9-14-08

 9-14-08Modesto BeeThink tank solutions run dry in our valley...Editorialhttp://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/429132.htmlMost likely, the Pacific Institute is sincere in suggesting ways to save water. Last week, the Oakland-based think tank issued a study that said if valley farmers would just be a little water-wiser, the state could save a lot of liquid. The co-authors even suggested that 20 reservoirs could be filled with the water saved by simply using better conservation methods down on the farm.So why build even two more reservoirs -- as Gov. Schwarzenegger, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and many who depend on water are urging -- when all we have to do is re-educate a few wasteful farmers?Perhaps the study's conclusions are applicable in some areas of the valley, but if we followed all of co-author Peter Gleick's suggestions around here, we could end up with thousands of thirsty city dwellers and ruined cropland.Many of our farmers flood irrigate -- the very practice the Pacific Institute finds so wasteful. By switching to sprinklers and drip systems, says Gleick, farmers could save millions of gallons that then could be used to water the lawns of city dwellers. While true, it doesn't tell the whole story.Flood irrigation does more than simply help tomatoes, peaches, walnuts, almonds, alfalfa and hundreds of other crops grow. It is also crucial for replenishing our underground aquifer -- the largest source of fresh water for everyone.Modesto pumps 60 percent of its residential water from underground. Turlock gets 100 percent of its water underground, as do Ceres, Riverbank, Oakdale and most other cities. Some cities, such as Stockton, depend too heavily on wells and have overdrafted their aquifer and now are forced to buy water from others. If there's none to sell and the wells go dry, people will go thirsty.Irrigation helps ensure that won't happen around here."It's very complicated," said Vance Kennedy, a retired hydrologist and farmer near Modesto. But it starts with the dirt, he said. Fields even only a few hundred yards apart can have very different soil characteristics. Some soil is sandy, allowing water to soak in quickly. Other soils have more clay, causing water to sit longer where it either nourishes plants or evaporates. The soil mix can change at different depths. Our area has many soil types, but most are fairly permeable -- meaning some of the irrigation water nourishes plants and some recharges the aquifer. Over time, we end up drinking that water.But we wouldn't drink it if it were salty -- and neither would plants. Water flowing from the mountains often contains mineral salts. When water is put on soil in small amounts, plants soak up most of it -- just as the scientists at the Pacific Institute prefer. But when applied more sparingly, water doesn't soak far into the soils and the salts are left near the surface. Enough salts can turn even rich soil sterile. On the other hand, flooding the soil dilutes the salts and pushes them past the root zones, keeping the dirt fertile.New irrigation methods are being developed to use saltier water, but for now it remains a problem on less permeable soils.In Monday's Sacramento Bee, Gleick offered suggestions for solving the state's water problems, including "new water-rate structures" to encourage efficiency and better enforcement of California's water rights laws. Such suggestions often ignore the legal rights of those who built the dams to capture the water in the first place.Faced with a water emergency, we're being offered lots of ideas. Professor David Zetland from the University of California at Berkeley, for instance, points out that farmers aren't stupid and should be given the freedom to sell water allocations -- which brings up a whole new level of issues. And while some of the suggestions offered by the Pacific Institute will work here, others simply will not.There is no shortage of ideas for better use of our water. But there is a shortage of water. And until we find better ways to capture more than we do now, plans to conserve it won't amount to much.Fresno BeeInclusion in public lands bill is good for river restorationBill would provide money toward implementing settlement...Editorialhttp://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/864593.htmlThe restoration of the San Joaquin River moved a step closer last week, when a Senate committee approved a version of a public-lands bill that includes the ambitious plan. We hope that we're finally close to seeing a resolution of the decades-old fight over restoration. The river bill is part of a larger Omnibus Federal Land Management Act that has some 90 separate components. The river restoration won't be cheap, with a price tag of several hundred million dollars. But the alternatives are even less attractive. The bill -- and the money that comes with it -- are needed to implement the settlement reached in a lawsuit first filed in 1988. Part of that agreement would take water that now is diverted to Valley farms and let it run down the river channel, much as it did before Friant Dam was built. Environmentalists who filed the suit and farmers who want to keep using the water from behind Friant Dam agreed to the settlement for different reasons. The environmentalists want to see historic salmon runs restored to the river; farmers were justifiably concerned that pursuing the lawsuit to a trial and verdict could mean they'd lose even more irrigation water, the lifeblood of the Valley's rich agricultural bounty. The settlement doesn't have unanimous support. