HALLOWEEN JURISPRUDENCE

I detour briefly from water and waste water to acknowledge Halloween with an interesting court decision.

A Florida court addressed the issue whether a grade school Halloween celebration violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states stat no law shall be made respecting establishment of religion.

A parent objected to decorations in the public elementary school depicting witches, cauldrons and brooms and objected to teachers dressed as witches in long, black dresses and pointed hats. The parent alleged that witchcraft is a religion, Halloween is a religious holiday and witches in long, black dresses, cauldrons and brooms are religious symbols for some people. The parent sued to enjoin schools from including such decorations and costumes in Halloween celebrations.

According to the court, the school board presented evidence that "a number of teachers dressed in Halloween-related costumes, including a clown costume, a Ronald Reagan costume, and a witch costume; a member of the PTA put up a carnival poster which depicted a Halloween witch stirring a pot; some classes hold storybook dress-up day, where the teacher dresses as a book character; on one occasion, a teacher dressed as a witch from the Wizard of Oz; the book Streganona, an award-winning fairy tale with a witch character, has been read in conjunction with the festivities; these activities have been displayed in a secular and non-sectarian fashion and there has been no attempt to teach or promote wicca, satanism, witchcraft or any form of religion; costumes and decorations simply serve to make Halloween a fun day for the students and serve an educational purpose by enriching the educational background and cultural awareness of the students."

The school board also presented professor of religion, who disputed that Halloween was a religious festival and that Halloween symbols were religious in nature. He asserted that Halloween celebration is a secular event without religious connotations.

The court affirmed the lower court decision that the symbols in question do not constitute an establishment of religion and do not violate the Constitution. The court stated that there was no doubt that the festivities and decorations served a secular purpose and that the Halloween symbols were not an endorsement or promotion of religion.

The court quoted from a U.S. Supreme Court decision: "The First Amendment does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises or the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact. It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow." The Florida court concluded, "witches, cauldrons, and brooms in the context of a school Halloween celebration appear to be nothing more than a mere "shadow". if that, in the realm of establishment cause jurisprudence." GUYER V. SCHOOL BOARD, 634 S.2d 806 (Fl. D.Ct.App. 1994)

Best witches for a happy Halloween!

WATER SCIENCE FICTION BECOMES SCIENCE FACT?

One of my favorite 1950s science fiction movies is "The Monolith Monsters" (1957). A meteor crashes to earth, scattering its rock fragments. When one of these pieces comes in contact with water, it absorbs silicon from the environment and begins to grow into huge rock columns or monoliths. Eventually, the monoliths fall, shatter and give rise to new ones, as water makes contact.

Unfortunately, if a person is near one of these rock fragments which has been watered, the fragment will suck all the silicon from the person's body, turning him or her into stone. When a young girl begins to petrify in this manner, intense scientific research is conducted leaving no stone unturned, which reveals the human silicon deficiency caused by the rocks. Doctors develop a saline solution containing silicon, inject it into the little girl, and save her from a stoney fate. The formula then is applied to save others, as they roll into town from the countryside. Thus, water bearing silicon saves lives.

Now, 55 years after this movie was released, there is a report of a study performed at Keele University, UK, which allegedly shows that drinking a silicon-rich mineral water removes aluminum from persons with Alzheimer's disease. The study group, comprised of Alzheimer's patients, drank such mineral water for 12 weeks. For the majority of the study group, there was no deterioration in cognitive abilities, and a some showed improvements. The study apparently concludes, as a preliminary matter, that long term drinking of silicon-rich water can reduce one's exposure to aluminum and lower aluminum in the body, which for those with Alzheimer's disease may have positive benefits for the cognitive functions.

So, silicon in water--has science fiction become science fact?

GOOD BUGS, BAD BUGS

Is your drinking water "bugging" you? Two recent articles in the American Chemical Society journal "Environmental Science & Technology" reportedly offer contrasting views of bacteria that may be found in drinking water.

According to one report, well water which is not disinfected may be the cause of up to 1.1 million cases per year of acute gastrointestinal illness--nausea, diarrhea, etc. Such effects may increase as water system infrastructure ages beyond its useful life and deficiencies arise. The study claims that more than 100 million people in the United States receive well water which is not disinfected or not adequately disinfected to control disease-causing nasties. ("Risk of Viral Acute Gastrointestinal Illness from Nondisinfected Drinking Water Distribution Systems", September 12, 2012).

