The California Drought
 

As of 1 November, the 12 "key reservoirs" in California held only 23% of
their combined capacity. The average content as of that date is 56% of
capacity.

At this time of year, the reservoirs are normally low, waiting for the
spring and summer snow-melt to refill them. However, they currently
hold less than half the amount of water that they would normally hold.

Precipitation in the first month of the current rain-year -- which
started 1 October -- was below average at 16 weather stations. Two
stations were above average. Yosemite had 3.21 inches in October, 60%
above average; this should help the water supply for San Francisco.
Death Valley had 1.08 inches in October, more than 15 times the average
for the month.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

The California Drought
 

David E. Ross wrote:
As of 1 November, the 12 "key reservoirs" in California held only 23% of
their combined capacity. The average content as of that date is 56% of
capacity.

At this time of year, the reservoirs are normally low, waiting for the
spring and summer snow-melt to refill them. However, they currently
hold less than half the amount of water that they would normally hold.

Precipitation in the first month of the current rain-year -- which
started 1 October -- was below average at 16 weather stations. Two
stations were above average. Yosemite had 3.21 inches in October, 60%
above average; this should help the water supply for San Francisco.
Death Valley had 1.08 inches in October, more than 15 times the average
for the month.

i keep following the news and radars as the whole
system and situation are interesting.

the few recent storms that have gone through have
left the snow pack in the mountains above average and
they've opens ski resorts in some places early. this
is good and a welcome start to what may be a very
interesting time.

i also notice any mentions of rain water capture
projects that are being funded and put into place,
but really the entire state should be out en mass
putting in swales, seeps and sinks to capture rains
as much as possible. sure beats sitting around and
feeling like little can be done... some farmers
are ahead of the game and have already changed
their fields to act as ground water sinks if the
El Nino comes through.

if you need the inspiration go looking for John
Liu's movies about China's Loess Plateau and other
movies about wide scale landscape restoration
efforts around the world. they work if the people
will get out and do it.


songbird

The California Drought
 

On 11/19/2015 12:34 PM, songbird wrote [in part]:

[snipped]

i also notice any mentions of rain water capture
projects that are being funded and put into place,
but really the entire state should be out en mass
putting in swales, seeps and sinks to capture rains
as much as possible. sure beats sitting around and
feeling like little can be done... some farmers
are ahead of the game and have already changed
their fields to act as ground water sinks if the
El Nino comes through.

Where I live, the soils are so mineralized that any ground water
(including captured rain) is unfit for agricultural use, let alone
domestic use. We do have seeps and springs in the area. During a
drought about 30 years ago, however, a study determined that mixing only
one part of ground water with nine parts of California Water Project
water would yield something that would be illegally tainted.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

The California Drought
 

David E. Ross wrote:
....rainwater capture, swales, seeps, soaks, etc...
Where I live, the soils are so mineralized that any ground water
(including captured rain) is unfit for agricultural use, let alone
domestic use. We do have seeps and springs in the area. During a
drought about 30 years ago, however, a study determined that mixing only
one part of ground water with nine parts of California Water Project
water would yield something that would be illegally tainted.

that sounds rather extreme, but i'd assume
the native plants manage.

rainwater capture in barrels and lined ponds would
be another option for such an extreme case. water
right from the roof and other hard surfaces would
avoid most of the problem.


songbird

The California Drought
 

On 11/20/2015 9:00 AM, songbird wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
...rainwater capture, swales, seeps, soaks, etc...
Where I live, the soils are so mineralized that any ground water
(including captured rain) is unfit for agricultural use, let alone
domestic use. We do have seeps and springs in the area. During a
drought about 30 years ago, however, a study determined that mixing only
one part of ground water with nine parts of California Water Project
water would yield something that would be illegally tainted.

that sounds rather extreme, but i'd assume
the native plants manage.

rainwater capture in barrels and lined ponds would
be another option for such an extreme case. water
right from the roof and other hard surfaces would
avoid most of the problem.


songbird


I recently had my roof's rain gutters cleaned. The gunk removed would
likely be harmless to my garden but would definitely not be potable.
There were several years of ash fallout from brush fires and Italian
cypress needles from my neighbor's trees. I often hear squirrels
running across my roof, so I would not be surprised if the gunk included
squirrel droppings.

After a long period without rain, the public is advised to avoid Pacific
beaches near storm drain outlets. For the same reason, the first rain
on my roof -- even after having my gutters cleaned -- is not very good.

In the fall, I use large amounts of gypsum to make my clay soil more
porous. I also mechanically aerate "lawn" areas, which are NOT grass
but a drought-tolerant ground cover. All this is an attempt to capture
rainfall to irrigate my garden.

In 2005 during an exceptionally heavy rain storm, the hill in my back
yard failed. In repairing it, two concrete V-ditches were built. One
runs across the top of the slope and feeds into another that runs down
the middle to a catch box at the bottom. Additionally, drain lines were
buried at four levels across the slope. I questioned the fact that
three separate lines were to be installed to covey water from the slope
to cutouts in the curb at the street in front of my house: one from the
catch box and one each from the drain lines on the left side and right
side of the slope. I was told the county (from which I needed a grading
permit) would not approve allowing the water to flow into my garden. By
the way, the damage is not insurable; the cost of repairing my hill
amounted to four times what I paid to buy my house.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

The California Drought
 

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:23:15 AM UTC-8, David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/20/2015 9:00 AM, songbird wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
...rainwater capture, swales, seeps, soaks, etc...
Where I live, the soils are so mineralized that any ground water
(including captured rain) is unfit for agricultural use, let alone
domestic use. We do have seeps and springs in the area. During a
drought about 30 years ago, however, a study determined that mixing only
one part of ground water with nine parts of California Water Project
water would yield something that would be illegally tainted.

that sounds rather extreme, but i'd assume
the native plants manage.

rainwater capture in barrels and lined ponds would
be another option for such an extreme case. water
right from the roof and other hard surfaces would
avoid most of the problem.


songbird


I recently had my roof's rain gutters cleaned. The gunk removed would
likely be harmless to my garden but would definitely not be potable.
There were several years of ash fallout from brush fires and Italian
cypress needles from my neighbor's trees. I often hear squirrels
running across my roof, so I would not be surprised if the gunk included
squirrel droppings.

