Friday, August 04, 2006
Yoo Yoo, SEWERVILLE. Friday, August 4, 6 pm at the Los Osos Community Center, ta-DA, the Wastewater Update Report. The report will be presented by Ripley Pacific, the engineers will be on hand for questions, the various Tech Memos are now posted at www.losososcsd.org site (click on the Wastewater link) so you can read up before the meeting. Time to wake up. Time to show up. Time to listen up. Enough already with people wandering in waaaayyyy after the train's left the station (and fallen off the cliff) saying, "Uh, whaaa?? Huh? " Nope. It's connect the dots time, folks. So, see ya there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Spectator sez"Most likely the CCRWQCB will not back down from their position on nitrates. They have held this position for a long time, and after all the burning of bridges and vitriol passed their way, they are sure not to give us any slack."
The point of denitrification is the water was supposed to go back into the aquifer. That doesn't exactly happen with ag exchange. With ag exchange/use, it's uptaken by the plants. The staff and Board need to look at the numbers. The same system is in use in Monterrey which is overseen by the same Board.
Ann,
No two systems are the same. That is always a pitfall of comparing systems.
The question, relative to Monterey, is whether the irrigated lands there are above an aquifer and what the monitoring requirements are and what 'credit', if any, the RWQCB is allowing them for uptake.
But Ann,
Monterey (I believe that Monterrey is in Mexico ... still a nice place, though) doesn't have a problem with Nitrates in their aquifer. It is sort of ironic that we keep getting "solutions" offered to us that were designed for Arcata, Monterey, etc ... essentially places with different problems than Los Osos has.
The only problem is that we keep getting excited and interested in saving money and the "new, improved!" plan but these new plans aren't really solving the problem.
I did like the Ripley idea and (aside from the obvious huge biases in the site selection issue) there are many aspects of their plan that are sort of cool. It would seem that we now have a reasonable option for starting discussion of an alternative site and technology. I wonder whether the RWQCB will sign off on even a variation of the ag-exchange idea. The TriW plan was both limiting the input of nitrates into the aquifer and also recharging it with water cleaner than is currently there. Ag exchange only does one of those two. The fact that less water is pumped out at the far East end of town simply reduces the rate of turnover water turnover (relative to TriW) and it would take longer for our aquifer to be cleaned. At least that is how I understand things as a non-professional.
Having talked with Tim Cleath and having listened to the geologist last night it seems that Ripley's guy was rather set in his ways and unwilling to address the issues he was asked about. Not a good sign.
Overall, I give the performance a B+. They were very convincing but I do believe that in the technical details I've looked into there were some issues that I feel were not addressed fully. For example the "apples to apples" comparison seemed to try to make unfavorable assumptions about TriW but only optimistic assumptions about their own plan.
At least the County (who is really unbiased, unlike either of the two groups in Los Osos) will now have the enough work done to allow them to ask the question "should we spend another $2M on the Ripley idea" to see if it is really better (quicker ... cheaper) than TriW?"
Inlet sez:"The TriW plan was both limiting the input of nitrates into the aquifer and also recharging it with water cleaner than is currently there. Ag exchange only does one of those two. The fact that less water is pumped out at the far East end of town simply reduces the rate of turnover water turnover (relative to TriW) and it would take longer for our aquifer to be cleaned. At least that is how I understand things as a non-professional."
If I understand the latest Cleath report and the Ripley's Ken Schmidth, the 10% that was supposed to get down from Broderson to the lower aquifer would be lost because by the time it got down, the salt water intrusion would have moved in far enough to negate that 10% and since 10% was all that was supposed to make it down (the rest stair-stepping to be lost to the bay) then that would make water recovery/recharge for TRI W zero. Which sorta defeated the whole point of it all and would then require inporting state water, which would -- again -- raise the cost of the project costs at Tri W. (Deferred costs)
Ann,
by your last post, you are implying things. Why don't you be a little more specific, and let the readers know if you really do understand the Cleath report and what Schmidt is saying??
It would be very dangerous at this point to imply certain things about water re-charging if you really do not understand them.
Cleath made the following point clear. Equilibrium (stemming intrusion) required both conservation & imported water.
How much imported water did Schmidt say would be required for the Ripley plan?? Do you even know?? Does he even know??
Because the Tri-W plan stopped, all funding for conservation stopped as well.
It is quite interesting that people are so quick to assign deferred cost to Tri-W, yet these same people make no effort to question any deferred costs associated with an alternate plan or are willing to 'believe' it will not require state water. So Ann, will the alternate plan avoid the need for imported water or won't it??
You also failed to state that Tri-W treated water could be used for water re-use or for agricultural irrigation.
As you said, for an opinion to be credible, it must be supported by facts. It should also not be blind to all facts.
Post a Comment