|
|
 | | From: | Paul Braunbehrens | | Subject: | Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:43:09 -0800 |
|
|
 | Looks like the EPA has decided that if it rains it's ok to dump raw
sewage in the water. I can't tell you how happy I am about this. If
you feel as excited as I am about sailing around in raw sewage, please
be sure to let them know. I found out about it here:
http://www.nrdc.org/action/
but if you have a problem with a site that has an obvious agenda, feel
free to do your own research.
|
|
| | From: | fish | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | 20 Jan 2005 08:23:52 -0800 |
|
|
| There is no easy way to determine what needs to be done - it varies
from case to case. With respect to your first question - a more
reasonable expectation is to see what it takes to reduce overflows from
10's per year to only a couple or less per year. Acheiving 20yrs
continuous non-overflow treatment is pretty much a dream in most cases.
There are a number of solutions:
- Separate the sewers (yes - this does involve full tear up of roads
and can you imagine how virtually impossible it may be in a city like
NYC to then lay down separate systems - forget about it - IMPOSSIBLE).
You still have to treat the stormwater too these days! That typically
means stormponds - and most cities don't have the space. On the other
hand, this gets the somewhat cleaner stormwater out of the system and
can substantially reduce treatment plant costs and capacities! In
theory, a fully separated system with a properly designed WWTP should
have zero overflows. In practice it is not always this simple, usually
due to inflow/infiltration sources that are difficult to track down.
- Use CSO tanks - Hold as much of the overflow volume that is feasible
(or req'd by regs) and then pump stored volume back into the Combined
sewer when the levels in the sewer pipes subside after the rainfall
event has run its course through the system.
- Increase treatment capacity. All wastewater treatment plants
probably have overflows. Many WWTP have many overflows per year but
they are subject, usually, to the same regs as CSO overflows, since
essentially they are just another potential overflow point in the
system. This is a costly option but is often the only one available in
many places, especially densely populated cities.
It sucks, but there are still many places, including large cities that
directly discharge to a waterbody with minimal treatment (i.e.
Halifax), if any, at all! We are really screwing up this resource
alright!! Source protection is becoming more and more important and
people are slowly waking up to this fact - the idea of sustainable
development.
FISH
|
|
| | From: | kurt | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | 20 Jan 2005 06:43:33 -0800 |
|
|
| Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
"stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
a death spiral?
|
|
| | From: | Bob Jacobson | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:22:37 GMT |
|
|
| This topic is of concern to those of us who sail on San Francisco Bay,
because it means you have to take care not to sail on the Bay for three days
after a major rain. During the main sailing season this isn't a problem as
it just doesn't rain then. During the winter, the thermal winds are gone,
and you have to sail storm systems. I did it for years, but don't think it
is worth it anymore. Winds are generally very gusty at the beginning of a
storm, and water too dirty after it rains for a while. Pity, because the
clearing winds after the storm are generally more steady. Best deal is when
the storms just graze the Bay Area, and we get the winds without any
significant rain.
"kurt" wrote in message
news:1106232213.464502.200950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
> pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
>
> In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
> overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
> the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
> into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
> have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
>
> For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
> the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
> groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
> "stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
> East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
> new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
> Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
> Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
> drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
> engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
> Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
> start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
> aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
>
> And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
> a death spiral?
>
|
|
| | From: | WARDOG | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:44:35 -0800 |
|
|
| Hi Bob,
Water quality is an issue that can effectively be dealt with at a local
grass roots level...it's an issue that directly impacts our communities
and our quality of life, regardless of political persuasions...
My first suggestion is to put more pressure on city/county health
organizations to do regular water quality monitoring...if they
won't/can't then take the matter into your own hands and have the water
tested by your local sailing club/group...it gets your local leader's
attention...nobody likes to play , or have their children play in a
toilet bowl...
Surfrider has the Blue Water Task Force to assist...
http://www.surfrider.org/programs/bwtf.asp
Our local group is Heal the Ocean...
http://www.healtheocean.org/home.html
A couple of my customers have put together a group named Fragile Ocean...
http://www.fragileocean.net/
I don't think most people realize how dirty the water that they play in
is...whether it's SF Bay, Rio Vista, Columbia River, Corpus Christi Bay,
Chesapeake Bay , Great Lakes...etc...or wherever...I guarantee you, it's
far dirtier than you think...and in most cases, can be improved with a
local grass roots effort...
http://www.surfingsports.com/econews.asp
WARDOG
http://surfingsports.com
Bob Jacobson wrote:
> This topic is of concern to those of us who sail on San Francisco Bay,
> because it means you have to take care not to sail on the Bay for three days
> after a major rain. During the main sailing season this isn't a problem as
> it just doesn't rain then. During the winter, the thermal winds are gone,
> and you have to sail storm systems. I did it for years, but don't think it
> is worth it anymore. Winds are generally very gusty at the beginning of a
> storm, and water too dirty after it rains for a while. Pity, because the
> clearing winds after the storm are generally more steady. Best deal is when
> the storms just graze the Bay Area, and we get the winds without any
> significant rain.
