Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Sponsors

Books

The California Push For Recycled Water is Complete With Pathogens Like E. coli

Frank's-head-shot1.gif

By Frank Pecarich
Retired Soil Scientist

It seems the more we learn about the hazards of recycled water – tertiary treated sewage effluent – the more public announcements are made about its increased use in California. I have written extensively about the use of recycled water in Monterey County to irrigate vegetables consumed raw, but news comes about a major proposed use in Sonoma County to irrigate almost 34 square miles of intensive agriculture land including grape vineyards. While there is major resistance from farmers, landowners, and residents, this behemoth project seems to just keep lumbering along, with its momentum greased by federal and state money plus the lobbying and PR efforts of the recycled water industry.

In quick review, my earlier writings have pointed out the fact that pathogens and harmful organic and inorganic chemicals can pass successfully through a tertiary treatment process. That means that they escape into the environment and are available to do damage. However up to now, the people purveying treated sewage effluent to the public have been fairly successful in obfuscating the discussion by mixing and matching scientific pieces of information and making many believe that the dangers ended at the treatment plant and the effluent is safe.

Current Water Quality Standards Are Inadequate

One of the things I have noticed is that people tend to cease to be alarmed when they are repeatedly assured that projects like the Monterey County’s Castroville Sea Water Intrusion Project (CSIP) are held to standards such as California’s Title 22 water quality standards and rules. What nobody explains is that those standards and rules are inadequate in this area.

Coliforms have been used as indicators for the presence of pathogenic microorganisms in the testing of water. In other words, if coliforms are detected in water, it is assumed that pathogenic microorganisms may also be present, and steps must be taken to protect the public health.

For many years the mere identification of coliforms was thought to be adequate for protecting the public from pathogens in drinking water. Over the past 15 or 20 years however, there has been increasing evidence that coliforms are not adequate indicators for all pathogenic microorganisms. For example, human pathogenic viruses have been detected in treated drinking water that contained no coliforms and met other drinking water standards for turbidity and free chlorine. In addition, numerous scientific studies have shown that many pathogenic microorganisms such as E. Coli 0157:H7 survive in the environment (i.e., soil, water, and air) for much longer periods of time than do the coliforms.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence that coliforms are not the best indicators of the microbiological quality of water are the data on waterborne disease outbreaks in the United States. 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. Some of the increase is undoubtedly due to improvements in reporting, but nonetheless, a significant number of waterborne disease outbreaks continue to occur every year. The World Health Organization tells us that waterborne infections account for 80% of all infectious diseases world wide and 90% of all infectious diseases in developing countries.

The World Heath Organization (WHO) put this issue in perspective when they reported in 2003 that: “Analysis of data accumulated over the 20th century has suggested that some of the microbial testing standards (e.g. heterotrophic plate count, total coliforms and thermotolerant coliforms) have little predictive value for public health purposes. It is clear from the scientific literature that previously held beliefs about water testing are now being challenged by emerging pathogens that are resistant to standard water and wastewater treatment processes. These pathogens – such as E. coli 0157:H7 -- exhibit extended survival periods in the environment, can adversely affect sensitive subpopulations, and only require extremely low doses – just a few cells -- for human infection.”

To get closer to a safer recycled water effluent it will undoubtedly be necessary to have additional advanced wastewater treatment technologies incorporated into tertiary treatment facilities than currently exist in most situations. These advanced treatment methods that provide additional barriers to pathogens include additional filtration technologies (either conventional or membrane) and water disinfection steps using ultraviolet irradiation, chemicals such as ozone, activated carbon, air stripping, chemical oxidation, or membrane technology such as reverse osmosis.

The problem with all these additional treatments that are required to make the water safer for the consumer is that they cost more money, maybe a lot more money. The water recycling industry and the people benefiting from this current practice do not want to pay more for our safety. Once we realize that recycling water if made really safe costs as much or more as other technologies such saltwater distillation, water reuse companies with all this recycled water technology could be left with a technological dinosaur.

So What’s The Problem?

So far the water recycling industry has been succeeding in fooling the general public by pointing to the California Title 22 standards and saying, “No problem here. We’re meeting State of California standards”. If they can make us believe that, 1) the requirements of California Title 22 are truly protecting our safety and; 2) they are following those Title 22 requirements and standards, what’s the problem?