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, and some farm groups are still opposed. The Friant Water Users Authority continues to support the settlement as the best deal they can get. But the Chowchilla Water District withdrew from the authority over the issue, and the Madera Farm Bureau has also withdrawn its backing. The Bee has supported the settlement since it was first crafted, and that hasn't changed. Federal law supports the environmentalists' position on the restoration, and Valley farmers must accommodate themselves to that reality, unpleasant though it may be. The bill now headed to the Senate floor contains $250 million for channel improvements and other work needed to restore the salmon run by 2013. It also has $23 million to help fund a proposed underground storage project in Madera County, and $1 million for the California Water Institute, affiliated with California State University, Fresno. That money would be used to pay for a water-management plan for the central San Joaquin Valley. All of those are important to the Valley. We urge the prompt passage of the omnibus public lands bill. It won't solve all the water problems of the Valley -- not nearly so. But it will take important steps in that direction. Sacramento BeeAnother View: State's ag industry already water-wise...A.G. Kawamura -http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/1232573.htmlCalifornia farmers have always practiced innovative water resource management practices while producing food for us and the world.The Golden State produces 400 different crops. We are blessed with the nation's No. 1 and world's No. 5 agricultural economy, but rarely do agricultural critics present a true assessment of what it takes to sustain the food and jobs that come with being a top agricultural provider. Critics tend to disregard the facts from people who get their hands dirty.Over the last four decades, the amount of water used on California farms is relatively consistent while crop tonnage has increased more than 85 percent in the same period, according to the Ag Water Management Council, a group that champions farm water efficiency. This is not inexpensive. California farmers in the San Joaquin Valley invested more than $500 million in high-efficiency irrigation systems between 2004 and 2006. It costs $1,000 per acre and up to $100 per acre per year to install and maintain a drip irrigation system. Water use in California agriculture is enormously efficient. It's not used just once, but as many as eight times.The current 10-year drought in Australia is a grim reminder of what happens to a nation's food supply when they fail to build a flexible infrastructure for water delivery that can adapt to the predictable challenges that come from historical drought, heat spells and other weather-related phenomena. Farmers cannot farm in unpredictable conditions … after all, unpredictable weather means unpredictable harvests.Our current California drought shows more than $250 million in lost plantings and crops this year. But that doesn't include the huge amount of idle farmland that wasn't planted in past years because of cutbacks in the water supply from years of constraints on a water system that is straining to stay predictable.We all need to conserve, while supporting an expanded statewide water management system that includes more efficiency, better water quality and enhanced water supplies.One of the greatest strategic resources we have continues to be our food supply. It's what feeds a nation and a world. Let us use the hard-learned lessons of the past to take the steps now to ensure that we can pursue the California dream not a nightmare … ask Australia.Stockton RecordSpanos-backed group says it was shut out of green debate...David Sidershttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/A_NEWS/809140323STOCKTON - A group backed by north Stockton developer A.G. Spanos Cos. and calling itself the Alliance for Responsible Planning began circulating a petition Saturday to force a referendum on the City Council's vote last week to consider green building standards and other measures to reduce the impact of new development on the environment, a company official said.David Nelson, senior vice president of land development for Spanos, declined to name any member of the Alliance for Responsible Planning - he said a list will be made public Tuesday - but said, "It's a group of members of the community who felt that the public was shut out of the process Tuesday night, or at least leading up to the vote that was taken Tuesday night."City Councilwoman Susan Eggman said the referendum campaign is a "slap in the face" to the city's bid to curb sprawl, and Councilman Clem Lee suggested Spanos Cos. could be having a "temper tantrum."City Attorney Ren Nosky said the city is reviewing the matter."We're not sure that that is legally referendable," he said.A divided council on Tuesday adopted an out-of-court settlement with state Attorney General Jerry Brown and environmentalists over the city's growth-governing General Plan, agreeing to consider measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure suburban growth is not "out of balance" with infill development. The Sierra Club had claimed in a lawsuit that the plan's provision for Stockton's population to about double by 2035 - much of that in planned subdivisions at the city limits - would harm the environment, and Brown had threatened to join the club in court.Chambers of commerce, builders and developers protested the deal, saying it would increase the cost of housing and discourage business. They said they were unfairly left out of negotiating the settlement, and they lobbied the council, which tabled the matter when it first considered it on Aug. 26, to put it off once more for review.Nelson said the city's uncertainty about the cost of implementing provisions of the settlement is "a bit disconcerting." The settlement was unnecessarily rushed, he said. Nelson called council members Saturday to tell them of the referendum effort. It was not warmly received."I see this as a colossal overreaction, and I think the best word for it is that it's wrong," Lee said. "The council took a responsible action."And Councilman Dan Chapman, one of three council members who voted against settling Tuesday - he, Steve Bestolarides and Rebecca Nabors said additional review was warranted - said, "I couldn't be more disappointed."We as a council made our decision Tuesday night, and the fact that now some people are trying to challenge it in the way that they're going to challenge it disappoints me a lot. ... It ticks me off."For a referendum to appear on a ballot would require the signatures of at least 10 percent of voters - about 10,000 to 11,000 signatures in Stockton, Nelson said - to be obtained within 30 days of the council's action Tuesday. If successful, the council could repeal its settlement action or put it to a public vote. The referendum is too late to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot. It would likely be considered in a