Don Heichel: Soquel Creek water fee increase is not necessary

Comments are finally on!

Section 3
Existing Groundwater Conditions

Precipitation in the Soquel-Aptos area ranges between 25 and 45 inches per year (Geomatrix, 1999).

Johnson et. Al (2004) states that approximately 15 percent of the rain that falls in the Soquel-Aptos watershed infiltrates the ground and becomes groundwater. The rest flows overland into streams or storm drains, is absorbed by plants, or evaporates.

Given the nature of groundwater recharge in the Soquel-Aptos area, cycles of droughts and above-normal precipitation do not appear to have had a short-term effect on deep, municipal groundwater wells.

Soquel Creek Water District & Central Water District Pages 10-11
Groundwater Management Plan – 2007

ALLOW ME TO REITERATE FOR THEM: cycles of droughts and above-normal precipitation do not appear to have had a short-term effect on deep, municipal groundwater wells

This report is available for you to read at:
soquelcreekwater.com

SOQUEL CREEK WATER KNOWS YOU MUST REMAIN FEARFUL OR YOU'LL NEVER APPROVE THE DESAL PRICE AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS!

SOQUEL CREEK PUMPED MUCH HIGHER VOLUMES OF WATER DURING THE 6-YEAR DROUGHT...ZERO RATIONING.

THE ONLY SALT FEARS THEN WERE FROM SANTA CRUZ WATER OVER-PUMPING AT THEIR PLEASURE POINT WELLS.

Just not info they want the public (that pays the bills) to know.

Previous investigations have reached different conclusions regarding the location of groundwater recharge to the Purisima Formation. Santa Cruz County has mapped groundwater recharge areas based on an assumption that most recharge occurs where streams cross the outcrop areas of individual Purisima aquifers (See Figure 5-3).

Johnson and others (2004) noted that streams in the area are almost all gaining streams and that groundwater hydrographs suggest a diffuse movement of water from shallow and upland areas to deeper zones in the coastal plain that are tapped by water supply wells.

Additional analysis is needed to determine the relative importance of these two recharge mechanisms and the appropriate geographic extent of recharge quality protection measures.

Soquel Creek Water District & Central Water District Page Page75
Groundwater Management Plan - 2007

dh -THIS AREA MAPPED BY THE COUNTY IS IN THE HILLS WHERE SOQUEL CREEK WATER HAS !!NEVER!! PROPOSED ANY METHOD OF CAPTURING STORM-WATER AND REGENERATING our AQUIFER WITH IT.

BTW, SOQUEL WATER NEVER DID THE "Additional analysis" TO UNDERSTAND THE AQUIFER, THEY ALSO FAILED TO RENEW THAT CONSULTANT’S CONTRACT.

ONE OF JOHNSON'S OTHER REPORTS TO HIS EMPLOYER, SOQUEL CREEK WATER, STATES OVER AND OVER HOW USEFUL IT WOULD BE TO HAVE RESEARCHED A WORKING MODEL OF THE AQUIFER...Johnson had to GO!!!

TO DATE SOQUEL CREEK HAS SPENT ABOUT $3 MILLION ON DESAL STUDIES WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SANTA CRUZ WATER KICKING SIMILAR AMOUNTS.

SAD WASTE OF your MONEY...

California State dean predicts major fiscal impact from climate law

By Jim Downing
The Sacramento Bee
A local academic has emerged as the leading source of dark forecasts in a recession-fueled debate over whether California's war on global warming will hurt or help its economy.

Sanjay Varshney, dean of the business school at California State University, Sacramento, predicts dire consequences if the state moves forward with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

In a July paper paid for by the California Small Business Roundtable, an advocacy group, Varshney reported that trimming emissions would cost the average household $3,857 a year, kill more than 1.1 million jobs and cut the state's economic output by nearly 10 percent.

Costs for food, fuel, electricity and housing would all rise, he predicts, driving a 26 percent drop in discretionary spending, slashing tax revenues and squeezing small businesses.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/s...

Cutting carbon emissions will likely increase water scarcity, because global warming is expected to increase average rainfall levels around the world.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274...