So our response should be that those standards and rules are inadequate for these circumstance and the standards should be changed. But introducing new standards (metrics) into the practices of CSIP farmers and growers has been resisted, well, … like the plague. The “vegetable grower-industrial complex” has hammered on regulators and legislators to not put standards into place that would indeed measure the degree of hazard we are facing.

GAPS in the Metrics

The California growers that have been claiming that they can regulate themselves with their new organization and practices call their standards Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). After the huge financial losses this past Fall with the spinach E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak, the fresh cut industry accelerated work on a set of leafy green “Good Agricultural Practices” (GAP), now called the “GAP Metrics.” The Western Growers Association (WGA) led the coalition of industry and farm groups developing
the GAP Metrics.

In a soon-to-be-published report entitled “E. Coli O157: Preventing Outbreaks”, Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Organic Center has much to say about the deficiencies of the California growers GAP metrics. You might say that Dr. Benbrook points out some “gaps in the metrics.”

Dr. Benbrook states:

“The water testing provisions, collectively, are the most serious flaw in the GAP Metrics. The water testing provisions rely exclusively on testing for generic E. coli. While the presence of generic E. coli is an indicator of possible E. coli O157 contamination, the correlation is not strong, nor sufficiently reliable to judge a water source as safe if it meets the proposed generic E. coli standards. Not only is the basic standard governing water quality based on the wrong organism, the standard applicable to generic E. coli is also unscientific and indefensible. The standard is based on an outmoded recreational water quality risk assessment carried out by EPA in the mid-1980s.”

The GAP

Dr. Benbrook goes on to conclude:

“Clearly, new science and more thought needs to be devoted to how to set the standard for both generic E. coli and pathogenic E. coli in irrigation water. In the interim, the Metrics should be revised to require the testing of irrigation water for E. coli O157. Water with detectable levels of E. coli O157 should not be used to irrigate fresh cut leafy greens. Period.” (Emphasis added)

I couldn’t agree with him more. I have been adamant about the risk of projects like Monterey County’s recycled water project they call “Castroville Sea Water Intrusion Project (CSIP)”. Until the recycled irrigation water is regularly tested at what scientists call “point of use” (POU), the safety of leafy green consumers cannot be assured. For irrigation projects like CSIP and Sonoma County’s, that necessary testing site is not at the treatment plant, it is at the irrigation sprinkler head.

Biofilms and Bacterial Re-growth

The sprinkler is where the biofilm material will exit the irrigation system and contaminate the growing crops. Remember from my earlier articles that many of us in science are realizing just how important biofilms are in the transmission of disease. The 45 miles of buried pipeline from the sewage treatment plant in Monterey’s CSIP is a perfect repository for pathogen-containing biofilms just waiting to become dislodged from their resting place in the pipeline system to spew periodically onto the growing vegetation. In the case of lettuce and spinach eaten raw, it is like a loaded gun for the consumer.

In a recent article in the Capital Times, author Elizabeth Larson interviewed farmers who were very concerned about Sonoma County Water Agency's proposed Northern Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project that would supply tertiary treated wastewater for use in irrigation and frost protection on 21,500 acres of agricultural lands in the Alexander, Dry Creek and Russian River valley areas. The $385 million plan calls for 19 storage reservoirs and 112 miles of transmission pipelines and pump stations.

Larson interviewed farmer Richard Rued who said he uses wastewater for frost protection on one of his ranches. He said the water caused algae and weeds to grow and plug up his sprinklers. He spent a day cleaning the sprinklers and he said afterward his hands swelled up and hurt for two weeks. "I don't know what caused it, but I suspect there's something in the wastewater," he said.


Without knowing it, much of what Rued was cleaning from his sprinklers was biofilms. While it has been mostly unreported, there is the anecdotal and empirical evidence from the people working like Rued in this hazardous environment every day. Can you imagine the opportunity for pathogen biofilm buildup in Sonoma’s 112 miles of pipelines? Now that’s a profile of a potential disaster.

In a previous article I spent time describing what many now believe is the true Achilles heel of the efforts to dispose of treated sewage effluent by irrigating food crops – biofilms and bacterial re-growth. If there is anything that can get the attention to a discussion with the recycled water industry, it is the mention of “biofilms” and “bacterial re-growth”.

