sewer water in the hillsborough & alafia rivers?
The last time Tampa Bay Water suggested dumping treated sewer water into the Hillsborough River, the answer from the public, the reviewing agencies, and the City of Tampa was a big, booming NO. Of course they don’t call it “dumping treated sewer water into the river,” they call it “downstream augmentation with reclaimed water.”
Despite the public opposition, the idea is being discussed again as part of a contract with the City of Tampa. Tampa Bay Water wants to withdraw more clean water from our rivers—upstream—to supply future growth and development, and then replace that clean water (“downstream augmentation”) with treated sewer water (“reclaimed water”).
Scientists have raised red flags over the proposal to supplement downstream flows with highly treated, nutrient-rich wastewater currently discharged into Hillsborough Bay from the City of Tampa’s Howard Curren Wastewater Treatment Plant.
While overall nutrient loadings to Tampa Bay would remain unchanged, downstream augmentation would increase nutrient loadings in the lower Hillsborough River, proliferating the growth of algae and stressing marine life in summer months when temperatures rise and the water is stagnant.
Treated wastewater is damaging to Tampa Bay, but not nearly as damaging as it would be to our rivers where the pollutants would be concentrated in a much smaller quantity of water.
Another problem with trading wastewater for freshwater in the Hillsborough River is that it seems to require lowering the standard for dissolved oxygen in the river, since treated wastewater has less oxygen than the water it would be replacing. This would be a problem for the river’s fish and aquatic plants, which need oxygen to, um, live. Not coincidentally, they need the oxygen to remain at the standard that is already set for the river, as this standard is based on their requirements.
There are much better ways we can use reclaimed water instead of polluting our rivers with it. Reclaimed water should be used for agriculture, landscape irrigation, and industrial uses; which would reduce the use of potable water for these purposes.
On Monday, Tampa Bay Water will discuss developing a contract (technically a “Memorandum of Understanding”) with the City of Tampa, that would include the use of Tampa’s reclaimed water for downstream augmentation. (See the agenda item.)
Downstream augmentation of both the Hillsborough River and the Alafia River remain on TBW’s Shortlist of water supply projects. This Shortlist is still in the planning stage, which is a good time for you to provide your comments. Tell them which projects you like, as well as dislike.
That comment form is a good place to start providing input, but I suggest you also tell TBW’s board what you think—especially about dumping treated wastewater into the Hillsborough and Alafia rivers. Contact Tampa City Council member, Charlie Miranda, and County Commissioners Mark Sharpe and Al Higginbotham. (See my letter.)
Tags: environment, tampa, water
Loading ...
June 13th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Mariella,
How can this even be an option? I guess in this county bad ideas are the norm rather than the exception. Once again thank you for making us aware of the crap they are proposing.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Contact Tampa Bay Board? Done!
June 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Anyone that opposes this option has their head in the sand. We all live downstream from someone…somewhere. Reclaimed water is treated to near drinking water standards and the permitted limits are some of the highest in the entire country. Replinshment of water into the Hillsborough is an excellent use of reclaimed water especially when it is treated to the level required in Hillsborough County. Stop jumping on the political bandwagon here and focus on the science which supports using reclaimed water for this application. In a side by side test, the natural stormwater that runs off of our roads, parks, pastures, etc. is far more contaminated than the reclaimed water being considered for the augmentation project. Again…we all live downstream. The issue with dissolved oxygen is untrue when the treated effluent is properly aerated prior to discharge which is the case at all County facilites. Learn the facts and then make an informed decision….God bless.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
As devil’s advocate, check out these two articles on the subject:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/1484480801.html?dids=1484480801:1484480801&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=May+25%2C+2008&author=MIKE+DONILA&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=CLEAN+WATER%2C+FROM+WASTE%3F
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20040104-9999_1m4treated.html
June 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Dear Editor,
Your recent article entitled “Hillsborough River Proposal Raises Red Flags” raised concerns for us at Tampa Bay Water, the agency that is studying the Downstream Augmentation Project.
First, the article stated that downstream augmentation would increase nutrient loadings in the Hillsborough River, proliferating the growth of algae and stressing marine life. I can assure you that Tampa Bay Water will not pursue this project if there will be algae growth or marine life problems. Further, the permitting agencies would not allow such consequences either. So this “red flag” is unfounded.