>
>
> "kurt" wrote in message
> news:1106232213.464502.200950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
>>pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
>>
>>In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
>>overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
>>the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
>>into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
>>have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
>>
>>For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
>>the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
>>groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
>>"stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
>>East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
>>new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
>>Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
>>Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
>>drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
>>engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
>>Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
>>start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
>>aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
>>
>>And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
>>a death spiral?
>>
>
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Bob Jacobson | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:36:22 GMT |
|
|
| The problem isn't the frequency of testing. It's the fact that it will take
billions of simoleons to replace the storm drain systems in the Bay Area.
The water quality in the Bay has actually imroved since I started sailing
there in the 80s (especially when they stopped duming dredge spoils off
Alcatraz). San Francisco had a huge project to improve its waste treatment
system, but still has a long ways to go. Anyway, we got grassroots growin'
out our butts up here. All kinds of folks bitchin' at the cities, the state,
feds, the UN, god, etc. Thing is, the Bay Area cities know what the problems
are, and would like to fix them, but where to get the dough?
As to Paul's question on how dangerous Alameda is: I don't really know.
Probably not very, if you've got a healthy immune system, and you sail on an
outgoing tide.
"WARDOG" wrote in message
news:e6SHd.4294$ry.946@fed1read05...
> Hi Bob,
> Water quality is an issue that can effectively be dealt with at a local
> grass roots level...it's an issue that directly impacts our communities
> and our quality of life, regardless of political persuasions...
> My first suggestion is to put more pressure on city/county health
> organizations to do regular water quality monitoring...if they
> won't/can't then take the matter into your own hands and have the water
> tested by your local sailing club/group...it gets your local leader's
> attention...nobody likes to play , or have their children play in a
> toilet bowl...
>
> Surfrider has the Blue Water Task Force to assist...
>
> http://www.surfrider.org/programs/bwtf.asp
>
> Our local group is Heal the Ocean...
> http://www.healtheocean.org/home.html
>
> A couple of my customers have put together a group named Fragile Ocean...
> http://www.fragileocean.net/
>
> I don't think most people realize how dirty the water that they play in
> is...whether it's SF Bay, Rio Vista, Columbia River, Corpus Christi Bay,
> Chesapeake Bay , Great Lakes...etc...or wherever...I guarantee you, it's
> far dirtier than you think...and in most cases, can be improved with a
> local grass roots effort...
>
> http://www.surfingsports.com/econews.asp
>
> WARDOG
> http://surfingsports.com
>
>
> Bob Jacobson wrote:
>
> > This topic is of concern to those of us who sail on San Francisco Bay,
> > because it means you have to take care not to sail on the Bay for three
days
> > after a major rain. During the main sailing season this isn't a problem
as
> > it just doesn't rain then. During the winter, the thermal winds are
gone,
> > and you have to sail storm systems. I did it for years, but don't think
it
> > is worth it anymore. Winds are generally very gusty at the beginning of
a
> > storm, and water too dirty after it rains for a while. Pity, because the
> > clearing winds after the storm are generally more steady. Best deal is
when
> > the storms just graze the Bay Area, and we get the winds without any
> > significant rain.
> >
> >
> > "kurt" wrote in message
> > news:1106232213.464502.200950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
> >>pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
> >>
> >>In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
> >>overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
> >>the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
> >>into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
> >>have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
> >>
> >>For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
> >>the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
> >>groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
> >>"stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
> >>East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
> >>new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
> >>Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
> >>Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
> >>drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
> >>engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
> >>Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
> >>start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
> >>aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
> >>
> >>And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
> >>a death spiral?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
|
|
| | From: | Paul Braunbehrens | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:10:08 -0800 |
|
|
| Bob, how bad is the water after storms at sites like Alameda? Do you
think it's actually dangerous?
Also, is that concrete thing with the metal grating on top some kind of
sewage outlet?
I know that in the Bay Area and in the Monterey/Carmel area the sewage
gets dumped in the water every time there is a lot of rain.