special election sometime after that.The Sierra Club's Eric Parfrey said he doubted Spanos or the Alliance for Responsible Planning could secure the signatures necessary to force a referendum. He said Spanos is acting "like a spoiled child who doesn't want to go to bed at night" and that the referendum campaign likely is a bluff.Building Industry Association of the Delta Chief Executive Officer John Beckman, one of the principal opponents of the settlement agreement, said he had "heard reference of" the Alliance for Responsible Planning but was not aware of the referendum bid."My initial thought is it sounds like a good idea," he said. "Generally speaking, when you give the public enough information, they make the right decision."Nelson said A.G. Spanos Cos. was approached by several community members who asked if the company would help fund the campaign.Eggman doubted that, saying Spanos, not community members, has a special interest in avoiding provisions of the settlement.Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac did not immediately return a telephone call late Saturday.Time's right for compromiseGeneral Plan agreement is good for Stockton's future...The Recordhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/A_OPINION01/809140303/-1/A_OPINIONIt's almost always better to negotiate than to litigate.And in the final analysis, that's what a majority of the divided Stockton City Council decided in a General Plan dispute involving a Sierra Club lawsuit and a threatened intervention by state Attorney General Jerry Brown.This dispute revolves around the blueprint for the future of Stockton. It is the central planning document officials are supposed to use to decide where, when and what kind of growth occurs. It is supposed to help hold conflicts down by mitigating land planning in advance so incompatible uses don't end up as neighbors. Think animal-rendering plant and subdivision, and you can understand the kinds of things a General Plan seeks to avoid.The rap against the initial Stockton plan is that it was nothing more than a blueprint for sprawl and, certainly in the eyes of its critics, played to the wishes of the building industry and developers.The answer by builders and developers: We build homes, and our developments make job growth possible. Some attending last week's four-hour council hearing wore buttons reading, "Jobs yes, settlement no."In truth, of course, both sides are right, and both sides purposely overstate their cases to drive home their points.Growth has been a problem in this city over the years, often with little concern about the consequences of traffic, air pollution or the overall impact on the environment.It's also true that Stockton is a growing city. It is estimated that by 2035, there will be twice as many Stocktonians as today. Those people are going to have to live and work somewhere. Certainly we want to avoid more of what we have: people buying homes here and working elsewhere.The settlement approved by the council requires the city to consider green building standards and other ways to reduce the impact of new development on the environment.And the operative word in the settlement is consider.The city must consider green building standards for new homes and businesses. Consider reducing greenhouse gas emissions due to growth. And consider that 4,400 infill homes be built downtown, with a goal of building 3,000 by 2020.This settlement comes at an opportune time, perhaps the best possible time for builders and developers. Building, especially residential construction, has slowed considerably with the slump in the real estate market. In such slowdowns, developers often acquire land so they're ready when the market inevitably turns.Green is the new reality. We're all going to have to do more with less and tap creativity and raw brainpower to develop new ways of doing old things, including building the cars we drive and the homes we live in.This settlement puts builders and developers, not to mention future home buyers, on notice when we have time to get ready.Think what it might have been like had this settlement come five or six years ago, at the height of the building and home-buying boom. There would have been chaos. And surely more lawsuits.San Francisco ChronicleFarmers must monitor, reduce water use...Editorialhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/14/EDSM12R5QB.DTL&type=printableDrought, population growth, global warming, a collapsing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta environment - it's no secret that California's water challenges are only going to get more challenging in the near future. So you'd think, at the very least, that the state would measure how much water farmers - who use about 80 percent of the water drawn from the ailing delta - use each year. And you'd best think again.There's no system to measure or monitor how much of our water is being used by agricultural interests - and therefore we have no idea what our state's water needs and policy should be going into the future. (Think about that, voters, before you approve any more water bonds.) That's just one of the surprising revelations of researchers at the Pacific Institute in Oakland in their new study about the potential for agricultural water conservation in California. The other big surprise in their report is the fact that California farmers could save billions of gallons of water every year by expanding practices they already use - sparing the rest of us the cost and environmental damage of at least some of the new dams being discussed by legislators and the governor. The report lists a number of ways in which farmers cannot just conserve water but save money in the process: installing drip irrigation (about 60 percent of California agriculture is still irrigated using flood-irrigation methods), switching over to crops that require less water and yield higher prices (it's pretty hard to justify growing rice and cotton in what is, after all, a desert climate), and managing irrigation with technology instead of visual inspections. This is good news: Who likes wasting money? And who wants more dams? So it's disheartening to watch farming interests try to tear the report down. A spokesman from the California Farm Bureau Federation declared that farmers are already increasing their efficiency. Jasper