Rural Water - Quarter 1, 2008 - (Page 25)

water going directly into the tap water distribution system, said James Crook, a water industry consultant who has studied the issue. The projects are costly and often face health concerns from opponents. Such was the case Nov. 6 in Tucson, Ariz., where a wideranging ballot measure that would have barred the city from using purified water in drinking water supplies failed overwhelmingly. The water department there said it had no such plans, but the idea has been discussed in the past. John Kromko, a former Arizona state legislator who advocated for the prohibition, said he was skeptical about claims that the recycling process cleanses all contaminants from the water, and he suggested that Tucson limit growth rather than find new ways to feed it. “We really don’t know how safe it is,” he said. “And if we controlled growth, we would never have to worry about drinking it.” San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, in vetoing the City Council plan there, said it “is not a silver bullet for the region’s water needs,” and the public has never taken to the idea in the 15 years it has been discussed off and on. Although originally estimated at $10 million for the pilot study in San Diego, water department officials said the figure would be refined and the total cost of the project might be hundreds of millions of dollars. Although the council wants to offset the cost with government grants and other sources, Sanders predicted it would add to already escalating water bills. “It is one of the most expensive kinds of water you can create,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the mayor. “It is a large investment for a very small return.” San Diego, which imports about 85 percent of its water because of a lack of aquifers, asked residents this year to curtail water use. In Orange County, the project, a collaboration between the water and sanitation districts, has not faced serious opposition, in part because of a public awareness and marketing campaign. Early on, officials secured the backing of environmental groups, elected leaders and civic groups, helped in part by the fact that the project eliminated the need for the sanitation district to build a new pipe spewing effluent into the ocean. Orange County began purifying sewer water in 1976 with its Water Factory 21, which dispensed the cleansed water into the ground to protect groundwater from encroaching seawater. That plant has been replaced by the new one, with more advanced technology, and is intended to cope with not only current water needs but also expectations that the county’s population will grow by 500,000 by 2020. Still, said Stephen Coonan, a water-industry consultant in Texas, such projects proceed slowly. “Nobody is jumping out to do it,” he said. “They want to make sure the science is where it should be. I think the public is accepting we are investigating it.” m From The New York Times on the Web; ©The New York Times Co. Reprinted with permission. Photos ©axel koester photography. First Quarter 2008 • 25

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Rural Water - Quarter 1, 2008

Rural Water - Quarter 1, 2008 Contents From the President Afterburn: Nexters' Impact in the Workplace Retirement Will Have to Wait From Sewage, Added Water for Drinking Rural Water and the Farm Bill Fiduciary Responsibility: It's All About Trust Water Industry Supports International Rural Water Association Regulatory Update The Rural Water Washington Rally in April Throwing My Loop A Precious Thing Called Water Index to Advertisers Advertisers.com From the CEO

Rural Water - Quarter 1, 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.