In article , Bob
Jacobson wrote:
> This topic is of concern to those of us who sail on San Francisco Bay,
> because it means you have to take care not to sail on the Bay for three days
> after a major rain. During the main sailing season this isn't a problem as
> it just doesn't rain then. During the winter, the thermal winds are gone,
> and you have to sail storm systems. I did it for years, but don't think it
> is worth it anymore. Winds are generally very gusty at the beginning of a
> storm, and water too dirty after it rains for a while. Pity, because the
> clearing winds after the storm are generally more steady. Best deal is when
> the storms just graze the Bay Area, and we get the winds without any
> significant rain.
>
>
> "kurt" wrote in message
> news:1106232213.464502.200950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
> > pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
> >
> > In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
> > overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
> > the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
> > into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
> > have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
> >
> > For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
> > the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
> > groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
> > "stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
> > East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
> > new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
> > Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
> > Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
> > drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
> > engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
> > Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
> > start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
> > aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
> >
> > And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
> > a death spiral?
> >
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Tom - Chicago | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:41:32 GMT |
|
|
| To amplify on Kurt's response (we sail in the same place) this is a BIG
problem. I would estimate that the North Shore Sanitary District (Evanston,
Wilmette, Winnetka - North of Chicago) is dumping raw sewage (combined
sewer) into Lake Michigan somewhere between 5 and 9 times each summer. It
happens any time we get a big rain storm.
Then we swim and sail in it, then we drink it.
Gross
Tom - Chicago
"kurt" wrote in message
news:1106232213.464502.200950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
> pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
>
> In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
> overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
> the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
> into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
> have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
>
> For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
> the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
> groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
> "stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
> East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
> new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
> Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
> Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
> drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
> engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
> Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
> start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
> aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
>
> And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
> a death spiral?
>
|
|
| | From: | Ray Kuntz | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:26:32 -0600 |
|
|
| Not to worry Tom, except for the heavy metals the Zebra Mussel's will
clean it up, pretty soon all our inland waters will have 100 ft visibility.
Tom - Chicago wrote:
> To amplify on Kurt's response (we sail in the same place) this is a BIG
> problem. I would estimate that the North Shore Sanitary District (Evanston,
> Wilmette, Winnetka - North of Chicago) is dumping raw sewage (combined
> sewer) into Lake Michigan somewhere between 5 and 9 times each summer. It
> happens any time we get a big rain storm.
>
> Then we swim and sail in it, then we drink it.
>
> Gross
>
> Tom - Chicago
>
>
> "kurt" wrote in message
> news:1106232213.464502.200950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
>>pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
>>
>>In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
>>overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
>>the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
>>into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
>>have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
>>
>>For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
>>the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
>>groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
>>"stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
>>East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
>>new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
>>Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
>>Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
>>drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
>>engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
>>Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
>>start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
>>aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
>>
>>And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
>>a death spiral?
>>
>
>
>
|
|
| | From: | WARDOG | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:51:00 -0800 |
|
|
| Tom - Chicago wrote:
> To amplify on Kurt's response (we sail in the same place) this is a BIG
> problem. I would estimate that the North Shore Sanitary District (Evanston,
> Wilmette, Winnetka - North of Chicago) is dumping raw sewage (combined
> sewer) into Lake Michigan somewhere between 5 and 9 times each summer. It
> happens any time we get a big rain storm.
>
> Then we swim and sail in it, then we drink it.
>
> Gross
Pretty stoopid...but, then...cattle sh*t in their own drinking H20...and
then we eat them...anyone for some nice, "fresh"water, Chicago
sashimi?...;-)
WARDOG
http://www.surfingsports.com
>
> Tom - Chicago
>
>
> "kurt" wrote in message
> news:1106232213.464502.200950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
>>pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
>>
>>In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
>>overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
>>the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
>>into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
>>have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
>>
>>For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
>>the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
>>groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
>>"stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
>>East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
>>new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
>>Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
>>Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
>>drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
>>engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
>>Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
>>start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
>>aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
>>
>>And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
>>a death spiral?
>>
>
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Ray Kuntz | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:21:34 -0600 |
|
|
| Minor correction horses, cattle, sheep, chickens, deer and fish s**t in
everbody's water.
WARDOG wrote:
> Tom - Chicago wrote:
>
>> To amplify on Kurt's response (we sail in the same place) this is a
>> BIG problem. I would estimate that the North Shore Sanitary District
>> (Evanston, Wilmette, Winnetka - North of Chicago) is dumping raw
>> sewage (combined sewer) into Lake Michigan somewhere between 5 and 9
>> times each summer. It happens any time we get a big rain storm.
>>
>> Then we swim and sail in it, then we drink it.