Secondly, the article implied that we would augment the river during summer months when the water is stagnant. This is not true. We would take river water for potable use and augment with reclaimed water only when the river flows are at least 65 million gallons per day (100 cubic feet per second) which is 10 times the current MFL for the river. In other words, this project would take water during high flows of the river, not when the river is stagnant. This “red flag” does not exist.
We appreciate the interest Bay Soundings has shown in this project and look forward to working with you on future stories as the project evolves. Know that Tampa Bay Water is committed to developing this project only if it we can maintain the environmental integrity of the Hillsborough River.
Sincerely,
Paula Dye
Chief Environmental Planner
June 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
• Anonymous: thanks for presenting the devil’s side with the articles about the “toilet to tap” idea that we should start drinking treated sewer water, even though those advocates admit that the purification process would be extremely expensive and not everyone agrees the process is entirely safe.
One of the key issues mentioned in your articles is the pharmaceutical chemicals and gender-bending “endocrine disrupters” left in reclaimed water which cause male fish to take on female characteristics and interfere with the ability of animals to mate and breed.
And we’re considering dumping this in our rivers, and/or drinking it ourselves?! As I said, there are much better things we can do with this water. For one thing, TECO is willing to buy it and use it instead of the potable water they are currently using in their power plants. Citizens are clamoring to use it instead of the drinking water they are currently using on their lawns & landscaping. Even if we have to dump some of it somewhere, there are less destructive places to dispose of it than our rivers.
• Kelly: We have to keep watch and sound the alarm whenever this stuff rears it’s stinky head — just like the Green Swath you keep such a close eye on (thank you!), this downstream augmentation idea was floated 2 years ago and drowned when 1,000 citizens told Mayor Pam Iorio to say “no.” Now it’s baaaaack…
• Patricia: Thanks for adding your voice! TBW works for us, and they will respond to us IF enough of us speak up.
• TBW: you’ve simply pulled the Tampa Bay Water letter out of my first linked article. I hope people read all the sides in my linked articles, and in Anonymous’s links, and I hope more people — like Anonymous — bring more information and ideas into the discussion.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Isn’t it true that that augmentation with reclaimed water has never been done before in Florida? If so, this would be largely experimental.
As far as I know there isn’t a practical method for the removal of perfumes (from personal care products and house hold cleaners) or hormones and antibiotics (that wind up in our urine and then in wastewaster). Perfumes may interfere with
fishes natural functions and behavior. Second hand drugs may result in abnormalities in fish and other aquatic life.
I’m uneasy about the idea.
I’d like to thank TBW for their efforts and creating space for citizens to weigh in this topic and thank Mariella for bringing the issue to Sticks of Fire so we can have this discussion.
I’m for managing growth better so we don’t have to keep making these kinds of decisions.
June 14th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Reclaimed augmentation is being done in Altamonte Springs, Florida.
With regards to the microconstituents (i.e. perfums, hormones, etc.) these items are found in the potable water, stormwater, wastewater, and reclaimed water. Studies in Florida prove this. The levels that were once undetectable are now showing up due to advances of technology. This does not mean all of the items that are now detectable are harmful. Some are, some could be, but many are not. Many are still well below the threshold of concern and are well below EPA drinking water standards. TBW is not going to promote anything that will bring harm to the region. It is insulting that the general public can assume that the regional water purveyor will do so. The folks that work at TBW, the consultants, and the member governments want nothing more than to provide safe drinking water supplies in an environmentally friendly manner. If people want our water supplies to improve while protecting the environment they should realize that water is the cheapest commodity on the planet. $4 in Tampa will buy one latte, one gallon of gas, and nearly 1000 gallons of safe and potable drinking water. Supplying the region is not cheap but everyone wants to be able to turn their water on whenever they feel like it. Give TBW and the folks that provide you the water a break and realize that many are hard at work to give us the luxury of turning on that water each day for less than a cup of coffee….
