Beware of the Recycled Water Industry on Water Safety and E. Coli in California

Mr. Pecarich is certainly correct in arguing that the push for reused water is a PR job paid for by those who would benefit economically. Unfortunately, it is also abetted by some liberals who view opposition to recylced water as one with other know-nothing views held by an ignorant or misguided public.

San Diego submitted a recycling proposal to the DHS in California for approval - and won approval. Then, having prepared (secretly as is the policy in San Diego) an EIR based on the DHS approved process, they switched horses when their engineering study showed the approved process would produce the most expensive water in the free world. Instead of the approved processes massisive additional doses of chorline would be used (which poses its own health risks).

At a public hearing held by the Legislature in Demcember of 1997, three facts came out: (1) the safe removal of virus from the contaminated water remained probelmatical; (2)the cost of building the facility was immense - far less from purchasing
water on the market; (3) to prevent opposition from a Republican public the reused water was to be pumped into the homes of San Diego's black and brown - not white - populations.

This forced the reusers back into hiding until last year - when Mayor Sanders prudently decided not to add their goals to his burden. But the Water District continues to fund a PR effort designed to
ease the decision by elected officials. And to use LA legislators to carry bills that effect San Diegans.

Eventually they will win. That means protection of public health may well rest with regulation of the bottled water industry

Franks at it again,
Billions of gallons of water delivered for over a decade and not 1 person sick. As the old lady said "wheres the beef".
If this is such a threat where are all the stats showing Frank is correct. There are none.He would prefer we waste a valuable resource or abandon thousands of acres of productive farmland. Seems more like grandstanding than science to me.

Frankie, Frankie, Frankie,

“When CONFRONTED by a commenter such as Earle Hartling”???? I’m sorry that you feel so threatened by anyone with an opinion that differs from you and is bold enough to express it. Nowhere in my posting did I “attempt to dissemble and discredit the work of the scientific community,” I merely presented data developed by my agency and I called into question some of the conclusions that you apparently jumped to without any real documented support.

Furthermore, this discussion should be about the water, not about me. The “Swiftboating” tactic of going after someone’s reputation in order to win an argument contributes nothing to the scientific debate and only serves to obscure the issues. And, for the record, I am proud to serve as the Water Recycling Coordinator for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, I was honored to serve on the Water Recycling Taskforce in 2002, and I’m privileged to work in the water recycling industry with people like Keith Israel from Monterey.

That being said, let me address some of the issues and statements contained in this thread, starting with Mr. Cavala’s. The indirect potable recycled water project in San Diego was far from being conducted in secret. I was able to follow its progress for years in the mainstream media from waaaaaay up here in Los Angeles, assertions of secrecy by Assemblyman Howard Wayne and Senator Steve Peace, notwithstanding. Their public hearing in December 1997 could have only been a political ploy, as I have an extremely hard time believing that state legislators would have no idea what was going on under their noses in their home districts.

I was at that public hearing, and Mr. Cavala is incorrect in at least two of his three assertions. Virus removal was not deemed “problematical,” rather, the level of removal had been recalculated by the project designers and lowered from a 26 log removal to a 24 log removal. If you have any scientific background, you’ll know this means removal by a factor of 1 with 24 zeros behind it, instead of 1 with 26 zeros behind it. This removal efficiency is staggeringly high, and the practical difference between the two removals is statistically insignificant.

Second, the assertion that “to prevent opposition from a Republican public the reused water was to be pumped into the homes of San Diego’s black and brown – not white – populations” is sickening. This question of “environmental justice” was raised specifically to inflame passions among the population and had no basis in fact. The “repurified” water, as it was called, was to be mixed with the city’s water supply and served to the entire community, as the water purveyor couldn’t possibly separate rich areas from poor ones in the distribution system. A San Diego community activist, Herman Collins, actively opposed the project because of this, and later served with me on the Statewide Water Recycling Task Force. He has since become a staunch supporter of recycled water, because he found out after the San Diego project had been cancelled that he had been LIED to and was used by the project opponents in regard to the environmental racism issue. The “misguided” views of the public that Mr. Cavala refers to are fostered by inaccurate statements and outright fabrications made by unscrupulous opponents who generally have another agenda in mind. Those of us in water recycling welcome honest questions and respect honest concerns, and we do our best to address both because we serve the public and have no desire to adversely impact their health and well-being. If getting the facts out to the public so they can make an informed decision is “PR” then maybe we need more PR.