Hempel, executive vice president for Western Growers Association, the trade group whose members grow 90 percent of California's fruits and vegetables, said in a statement that his organization was "troubled" by a report he described as "incomplete" and added that he hoped a "more serious study" would soon emerge.There are a few reasons why farmers might take umbrage to the suggestion that they could be doing things better, but they all go back to money - money and perceived control. Regarding the money, it requires quite a bit of up-front cash to, say, shift from flood irrigation to drip - $1,000 per acre. But that initial capital outlay is usually recouped within two years, and there's no reason why the state couldn't offer farmers rebates to do the right thing.The other reason for farmers to resist change is that it could upset the infrastructure, delivery systems and financial plans they've already created. But change, like it or not, will have to come to California's water policy. We simply can't continue along the path that we're traveling. Just as urban dwellers in California have had to adapt to low-flush toilets, short showers and mandatory reduction programs, farmers, too, need to step up the efforts to use less water.For the sake of California, that day needs to come sooner rather than later. The first step is for the Legislature and the governor to insist on a measuring and monitoring system for agricultural water use. That system must be approved before voters offer Sacramento yet another check for dams and other water infrastructure.The second step is for our state leaders to go to the farmers and ask them what kinds of changes they're willing to make if they're to continue getting so much water at such a great cost to the state. Will they work with the state to update their irrigation systems? Phase in different crops? And if they say that they won't change a thing - if they say that California's environmental sustainability and future growth are less important than their ability to continue farming rice or cotton using wasteful methods - well, then, they'll have to explain that to the voters themselves.Los Angeles TimesThe endangered Endangered Species ActThe White House is trying to rush through a change that will weaken the statute's most effective conservation tool...Andrew E. Wetzlerhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wetzler14-2008sep14,0,6290575,print.storyUnless you are lucky enough to see it in bloom, you might never notice the Cushenbury milk-vetch. Its slender, silvery-white stems lie flat to the ground, and its delicate pink-purple flowers emerge for just a few months. The Cushenbury milk-vetch is no soaring California condor or howling gray wolf, but it too has barely dodged extinction because it is protected by one of America's bedrock environmental laws: the federal Endangered Species Act.But now those protections are about to be weakened by the Bush administration -- not just for the milk-vetch but for each of the nearly 2,000 animals and plants protected by the Endangered Species Act -- and it is up to Congress to stop it. The core of the act's safety net is the requirement that, before any federal agency (such as the U.S. Forest Service or the Department of Transportation) can take an action that may affect protected species, it must first consult with federal wildlife scientists to ensure that its action will not negatively affect them. This "consultation" requirement is widely regarded as the statute's most effective conservation tool.Last month, the outgoing Bush administration proposed drastically altering that requirement. So instead of being required to consult with independent scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, federal agencies would be allowed to consult with themselves. Under such "self-consultations," agencies could decide, entirely on their own, that their actions would not have any negative effects on protected wildlife. Which brings me back to the humble milk-vetch, almost 90% of whose habitat is located on federal land in the San Bernardino Mountains. Self-consultations have been tried before, by the very agencies that the milk-vetch depends on for its survival: the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. In 2003, those two agencies entered into an agreement that allowed them to skip independent scientific reviews under the Endangered Species Act and "self-consult on many projects," such as "mechanical thinning" of forests. The results? According to a review by the departments of the Interior and Commerce, when left to their own devices, the Forest Service and BLM made the wrong call 62% of the time.This should come as no surprise. Federal agencies' missions don't always include protecting wildlife. The Bureau of Reclamation is about moving and storing water, the Army Corps of Engineers likes to build things, and the U.S. Forest Service likes to cut down trees. Of course these agencies are going to be biased in favor of projects that further those core missions. They don't have -- and shouldn't be expected to have -- the expertise or the incentive to fairly assess the effects of their activities on endangered wildlife.And it's not just wildlife on federal lands that would be hurt by these changes. Protections would drop for many animals, from endangered whales harassed by loud Navy sonar exercises off the coasts of California and Hawaii to endangered fish in Midwestern streams crossed by heavy crude-oil pipelines. The Bush administration is trying to rush the changes through the regulatory process, originally allowing a mere 30 days for public comment and holding no hearings whatsoever. Because of a public outcry, the comment period has been extended to 60 days, to Oct. 14, which is still inadequate, and the administration is still refusing to hold any hearings. The public deserves better. After all, animals as diverse as threatened migratory birds in Alaska to endangered panthers in Florida are affected. It is time for Congress to act. The executive branch can change Endangered Species Act regulations without congressional approval, but such changes require money to process, finalize and implement. Congress should cut off those funds until the next president is inaugurated. Regardless of who wins the election, the Endangered Species Act deserves