Nearly one billion people lack access to safe water and 2.5 billion do not have improved sanitation. The health and economic impacts are staggering.
Check out www.water.org
{ 0 comments }
- Image via Wikipedia
An independent water-monitoring site – EWG.org has a page devoted to Sandpoint drinking Water. It leads off with this summary of our water:
An Environmental Working Group analysis of tap water tests from 1998 through 2002 shows that customers of Sandpoint Water Department drank water containing up to 11 pollutants, including one unregulated contaminant. Sandpoint Water Department is one of 65,000 water suppliers across the country wrestling with treating water polluted by sprawl, sewage, factory farms, and industry.
It goes on to list specific levels of containments in our drinking water. Some might say, what harm is it to add a little more, such as fluoride. Well, our position is to lower these containments, not increase them. What is in the water will end up in our and our kid’s bodies.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0c5f8559-38b4-4a0c-affc-5d9cbf406a9a)
{ 0 comments }
- Image via Wikipedia
The US Army Corps of Engineers along with the Bonneville Power Administration are proposing to fluctuate the level of Lake Pend Oreille several times between January and April, for power generation. This raising and lowering the lake and river could produce serious consequences, such as:
- Increasing erosion could cause high levels of sediment resulting in TMDL (total maximum daily load) which others are attempting to limit to protect our impaired water quality.
- Aquatic invasive species could spread significantly without constant lower levels.
- Docks along with exposed water pipes could be destroyed from the ice moving.
- Impacts to fish and wildlife are unknown.
All this is being proposed without any studies.
The Army Corp’s web site has some information. We encourage you to contact them with your concerns.
At the public meeting Tuesday evening it was revealed that the reason Bonneville Power wanted to be able to fluctuate the level was so they could take advantage of higher power rages and maximize their profits.
When it was explained to them there could be millions of dollars of lost just from the ice damaging the docks, the people at the meeting were told they could file a suit against the government. An attorney pointed out in the room that the government is protected from those suits.
The Army Corp dealt with the environmental concerns by saying that they are studying it. It was pointed out that their studies were just starting and there was no studies showing that fluctuating the levels wouldn’t produce environmental damage.
The fishermen in the room pointed out how the water on the ice would prevent them from fishing.
It was obvious with the Corp’s repeated comment that they didn’t need to do the meeting showed that the meeting was a PR event that backfired. They hoped that to improve the Corp’s bad rep, unfortunately for them they only added to it.
Other then the people with the presenters, there was no one in the auditorium that supported the fluctuation. It was Bonneville Power that wants it… we will see if they get what they want.
Others get our waters, money and power – we get the environmental and economic effects.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b78fdddc-45b1-4358-b591-b15c3558c34b)
{ 0 comments }
- Image via Wikipedia
Steven Solomon writes a great article on Huffingtonpost.com about how water through history has been a game changer – it’s scarcity today is creating new games.
Freshwater scarcity is a key reason why 3.5 billion people are projected to live in countries that cannot feed themselves by 2025. Earth’s freshwater ecosystems are critically depleted and being used unsustainably, reported the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, for today’s 6.5 billion population much less for the 9 billion we’ll be by 2050. Extreme droughts, floods, melting glaciers and other water cycle-related effects of global warming are why there’ll likely be 150 million global climate refugees within a decade. Diplomats warn that 21st century conflicts will be fought over water as they were for oil in the 20th.
It is more important than ever we keep the water that is clean, clean.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c77836f6-1c4a-4d26-b0b7-23ab98691b96)
{ 0 comments }
references
For further information about the dangers of sewage discharge into our fresh water systems, click on the links below:
- Sewage Pollution Threatens Public Health
- Aging U. S. Sewer Systems Threaten Public Health, New Report finds
- EPA’s New Sewage Dumping Policy: What the Public Thinks
- Swimming in Sewage, Frequently Asked Questions
- 860 billion gallons of sewage spills into our waterways annually
- AP probe finds drugs in drinking water – A vast array of pharmaceuticals have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans
{ 0 comments }
additional links
contact info
questions
Here are some of the questions others and Clean Rivers are asking:
- Why has the moratorium continued since April of 2004?
- Why build a sewer plant when land is available?