June 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
The real issue should be the 200 tons of nitrogen that Tampa’s Howard Curren wastewater plant shoots into Tampa Bay every year. The nitrogen fertilizes algae growth in the Bay, reducing water clarity and shading out the beneficial seagrasses that are the key to Bay health. Re-routing the Curren water to the river does almost nothing to reduce the nitrogen to the Bay, but using it for landscape irrigation or over at TECO would basically eliminate a monster nitrogen input to the estuary. For comparison’s sake, Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s water quality goal is a reduction of 17 tons of nitrogen per year to recover about 10,000 acres of seagrass by 2010. So eliminating the Curren discharge all by itself would meet 12 years of water quality goals in the Bay and recover god knows how many seagrasses. Tampa Bay Estuary Program needs to speak up.
June 14th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Dear engineers, happy fathers day.. Do not forget for your whole family to drink lots of this famous water to keep wet during father’s day.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Mariella:
Also don’t forget all of the many local golf courses in the area that “should” be using reclaimed water for irrigation. Most courses currently pump from the acquifer. Reclaimed water is perfect for this use, if properly filtered.
Between golf courses and residential yards seems like we can use all of the reclaimed we can get, as long its filtered properly. I have heard the reclaimed being offered in South Tampa is not filtered enough to remove the salts and that is killing some landscape plants, like azaleas–which explains the lukewarm reception for reclaimed water down there thus far.
The City of Tampa denies they have a filtering problem.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
After reading the responses and being involved with river issues since the 1960’s. I have this for consideration.
It is true that every one downstream of any community say on the Mississippi River, in this country, has been using “reclaimed” water. Over time municipalities dumped “cleaned” “used” water back into the rivers and people downstream then “cleaned it up for human use and released the water again. This really started in the 1950’s and was refined in the 60’s and 70’s
The water for for the most part was better than most people have had since the advent of the industrial revolution and even the advent of large population centers. Which is a good thing.
The problem is this;
1: The same could be said about DDT. It was the wonder chemical. I remember seeing footage of people liberated in Italy during WW2 walking into showers where a cloud of DDT dust would cover them and the would walk out smiling. The lice and other vermin would be killed. Also crop yields raised food production . It was great. It took almost 50 years for us to find out that this was a disaster an finally ban it in this country. (DDT is still produced, sold and used in other countries). The same could be said for reclaim water.
In terms of water issues we are in the place that DDT was.
It is disturbing that reclaimed water has high concentrations of hormones that are affecting wildlife, Antibiotic’s that lead to super resistant harmful organisms.We are beginning to see that that there is a high probability that within a few years we will find the Scientific path to the proof of the harm. (While scientist knew that DDT was causing harm, it took years of studies and it was not until the documentation of eggshell thinning in birds that the mechanism of harm was found. Science is conservative.)
Oh as to nitrogen loads. We know it causes harm. (see an article in Scientific American I think Sept. 2006 or 7, on the worlds water dead zones). As to my reference to the Mississippi River. The largest dead zone in our gulf waters is from the Mississippi it is larger than some of our states and growing every year. As to Tampa Bay because the nitrogen would be dumped into it does not mean that it should be dumped into the Hillsborough River. ( the same SA article I mentioned above has an interesting map that shows just how many dead zones are along Florida’s Gulf Coast). We should be talking about using our reused water for irrigation. It filters, uses and or break downs the hormones, antibiotics and nitrogen. With reclaimed water used on lawns etc we would not need to fertilize and the ground water Would be filtered of potentially harmful hormones and antibiotics, etc and nitrogen.
I would like to point out that there may be some really good people at TBW. However, water is a valuable commodity. With profit motives, the underlining value I do not think it is wise to just trust our agencies.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
The subject of augmentation to the lower Hillsborough River is really what is now called minimum flows. Please see the Temple Crest Civic Association’s website for more information, http://www.templecrest.org/RIVER.htm .
First, let me assure you that as a resident along the reservoir, the upper Hillsborough River, I am totally against against addition to either the upper or lower Hillsborough River of any reclaimed water. Reclaimed water, although not sewer water, is nutrient rich and dangerous to water bodies, wetlands and water ecosytems. Currently (and you might want to research this with internet searches) nutrient rich water is responsible for world wide Dead Zones in coastal areas. One of the worst affected is the Mississippi Delta as the river exits into the Gulf of Mexico.