Water officials talk about impact of climate change on groundwater supplies
By Ramona Turner

"Tuesday was a great analogue to that," he (Daniels) said of last week's strong storm. "We received 4 inches of rain. Normal for October is less than half an inch. That's the prediction for the future -- bigger storms, more flooding and erosion."

The bigger the storm, the more runoff there is and the less water that soaks into the ground and recharges the aquifer that provides some of the county with water for
drinking and bathing, Daniels said.

"This will have a large impact," he said.

Taking care of groundwater supplies should be everyone's mission, said Herbert and Daniels. Water districts use electricity to pump water out of the ground. If customers used less water, it would mean less water to pump and distribute, which would then save power and reduce the impact on global warming, they said.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_13637761...

dh - DANIELS KNOWS THE SANCTUARY WANTS LESS STORM-WATER WASHING SEDIMENT INTO THE OCEAN, I SENT IT TO HIM.

DANIELS KNOWS DESAL WILL DO NOTHING FOR THE EXISTING AND FUTURE EROSION PROBLEMS!

SOQUEL CREEK WATER HAS NEVER PROPOSED ANY RE-GENERATION OF THE AQUIFER WHERE THE COUNTY HAS MAPPED PRIMARY RE-CHARGE AREAS IN THE HILLS

“Water districts use electricity to pump water out of the ground” DANIELS KNOWS THE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY USED TO PUMP WATER FROM THE GROUND IS A TEENY-TINY % OF THE ELECTRICITY USED TO PRODUCE DESALINATED WATER...TOTAL MIS-DIRECTION OF THE PUBLIC ON DANIELS’ PART (AGAIN!).

“If customers used less water” CUSTOMERS ALREADY USE A LOT LESS WATER AND THEIR REWARD? RATE INCREASE LAST YEAR, RATE INCREASE FOR THE NEXT 3 CONSECUTIVE YEARS. IF STORM-WATER WERE CAPTURED AND WE EVENTUALLY HAVE A SURPLUS OF WATER, THE RATES FOR WATER WILL BE REDUCED.

July 6th, 2009 1:32pm PST
A First for Rainwater Harvesting
Posted By Elizabeth Cutright

http://www.waterefficiency.net/blogs/we-edito...

Known as either rainwater catchment or harvesting, the process is quite simple and can be an easy first step for any water-strapped community searching for ways to supplement their current supplies.

For example, in Los Angeles, CA, six projects capture 1.25 million gallons of water for every inch of rain, and there’s no reason those results can’t be replicated throughout the country.

Rainwater harvesting may be a no brainer, but it’s mostly been treated as a second-class citizen, something to ignore or marginalize in the face of (sometimes) flashier alternatives. But what rainwater catchment lacks in bells and whistles, it more than makes up for in terms of cost and ease of implementation.

In Tucson, AZ, rainwater harvesting is suddenly in the spotlight. Tucson has just enacted the nation’s first municipal rainwater harvesting ordinance for commercial projects. Under this new ordinance, developers of new corporate or commercial buildings must design all landscape irrigation, so that 50% of the water used comes from a rainwater catchment system.

Tucson officials hope that the anticipated 12 inches of annual rainfall will supplement current municipal supplies (which come from wellwater and the Colorado River), starting next year. Like Santa Fe County, NM, the Tucson harvesting ordinance allows for a passive collection system (which mostly diverts run off from parking lots and roofs), as well as small harvesting combined with pumps and drip irrigation, but Tucson’s ordinance goes one step further by allowing for active harvesting as well. The Tucson city council has also approved an additional measure that requires new homes to have a plumbing system that would allow for separate drain lines so that a graywater system can be installed, and water from sinks, showers, and other appliances can be diverted to the homeowner’s irrigation system.

Because commercial projects are often a community’s largest water consumer, this ordinance should have a significant payoff. For example, the latest remodel at Tucson’s Target included a rainwater harvesting system that catches runoff from the parking lot and diverts it to towards small landscaped sections that include native plants and trees, which are designed to hold up to 15,000 cubic feet of water that would otherwise be lost to storm drains.