better than the bum's rush that the Bush administration is giving it. Andrew E. Wetzler is director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Endangered Species Project.America's broken infrastructureU.S. highways and bridges are crumbling, and it will take billions of dollars to fix them. How do we raise the money?...Editorialhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-transportation14-2008sep14,0,3961211,print.storyWhen the World Trade Center went down in 2001, it led to two wars, hundreds of billions in expenditures and the creation of a Homeland Security bureaucracy. When the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis went down last year, it led to a $1-billion House bill to mandate repair of federal bridges, which will probably be vetoed by President Bush if it gets past the Senate.Obviously, neither the scale nor the causes of these two American tragedies are comparable, but the vastly different responses do say something about political will. The 9/11 attacks struck an emotional chord that infrastructure failures such as the I-35W bridge collapse or the ruined levees of New Orleans do not. Yet the consequences of our apathy about public infrastructure could be just as dire and deadly as our pre-9/11 apathy about Islamic extremism.More than a quarter of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and it would take $65 billion to fix them all. In 2006, almost 43,000 people died on U.S. roads and nearly 2.6 million were injured -- casualties that could have been reduced if more had been invested in safety improvements. Traffic congestion in big cities such as Los Angeles is choking off economic growth, and under-investment in public transit contributes to high gasoline prices and air pollution. And the federal fund that is devoted to solving many of these problems has run out of money.The federal share of transportation projects is funded mostly by a tax of 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents a gallon on diesel. The real value of the gas-tax fund has been steadily declining over the years because the tax hasn't been raised since 1993, and it isn't indexed to inflation. But the rapid rise in gas prices has worsened this decline; with people buying less, the tax proceeds are dropping fast. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters recently announced that a key account in the Highway Trust Fund, the one that funds most highway improvements, would run into the red this month unless Congress agreed to transfer money from the general fund.Congress complied last week by passing an $8-billion rescue package for the Highway Trust Fund, a bill that Bush had formerly threatened to veto but is now backing. That's because the administration has run out of options. If the federal government were to delay its highway payments to states, projects could be stalled and their costs would spike. Congress was right to approve the bailout, even though it compromises a 50-year-old philosophy that the users of the transportation network, not taxpayers as a whole, should pay for improving it.But the bailout won't solve the longer-term problem, which is threefold: The country doesn't invest enough in transportation infrastructure, it often spends money on the wrong things, and the current gas tax is no longer a viable funding source. Congress will have to address all of these issues when it crafts the next transportation bill.The 2005 transportation bill, which expires in September 2009, was a deeply embarrassing pork-fest -- the notorious Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" contained in the bill is still causing heartburn for its supporters in this year's presidential race. The trouble with such earmarks is that they often aren't among states' top transportation priorities, so crucial needs such as repairing the I-35W bridge get ignored while lawmakers fund their pet projects.Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain tend to blame earmarks for all the country's infrastructure woes, but it isn't that simple. Earmarks accounted for about $24 billion of the $286-billion transportation bill in 2005, or roughly 8% of the money. Yet a landmark report from the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission estimates that it would take $225 billion a year for the next 50 years to sufficiently upgrade the nation's crumbling infrastructure. Just cutting out pork won't come close to covering that.Actually, it's tough to imagine any way of raising that kind of money, but the current system leaves ample room for improvement. To start with, the next transportation bill should contain zero earmarks. It should change the way federal funding is approved, making sure that only projects that serve the national interest are funded and that they are subject to cost-benefit analysis. It should encourage private funding of public infrastructure, such as toll roads and bridges, by removing roadblocks to such deals. It should also encourage innovative fundraising strategies such as urban congestion pricing and freeway toll lanes.And lastly, something has to be done about the gas tax. The federal commission recommends raising it by 25 to 40 cents a gallon over five years, then indexing it to inflation. For the sake of our infrastructure, and for meeting the twin goals of improving the environment and weaning ourselves off foreign oil, that would be the right thing to do; it's also completely impractical. At a time when high gas prices have become a defining political issue, there is no chance Congress would approve a gas-tax hike. So what then?The vehicle mileage tax is probably the answer. Rather than taxing people based on the amount of gas they buy, it would tax them based on the number of miles they drive. Most likely, this would be done by installing tamper-proof devices in vehicles that would transmit mileage information to a tax office, though the data also could simply be confirmed by a certified mechanic. Some states are performing pilot studies on mileage taxes, but they're a long way from having all the bugs worked out -- there are serious technical and logistics questions, not to mention privacy concerns (many people are uncomfortable beaming information about their driving habits to the government). Nonetheless, a mileage tax makes sense because it rightly puts