>>
>> Gross
>
>
> Pretty stoopid...but, then...cattle sh*t in their own drinking H20...and
> then we eat them...anyone for some nice, "fresh"water, Chicago
> sashimi?...;-)
>
> WARDOG
> http://www.surfingsports.com
>
>>
>> Tom - Chicago
>>
>>
>> "kurt" wrote in message
>> news:1106232213.464502.200950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Fish is right about the combined sewers. At least in NYC you don't
>>> pull your drinking water from the locations you dump your waste.
>>>
>>> In Chicago, the combined sewer is dumped into holding areas if it
>>> overflows the treatment capacity; it's called the "deep tunnel". Well,
>>> the deep tunnel is too small, & now whenever it fills up, they dump it
>>> into Lake Michigan, where Chicago gets it's drinking water. So now, we
>>> have to treat the water against the sewage we just dumped into it.
>>>
>>> For those that think this doesn't effect them, the Great Lakes comprise
>>> the largest percentage of fresh water on the planet, not counting
>>> groundwater in Canada. (Saudi Arabia was busted a few years back
>>> "stealing" water in large oceangoing tankers to ship back to the Middle
>>> East.) Perrier just built a plant in Michigan to pump water for their
>>> new line of bottled H20. Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Buffalo,
>>> Detroit, & dozens of smaller cities all pull their water from the Great
>>> Lakes. In the future, the Great Lakes will probably be providing
>>> drinking water from the entire central portion of North America. The
>>> engineering for a pipeline from the Great Lakes to the American
>>> Southwest has been drawn up, waiting for the time it's necessary to
>>> start pumping water cross country. Anyone thinking the Great Lakes
>>> aren't important hasn't studied the politics of water.
>>>
>>> And, we keep dumping shit into the Lakes. Anyone else out there sense
>>> a death spiral?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
|
|
| | From: | fish | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | 20 Jan 2005 04:38:33 -0800 |
|
|
| Well the initial gist of that website sounds bad. I wish the NRDC
would have the foresight to include a link to the EPA document that
describes what they are trying to do. Being a water resource engineer,
the NRDC site info seems suspiciously vague. Is the whole mandate of
the EPA not to improve water quality, natural habitats, etc... etc...??
If that is their mandate, one has to wonder if part of the story is
being left out to serve the NRDC's purposes, as you mention in your
post. Perhaps the EPA's mandate is compromised by developers and
political pressure? I don't know - I am Canadian, but it still effects
me since I sail mostly in the Great Lakes.
*** End of opinion - technical sewer jargon follows - only read on if
interested ***
Just some background, maybe this is basic info that most people know,
but I'll give it a quick shot anyway. There is older sewer
infrastructure out there called combined sewer systems - typically
found in many city's, particularly older cities. Combined sewers
collect both urban stormwater runoff AND domestic sewage, as well as
small design allowances for inflow and infiltration (I&I). In this day
and age, replacement of combined sewers, in Ontario anyway, is not
permitted, and all new development since the sixties essentially are
built with "separated" sewer systems, systems that have both a sanitary
sewer for domestic sewage and a storm sewer system for collection of
urban stormwater. Traditionally as well, sanitary systems go to the
treatment plant, storm typically went to the closest lake/river.
Nowadays stormwater management is a whole discipline that deals with
addressing stormwater quality issues - since bacteria and contaminants
are also a significant problem in stormwater.
OK - back to the combined sewers. Combined sewers, or any system that
collects rain-generated runoff, are designed based on risk. Commonly a
2-5yr return period rainfall event is used for design purposes -
meaning that the sewer can accomodate runoff generated by an rainfall
that happens on average only every 2-5 yrs or so. Any rain events
larger than this, or less frequent that this, will overflow to the
streets and then make its way to the nearest lake/river. Combined
sewers are no different, except they contain P&S (Piss & S#$@).
However, it should be noted that in MOST places, regulations dictating
the number or frequency of combined sewer overflows (CSO) are getting
more and more stringent - not more lax. Now maybe this is not at all
what the NRDC article is referring too, so yes, I should do my
homework, but I am not going to - that is your job as Americans. We
deal with the same crap over here. Anyway - nowadays in Ontario, there
is a regulation from the Ministry of the Environment that specifies the
maximum number and frequency that a combined sewer is legally permitted
to overflow. Currently, they are permitted twice a year during
swimming season, or in another form, at minimum 95% of CSO overflow
volume must be captured and treated on an average annual basis - so
this means the use of CSO capture tanks, or reduction in combined sewer
use in general. Back to the NRDC article - I wonder if the EPA has
changed, or is changing its CSO guidelines to be more stringent, yet
the NRDC still is not sufficiently pleased with the new regulations????