However, the other article suggests that water systems may be able to "manipulate" infrastructure to enable finished water to contain beneficial bacteria. The study explained that ordinarily water utilities control bacteria by using filters to eliminate nutrients for bacteria and by applying chlorine and other disinfection methods to kill them. Indeed, some jurisdictions require a chlorine residual through out the distribution system. The report suggests that the pH of water can determine which bacteria continue in the treatment process, and by changes to the pH and how filters are cleaned, beneficial bacteria could remain in water received by customers. ("Beneficial Community Structure in the Drinking Water Microbiome Is Governed by Filtration Processes", August 8, 2012).

The good bacteria/bad bacteria situation may be tempered by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and U.S.EPA regulations. There are national primary drinking water standards for control of microorganisms in water with which all public water systems must comply. Generally, such systems are those serving 15 service connections or which regularly serve 25 persons. Under EPA's 2010 proposed revisions to its total coliform rule, public water systems subject to microbial contamination will have to perform an assessment of their system and correct any deficiency in their treatment or distribution facilities.

As a grade school kid, I remember sitting at the kitchen table looking at a drop of tap water through my A.C. Gilbert microscope. I do not know if I saw good bugs, or bad bugs, or just a dirty slide previously used for the grasshopper I had dissected. Frankly, I'm not sure I cared to know, anyway.

GOOD TO THE LAST DROP?

Use of water softening equipment has been prevalent for some time, particularly where hard water from wells is the source of supply. Typically, water softeners employ the ion exchange method, using salt in the form of pellets or blocks.

From time to time, there has been debate over potential health effects of using salt in this way, which can result in some salt being added to the softened water. In addition, in at least one state-California-some communities have banned water softeners using salt because of perceived adverse impacts of effluent salt brine on waste water treatment plants.

Interestingly, American history may provide a unique alternative to the traditional water softener method. According to an 1831 New York scientific report, urine provided am effective water softener for high concentrations of minerals being experienced due to runoff from graveyards and outhouses.

The report purportedly stated: "This liquid, [urine] when stale or putrid, has the remarkable property of precipitating the earthy salts from their solution, or in other words, it makes hard waters soft. Although the fastidious may revolt from the use of water thus sweetened to our palate, it is perhaps fortunate that this mixture is daily taking place, for otherwise the water of this city would become, in a much shorter space of time than it actually does, utterly unfit for domestic consumption." (Quote from Nelson Blake, "Water For Cities" in ON TAP magazine, Summer 2005)

In a way, this water softening technique may have been attempted in 2011. It was reported that a man was caught on a security camera urinating into one of Portland, Oregon's finished water reservoirs. The city, however, responded by draining the reservoir of some 8 million gallons. The man was quoted as saying that he thought it was a waste water treatment plant. (Oregonian.com, June 15, 2011) A policeman was quoted as saying "It's really an unfortunate incident that probably could have been avoided if he had just chosen a bush." (KGD.com, June 16, 2011) The man later allegedly pleaded guilty to "misuse of a reservoir" and was sentenced to community service (KPTV.com August 30, 2012).

An analysis has been made of the residential sewage flows in London during the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The flows decreased when the first guests arrived at Westminster Abbey, decreased more rapidly when the royal family arrived and reached the largest decrease when Kate arrived. Flows did not return to normal until after the kiss on the balcony of Buckingham Palace. (WE&T magazine, August 2011) Perhaps this analysis suggests that urine water softening may not be reliable.

WILL USEPA REGULATE NITROSAMINES IN DRINKING WATER?

Apparently,USEPA is considering whether to regulate nitrosamines in drinking water provided by public water supplies. What is the world are nitrosamines?

Nitrosamines are a group of approximately 300 organic compounds, most of which have been found to be carcinogenic in a variety of experimental animals. They are found in certain foods, such as fried bacon, cured meets and beer, in tobacco products, in rubber products, in certain cosmetics; and in gastric juices of the human stomach. Mouth bacteria can turn nitrates found in certain vegetables into nitrites, which can form nitrosating agents. Foods containing amines can react with these agents to produce nitrosamines in the stomach.

In public water supplies, nitrosamines can be formed by disinfection of water using chloramines.

In the September, 2012 issue of Journal AWWA, J. Alan Roberson discusses USEPA's potential regulation of nitrosamines in drinking water ("Regulating Nitrosamines Now Will Be Controversial"), p. 10). He points out that controversy could arise because, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, USEPA must conclude that such regulation will result in a meaningful health risk reduction. For example, he points to research concluding that oral intake of nitrosamines from drinking water comprised only 0.2% compared with other outside sources and that generated in body fluids. Advanced treatment installed by a utility to comply with a standard for nitrosamines in drinking water, therefore, may not achieve any meaningful health risk reduction.

Moreover, the article points out, such advanced treatment may be like punching a pillow on one end, which then bulges out on the other end. Treatment for nitrosamines using chlorine or ozone could result in formation of more regulated disinfection byproducts requiring more control.