the burden for building and maintaining roads on the shoulders of those who use them, even if they happen to drive high-mileage cars. The next transportation bill should at least invest in more study of these systems.San Diego Union-TribuneTwo districts plan $200 million aquifer Padre Dam would pump cleaned wastewater to Helix...Mike Lee http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080914-9999-1m14helix.htmlEAST COUNTY – Squeezed by the most severe drought in at least two decades, a pair of water districts in East County is accelerating an unusual plan to generate more drinking water and restore habitat along the San Diego River. The idea, modeled after a much larger project in Orange County, is to pump purified wastewater from the Padre Dam Municipal Water District into percolation ponds along a portion of the floodplain owned by the Helix Water District.Helix would store the water underground for later use, creating a drought-proof supply of about 5,000 acre-feet a year, equal to about 10 percent of the district's deliveries. The aquifer also would provide water for trees and shrubs in a stretch of the river that usually is dry. The Helix board is expected to authorize an environmental review of the roughly $200 million project at its meeting Wednesday. It will probably take 10 years to complete all aspects of the proposal – assuming it passes the review and survives opposition from residents who would have to endure several years of sand mining related to the project. “Not only are we helping our own district, but we are helping the statewide reliability of the water supply,” said Charles Muse, president of the Helix board. “If we can provide the district with new water, that is water we don't have to buy from” wholesalers such as the Metropolitan Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority.At the Padre Dam district, officials are considering a major expansion of their wastewater recycling plant that would allow it to treat more sewage and to higher standards of purity. The Helix and Padre Dam districts would split the project's cost, though the details haven't been worked out, said Neal Brown, director of engineering and planning for the Padre Dam agency. The price includes upgrades for the treatment plant, an 11-mile pipeline to carry the purified wastewater and percolation ponds along the river. The districts are seeking state and federal grants to offset their expenses. “Our board is excited about the potential of this thing, but the numbers are big enough that we have to fine-tune this quite a bit before we start breaking any ground,” Brown said.Interest in similar projects is growing in San Diego and elsewhere, said Bill Jacoby, who sits on the board of trustees for the California section of the WateReuse Association, an international advocacy group for water recycling. “Local initiatives like this . . . are going to get us through the water challenges we face,” Jacoby said. Purifying wastewater for use as tap water has been a touchy topic in San Diego, where officials have for years debated whether to pump purified wastewater into the San Vicente Reservoir near Lakeside, then distribute it to residents. The city's water department is preparing to launch an $11.8 million demonstration project next year. If the pilot project eventually becomes a full-scale program, it likely would be the first of its kind in the state. Mark Weston, Helix's general manager, said the district had been studying groundwater storage for a few years. He hopes the drought has diminished opposition to the concept in his district, which serves about 260,000 people in La Mesa, El Cajon, Lemon Grove and Spring Valley. “People are becoming more sensitive to how unreliable our water supply is. . . . San Diego is absolutely at the end of the pipeline,” he said. The Helix-Padre project would span about 500 acres in the El Monte Valley that Helix had leased for two golf courses in the late 1990s, but those courses were never built. In recent years, environmentalists have been trying to restore habitat on the property as part of a regional effort to revitalize urbanized stretches of the San Diego River. Weston said the ecological and water-supply goals are compatible. Over the next decade, he envisions, a private contractor will mine at least 10 million tons of sand from the floodplain. Sand removal would create what Helix officials call “a more natural topography” in the valley, and revenue from the sand-mining rights would help pay for the aquifer project. The Helix district has dug one small percolation pond in the floodplain and installed a series of wells to monitor water movement. Results from that test should be available by year's end. Eventually, the north edge of the river would be lined with ponds of purified water. That water would filter into the ground and flow south to about 30 wells designed to pump water into Helix's treatment system for distribution to customers across East County. Washington PostAP IMPACT: Tons of drugs dumped into wastewater...JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, The Associated Presshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091401014_pf.html-- U.S. hospitals and long-term care facilities annually flush millions of pounds of unused pharmaceuticals down the drain, pumping contaminants into America's drinking water, according to an ongoing Associated Press investigation.These discarded medications are expired, spoiled, over-prescribed or unneeded. Some are simply unused because patients refuse to take them, can't tolerate them or die with nearly full 90-day supplies of multiple prescriptions on their nightstands.Few of the country's 5,700 hospitals and 45,000 long-term care homes keep data on the pharmaceutical waste they generate. Based on a small sample, though, the AP was able to project an annual national estimate of at least 250 million pounds of pharmaceuticals and contaminated packaging, with no way to separate out the drug volume.One thing is clear: The massive amount of pharmaceuticals being flushed by the health services industry is aggravating an emerging problem documented by a series of AP investigative stories _ the commonplace presence of minute concentrations of pharmaceuticals in the nation's drinking water supplies, affecting at least 46 million Americans.Researchers