So I will tell you that I simply cannot support Charlie Miranda’s MOU that Tampa Bay Water begin talks with the City of Tampa to supplement the bypass canal with reclaimed water.
Tampa’s reclaimed water is not good for our environment. The water is not well filtered and even admitted on the COT website, the water will kill certain species of plants. Additionally, the water is nutrient rich and full of salts, primarily bromides which we do not know how they will affect the human endrocine systems. Nevertheless if Tampa’s reclaimed water can kill plants should we consider it safe to blend with the bypass canal as a potable water source…without understanding the long term consequences?
I don’t think so.
There are several issues here and officals and others try to muddy the waters with their political agendas.
First of all, the lower Hillsborough River needs a minimum flow, but not at the expense of the rest of the Hillsborough River OR the Green Swamp water shed.
Second, Tampa’s reclaimed water is simply not good for anything except golf courses…and that is really not so great since the water filters into the aquifer. While other cities (San Diego, etc.) have gone to the expense of filter sewer water so extensively as to ensure that pharmaceuticals and other pollutants are not present in water they blend into potable water sources, Tampa does not even filter out salts! The sickly desalinization plant that barely performs adequately for us is designed to filter salts before entering the potable water supply.
None of us should be satisified with any explanations for adding reclaimed water to potable water sources. Primarily, this is an excuse by the City of Tampa to sell its’ daily excess of 55 millions of gallons of reclaimed water that it is pouring into the bay. We will soon have a Dead Zone forming in the Tampa Port area because of this.
I have been in touch with SWFMD about many of these issues. My neighborhood has a wetlands area with hundreds of birds and nesting areas that is endangered because no one is taking notice of it. I had to inform the Planning Commission that it even existed. It is recognized by the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society. Yet protecting it from the dangers of chemical hazards in the river has been a night mare.
I would encourage everyone to stay abreast of developments as they come before city-council (www.tampagov.net) the EPC (www.hillsboroughcounty.org) and other environmental agencies. There is a battle brewing as water becomes an even more precious resource, which has been anticipated but not well planned for.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:42 am
As many have pointed out, the public expressed their outrage at this risky scheme 2 years ago when 1st proposed by Paula Dye and Tampa Bay Water.
It would be wonderful if we knew such a use of reclaimed water were safe, but we don’t. Tampa Bay Water cannot show us the scientific data to prove that pouring a lot of reclaimed water down these small narrow rivers is safe. They can’t because such data does not exist. The jury is still out, and until they can prove it is safe they should put the proposal back on the shelf where Mayor Iorio told Tampa Bay Water to put it last time.
The people of Tampa made it very clear to this Mayor, and she made it very clear the rest of the Tampa Bay Water Board, that the people of Tampa will not allow Tampa Bay Water to take clean fresh water and replace it with partially filtered sewage water. It still contains some or all of 27 of the 125 chemicals present before filtration, and no one knows what the effect would be on the life of the Hillsborough & Alafia Rivers if it became a substantial part of the water in those rivers. No one knows how much more algae would bloom than it already does in the rivers when more nitrogen is added. The Hillsborough is already impaired; augmentation would only make it worse.
Reclaimed water should be used for local industrial purposes and irrigation, which would reduce nitrogen loading in Tampa Bay and improve the light clarity needed for seagrass recovery.
Paula Dye & Tampa Bay Water must cease and desist from cramming this risky, unproven scheme down our throats until the published, peer reviewed science can convince our community that such “augmentation” is safe. Until that day, which may or may not ever come, please go away, and don’t come back until you have a better idea, not the same old one that was already widely denounced and soundly rejected.
The people have not changed their minds, Paula. You’ve demonstrated in the past how well you can be trusted (i.e not at all), and that is no basis for such a decision on how to allocate our resources and tax dollars.
The people who rejected this scheme have not gone away. We’re still here.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
This just in on the Bay Buzz:
June 18th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Whatever happened to the desal plant, and why, other than transport costs couldn’t reclaimed water be used to offset the impacts of brine byproduct of the RO process?
June 21st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“Reclaimed Water Pipeline Deal Likely”
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/21/na-reclaimed-water-pipeline-deal-likely/