Monday, May 28, 2012

A JOB "WELL" DONE?

A couple of recent stories concerning privately-owned water wells caught my attention. Probably millions of homes and commercial entities receive their water from individual wells of various depths and water qualities.

In May, 2012, the National Ground Water Association (NGWA) issued a caution that owners of private water wells should have their water tested annually for bacteria, nitrates and other contaminants of "local concern". NGWA cited as an example where some bedrock wells in Massachusetts contain naturally-occuring arsenic and uranium.

Also in May of this year, it was reported that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted a study of public, private and monitoring wells for presence of trace elements ("Trace-Elements and Radon in Groundwater Across the United States, 1992-2003"). The USGS research found that approximately 20% of the raw water from the wells contained at least one trace element, such as arsenic, uranium and manganese, at levels considered to be a potential health concern. The study also found that radon exceeded the proposed EPA MCL in 65% of the wells tested. In about 10% of the wells, two or more trace elements were found which exceeded health benchmarks and, in combination, could enhance the toxicity of the water.

Private well testing should be performed by a certified drinking water testing laboratory. Experience teaches that testing for some trace elements and contaminants may be expensive due to the procedures and equipment required, and not all laboratories may be willing to test residential samples. Laboratories will have appropriate procedures for the gathering of samples. Filling a washed mayo or jelly jar will not do it.

It would seem that potential types of contaminants can be locality-based, such as the example referenced in Massachusetts, or iron, manganese and radium found in parts of Illinois, or nitrates found in farming areas.

What if undesired contamination is found in a test and verified by follow-up tests? Generally, some form of treatment of the raw water may be available, such as disinfection for bacteria and reverse osmosis or anion or cation exchange for trace elements.

Well testing, and doing something about adverse results, generally is a personal choice. Not every well owner will be able to boast of a "job well done."

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

CHIPS OFF THE OLD BLOCK

Recently, I read that a city in Washington has paved sidewalks with a concrete mix containing crushed toilets. The city calls the mix "Poticrete." The toilets were repurposed from retrofitted residential housing authority buildings.*

The story provoked my thinking about toilets. For example, why are almost all toilets white? Most cars today are said to be white because they are more readily seen. Dinnerware frequently is white to better show off food. So, why are toilets white? Of course, in the 60s and 70s, toilets often came in colors, such as blue, yellow and brown-what were they intended to show?

Toilets can differ in ways other than color. An outhouse has only a cutout in a board, crawling with spiders and other varmints. In Europe, they seem to have devices where one cannot find the flush handle. In Russia, the toilet can be only a hole in the floor surrounded by dazzling mosaic tiles. In the United States, modern toilets seem more like hungry shop vacs.

Something I have pondered for years: why are rooms with toilets called "restrooms?" Does anyone actually go to a restroom to rest? I did work one summer as a student for a company where some employees often went to a restroom to sleep in a stall to avoid working. Increased incidents of hemorrhoids were reported.

In Europe, restrooms often are called "water closets." But, they are not closets at all, and toilets are rarely found in closets. There was one exception, We once stayed in an apartment in a central European city, where the toilet was in a tiny closet--a fact which I discovered when I inadvertently opened the closet door to hang a coat on the nose of the occupant.

Why are toilets called toilets? Why are they sometimes called "stools?" Webster's dictionary provides a definition of "stool" as "a seat used as a symbol of office or authority." There may be a political meaning somewhere in that.

Another perplexing thing is toilet water. We flush toilets to dispose of toilet water. But when we call it "eau de toilette" we pour it on our bodies.

Old toilets may become remnants of civilization's history. Long in the future, archaeologists may be studying pieces of concrete with chips of toilet--like fossils of early, extinct life--trying to figure out what devices called toilets were. Maybe they were some sort of calendars, or storage vessels or cooking implements, they may speculate. Or, maybe they simply were the thrones of great leaders.
___________________________________________________________
*(Water Environment & Technology magazine, May, 2012, P.31)

Monday, May 14, 2012

IS TALK MORE VALUED THAN WATER?

Last week, there was a news report that more people in the world have cell phones than have running water or electricity. Since last week also was "National Drinking Water Week", I got to thinking about this situation.

Does it mean that people believe communication is more important than drinking water? Without electricity, how do people recharge their cell phone batteries? Are people more willing to accept charges for cell phones than costs to obtain or maintain water?

Another report announced that in 2010, there were 670 million cell phones in India, but only 366 million people had access to private toilets, leaving 665 million people without such access.

However, another report states that approximately 880,000 British every year have accidents involving cell phones falling into toilets. Apparently, the problem does not dampen usage, although it may increase sales of new devices. Also apparently, social media has replaced newspapers and catalogs as bathroom procedure. Ever wonder where the next tweet or e-mail you receive originates?

Maybe, communication and water can be combined. I found one provider that makes available to cell phone users the download of a running water ringtone. Calls then would make quite a splash. In my freshman college year, my room was at the top of a five story walk-up. We communicated to residents on the first floor by tapping a form of morse code on the hot water radiator pipes--much to the aggravation of the second, third and fourth floors.

My mind wandered further. I pictured a person having no running water, but having a need to both communicate and to seek personal relief, going to an outhouse with a cell phone. What happens if the cell phone accidentally slips from fingers and falls into the abyss? Does one attempt to retrieve it? What happens if the cell phone then rings with that delightful running water ringtone? Would that constitute as a call of nature?

Monday, May 7, 2012

IS "VALUE" OF WATER RELEVANT TO RATES?

Recently, I read an article which asserts that whether a water utility charges sufficient rates depends upon the perceived "value" of the water service it provides. The article submits that the ability to raise rates to provide revenue requirements for infrastructure improvements depends upon customer acknowledgement of the "value" of water. It added that the starting point for water utilities to achieve approval for rate increases is for utilities and their customers to understand the full "value" of water, and the need for customers to pay for this value.

However, contrary to these assertions, the so-called "value" of water has nothing to do with well-established rate-maaking principles. As enunciated in many court decisions and statutes, and echoed in the American Water Works Association rate-making manuals, the only proper basis for setting reasonable rates for water service is cost of service.

Reliance on the "value" of water service to justify rates is misguided and can deliver a wrong message to customers. First, "value" in this setting is a subjective term, and can mean different things to different water users. Indeed, as I wrote in my previous posting, who remembers, and therefore values, the water that flows from a faucet? People appear to value water only after it stops flowing.

Second, setting of rates based on recovery of costs of service necessarily requires objective numbers. Subjective opinion of "value" is incapable of quantification and does not advance establishment of revenue requirements.

Third, that water is essential for life, public health and safety, and is useful for production of food and products, is not in dispute. However, that rates must be increased from time to time to fund operating expenses, depreciation, debt service and reserves--all of which are costs of service--also is not in dispute.

Customers will understand that rates for water service must recover the costs to provide that service, with adequate communication to those customers. There is no reason to interject amorphous concepts of "value" in the rate-making equation to confuse both utilities and their customers. Instead, utilities should perform frequent reviews of the adequacy of their rates, and have the courage to increase rates when needed instead of trying to appease customers by deferring needed maintenance or infrastructure upgrades to avoid rate adjustments.

The fact is that the "value" of safe and adequate water service depends upon ongoing recovery of all costs of service, not upon philosophical verbiage about "value."