- Why build a sewer plant when the regional facility could make the SSWD plant obsolete?
- Why build a sewer plant when the regional facility will be built and the land used for land application can be sold and rebated back to the district members?
- Why would the members of the district support a LID for a plant vs. land application when the last time the members were polled they were willing to pay more for land application?
- Why build a sewer discharge plant when the district was originally formed to prevent septic drainage from going into the lake and river from non-existent or leaking septic systems?
- Why build a sewer plant when the district members, citizens of the county, the Lakes Commission and the EPA said no when it was last suggested?
- Why build a sewer plant when there is more people living here and specifically on the water than last time it was proposed? Wouldn’t there be more opposition now with communities like Dover Bay touting the beauty of being on the water? With more growth, it would be reasonable to expect there are more people down stream using the river for drinking water, why would they want “sewer water” in the river?
- Is there a conflict of interest with the same engineering firm advising SSWD board as to what are the best options then designing, supervising the construction and maintenance of the possible sewer plant? The engineering firm’s payment is in the order of 20% of cost of construction for managing construction. With land application and other technologies being less expensive and/or out of the engineering firm’s expertise, the possible conflict of interest might be perceived as a problem.
- Why was this Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) reconstituted to advise the SSWD board when the only option proposed by the board is building a sewer plant? How much did that meeting cost the members of SSWD?
- Why is the board of SSWD considering spending the members’ money to hire a PR firm to counter the public’s concern about discharging into the river? Why is the board is discussing “infiltrating Clean Rivers” to discern their plans?
- Who stands to benefit more from a sewer plant being built – the members of the district or future commercial developers down the 95 corridor?
- With the recent discharge of raw sewer into the Pend d’Oreille, do we want another plant to discharge raw sewer in the middle of the summer into the river?
{ 0 comments }
The Failure of the EPA
The Clean Water Act was created to improve the quality of our water, but this video shows how the EPA is failing. The funding to support and assure compliance by local sewer districts continues to decrease. From storm runoff to dumping industrial toxins in our sewer systems, our rivers are in danger.
Southside Sewer and Water District
Successful Meeting
The August 24 meeting of the Pend Oreille Basin Commission (AKA – Lakes Commission) was a success. The community turn out was strong. There were not enough chairs in the room, more needed to be brought in.
The first topic on the agenda was the possible construction of a large sewer plant on the river to serve the planned regional sewer system. If this system was to be developed, it is expected to be at least ten years in the future. The public response at the meeting to this river discharge plant was strongly negative.
The next agenda item was the Southside Sewer and Water District (SSWS) board resubmitting their plans to build the river discharge plant they were hoping to build three years ago. The Commission did not endorse the plant. The asked the SSWS board to return if they did decide to build a plant. Everyone from the audience was opposed to a discharge plant.
Possible environmentally solution
Clean Rivers at the end of this discussion pointed out to the SSWS board and the Pend Oreille Basin Commission that there were more options available other than river discharge. Clean Rivers introduced the room to Coherent Resources, Inc. from Cheney, WA as a possible solution to SSWS needing to expand. Due to Coherent Resources’ success remediating polluted ponds using sustainable technology, sewer districts have pursued their technology to solve their problems.
The people at Coherent Resources agreed to doing a performance arrangement with SSWS – if their technology does not work, the district does not pay. Linda Mitchell, the vice-chair strongly encouraged the SSWS board to pursue the Coherent Resources solution.
A meeting is being planned in late September for all parties to meet at the current district facility to evaluate and plan how to implement this new technology.
If this solution works, it could mean no infrastructure changes, no building of a plant and maybe no need to purchase more land. Essentially this technology would enhance what the current system does.
Media Coverage
The pre and post media attention was significant concerning the Pend Oreille Basin Commission meeting and river discharge. There were at least seven different news stories on the possible SSWS building of a plant to dump its sewer effluence into the River
The Daily Bee had a good review of the meeting.
What is next?
Please continue to track the developments concerning SSWS and the possible regional plant. We encourage you to maintain your support of environmentally sound solutions to our sewer problems with your elective representatives and the media.
Also, please support the SSWS board in their decision to seriously investigate a sustainable solution.
Thank you for supporting us in keeping our rivers clean.
{ 0 comments }