So what do you think? Why aren’t more communities requiring rainwater harvesting? And, are ordinances the answer, or can public outreach use incentives to inspire individuals to implement their own catchment systems?

For more information on Tucson’s rainwater catchment ordinance, go to: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/harvesting.htm .

Carl Pope
Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/is-ca...

In 1973, a month after I had moved to the West Coast, I flew down to Southern California for a Sierra Club meeting. While we were driving past a freeway median planted with oleanders, the sprinkler system went on. A Club leader from Oakland sitting next to me hissed, "That's what they do with our water down here."

Thirty-six years later, too little has changed in our politics -- and too much has changed about our climate, economy, and water supply. California has committed to deliver huge quantities of water -- eight times as much as it has -- over long distances, through often uncertain canals, and after storage, leakage, and evaporation in outmoded dams, all at enormous expense to a bankrupt state treasury.

Tens of billions have been spent on engineered storage, dams, and reservoirs, yet two-thirds of the state's water is stored the old-fashioned way -- in snow and ice. Most of the rain that falls in urban areas such as Los Angeles is hastily rushed into concrete channels and dumped uselessly into the Pacific Ocean. One-third of the water L.A. needs in an average year falls as rainfall -- but almost none of it is put to wise use.

And much of the water that is delivered, at a cost of billions of dollars and after being stored in snow and ice, is used to grow alfalfa in the desert or allowed to drip out of leaky urban plumbing systems. Huge quantities are recklessly contaminated with various pesticides and toxic wastes, inadequately treated at still billions in further expense, and then delivered to consumers who are understandably anxious about its quality -- leading them to purchase bottled water (the manufacture of which wastes a gallon of water for every quart produced).

Carl Pope, continued...

Meanwhile, once-vibrant fisheries have been devastated, at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs; farming communities have been left in a state of perpetual uncertainty; and businesses must wonder when the next drought or earthquake will turn off the tap for good.

And the response from the governor and Sacramento? Essentially, more of the same. Instead of recognizing that we first need to use every drop of water that falls near us and only then rely on long-distance transport and surface storage, the governor's proposal continues excessive reliance on outmoded water-storage solutions, lowers the emphasis on protection provided by existing law for the health of California's waterways, does almost nothing to enhance local self-reliance on water supplies, and fails to guarantee commonsense reforms of water policy. The taxpayers are still being asked to pay for damages to common water resources done by private interests, and our children are being asked through bonds to bail out those who created the problem.

California has finally legalized the practice of using household gray water water -- but only a good twenty years after I became a serial felon for watering my garden with it during the last major drought. Unfortunately, almost none of the commercial and public buildings I frequent have simple water-conservation technologies installed.

There is no serious talk about reengineering urban areas as sponges. Instead we continue to guarantee water shortages by treating the the urban landscape like a roof and gutter, designed to get rid of (instead of soak up) precious rainfall.

Farmers are still paid to dump toxic chemicals in the state's most precious resource, but cities have no money to develop water recycling, storm-water capture, or groundwater storage. New reservoirs are glibly laid out on maps, but no one talks about the fact that hotter summers means that there may be no water to fill even the dams we already have.

Indeed, it's fair to say that Sacramento is in deep denial of a fundamental reality. California's landscapes, forests, farmlands, and cities must now be managed primarily to meet the biggest challenge of the 21st century: an adequate, secure, clean, and safe water supply for urgent human and environmental needs. Water is precious. We need to stop wasting it.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/is-ca...

http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/resma...

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/energy/14a-3-2004-d...
PAGE 32

Page 37
Desal production cost per Acre/foot of water with electricity cost of $0.05 per k/Hr electricity

$711 to $1033.

When’s the last time you saw electricity for $0.05 per k/Hr?

Especially renewable electricity…

BOTTOM OF PAGE 37

REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL ACT REQUIRES EVALUATING THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS, AND IDENTIFYING THE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD BE LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING AND THE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD THAT WOULD AVOID OR MINIMIZE THOSE EFFECTS.

FEASIBILITY IS DEFINED IN SECTION 30108 OF THE COASTAL ACT AS CAPABLE OF BEING ACCOMPLISHED IN A SUCCESSFUL MANNER WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS.