Many in the science world are just starting to grasp the magnitude of the role of biofilms in disease. It has been said that 85% of all infectious disease emanates from biofilms. That’s a powerful source of misery that needs to be understood. Oh, that plaque on our teeth they clean off periodically to prevent tooth decay? Yup, it’s biofilm.


As we have found, these colonies of bacteria are living groups of organisms that have collectively built a system of protection that includes inter-cell communication, food transport and defense barriers systems. A biofilm consists of about 15% bacteria and 85% nutrient for food used by the colony. These wily organisms have their own nutrient storage system. What could be better for them than to be inside a pipeline nutrient-enriched with concentrations of their food -- nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia and organic matter? That pipeline description nicely fits the environment of a wastewater distribution pipeline like that in the Monterey County CSIP and the proposed Northern Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project with its 112 miles of pipeline.

For a wonderful description of biofilms I recommend that you read Dr. Bill Costerton’s “BioFilms . . . A Growing Problem”.

And for a graphic depiction of the pathogen environment in a pipeline, take a look at this.

The biofilm life cycle consists of three steps: attachment, growth of colonies, swarming phenomenon and detachment in clumps or "seeding dispersal." For a visual, take a look at this.

Biofilm bacteria can move in a pipeline numerous ways: Collectively, by rippling or rolling across the surface, or by detaching in clumps or individually, through a "swarming and seeding" dispersal. This is an illustration of how that happens.

I have written that the subject of bacterial re-growth in pipeline distribution systems still baffles the water reuse industry as they desperately and quietly try to find a solution to the problem their recycled water systems have helped create. Dr. A.K. Camper at Montana State University has published research that says that biofilm bacteria require organic carbon in order to metabolize and grow. In research reported by her in 2004 she said Biodegradable Organic Carbon (BDOC) and Assimilable Organic Carbon (AOC) tests are commonly used to measure the organic carbon concentration in water distribution systems. Her research found that the BDOC and AOC tests may greatly underestimate the amount of carbon available for biofilm growth and resultantly their potency in a pipeline. This means that another set of tests upon which water treatment professional rely could be invalid.

We are surrounding by mountains of evidence that a deadly situation exists of our own making and yet so far, little has been done to rectify the situation. It would appear that not enough people have been sickened and died to force the taking of appropriate actions to protect the health of US citizens.


Frank Pecarich retired from the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the US Bureau of Reclamation in 1987. During his 26 year federal career he worked as a soil scientist with the USDA on the now- published Soil Survey for Monterey County. He lives in Ventura County.

Related articles that have been published by the California Progress Report by Mr. Pecarich can be found under the topic of Food Safety . http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/food_safety/index.html

Posted on June 11, 2007

Comments


I agree with Mr. Pecarich. Suppliers of water in San Diego have been forced by the Federal Government to build a secondary treatment facility to stop the dumping of sewage into the Pacific. Water District authorities hate to see the treated water 'wasted' - so they spent millions on 'recyled' water projects, beginning with a failed effort to purify water using water hyacinths. Next up was a 100M plus repurification facility whose product was to be dumped into city resovoirs at a 50-50 ratio. Public input had been limited to exclusive 'lunch' meetings hosted by the water district.

Then Assemblymn Howard Wayne finally held a noticed hearing on the subject on a rainy Tuesday in December. Over 800 angry citizens showed up to denounce the plan. Mayor Golding shelved it that week.

But behind closed doors, the plot continued. A new, huge contract was given a favorite PR firm to sell the idea. More lunch meetings were held. But Mayor Sanders - like Golding before him - shelved the project once again.

In the 1997 hearing, experts testified that (1)
to make the water safe required a train that would make this the costliest water in America; and, (2)
there was still doubt about the removal of all virus given the high density of virus in secondary treated water.

But behind closed doors, all California water districts have reclying plans...