Logically, what all this seems to boil down to is the necessity for a thorough cost/benefit analysis of any potential regulation of nitrosamines in drinking water. Only in that way can unnecessary cost burdens ultimately imposed on users by higher rates can be avoided. Prudent water utilities will not only monitor this regulatory process, but also participate in it.

GETTING THE LEAD OUT

Lead in drinking water has been a regulatory target for some time. Water public utilities rarely, if ever, furnish treated water containing lead. Rather, typically, lead enters drinking water from sources within a customer's property--such as from use of lead based solder for connecting copper pipes, use of faucets made from brass, and use of lead service lines from the distribution main in the street to the premises.

Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S.EPA has been dealing with lead issues since at least 1986, reducing the permitted lead content in plumbing materials. In addition, there has been a focus in possible reduction, in some circumstances, of the aggressiveness of water supplied by a utility.

In 2011, Congress enacted the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which imposes a new, more strict definition of "lead-free" plumbing. Under the Act, "lead-free" means that solder and flux must not contain more than 0.2% lead, and the wetted surface of drinking water pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures cannot exceed a weighted average of 0.25% lead.

The Act states that no person may use any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting, fixture, solder or flux that is not so "lead-free" in the installation or repair of any public water system or any plumbing in a house or non-residential facility which provides water for human consumption. The Act provides a formula for calculating the weighted average lead content of wetted surfaces. Exemptions from the lead-free requirement are provided for non-consumption uses, such as toilets, bidets, urinals, shower valves, outdoor watering fixtures, etc.

The Act becomes effective January 4, 2014. However, U.S.EPA likely will soon propose regulations to implement the Act. A proposed rule may be published in October, 2012, with a final rule by the end of 2013. It is possible that, in addition to banning items that do not comply with the lead-free requirement, the regulations may establish other requirements, such as specific product identification and compliance procedures.

As the Act can affect not only water utilities but also homeowners, plumbing contractors, manufacturers, vendors and the like, it may be prudent for interested parties to be aware of both the Act and the implementation regulations.

DOES UTILITY JOB CREATION HELP THE ECONOMY?

The above title raises a curious question. Certainly, we all know that the national economy has been weak for several years and continues to struggle. We also know that millions are without employment, job creation has been disappointing and many people have given up seeking employment.

Politicians are preaching that the economy and job creation are primary issues facing the nation today. Many involved in the water and waste water public utility industry, including USEPA, sound the alarm that billions of dollars are needed to invest in replacement and upgrade of aging water and waste water utility infrastructure. In turn, making such investment in infrastructure , it is claimed, will create thousands of jobs and presumably benefit the economy.

So, for example, USEPA claims that for every $1 billion spent on such infrastructure, 40,000 jobs will be created. In its press releases announcing grants for various purposes, EPA frequently suggests how many jobs will be created by its generosity. Another group has claimed that the Water Protection and Investment Act of 2012 (discussed in my September 7, 2012 posting) will create at least 169,000 jobs over 10 years. On the other hand, another group has stated that without such infrastructure upgrades, the economy will lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020.

No doubt, new public utility sector jobs should benefit those who occupy the jobs. But, will the economy be benefitted? An interesting article in Harvard Magazine discusses that question (September-Ocotober, 2012). In "Can America Compete", the magazine interviews scholars who participated in the Harvard Business School's U.S. Competitiveness Project.

The Project's findings appear to be that the problem with the economy is a long-term erosion of U.S. competitiveness in a more and more challenging world economy. It concluded that, for the past ten years, almost all new jobs were created in local businesses, such as government, healthcare and retail, not in businesses that compete internationally. The project defined U.S. competitiveness as the ability of U.S. companies to succeed in the world markets, while at the same time raising the living standards of Americans.

As one participant stated, "the rhetoric these days is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. It's easy to understand why: if you lack a job, it is all about jobs. But if you set out simply to create jobs for their own sake, you wind up investing in areas not where you're productive, but where you can create a lot of jobs quickly. Yes, we absolutely want jobs. But we want competitive jobs that can last in a demanding global economy."

Another participant added: "the sectors where you can generate the most jobs quickly tend to be in things like healthcare and construction--inherently local activities. But any economy is an interesting combination of what we call 'traded businesses'--like manufacturing, sophisticated services, and tourism that are exposed to international competition--and local ones. For any large population there are a lot of local needs--food, housing, utilities--but ultimately the vitality of an economy is heavily determined by the traded part....You want local needs to be met efficiently, but the ultimate wealth that feeds the local economy derives heavily from the traded economy."

One other point: where does the money come from that EPA and other governmental agencies give away for localized job creation? Does it not come from more debt, which in turn fuels a struggling economy that dampens investment needed for long run productive growth in the traded economy?