Oh, and by the way, recycled water is generally provided at a discount to users by public agencies that don’t make a profit, so we in this industry don’t do it because we’ll “benefit economically” from it. Rather, it’s the right thing to do in a water-short region that is probably looking at permanent drought conditions. The beneficiaries of water recycling are the parks and schools that remain green for our kids to play in, industry that can remain in business to provide jobs and tax revenue for our cities, and the general population that is less likely to be subject to mandatory water rationing.

Now I’d like to address a few of the issues I have with your assertions, Frank (I can’t speak to all of them, since there’s just too many). In my last posting, I posed a question to you regarding the LEVEL of treatment of the Minnesota facility. While you didn’t answer my question, you did give me enough clues to find out that you were referring to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul. This facility provides only SECONDARY treatment with disinfection prior to discharge into the Mississippi River. But in your postings, you had a problem with the use of disinfected TERTIARY recycled water on food crops, and the microbiological quality of the recycled water is a critical factor in your estimation of its danger. The filtration process utilized in tertiary treatment greatly enhances the efficiency of disinfection, and trying to draw comparisons between secondary and tertiary effluent quality from a microbiological standpoint is comparing apples and oranges. Could this be the “mixing and matching pieces of scientific information” that you criticized in your June 11th post?

The same comment goes for attempt to link the E. coli spinach outbreak with recycled water use. That outbreak was associated with pig feces in a local waterway and no recycled water was in use at this site. Given the nationwide impact of that incident and the number of people sickened, one would think that if such a virulent strain of bacteria was being deposited on produce via recycled water, as you seem to infer is going on through the biofilm phenomenon, we would have seen multiple replays of this outbreak. But there have been none. Zero. Linking this episode with recycled water with no direct, or even indirect, connection is inflammatory and unconscionable. Guilt by association or innuendo is not a valid scientific principal.

I’d like to address the assertion you made that “despite advances in sanitation practices in this country, the number of reported waterborne disease outbreaks has not decreased in recent years…the number has actually increased.” This is absolutely shocking, perhaps no more so than to the folks at the Center for Disease Control, because according to their website, “The number of outbreaks has declined over the last 20 years, probably as a result of actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), water utilities, and public health officials.” (Panel Summary from the 2000 Emerging Infectious Diseases Conference in Atlanta, Georgia) Most of the 127 outbreaks from 1990-98 were associated with groundwater systems that probably didn’t disinfect before distribution.

There’s so much more of your work to critique, but I will stop at this point, as I need to go and deliver more recycled water!

It is always interesting to see one of gatekeepers like Earle Hartling poke his head up out of the sewer. It is especially interesting since he is the Water Recycling Coordinator for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. As proof that recycling sewage effluent into the drinking water system is good, he mentions Herman Collins a community activist who opposed the practice and then served with Earle on the Statewide Water Recycling Task Force --- as co-chair of the Public Information, Education and Outreach Workgroup.

Public records show Herman Collins, a former chief of staff of retired San Diego City Councilman George Stevens and head of Collins Strategic Group, a governmental relations consulting firm, was paid $365,000 by the Metropolitan Water District to spread the agency's message and ease access to decision-makers.

Earle said he merely presented data developed by his agency when he critiqued Franks piece. This is the same agency that developed the data for sewage sludge (biosolids) recycling and claims it is safe. Yet the agency's original 1988 research showed otherwise in two studies: 1) "Occurrence of Pathogens in Distribution and Marketing Municipal Sludges" the study said, "Although the use of sludge as a soil amendment is attractive, it is not without potential health risks. Toxic chemicals, including heavy metals and industrial organics, may enter the food chain and present long-term health risks." "The plague causing bacteria Yersinia pestis was consistently found in static pile compost. CDC authorities state, "Outbreaks in people still occur in rural communities or in cities." "significant increases in bacterial populations, including salmonellae, occurred during subsequent production of commercial soil amendment products." and 2) "Trace Organics and lnorganics in Distribution and Marketing Municipal Sludges" the study said, "Efforts to characterize major unknown organic components were limited to computer comparisons of GC/MS peaks to the NBS mass spectral library. In none of the cases was a tentative identification made. Manual review of those components with a high degree of fit with an NBS library compound (>8O%) allowed probable compound class assignment for many peaks. Virtually all of the major components classified appeared to be aliphatics or carboxylic acid type compounds. A majority of the sample extracts exhibited a hydrocarbon "hump" in the ion chromatograms. The peaks reviewed, therefore, were superimposed on this background. As a result, a significant portion of the major peaks were multi-component peaks whose identities remain completely unknown.

The fact is Earle your agency has no real idea what is in the sewage water you call recycled water or the sewage sludge called biosolids your agency puts out as a safe fertilizer in Kern county and soil amendment for home lawn. So when you say that scientifically, the real level of virus removal in recycled water had been recalculated by the project designers to show a 24 log removal rate, I have to wonder?