Posted by: william cavala at June 11, 2007 08:03 AM

William, your facts are a bit off. The 1997 water repurification project was shelved largely because of environmental justice concerns, not costs. Essentially, the public was led to believe that "rich" folks' sewage from north of I-8 would be treated and combined with raw water, then served to the "poor" folks south of I-8. The political death of this prior project was not properly rooted in science or economics. The current resurrection of "Reservoir Augmentation" reflects the fact that we have more than 400mgd of treated sewage already discharged in the Colorado, SD's primary water source. Further, the advanced treatment that would be afforded the tertiary treated sewage before being combined with the raw water would render it significantly cleaner than virtually any current SD source of raw water. At the end of the day, Title 22 treated ag and other irrigation uses are a waste of time and money. We should be treating it all to drinking water standards, as everyone knows we will be doing in a matter of years.

Posted by: Marco Gonzalez at June 11, 2007 01:06 PM

If Frank ever believed in the advanced treatment technology, he should not be still living in his '80 where people died because of untreated water.

I am not sure the author had a good understanding of current water situation in California.

After reading his article, it sounds to me, oh please don't drive in California, since there's no adequate prove of road safety in the freeway. Accident happened every mintues. The laws had already provided all the "basic" protections for the driver in the road (don't everyone think too many regulations?). If there's a car accident, like a water-borne outbreak, can you ever blame the law/regulation did not protect you?

Posted by: Bob Cunningham at June 11, 2007 02:38 PM

My concern is the Title 22 treatment requirements for recycled water. These requirements are primarily based on the Pomona Virus Study, which was conducted in the mid-1970s and has never been updated. There is a vast difference in the sensitivity of pathogen detection methodology of the 1970s and the methodology used today. It would benefit all concerned to update the Pomona study.

Posted by: Richard Carlson at June 12, 2007 11:22 AM

After attending a water conference in Monterey, in 2005, I alerted everone that I could talk to about the fact that the plan was to recycle water in Monterey County. That we were told that it was already happening in parts of Southern CA. Recycled water is contaminated water mixed with clean water. Recycled water includes sewer water. I am very glad that there are others who know that this is a very bad idea, for any County and it's residents. Why not give individuals the ability to recycle their own water, if that is what they want to do. Especially those who came up with the idea.

Posted by: LeVonne Stone at June 12, 2007 07:49 PM

Actually, Frank, as someone who has spent the last couple of decades working with wastewater treatment and recycled water, I can say we are surrounded by a mountain of evidence that indicates that water recycling is safe, not a "deadly situation". Several health effect studies on indirect potable reuse showed no increase incidents of cancer, gastrointestinal disease or adverse birth outcomes. An agricultural study in Monterey found no pathogenic bacteria or virus of any sort on produce irrigated with recycled water. None of the 8 tertiary plants that my agency in LA runs has ever detected E. coli or fecal coliform in the years we've been testing for them (not just total coliform). Over the past 28 years, we've only detected two virus in over 1.5 million liters of recycled water (you'd have to drink 2 liters of recycled water a day for just over 1 millenia to be exposed to a single virus) and we continue to lead the industry in refining the analytical techniques for finding virus (Richard, as a former Health Department official, you should know this). Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts are not found to be infective after treatment, and live animal tests at Tufts University confirmed this. Tertiary treated recycled water consistently meets State and Federal drinking water standards for metals, organics, minerals, pesticide, radioactivity, etc. And the list goes on and on and on.

Dr. Shirley Fannon of the LA County Health Department once asked why the emergency rooms and hospitals were not filled with sick people if the recycled water, used throughout southern California, was as bad as people like Mr. Pecarich are claiming. The reason is, it simply is not. His claims of increased waterborne disease in the US are unfounded and are in no way linked to the use of recycled water, and throwing in illness in Third World countries only muddies the waters, so to speak. Apparently guilt by association is the only scientific evidence necessary.

Furthermore, his rationale regading "biofilms" and pathogens is scientifically flawed. Biofilms grow in all water system pipelines, potable or recycled. We do not live in an antiseptic environment, and opportunistic bacteria are everywhere. They do not cause disease and outcompete (and even eat) any pathogenic bacteria, which need a host organism to survive. They do NOT regrow in the distribution system.

Mr. Pecarich is right about your teeth; millions of non-disease causing bacteria live in every single persons mouth, on every inch of their skin and throughout their gastrointestinal system. And yet we survive.

