Positive/Negative Projects....

[Darian]

The SacBee reported on two projects in the Sunday edition. First is the upgrade of the Sacramento sewage plant to tertiary level and the potential positive side affects of this mandatory project:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/25/6430489/upgrading-sacramentos-wastewater.html

Second is the proposed sale of groundwater by a couple of merced County growers to a water district in Stanislaus County. The sale would make millions for the sellers at the expense of the crops of those growers/municipalities who share the water in the same aquifer:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/25/6426909/mariel-garza-a-controversial-water.html

This sale is illustrative of how water has become a dollar crop/commodity for some growers. It's also illustrative of the need for statewide groundwater regulation. Amazing that during a time of extreme drought and reduced allocations from CVP/SWP, any water is available from growers to sell. In this case it's not clear that the sellers have retired an acreage to create the excess water.

[SeanO]

Thanks, Darian! I "enjoy" seeing your posts,

How preposterous can water transfers be? Just outrageous.

Take care,

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,

I think the jury is still out on whether the first is a positive or not. It's definitely intended to be a positive influence on the POD. I’m extremely limited to what I can in regards to this issue because I’m not exactly an anonymous voice on the internet as far as this forum goes anymore and my opinions regarding this issue are not totally congruent with those of my employer.

That said, you might want to reread Prabhakar’s comments specific to the future intended use of SRCSD/Regional San’s final effluent in the last part of this article. Despite the numerous, unfounded (and IMO untenable) conspiracy theories expressed by the “pumps/tunnels are the real predators!” crowd on this forum, if the commercial ag interests have a major water powerplay left to make it isn’t via some conspiracy theory that involves the tunnels, it’s via treated municipal waste water that currently is discharged into rivers, IF the right pieces fall into place. If anyone doesn’t believe that they need to ask themselves the following questions:

1- Does the NPDES permit that SWQRCB issued SRCSD in ~2010, which calls for near total ammonia and nutrient removal set something of a “new normal” for discharge criterion for all treatment facilities that discharge into waterways that flow into the Sac-SJ Delta? If yes, what stops other treatment facilities from also selling 100% of their final effluent to their local ag interests if their discharge criterion are also stiff enough to lower concern over NH3 and nutrient/HM loading on soil for ag purposes in future NPDES renewals? Keep in mind that every treatment facility is subject to potentially more rigorous criterion when their respective permits are up for renewal.

2- Is it just limited to ag interests in close proximity to said treatment plants or is there some way southern ag interests could also benefit? Pretend for a second you’re a north state olive farmer and the City of Corning comes up for repermitting and they make the offer to sell you 500 to 5000af of final effluent with the guarantee that you won’t have to worry about a potentially high Cl2, NH3, nutrient or heavy metal residual for more than what you’re paying for your surface allocation, but less than what you could sell 500 to 5000 af of that surface allocation to someone like Delta-Mendota?

If you go back and look at the ABs Dickinson authored in 2011, you’ll find this ball has being rolling downhill for going on three years now.

The SRWQCB IMO is essentially God when it comes to regulating discharge and levying fines in terms of discharge violations. If they want to show leniency to say the City of Yuba City because YC has a strong record in terms of violations and has addressed any past violations promptly, they can do that. They actually did just that a few years ago when the pipe to YCs diffusion structure broke and YC was discharging FE to the Feather through a broken pipe and not the diffusion structure. If they want to issue huge draconian fines to a facility that’s never had a “hot” primary effluent discharge but has a history of numerous small violations when singular limits were exceed (think Calistoga) they can do that also.

What some in the wastewater industry (myself included) don’t seem to think they can do is set extremely high limits for FE that exceed the permitted limits for reclaimed gray/purple pipe water and dictate that it can’t be sold and discharging to a river is now somehow a requirement of the NPDES permitting process. The Regional Board may ultimately win that battle, but I’m guessing that doesn’t happen. IMO they’ve already set that bar by encouragement and incentives for WWTPs to produce as much gray/PP water as possible. Gray/PP water is not only significantly more expensive to produce than FE for all secondary treatment facilities, it’s actually significantly more expensive to produce than is potable drinking water because the level of treatment to get wastewater to those standards is higher.

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... Gotta put my thinking cap on for this one. If I understand the info correctly, this situation is one that has potential for benefit (POD, fisheries etc.) but could backfire if Ag interests buy/use treated water and semi-solid and solid waste as fertilizers for application on crops (I know this is very summarized). If my limited understanding is correct, something similar is already happening with the sale of semi-solid and solid waste by by a SoCal sanitation district then transported to a facility they own in the southern San Joaquin Valley where it's composted and sold to growers for application. Have you heard/read anything about problems/results from that project?? Maybe the distance and lack of direct connection of waterways between where the effluent is taken from and delivered to makes any problems less evident.

I've thought about the problems of buying/using re-cycled water for irrigation an then dumping the re-polluted water back into the waterways for some time but there doesn't seem to be any interest in making inquiry into that from DWR. From what I've read, some growers/water districts in the San Joaquin are trying water treatment thru small DeSal projects but apparently costs are still too high for them to make the investment.

I'm going to La Paz for a week on Saturday. I'll think about this and try to understand it. Maybe I can come up with some questions....

[Darian]

After reading the comments about use of final effluent and the thought about sale of re-cycled water being considered a diversion requiring a permit, I think I see how the diversion by the Sacramento Sanitation District, when coupled with the BDCP diversion in the same area could amount to significant reduction in river flows in low water periods. If as you point out, each sanitation district upstream could adopt the same policy of selling 100% of their fe, that could put quite a dent in water available for the Delta whether it's clean or not. What is the potential for this scenario to play itself out?? Guess it would depend on the cost to potential customers. One of the costs associated with making recycled water available is providing the infrastructure to to transport/deliver the water. I suppose that cost could be offset by the unit price for delivery but not likely for now.

I wonder if this potential was considered in the EIR/EIS for the BDCP?? Water re-cycled, not returned to the river, would happen at the same point in time as diversion from the river by the proposed pumps at Courtland and in low water years at Clifton Court Forebay. Does the SWRCB have any power to enforce reduction of re-cycling capabilities to provide water for flows in the Delta??

The potential impact of all of these potential diversions on Delta, growers and municipal users downstream of Sacramento could be significant.