The process of desalination is not per se environmentally friendly and seawater desalination plants also contribute to the wastewater discharges that affect coastal water quality.

The effluent from desalination plants is a multi-component waste, with multiple effects on water, sediment and marine organisms. It therefore affects the quality of the resource it depends on.'

Cleaning chemicals
Cleaning intervals have to be established for each desalination plant individually and are typically three to six months depending on the quality of the plant's feedwater.
In RO plants, alkaline cleaning solutions (pH 11-12) are used for removal of silt deposits and biofilms, whereas acidified solutions (pH 2-3) remove metal oxides and scales. Further chemicals are often added to improve the cleaning process of RO membranes, such as detergents, oxidants, complexing agents or biocides for membrane disinfection.
In distillation plants, cleaning is typically very simple: Copper-nickel heat exchanger surfaces are washed with acidified warm seawater to remove alkaline scales. The acidic solution often contains a chemical inhibitor which is added to protect the plant from corrosion.
Most of the named cleaning and disinfection chemicals may be hazardous to aquatic life, so that disposal to the ocean should be strictly regulated. Neutralization of the extremely alkaline or acidic solutions and treatment of additional cleaning agents is recommended before discharge to the ocean to remove any potential toxicity.

Antiscalants
Scaling on heat exchanger surfaces, inside tubes, or on RO membranes impairs plant performance. Antiscalants are commonly added to the feedwater in both distillation and RO plants to prevent scale formation. The main representatives of antiscalants are organic, carboxylic-rich polymers such as polyacrylic acid and polymaleic acid. Acids and polyphosphates are still in use at a limited scale but on the retreat. As antiscalants have a low toxicity, the acute environmental risk associated with their release into the marine environment is relatively low. Due to a poor degradability, however, dispersal and relatively long residence times must be expected, during which interference with element cycles of trace metals is a possible risk.

Oxygen depletion is also a problem of the RO brine, as sodium bisulfite is commonly used as a neutralizing agent for chlorine. The lack of dissolved oxygen could be toxic to marine organisms and aeration is recommended prior to oceanic discharge.

Heavy metals
The waste brine often contains low amounts of heavy metals that pass into solution when the plant's interior surfaces corrode. Brine metal composition depends on the use of different construction materials in distillation and reverse osmosis plants: Copper contamination is a major problem of distillation plants, as copper-nickel alloys are common materials for heat exchanger surfaces. In contrast, non-metal equipment and stainless steels are typically used in RO plants. The RO brine may therefore contain traces of iron, nickel, chromium and molybdenum, but contamination levels are generally low. Heavy metals tend to enrich in suspended material and finally in sediments, so that areas of restricted water exchange and soft bottom habitats could be affected by heavy metal accumulation. Many benthic invertebrates feed on this suspended or deposited material, with the risk that metals are enriched in their bodies and passed on to higher trophic levels. It is therefore recommended that limits are established for heavy metal concentrations in the brine discharges.

http://www.cleanocean.org/index_general.asp...

Text by Sabine Lattemann, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM)
University of Oldenburg, Germany

Desalination Action Plan
Goal

Minimize the impacts to sanctuary resources and qualities from desalination activities.

Introduction
Desalination is the process by which salts and other chemicals are removed from salt or brackish water and other impaired water resources.

Desalination plants can impact the marine environment through the introduction of brine effluent and other substances to MBNMS waters. Construction of desalination facilities and associated pipelines often causes alteration of the seabed.

Intake of water directly from the ocean typically results in biological impacts as a result of impingement and entrainment. Impingement is when organisms collide with screens at the intake, and entrainment is when species are taken into the plant with the feed water and are killed during plant processes.

http://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/fmp/02co...

Prop O will help Los Angeles begin the long-awaited process of cleaning up polluted storm water and protecting public health.

In an overwhelming public mandate for clean water, nearly 76% of Los Angeles city voters supported Proposition O, the Clean Water and Beaches bond measure that appeared on the November 2nd ballot.
Proposition O — a $500 million general bond measure to help the city of Los Angeles clean up the polluted storm water that flows to our rivers, lakes and beaches — will provide the initial funds to help Los Angeles meet new storm water regulations by improving storm drain systems,creating new community parks, controlling pollution at its source and increasing and improving local water supplies.