It is irresponsible for the author to insinuate that there is some kind of big-money cabal behind the water recycling industry, like Big Oil. The fact is, it is not a big money making scheme, it's just a lot of dedicated professionals that see a resource being wasted in a region that is experiencing too much population growth and too much shrinkage in water supply. Look at the news throughout California lately: Delta pumps being shut down, snowpack in the Sierras at two-thirds of normal, historic low rainfall in Los Angeles, Lake Mendicino at historic low levels, Lake Mead and Lake Powell at 50%, Western US in grip of historic drought, talk of water rationing. By all means, let's not use a perfectly safe local water resource.

While seawater desalination is certainly one option, it is by no means perfect. The intakes destroy significant amounts of marine life, and it takes a huge amount of energy to operate. Can you say greenhouse gas?

And one last word for LeVonne. ALL WATER IS RECYCLED! There is no new water, every drop we have on this planet has gone through all the organisms that have ever lived. Water gets dirty, then it gets clean, then it gets used again, over and over and over. Tertiary recycled water contains water, not sewage, and it's a resource, not a waste.

Posted by: Earle Hartling at June 13, 2007 11:13 AM


Comments
When you are the one with the compromised immune system and sick with something your doctors cannot figure out, you will no longer want to risk ANY possibility of a biofilm contamination. I have a disease that affects less than 10,000 people in the world. Do you think I want to take ANY chances!!! Even if the odds are that you would have to drink 2 liters for a millenium- with odds like I have, I would get sick..................
I am convinced that what I have been struggling with over the last two years (on top of a rare disease) has to do with biofilms that my body was never strong enough to protect me from.

Posted by: Linda at June 14, 2007 04:12 AM

Earle:

You seem to not have read what I wrote. Just because the municipal sewage and water treatment facilities don't use tests that depict the pathogens accurately is not reason for you -- or them --to believe that there are no pathogens. Most of your comments tell me that you didn't read my article carefully nor is there any evidence that you know what you are reading. You need to use the URL's in my article above -- they're in blue -- and study. It might help if you used a library or even the Internet to apprise yourself of the facts.

For those of you who want to read more about the dangers of biofilms in the popular press, read this LA Times article published on June 11, 2007 entitled "Biofilms -- slimy layers of bacteria that antibiotics don't fully kill -- are found in hospitals, kitchens, even your mouth. Scientists are on the attack."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-biofilms11jun11,1,7329934.story?coll=la-headlines-health

Posted by: Frank Pecarich at June 14, 2007 01:53 PM

Frank,

Apparently, you didn't bother to read my posting, as you avoided addressing any of the issues I brought up, but went directly to a personal attack. I did go back and look at your previous posting and, although I like to think I'm special, you also engaged in personal invectives against anyone who disagreed with you. I've learned from experience that anyone who stoops to this level really doesn't have much of a case to begin with, so I'm pretty sure I'm on the right side of this issue. Oh, and by the way, the URL you cited for the study in Minnesota doesn't specify the level of treatment (clarification and disinfection could be referring to primary treatment only), so comparing their results to tertiary effluent is disingenuous.

Posted by: Earle Hartling at June 14, 2007 04:06 PM

When I am confronted by a poster like Earle Hartling who seems not to be aware of the current scientific literature and attempts to dissemble and discredit the work of the scientific community, I try to find out about the poster’s background. I did this with Earle.

According to information on the Internet, Earle Hartling, is employed as “Water Recycling Coordinator” for the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, and also was a member of the California 2002 Recycling Water Taskforce. In the descriptive information for the Task Force they identified Earle as a “Recycled Water Wholesaler”. Also in that group was the president of the California Section of the WateReuse Association and Keith Israel who is the manger of the Monterey County organization responsible for putting tertiary treated recycled water on the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) 12,000 acres which grows leafy green vegetables such as spinach and lettuce.

California AB 331 was the legislation that established the Recycling Water Task Force. Interestingly, AB 331 was sponsored by the WateReuse Association (the lobbying arm of recycled water producers). Earle is also a prominent member of the California WateReuse Association.

I recall this task force group not only for it’s high number of members from vested interests in the recycled water industry but for some notorious, notable and public dissension within the group about some water safety concerns that were said to be unaddressed in the final report.