Lets see Earle, if a 1 log reduction is 90%, and a 5 log reduction is a 99.999% reduction in viruses, how do you measure to the point that you need to add another 19 nines after the decimal point?

Hmm, you cannot culture a virus -- so what is the mathematical formula? Isn't that what you use with bacteria -- a mathematical formula -- when your industry enumerate the coliform test? Why doesn't your agency be honest and say this is a quick test for gram-negative bacteria that doesn't have to be performed in a biosafety level two laboratory? Why would your agency neglect to inform the public that ESCHERICHIA COLI, SALMONELLA, SHIGELLA, EDWARDSIELLA, CITROBACTER, KLEBSIELLA, ENTEROBACTER, SERRATIA, PROTEUS, MORGANELLA, PROVIDENCIA and YERSINIA (Black Plague) are gram-negative bacteria illuminated in the coliform test water and they are all human pathogens.

Isn't that what the gatekeeper is for, to keep that information away from the public to prevent worry and panic? Don't you tell the beach goers that coliform and entrobacter are not pathogens? Isn't that the information the politicians are given?

You say recycled water (and sludge-biosolids) is generally provided by public agencies, which don't make a profit. The real question is why bother to separate sewage effluent and sewage sludge in a hundred + million dollar treatment plant and then claim it is beneficial for the sewage to be reconstituted on farms, parks and schools yards, home lawns, etc.?

Your comment on the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul releasing drug resistant bacteria contaminated sewage effluent into the Mississippi River was interesting when you compare it to contaminated California rivers. Then you comment on the Salinas Valley contaminated spinach outbreak, "That outbreak was associated with pig feces in a local waterway and no recycled water was in use at this site." You really should read the report.

Finally, you called Frank to task for his comment on the increase in waterborne disease outbreaks and said,
"This is absolutely shocking, perhaps no more so than to the folks at the Center for Disease Control, because according to their website, "The number of outbreaks has declined over the last 20 years, probably as a result of actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), water utilities, and public health officials."

Since the EPA, USDA, FDA and CDC policy to use contaminated sewage effluents on food crops was put in effect in the 80s there has been a dramatic increase in outbreaks that have been tossed into the foodborne category.

1986 there were one to two million cases of food poisoning (Gerba) (EPA Risk Axssessment for landfilling sludge)
1990 there were about 6 million case of food poisoning
1994 there were about 33 million cases of food poisoning 9,000 deaths EPA-USDA- CDC-Report to President -From Farm to Table (1997)
1996 there were about 80 million case of food poisoning (Ralph J. Touche-Chief Sanitarian -Public Health Service
1997 there we about 81 million case of food poisoning (GAO-report)
1998 CDC estimates 360 million cases of acute diarrhea, Most from unknown source of exposure.(1987 estimate) 9,100 deaths annually.
1999 (Mead,et.al) (CDC) estimates there are only about 76 million foodborne cases annually, 325,000 Hospitalized and 5,000 deaths. CDC still uses these figures = 6.3 million illnesses per month, 27,000 people hospitalized each month, 416 dead each month.

It is clear that our health has been placed in the hands of the waste industry who can not do their job under the Clean Water Act, so there is a preceived need by the industry to put it on land exempt from the environmental laws.

After a little more research, I decided that we really
need to thank Earle Hartling for his post. You see, I got to wondering why the waste industry needed to use so much PR and why the industry needed to use so much recycled water, especially on school grounds? And what about this mandatory water rationing?

You remember Earle said,
"Those of us in water recycling welcome honest questions and respect honest concerns, and we do our best to address both because we serve the public and have no desire to adversely impact their health and well-being. If getting the facts out to the public so they can make an informed decision is “PR” then maybe we need more PR. Oh, and by the way, recycled water is generally provided at a discount to users by public agencies that don’t make a profit, so we in this industry don’t do it because we’ll “benefit economically” from it. Rather, it’s the right thing to do in a water-short region that is probably looking at permanent drought conditions. The beneficiaries of water recycling are the parks and schools that remain green for our kids to play in, industry that can remain in business to provide jobs and tax revenue for our cities, and the general population that is less likely to be subject to mandatory water rationing."

Earle, a little research shows that farmers in California already have mandatory water rationing. Not only that but, the Water Boards have restricted, or banned, the disposal of sewage effluent from treatment plants directly into California rivers to protect the fish populations, which were almost destroyed.

Shame on the waste industry for not teling the truth.
http://thewatchers.us/water_reuse.html

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.