Complete guess on my part. But this could explain their reasoning for
saying that "EPA wants to allow untreated sewage discharge during
rains", when in fact what the EPA is saying is "Untreated sewage may be
discharged, if necessary, up to X times per year, from combined sewer
systems". That is an unfortunate fact of life with combined sewers.
So - hopefully I am on the right track, but maybe I am way off and
should keep my mouth shut until I read up on the issue, but like I
said, thats your job. I have the various ministries to deal with here
on many other issues.
FISH
|
|
| | From: | jeff feehan | | Subject: | Re: Sh****t in the water (sing to the tune of "smoke on the water") | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:30:10 -0500 |
|
|
| is it possible to say how much bigger a combined treatment plant would
have to be to change from overflowing once every 5 years to once every 10
years, or once every 20 years?
i am not sure how common combined systems are here in the north east
usa. we have some pretty old infrastructure. i know the sewers in
NYC are ancient, and must be at least partly combined. i guess that
changing it would require tearing up every street. they have built new
treatment plants to handle the sewage - there is a huge one right
alongside the west side highway just south of the george washington
bridge. i have no idea what amount of rainfall (assuming it is
a combined plant) it is built to handle.
jeff feehan
sewage
fish wrote:
> Well the initial gist of that website sounds bad. I wish the NRDC
> would have the foresight to include a link to the EPA document that
> describes what they are trying to do. Being a water resource engineer,
> the NRDC site info seems suspiciously vague. Is the whole mandate of
> the EPA not to improve water quality, natural habitats, etc... etc...??
> If that is their mandate, one has to wonder if part of the story is
> being left out to serve the NRDC's purposes, as you mention in your
> post. Perhaps the EPA's mandate is compromised by developers and
> political pressure? I don't know - I am Canadian, but it still effects
> me since I sail mostly in the Great Lakes.
>
> *** End of opinion - technical sewer jargon follows - only read on if
> interested ***
>
> Just some background, maybe this is basic info that most people know,
> but I'll give it a quick shot anyway. There is older sewer
> infrastructure out there called combined sewer systems - typically
> found in many city's, particularly older cities. Combined sewers
> collect both urban stormwater runoff AND domestic sewage, as well as
> small design allowances for inflow and infiltration (I&I). In this day
> and age, replacement of combined sewers, in Ontario anyway, is not
> permitted, and all new development since the sixties essentially are
> built with "separated" sewer systems, systems that have both a sanitary
> sewer for domestic sewage and a storm sewer system for collection of
> urban stormwater. Traditionally as well, sanitary systems go to the
> treatment plant, storm typically went to the closest lake/river.
> Nowadays stormwater management is a whole discipline that deals with
> addressing stormwater quality issues - since bacteria and contaminants
> are also a significant problem in stormwater.
>
> OK - back to the combined sewers. Combined sewers, or any system that
> collects rain-generated runoff, are designed based on risk. Commonly a
> 2-5yr return period rainfall event is used for design purposes -
> meaning that the sewer can accomodate runoff generated by an rainfall
> that happens on average only every 2-5 yrs or so. Any rain events
> larger than this, or less frequent that this, will overflow to the
> streets and then make its way to the nearest lake/river. Combined
> sewers are no different, except they contain P&S (Piss & S#$@).
> However, it should be noted that in MOST places, regulations dictating
> the number or frequency of combined sewer overflows (CSO) are getting
> more and more stringent - not more lax. Now maybe this is not at all
> what the NRDC article is referring too, so yes, I should do my
> homework, but I am not going to - that is your job as Americans. We
> deal with the same crap over here. Anyway - nowadays in Ontario, there
> is a regulation from the Ministry of the Environment that specifies the
> maximum number and frequency that a combined sewer is legally permitted
> to overflow. Currently, they are permitted twice a year during
> swimming season, or in another form, at minimum 95% of CSO overflow
> volume must be captured and treated on an average annual basis - so
> this means the use of CSO capture tanks, or reduction in combined sewer
> use in general. Back to the NRDC article - I wonder if the EPA has
> changed, or is changing its CSO guidelines to be more stringent, yet
> the NRDC still is not sufficiently pleased with the new regulations????
> Complete guess on my part. But this could explain their reasoning for
> saying that "EPA wants to allow untreated sewage discharge during
> rains", when in fact what the EPA is saying is "Untreated sewage may be
> discharged, if necessary, up to X times per year, from combined sewer
> systems". That is an unfortunate fact of life with combined sewers.
>
> So - hopefully I am on the right track, but maybe I am way off and
> should keep my mouth shut until I read up on the issue, but like I
> said, thats your job. I have the various ministries to deal with here
> on many other issues.
>
> FISH
>
|
|
|
