Saturday, March 31, 2012

DEALING WITH NITRATES IN DRINKING WATER SOURCES

In the United States, strict limits have been adopted on the permissible level of nitrates in finished water provided by public water supplies. These limits were developed particularly out of concern for infants who may be vulnerable to higher nitrate levels in drinking water.

Nitrates in ground water and surface water tend to be associated with agricultural areas where chemical fertilizers and animal manure appear to be the primary cause.

In March, 2012 the University of California at Davis released a study which allegedly found that nitrate contamination of ground water is pervasive in certain agricultural communities, where some wells have exceeded the standard. According to the study, nitrate leaching from agricultural land has caused 96% of current ground water contamination.

Nitrate impacts on surface waters such as rivers can occur from storm water farm run-off and from farm drain tiles, particularly in significant Spring rain events.

To deal with elevated nitrate levels in source waters, utilities may face complex challenges and resulting costs...costs that will have to be recovered from their customers. Installing effective treatment facilities particularly may be expensive for smaller water systems. Seeking alternative ground water supplies may not be feasible if nitrates have spread in an aquifer.

One midwest water utility which uses river water as its source of supply found that nitrate levels in the river exceeded the standard primarily only during Spring rain periods. So, it acquired an nearby empty gravel quarry to store river water during low nitrate periods, which then is blended with higher nitrate Spring river water to achieve compliance with the standard.

The same midwest utility also became proactive to work with the farm community to educate as to the impacts of over-fertilization of crop land. Through such an organizing effort, farmers began to understand not only such impacts but also the potential savings from reducing the types or quantities of fertilizer applications.

Along the same lines, a California trade group representing fertilizer manufacturers and retailers has stated that the California Department of Food and Agriculture has developed "best management practices" to mitigate nitrate contribution from fertilizer by optimizing fertilizer usage, matching nutrient supply with crop requirements to minimize nutrient losses. Such practices now may include split application of fertilizer based soil and plant testing and use of sensors for more precise nitrogen management.

So, it appears that parties concerned with both potential causes and effects of nitrate levels in drinking water sources are trying to deal with the issue.

Friday, March 23, 2012

CRUISING DOWN THE ALIMENTARY CANAL

Ater reading the story, I did not know if I had entered the twilight zone or if I had become a passenger with Captain Kirk on the Starship Enterprise.

The story told of a new project in England to develop a stand alone device within a house that will turn human waste into drinking water and hydrogen energy to generate electricity. If the development is successful, researchers believe the device could be useful in both developing and developed countries. Indeed, one researcher is quoted as saying: "In the future, we may see homes in the UK generating their own clean water, energy and fertilizer simply by doing what comes naturally to us all once or twice day."

One can speculate that there may be several issues to be resolved. For example, how will the system work in the event that occupants of a house suffer from constipation? Will the residents thirst for water or sit in the dark, much as when a windmill stops churning without wind? Will dog walkers eagerly scoop and run home to throw collections into the hopper? Will water, wastewater and electric utilities close their doors for want of users?

I am still trying to get used to the new types of toilets dictated by the federal government that flush like an erupting volcano. I wonder if the federal government also will exert jurisdiction over these new devices and their source material. Regardless, maybe those ancient alchemists had the right idea after all...only the wrong stuff.

Friday, March 16, 2012

ON WISCONSIN...OFF DISINFECTION

As discussed in a prior post, one of the most important advances in public water supply was implementation of treatment with chlorination. Adopted by utilities in early 20th century, disinfection of water ended typhoid fever as a serious concern in this country. (See "Safe Drinking Water: A Beginning", Water Lawg, January 12, 2010)

So, I was surprised to learn recently that some 60 communities in Wisconsin allegedly do not disinfect their public water supply, whether by chlorination or by any alternative methodology. Apparently, the state legislature repealed any disinfection requirement, asserting that it was an unnecessary financial and administrative burden.

Pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, USEPA has adopted Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for several categories of microorganisms. Public Water Supplies must comply with MCLs for all water delivered to users. USEPA states that "there is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants." (See water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm)

In apparent contrast to Wisconsin, Illinois regulations require disinfection treatment with chlorine or other protocol approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Illinois also requires chlorination before finished water enters the distribution system sufficient to maintain a specified chlorine residual in the distribution mains.

Bacteria and viruses can enter a public water supply from either surface water supplies or ground water wells. They also can enter through defects in mains or even as a result of unprotected back flows. Regardless whether disinfection is a regulatory requirement, a public water supply still must comply with MCLs for bacteria, viruses and other contaminants. A utility electing to not provide disinfection treatment may also want assure that it has adequate insurance coverage.

Friday, March 9, 2012

WHO OWNS WATER?

A recent decision of the Texas Supreme Court is thought provoking. In that state, withdrawal of ground water is subject to permitting regulation by an Aquifer Authority. Certain landowners applied for a permit to withdraw from wells a quantity of ground water to be used for irrigation purposes. The Authority denied a permit based upon historic use, and the landowners went to court.

On appeal from lower courts, the Supreme Court first reviewed the law regarding ownership of oil and gas in place under a landowner's property:

"in our state the landowner is regarded as having absolute title in severalty to the oil and gas in place beneath his land. The only qualification of that rule of ownership is that it must be considered in connection with the law of capture and is subject to police regulations. The oil and gas beneath the soil are considered a part of the realty. Each owner of land owns separately, distinctly and exclusively all the oil and gas under his land and is accorded the usual remedies against trespassers who appropriate the minerals or destroy their market value."

The Court then held that the law regarding ownership of oil and gas "states the common law regarding the ownership of ground water in place."

Having determined that the landowners own the ground water below their land, the Court then addressed the question whether denial of the requested permit to withdraw that water was a violation of the Texas constitution. The Court decided that landowners have a constitutionally compensable interest in groundwater in place. "We decide in this case whether land ownership includes an interest in ground water in place that cannot be taken for public use without compensation guaranteed by article I, section 17 (a) of the Texas Constitution. We hold that it does."

The Authority asserted "that if its ground water regulation can result in a compensable taking, the consequences will be nothing short of disastrous." It expressed concern that the financial burden of taking claims could make regulation impossible. The Court responded: "We cannot know, of course, the extent to which the Authority's fears will yet materialize, but the burden of the Taking Clause on government is no reason to excuse its applicability." (Edwards Aquifer Authority and the State of Texas v. Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel, Texas Supreme Court, No. 08-0964, 2012)

One should bear in mind that some states may not accept the notion that ground water in place is owned by the land owner. Instead, some states may have adopted the concept that a land owner simply has reasonable use of such ground water, again subject to regulation. Also, another court might decide that denial of a permit would be arbitrary or contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, without reaching a constitutional issue. When a regulation may violate a constitutional right can be a complicated issue and will be discussed more generally in a future post.