The report issued by this task force was highly controversial as it appeared to be the handiwork of the water reuse industry and conveniently left out important public safety factors and concerns. This position is expressed in an opinion article which appeared in the Sacramento Bee on April 7, 2003 written by Dr. Ralph E. Shatter and R. William Robinson.
http://www.keys-group.com/billrob/articles/toilet_to_tap_lets_not_get_hasty.pdf

In this article, the authors state “We predict that, under pressure from sanitation districts and the waste water reuse industry, and with support from a wide array of business interests that would benefit, panel chairman Richard Katz will recommend in his report that California maximize reusing water. There are ominous signs.”

Further, they said, “The task force has not released any of the periodic ‘white papers’ that it promised the public, but it has issued 13 ‘top recommendations’ — none of which emphasize protecting the public from health problems that might result from introducing toxics into the state's drinking water. Instead, the recommendations read like a waste water lobbyist's wish list.”

The authors go on to say, “The coziness of a taxpayer-subsidized panel with a private organization whose purpose is to increase the amount of water available for distribution raises serious questions about the state's commitment to protecting citizens' health.”

There are other citations available on the Internet which indicate that some task force members believed that politics and the special interests of the recycling water industry were involved in the recommendations for the policy of water recycling for California. http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/docs/042803WilliamRobinson.pdf

Earle asks about the test site used by Dr. Timothy LaPara which I cited in an earlier article and whether it was a significant water treatment facility. Dr. LaPara used the St. Paul, Minnesota municipal wastewater treatment facility which is the largest treatment facility in Minnesota. This facility treats 180 million gallons of sewage a day. In a Fall, 2006 article in the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs publication – CURA – Dr. Timothy LaPara of the University Of Minnesota describes in detail the study and his concerns. LaPara points out that the St. Paul wastewater treatment facility wins awards regularly for it’s operational excellence and yet is failing to produce fully disinfected sewage effluent at the jeopardy of the citizens. In other words, by every measure, St. Paul’s treatment standards should be of the highest order and yet it isn’t.

Dr. LaPara pointed out that even operating at it’s highest level of disinfection and treatment capability, that the St. Paul facility “still released 10 trillion tetracycline-resistant bacteria each day from this treatment facility into our waterways.” Dr. LaPara makes the important point that even with what seems to be impressive pathogen “kill” statistics – 99.97% in the best results for the St. Paul facility – the immense volume of pathogens entering the facility results in that .03% non-kill number being 10 trillion tetracycline-resistant bacteria released every day, an obvious danger to humans.

Before we leave this issue I would like to point out a couple of quotes made by Earle Hartling easily found on the Internet. The first is a statement that would imply that foolish decisions would get made if the pressure was on the public frightened by an impending drought : “(Public reluctance to drink recycled water) will all blow over during the next drought," predicted Earle C. Hartling, water reuse coordinator for the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. http://www.mwdh2o.com/Aqueduct/march2001/reuse.htm

The second quote is is similar to those I have heard all too often in some non sequitur comment such as "All water is recycled -it's all dinosaur pee," said Earle Hartling. "All the water we have now is all the water we've ever had, every drop of water has gone through some animal's kidney, or thousands of animals." As I pointed out in the May/June, 2007 issue of the Journal of Onsite Water Treatment:

“One of the things some people say is that all water is recycled. This is true. The problem is, though, that it wasn’t going through a tertiary treatment plant, but Mother Nature’s system. The water we drink is filtered through the soil profile. “When you replace that with tertiary treatment you’re not replacing the water cycle; you’re just short-circuiting or short-cutting it and leaving out a tremendous bacteria-cleansing mechanism of the soil and the profiles of materials it must go through before it reaches the aquifer. There has been great success in getting recycled water to flow through bogs, marshes, and particularly sand to get fairly clean water, in effect letting the whole world of biology go to work for you.” http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/ow_0705_as.html

As I said to Earle in my first response to him, he needs to read the scientific literature more often.

Posted by: Frank Pecarich at June 19, 2007 11:04 AM

hi man wats up love u all bros

Posted by: rebecca dillon at June 20, 2007 09:24 PM

Posted by: fake watches at June 23, 2009 12:19 AM

Posted by: replica watches at July 26, 2009 08:11 PM

Posted by: replicawatches at July 26, 2009 08:18 PM

Posted by: rolex watches[ at September 22, 2009 12:57 AM

Posted by: rolex watches[ at September 22, 2009 01:00 AM

Posted by: rolex watches[ at September 22, 2009 01:04 AM

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.

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker