana Point and Monterey, he said, and officials are finalizing regulations that would make San Diego’s Pure Water project the first direct potable reuse project in California. Its success would allow other areas without underground water tables to pipe purified water directly into water systems instead of using it to recharge aquifers.

Despite that progress toward sustainability, Crowfoot said California faces an urgent water crisis. The state’s major reservoirs, Powell and Lake Mead, are at 28 percent of capacity, he said, while the Sacramento and San Joaquin water systems are experiencing severe shortages and many agricultural acres will likely go fallow for lack of water.

“We experience cycles of drought in California; we’re no stranger to drought,” Crowfoot said. “But if this drought feels different than other droughts, it’s because it is.”

Eight of the past 10 years have been drier than average, and changing snowfall patterns due to climate change have made it harder to capture that limited water, he said. Higher temperatures fueled by climate change have reduced the snowpack that the West depends on to fill reservoirs in spring, and caused much of the runoff to evaporate or absorb into soil before it ever reaches reservoirs he said.

Despite San Diego’s relative water security, he said California and other states may need to adopt “extraordinary, never-before conservation measures across the Southwest including California, to avoid the collapse of the water supply system on the Colorado River.”

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

By Express News Service

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Due to maintenance work in the Kerala Water Authority drinking water connection in Karamana region, water supply will be disrupted in several areas in the capital city on Friday from 1pm to Saturday 9am.

The areas that will be affected are Vellayambalam-Sasthamangalam road, Observatory Hills, Palayam, Vanchiyoor, General Hospital, Anayara, Karikkakam, Veli, Vettucaud, Pettah, Chackai, Nandavanam, Vazhuthacaud, Thycaud, Valiyasala, Jagathy, MG Road, PMG, Pattom, Goureesapattom, Mulavana, Oottukuzhy, Statue, Manjalikulam Road, Ayurveda College, Kaudiar, Ambalammukku, Oolanpara, Pipinmoodu, PTP Nagar, Maruthankuzhy, Kanjirampara, Pangode, Vattiyoorkavu, Nettayam, Mukkola, Vazhayila, Vettikonam, Moonnamoodu, Manalayam, Manikanteshwaram, Kachani, Vazhottukonam, Mannarakonam, Melethumele, CPT, Thozhuvancode, Arappura, Kodunganoor, Elipode, Kundamankadavu, Kulasekharam, Thirumala, Valiyavila, Punnakkamughal, Nedungad, Kalady, Neeramankara, Karumam, Vellayani, Maruthoorkadavu, Melamkode, Melarannoor, Kaimanam, Killipalam, Pappanamcode, Nemom, Estate, Sathyan Nagar, Attakulangara, Manacaud, Kuriyathi, Attukal, Chiramukku, Valiyathura, Shanghumugham, Poonthura, Beemapally and its suburbs, Thiruvallam, Punchakkari and Poonkulam ward.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Lexington’s Division of Water Quality invites businesses, nonprofits, schools and other organizations that are interested in stormwater projects on their property to apply for the Stormwater Quality Incentive Grant Program.

Currently, applications are being accepted for infrastructure grants that fund projects such as stream restoration, constructed wetlands, bio-retention, rain gardens, rainwater harvesting and pervious pavement installation. Businesses, schools, churches, apartment complexes and other institutions that pay the Water Quality Management Fee in Fayette County are eligible to apply for these grants. Applications are due on Friday, July 29.

Design and construction projects have a maximum grant award of $360,000 with a 20% cost share of total project cost in cash or in-kind donation. Feasibility projects have a maximum grant award of $55,000 with a 20% cost share of total project cost in cash or in-kind donation.

Potential applicants, especially if they are applying for the first time, are encouraged to attend one of two informational sessions about the grant program. The first session is on Monday, June 27 at 6 p.m. and the second is on Wednesday, June 29 at 2 p.m. Sessions will be conducted over Zoom and are expected to last for about one hour. Applicants will have the opportunity to ask questions about the program and their potential projects.

Additional grant information, application packets and links to the information session meetings are available at lexingtonky.gov/incentivegrants. 

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here