Prop O Background

The Problem - Storm Water Runoff

In Los Angeles, storm water runoff caused by rain, irrigation and other water sources, carries tons of trash and dangerous bacteria from our streets directly to our rivers, oceans and beaches — without treatment. Common substances in storm water runoff include pesticides, herbicides, paint products, pet waste, detergents, motor oil, and trash.

This runoff contaminates everything downstream, threatening public health, littering our beaches with trash and impacting our beach-based economy:
Local polluted runoff has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects to swimmers, including stomach flu, upper respiratory infections and skin rash.

These regulations, all upheld by the state government, the U.S. EPA, and the court system, addresses storm water pollution at its source by placing limits on the amount of toxic metals, trash and bacteria that are allowed in runoff.

http://www.healthebay.org/news/2004/11_16_pro...

Keeping Our Waters Clean
How Smaller Communities Can Prevent Toxic Runoff

Stormwater runoff is a leading source of coastal pollution in California, damaging the environment and threatening public health.

NRDC developed a three-part strategy of prevention, monitoring and enforcement that can help smaller and midsized cities deal with this toxic stormwater runoff before it pollutes local waterways and puts public health at risk. This effective and straightforward plan has already been adopted, and once fully implemented, will successfully manage runoff in coastal communities along the Monterey Peninsula in California.

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/fmonterey...

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/boatus/200911...

Steering the Rebirth of Tampa Bay

Page 23

And because storm-water runoff is the top source of pollution, Bay Watch now has a storm-drain-marking program to raise public awareness of this problem, providing one more way to make the bay cleaner.

By Terry Tomalin, outdoor editor of the St. Petersburg Times

"We strongly support the Water for Monterey County effort. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary management encourages integrated approaches to water supply that will eliminate new or existing discharges to sanctuary waters.

This plan is intriguing to the MBNMS since it would not only eliminate existing discharges to the ocean of sewage that is causing impacts, but it could have the added benefits of eliminating harmful impacts due to desalination brine discharge and entrainment, as well as mitigating the looming sea water intrusion problem that is an imminent threat.

The Sanctuary supports this integrated collaborative effort and will continue to participate and provide input and encourage a regional approach.”
Brad Damitz, Environmental Policy Specialist, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

http://ciwr.ucsc.edu/monterey/index.html

And btw, if you haven't figured it out, I'm a real nutcase!

dON hEICHEL - sOQUEL wrote:

And btw, if you haven't figured it out, I'm a real nutcase!

Not me!
http://www.dougforsupervisor.com/OceTDS1725.p...
http://www.dougforsupervisor.com/OceTDS1727.p...
http://www.dougforsupervisor.com/OceTDS1728.p...
http://www.dougforsupervisor.com/OceTDS1729.p...
http://www.dougforsupervisor.com/OceTDS1730.p...
http://www.dougforsupervisor.com/OceTDS1731.p...

dON hEICHEL - sOQUEL wrote:

And btw, if you haven't figured it out, I'm a real nutcase!

Suppose you're brain is on fact overload, I understand that and your lack of ability to discuss those facts.

I even understand your anomymous slur.

Amazing what a lack of intellectual capacity produces...

dON hEICHEL - sOQUEL wrote:

<quoted text>
Suppose you're brain is on fact overload, I understand that and your lack of ability to discuss those facts.
I even understand your anomymous slur.
Amazing what a lack of intellectual capacity produces...

Anybody got a clue what this guy is babbling about?

Hoo Farted wrote:

<quoted text>
Anybody got a clue what this guy is babbling about?

I tried to give you a point to jab at with the deliberate mis-use of you're in my previous post, that way you could continue to evade discussing Substantial issues.

Sorry my humor was a leetle too obscure for ya...

You did, however, cleverly continue to evade any discussion of issues!

babble - definition of babble by the Free Online Dictionary ...
To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds: Babies babble before they can talk. 2. To talk foolishly or idly; chatter.

Hoo's babbling?