are finding evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species in the wild. Also, researchers report that human cells fail to grow normally in the laboratory when exposed to trace concentrations of certain drugs.The original AP series in March prompted federal and local legislative hearings, brought about calls for mandatory testing and disclosure, and led officials in more than two dozen additional metropolitan areas to analyze their drinking water.And while most pharmaceutical waste is unmetabolized medicine that is flushed into sewers and waterways through human excretion, the AP examined institutional drug disposal and its dangers because unused drugs add another substantial dimension to the problem."Obviously, we're flushing them _ which is not ideal," acknowledges Mary Ludlow at White Oak Pharmacy, a Spartanburg, S.C., firm that serves 15 nursing homes and assisted-living residences in the Carolinas.Such facilities, along with hospitals and hospices, pose distinct challenges because they handle large quantities of powerful and toxic drugs _ often more powerful and more toxic than the medications people use at home. Tests of sewage from several hospitals in Paris and Oslo uncovered hormones, antibiotics, heart and skin medicines and pain relievers.Hospital waste is particularly laden with both germs and antibiotics, says microbiologist Thomas Schwartz at Karlsruhe Research Center in Germany.The mix is a scary one.In tests of wastewater retrieved near other European hospitals and one in Davis County, Utah, scientists were able to link drug dumping to virulent antibiotic-resistant germs and genetic mutations that may promote cancers, according to scientific studies reviewed by the AP.Researchers have focused on cell-poisoning anticancer drugs and fluoroquinolone class antibiotics, like anthrax fighter ciprofloxacin.At the University of Rouen Medical Center in France, 31 of 38 wastewater samples showed the ability to mutate genes. A Swiss study of hospital wastewater suggested that fluoroquinolone antibiotics also can disfigure bacterial DNA, raising the question of whether such drug concoctions can heighten the risk of cancer in humans.Pharmacist Boris Jolibois, one of the French researchers at Compiegne Medical Center, believes hospitals should act quickly, even before the effects are well understood. "Something should be done now," he said. "It's just common sense."-------Some contaminated packaging and drug waste are incinerated; more is sent to landfills. But it is believed that most unused pharmaceuticals from health care facilities are dumped down sinks or toilets, usually without violating state or federal regulations.The Environmental Protection Agency told assembled water experts last year that it believes nursing homes and other long-term care facilities use sewer systems to dispose of most of their unused drugs. A water utility surveyed 45 long-term care facilities in 2006 and calculated that two-thirds of their unused drugs were scrapped this way, according to the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.An internal EPA memo last year included pharmaceuticals on a list of "major pollutants of concern" at health care businesses. Still, few medical centers keep comprehensive records of drugs they cast down toilets or into landfills. When data are kept, drugs and tainted packaging are combined in the same totals.In an attempt to quantify the problem, the AP examined records in Minnesota, where state regulators have pushed hospital administrators to keep closer track than elsewhere. Fourteen facilities were surveyed, in a range of settings from rural to urban. The AP projected those annual totals onto the national patient population for hospitals and adjusted for the relatively lower pharmaceutical use of Minnesotans. Since long-term care facilities generate more drug waste than hospitals, the AP conservatively doubled the number.That calculation produced an estimate of at least 250 million pounds of annual drug waste from hospitals and long-term care centers, further complicated by the fact experts say drugs might account for only up to half of pharmaceutical waste, while the rest is packaging.The AP estimate excludes many other sources of health industry drug waste, from doctors' to veterinary offices. Smaller medical offices typically dispose of expired samples and unwanted drugs like ordinary consumers _ with little forethought.Alan Davidner, president of Vestara of Irvine, Calif., which sells systems to manage drug waste, says his limited sampling suggests the health care industry's contribution could even be higher.Plus, untold amounts of pills and tablets are being thrown away each year at federal and state correctional institutions.At a state prison in Oak Park Heights, Minn., nurse Linda Peterson says the hospital unit serving inmates statewide has been throwing away up to 12,000 pills a year. She says some heart medicines and antibiotics are simply chucked into the trash. Tightly regulated narcotics susceptible to abuse go down the toilet."We flush it and flush it and flush it _ until we can't see any more pills," she says.She notes the presence of nursing homes, a hospital and another prison in the same area. "So what are all these facilities doing, if we're throwing away about 700 to 1,000 pills a month?"-------The EPA is considering whether to impose the first national standard for how much drug waste may be released into waterways by the medical services industry, but Ben Grumbles, the EPA's top water administrator, says a decision won't be made until next year, at the earliest.So far, regulators have done little more than politely ask the medical care industry to stop pouring drugs into the wastewater system. "Treating the toilet as a trash can isn't a good option," says Grumbles.Some think it's time to do more than ask. "It's strange that we have rules about the oil from your car; you're not allowed to simply flush it down the sewer," says U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa. "So why do we let these drugs, without any kind of regulation, continue to be flushed away in the water supply?"Landfills are one alternative. At least they don't empty directly, and immediately, into waterways like some sewage.Marjorie E. Powell, a lawyer for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, says landfills are "more environmentally friendly," while EPA spokeswoman Roxanne Smith contends that landfilling of hazardous pharmaceutical waste "poses little threat to the public."Still, Grumbles acknowledges that landfills, while safer, are not a permanent solution. That's because pharmaceuticals can eventually reach waterways from landfills through leaks or intentional releases of treated seepage known as leachate.An agency staffer wrote in a memo last year: "EPA recognizes that residuals in the leachate could contaminate groundwater supplies and ultimately reach water treatment plants, but disposal into the trash is currently considered a BMP" _ or best management practice.Already, researchers have detected trace concentrations of drugs _ including the pain reliever ibuprofen and seizure medicine carbamazepine _ in seepage or groundwater near landfills.Environmental professionals outside government are reaching a consensus that incinerators are the best disposal method."That's the best practice for today because we don't really know what the hell to do with the stuff," says industrial engineer Laura Brannen, an executive at Waste Management Healthcare Solutions, of Houston. She says burning destroys more drug waste than all other methods, though some contaminants may escape in smoke and ash.On a recent day at Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, Mary Kuch was getting ready to squirt leftovers from a syringe of hydromorphone, a powerful morphine derivative, into a sink. When she started out in nursing 18 years ago, "I took it for granted, because I was a young nurse, and that's what other nurses did," she says. "But I did find it strange."These days, only four gallons _ drugs with high potential for abuse _ go down the hospital's drains each year. Nearly all leftover medicine and contaminated packaging are instead tossed into black bins and rolled to a hospital storage room crammed with scores of 55-gallon drums.There, waste-company employee Bryant Sears _ dressed in a Teflon suit, rubber gloves and goggles _ conducts a sorting operation. Pills, blister packs and liquid medicines collected in vials, along with syringes and IV bags, are separated out according to differing disposal standards and methods. Occasionally, he glances at a wall-sized placard with details on which drug goes where _ hazardous waste in one barrel, nonhazardous in another. A roll of "hazardous waste" stickers hangs from a pole on the wall.Sears points to some epinephrine, a heart drug, saying, "Now that it's past its expiration date, it's waste."These leftovers and discards ultimately will be incinerated.EPA's Smith says even municipal burners unapproved for hazardous waste "will destroy all but a minute fraction" of organic compounds _ the kind found in pharmaceuticals.But Stephen DiZio, a manager with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, says not so fast. "I don't think we're encouraging incineration of anything. The public outcry would be so great."The push for incineration hides an irony. Several decades ago, drug waste was routinely chucked into the trash and burned in hospital or city incinerators.Then came a national campaign against air pollution. Most hospitals shut down their burners, and city incinerator managers became pickier about what they'd accept. With options restricted, hospitals began shipping more drug waste to landfills _ and dumping more into toilets and sinks.-------A few choices are expanding. Some states have passed laws to make it easier to contribute unused drugs to charity pharmacies that supply low-income patients.Also, a small share of unused drugs is shipped back to manufacturers for credit _ and incineration, waste consultants say. But the drugs are supposed to be sent back in original packaging _ sometimes impractical because the packaging is discarded or damaged.Several long-term care residences want to deploy automatic drug-dispensing machines that suppliers would refill often to reduce waste.While not yet practical, there are several experimental technologies, such as destroying trace drugs with an electrical arc, microwaves, or caustic chemicals.Increasingly, some bureaucrats and health professionals are suggesting that drug makers help pay costs of managing drug waste. But the pharmaceutical industry says there's insufficient evidence of environmental harm to warrant the expense.But impatience is mounting. Even the EPA has begun to take such suggestions seriously. Grumbles says drug makers "should do more for product stewardship and meds retrieval now." He says it would be unwise to wait for all the proof.For now, many health facilities, especially small ones, are put off by the cost of proper handling. Drugs deemed hazardous by the EPA _ about 5 percent of the market _ might cost up to $2 a pound to incinerate in a certified hazardous waste incinerator, says Vestara's Davidner. A pound might cost 35 cents to burn in a regular trash incinerator.Tom Clark, an executive at the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, wonders: "When you can flush it down the toilet for free, why would you want to pay _ unless there's some significant penalties?"-------The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at) ap.org -------------------------------------------------------------CENTRAL VALLEY SAFE ENVIRONMENT NETWORKMISSION STATEMENTCentral Valley Safe Environment Network is a coalition of organizations and individuals throughout the San Joaquin Valley that is committed to the concept of "Eco-Justice" -- the ecological defense of the natural resources and the people. To that end it is committed to the stewardship, and protection of the resources of the greater San Joaquin Valley, including air and water quality, the preservation of agricultural land, and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. In serving as a community resource and being action-oriented, CVSEN desires to continue to assure there will be a safe food chain, efficient use of natural resources and a healthy environment. CVSEN is also committed to public education regarding these various issues and it is committed to ensuring governmental compliance with federal and state law. CVSEN is composed of farmers, ranchers, city dwellers, environmentalists, ethnic, political,and religious groups, and other stakeholders.