IS "OLD" WATER SUBJECT TO "NEW" CONTAMINATION?

According to a recent report, "ancient" deep groundwater is becoming contaminated.* Scientists tested approximately 6,500 wells world wide with the objective of determining which reached deep "old" water formed more than 1,200 years using radioactive carbon decay dating. They concluded that more than half of wells more than 250 meters (820 feet) deep produced mostly "old" groundwater.

However, more than one-half of the "fossil" groundwater wells showed elevated levels of tritium, said to be a radioactive isotope of hydrogen resulting from nuclear bomb testing. This finding suggested that some of the water in these wells originated after the nuclear tests in the 1950s decade.

The researchers concluded that "younger" water containing contaminates could mix with "old" water in an aquifer or a well itself could mix the waters. Thus, "old" water could become polluted by "young" water, essentially bridging "generation gaps".

What this report appears to suggest is that recharging of even deeper aquifers can introduce contaminates into those waters. In other words, deep waters are not necessarily immune from the polluted impacts of surface waters, shallow ground waters and earth excations.

Age may have its privileges, but it also may have its consequences.

______________________________________________

*Sumner,"Pollution Reaches Old Groundwater,"
Science News, May 27,2017, p.12

© Daniel J. Kucera 2017

LIFE CAN BE A GAS

It seems that everything on Earth is to be blamed for causing alleged climate change, except for the Earth itself. The latest culprits? Birdbaths, small ponds and cows.

According to a recent report, small ponds are a significant contributor of methane gas and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.* In fact, a study found that small ponds produced a disproportionate greater amount of these emissions than large ponds and lakes. These higher amounts of gases are said to result from the higher amounts of carbon sediment, such as leaves and droppings, in small ponds together with their shallow nature.

Perhaps, this discovery suggests that EPA should regulate all small ponds and even birdbaths to mitigate climate change. After all, birdbaths can accumulate leaf litter, seeds and bird debris of all sorts, surely contributing to global warming gases.

Another report asserts that cows are responsible for 26% of U.S. methane emissions, an amount almost equal to the 29% produced by vehicles and the oil and gas industries.** A mid-sized cow produces about 150 kilograms of methane per year, and the U.S. has about 98 million cows roaming around. Do the math.

The bovine methane machine results from the unique ruminant digestion system, featuring a mult-chambered stomach housing unique microorganism activity, including methanogens which create methane. It appears that cow methane is released primarily by burps, followed in lesser degrees by cow patties (manure) and flatulence. Cow manure produces 10% of U.S. methane emissions.

Scientists are trying to reduce cow emissions by altering cow diet and breeding cleaner cows through genetic engineering and other experiments.

A related development has been to use cow manure to produce electricity by means of anaerobic digesters to capture methane gas. The gas then is burned to generate electricity or is cleaned, pressurized and transported into natural gas pipelines. However, interest by farmers in such manure-to-energy technology has declined for economic reasons.

What is the solution to these methane producers? Fill in all small ponds, prohibit birdbaths and raise cattle only at power plants, so that burps and patties can be fed directly into generators? All of this cries out for more federal grants.

At any rate, puddles have become muddles. And, as Groucho Marx said in "Duck Soup", "I could dance with you till the cows come home. Better still, I'll dance with the cows and you come home."

________________________________________________

*Shelton, "Small Ponds Produce An Outsized Share
Of Greenhouse Gases," Yale News, February 1, 2016

**Beil, "Greener Cows," Science News, November 28,
2015, p. 22

***Kesmodel, "Bull Market Fades For Manure Power,"
Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2016, p. B1

GONE! WHAT HAPPENED TO SANTA CLAUS?

BREAKING NEWS.....Dateline December 25, 2050

Officials announced today the climate change agreement of all nations to ban Santa Claus from the Earth.

Under the agreement, authorities also have closed down Santa's workshop, seized his sleigh, and deported his reindeer from the North Pole to Finland.

Reached for comment, Santa declined comment on advice of his attorney. Mrs. Claus was quoted as exclaiming "What am I going to do? That old man now is going to be hanging around the house all day." One of Santa's elves, an officer of the Elves Union (EU) who asked not to be identified, said "We elves are now are unemployed and are in shock. We are short but have a long history. We will review our options."

Prior to 2015 and Climate Change Agreement I, carbon was pervasive. When Santa Claus made his rounds of houses, he came down the chimney with clothes all tarnished in ashes and soot. After the 2015 agreement, which banned carbon, Santa was able to come down chimneys free of pollutants.

Now, 35 years later, international governmental leaders have adopted Climate Change Agreement II to resolve additional issues with Santa Claus. Scientists have determined that, as Santa travels around the world, his reindeer produce excessive methane from belching and pooping, resulting in increases global warming. It is estimated that by the year 2100, the reindeer will have caused an increase in earth temperature of 0.01 degrees, unless remedial action is taken.

Even more serious, officials state, is that Santa's reindeer are leaving their chips and pies (poop) on top of mandatory rooftop solar panels of homes he visits. These deposits then block the production of electricity for the homes. Since there no longer is an electric grid or natural gas service, the result is that homes are without electricity for heating, cooking and lighting.

