Re: Ground-Water Treatment Wastes Valuable Resources

[peter strauss <pstrauss@igc.apc.org>]

Hi Laura,

Based on limited research for the Tucson community, I identified two
communities that used treated water to supplement potable supplies: one
in Scottsdale AZ, and another in LA.  Unfortunately, I don't know much
more about their opinions about drinking water with very minor levels of
contamination.  The Tucson environmental community was adamant about not
using it to supplement potable supplies, and the multi-million dollar
system that was in place (i.e., Air stripper - GAC - water supply line)
was altered by City referendum so that treated water is either
discharged to surface water or re-injected. The Tucson community had
been drinking a contaminated supply for over 30 years, and it felt any
additional molecule of contaminant was too much for them.  It was also
interesting that some children refused to drink public water because of
the illness that they had seen that was attributed, rightly or wrongly,
to the water.  Add to this the psychological effect of drinking water
that may have small amounts of contamination, and this option quickly
refuted by the public.

In my opinion, I agree with the Tucson community, although the treated
water may be perfectly safe.  Just think about all the things you would
need to worry about: is the treatment system working, and working to a
high level of performance (in Tucson, prior to having the system
altered, there was an EPA trained community inspection team that would
make surprise visits to the treatment system to insure that everything
was working OK); can you have infants or pregnant women drink the water;
what happens if there is new research that changes or understanding of
the toxicity of relatively small amounts of chemical exposure over a
long period of time (e.g., we all know now that there is substantial
evidence that chlorinated hydrocarbons are linked in some way to hormone
disruption, yet health risk assessments do not really take this into
consideration - my opinion is that in five or ten years this will be as
recognized as global warming); etc.  Therefore the Precautionary
Principle should be used - don't put small amounts of contamination in
the water supply.

(Laura, I think I'll post this on CPRO)


Peter Strauss 

Laura Olah wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> Your message is quite timely.  The local Army here just asked me about our
> organization's opinion of using treated groundwater for a public water
> supply -- a question that to me came somewhat out of the blue.  Do you know
> what problems other communities have had trying to do this?  Knowing what
> the specific problems we might anticipate would be helpful to our
> community.  Thanks.
> Laura
> 
> peter strauss wrote:
> 
> > Armando,
> >
> > Unforunately, your situation is not unique.  Many of the large Superfund
> > sites - East Coast and West Coast - discharge treated groundwater to
> > surface waters. Sometimes the options for making good use of this water
> > are very limited. In the following paragraph, there are four options as
> > I see it.  They all depend on site specific conditions, and I would
> > suggest that the RAB ask the Air Force some questions about what kind of
> > studies it has done to make a more efficient use of this water.
> >
> > First, the treated water could be used to supplement
> > potable water supplies.  I find this very unattractive. There are those
> > who would argue with this point. But a recent referendum in Tucson
> > eliminated re-use of treated water as a possibility. Second, the water
> > could be re-used to supplement non-potable supplies.  This could mean
> > using treated water to irrigate golf courses and nurseries, using it for
> > a "gray water system", and using it for construction and watering
> > erosion control plantings.  Unfortunately, in many cases I have seen,
> > these options are limited.  But it is certainly worth promoting.  Third,
> > as you queried, is the concept of re-injection.  I support this option
> > wherever it is feasible.  Unfortunately, in many instances, re-injection
> > is not technically feasible because of the hydrogeology of the site.
> > Fourth, is the concept of discharging the treated water to surface
> > streams.  While  this appears very wasteful at first blush, those
> > streams may to some degree actually recharge the aquifer, thus achieving
> > the the same benefit as  re-injection.  Again, this is site specific.
> >
> > Peter Strauss
> 
> --
> Laura Olah, Executive Director
> Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger
> E12629 Weigand's Bay South
> Merrimac, Wisconsin  53561
> olah@speagle.com
> Phone (608)643-3124 Fax (608)643-0005
> Website  http://www.speagle.com/cswab