Therefore, government leaders concluded, it was necessary to ban Santa Claus in order to save the Earth.

For those who embrace the tradition of Christmas gift giving, governments are providing alternatives to Santa Claus. In the United States, the Affordable Gift Act was enacted, which provides for regional gift centers operated by government agency staff. Children will be able to select gifts from the centers, The centers will be funded by cash donations from adults, who then will receive tax credits as their gifts. Adults who decline to fund gift centers will pay an income tax penalty surcharge.

Authorities commented that under the terms of the Affordable Gift Act, the public will not miss Santa Claus at all, and the environment will be saved. "Those who once believed in Santa Claus can now happily believe only in government," one said.

One official was heard to say to an inquisitive little girl, "Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus."

WILL THE RIVERS CLAP THEIR HANDS?

Rivers are a primary source of supply for many water utility systems. Such utilities are responsible to treat river water in compliance with applicable safe drinking water regulations. As rivers and their tributaries meander through agricultural land, they are susceptible to farm field soil erosion and fertilizer runoff. Perhaps the most troublesome constituents of such runoff are the nitrates. In the United States, there are strict limits on the permitted levels of nitrates in drinking water, which impose in many cases costly treatment protocols.

For example, in its 2014 annual report, the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that agricultural related nitrate pollution is a growing threat to the state's drinking water from all sources. The report states: "Roughly half of Minnesota's land is in agricultural production, primarily in the southern and western parts of the state. Up to 20 million acres of Minnesota is in row crop production annually. Row crops, which include corn, soybeans, sugar beets, and potatoes, are a major contributor to Minnesota's economy. However, since soils in row-crop production can lose nitrate during the non-growing season, these lands are the biggest influence on Minnesota's ground and surface water nitrate levels." (p.7)

Farm soil erosion is another issue for rivers. According to a published report, to mitigate erosion, farmers are switching to no till farming, a practice of planting crops without tillage of the soil. Stubble from prior crops is left on the ground. The new crop is planted by drilling seed into the soil without disturbing the ground by tilling. Accordingly, this practice tends to hold soil in place.*

So, could no till farming be the answer for both erosion and runoff control? Maybe not, according to another published report. It states that researchers have found that fields managed by conventional and turbo-tillage practices can produce lower concentrations of pollutants in runoff than those managed by no till practices.**

Maybe further research will conclude that both new seed and fertilizer could be drilled into the soil, leaving the surface otherwise undisturbed. This approach, of course, could cause increased costs for agricultural interests. But it also could assign costs to the cost causers and reduce treatment costs for utilities and their customers. Perhaps, an alternative approach could be no till practices for erosion control and more modest and efficient application of fertilizers. Whatever, with further research, maybe some day rivers will have less concern over erosion and runoff, and will clap their hands.

______________________________________________

*Lutey, Billings Gazette, republished in
Rapid City Journal, April 27,2015,p.A8

**Environmental Science & Technology,
November 20, 2012

CAN POLLUTION NOT BE POLLUTION?

Some times, court decisions can be difficult to understand and explain. For example, recently an appellate court in essence held that pollution is not pollution.

Neighbors of a hog confinement facility sued the operators of the facility and owners of land on which hog manure was applied. Plaintiffs complained that odors were a nuisance that were causing loss of enjoyment of their property. The operators' insurance company declined to defend the suit, citing the "pollution exclusion" provision in the operators' umbrella insurance policy.

The Appellate Court held that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the alleged odor pollution was not "traditional pollution." * The Court relied upon a prior state Supreme COurt decision which held that: "Given the historical background of the absolute pollution exclusion and the drafters' continued use of environmental terms of art, we hold that the exclusion applied only to those injures caused by traditional environmental pollution." The Supreme Court did not define "traditional pollution", but found that the accidental release of carbon monoxide due to a broken furnace does not constitute the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion provision. **

Te Appellate Court stated that "we do not find the hogs, their manure, nor the smells associated with these things constitute traditional environmental pollution." The Court acknowledged that the state Environmental Protection Act deemed odor a contaminant that would constitute air pollution if it unreasonably interfered with the enjoyment of life or property. However, it said, "even if the odors at issue in this case constituted air pollution for purposes of the Act, this does not mean the odors constitute 'traditional environmental pollution.'...Generally speaking, the scope of the things seen as hazardous to the environment, as reflected in environmental protection laws today, is far greater than what wee conclude our supreme court had in mind when it spoke of 'traditional environmental pollution.'"

If odors associated with hog processing do not constitute "traditional pollution", does this mean that odors from a wastewater treatment facility also do not constitute "traditional pollution?" In any case, how can any allegation of a violation of environmental statutes or regulation not be deemed "traditional pollution" when those laws essentially define what is "traditional pollution."? Or does all of this mean that , if sewage odors do not constitute "traditional pollution", then the only basis for challenging odor is through a nuisance theory, not through regulatory air pollution violation?

Some times, court decisions are difficult to understand and explain.

______________________________________________________________

* Country Mutual Insurance Company v. Hilltop View,
2013 Ill.App.(4th)130124

** American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms,
177 Ill.2d 473 (1997)