After a long period without rain, the public is advised to avoid Pacific
beaches near storm drain outlets. For the same reason, the first rain
on my roof -- even after having my gutters cleaned -- is not very good.

What do you mean "not very good"? Are you saying that the first rains caught
in rain barrels should NOT be saved for irrigating plants? Or?

HB

[...]

The California Drought
 

Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
....
What do you mean "not very good"? Are you saying that the first rains caught
in rain barrels should NOT be saved for irrigating plants? Or?

many rain capture systems include some sort of
arrangement for rejecting the first number of
gallons of water so that contamination (from
dust, bird droppings, etc.) is reduced. when
using the water for a garden most of what is
there isn't harmful anyways so i'd not worry.
the concern is more geared towards those in areas
of harmful dust fallout and those who are using
the water for drinking, cooking or other house-
hold uses.


songbird

The California Drought
 

On 11/24/2015 12:53 AM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:23:15 AM UTC-8, David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/20/2015 9:00 AM, songbird wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
...rainwater capture, swales, seeps, soaks, etc...
Where I live, the soils are so mineralized that any ground water
(including captured rain) is unfit for agricultural use, let alone
domestic use. We do have seeps and springs in the area. During a
drought about 30 years ago, however, a study determined that mixing only
one part of ground water with nine parts of California Water Project
water would yield something that would be illegally tainted.

that sounds rather extreme, but i'd assume
the native plants manage.

rainwater capture in barrels and lined ponds would
be another option for such an extreme case. water
right from the roof and other hard surfaces would
avoid most of the problem.


songbird


I recently had my roof's rain gutters cleaned. The gunk removed would
likely be harmless to my garden but would definitely not be potable.
There were several years of ash fallout from brush fires and Italian
cypress needles from my neighbor's trees. I often hear squirrels
running across my roof, so I would not be surprised if the gunk included
squirrel droppings.

After a long period without rain, the public is advised to avoid Pacific
beaches near storm drain outlets. For the same reason, the first rain
on my roof -- even after having my gutters cleaned -- is not very good.

What do you mean "not very good"? Are you saying that the first rains caught
in rain barrels should NOT be saved for irrigating plants? Or?

HB

[...]


If there were recent brush fires dropping ash in your area, the first
rains will be quite alkaline. Our southern California soils are
generally too alkaline already. I am always using sulfur around many
plants in my garden to make the soil more acid.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

The California Drought
 

On 21/11/2015 5:23 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/20/2015 9:00 AM, songbird wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
...rainwater capture, swales, seeps, soaks, etc...
Where I live, the soils are so mineralized that any ground water
(including captured rain) is unfit for agricultural use, let alone
domestic use. We do have seeps and springs in the area. During a
drought about 30 years ago, however, a study determined that mixing only
one part of ground water with nine parts of California Water Project
water would yield something that would be illegally tainted.

that sounds rather extreme, but i'd assume
the native plants manage.

rainwater capture in barrels and lined ponds would
be another option for such an extreme case. water
right from the roof and other hard surfaces would
avoid most of the problem.


songbird


I recently had my roof's rain gutters cleaned. The gunk removed would
likely be harmless to my garden but would definitely not be potable.
There were several years of ash fallout from brush fires and Italian
cypress needles from my neighbor's trees. I often hear squirrels
running across my roof, so I would not be surprised if the gunk included
squirrel droppings.

Hmmmm. I doubt whether any of that would be of concern to Australian
rural dwellers such as myself. We collect rain water from our roof and
although I have no idea what a squrrel poop looks like, bird poop is not
a problem and possum poo (not opossum) being from a marsupial is not
seen as a problem. Our roof water is used in our house (unfiltered and
untreated) for all the usual sorts of domestic activities.

After a long period without rain, the public is advised to avoid Pacific
beaches near storm drain outlets. For the same reason, the first rain
on my roof -- even after having my gutters cleaned -- is not very good.

In the fall, I use large amounts of gypsum to make my clay soil more
porous. I also mechanically aerate "lawn" areas, which are NOT grass
but a drought-tolerant ground cover. All this is an attempt to capture
rainfall to irrigate my garden.

In 2005 during an exceptionally heavy rain storm, the hill in my back
yard failed. In repairing it, two concrete V-ditches were built. One
runs across the top of the slope and feeds into another that runs down
the middle to a catch box at the bottom. Additionally, drain lines were
buried at four levels across the slope. I questioned the fact that
three separate lines were to be installed to covey water from the slope
to cutouts in the curb at the street in front of my house: one from the
catch box and one each from the drain lines on the left side and right
side of the slope. I was told the county (from which I needed a grading
permit) would not approve allowing the water to flow into my garden. By
the way, the damage is not insurable; the cost of repairing my hill
amounted to four times what I paid to buy my house.

The California Drought
 

On 25/11/2015 2:38 AM, songbird wrote:
Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
...
What do you mean "not very good"? Are you saying that the first rains caught
in rain barrels should NOT be saved for irrigating plants? Or?

many rain capture systems include some sort of
arrangement for rejecting the first number of
gallons of water so that contamination (from
dust, bird droppings, etc.) is reduced. when
using the water for a garden most of what is
there isn't harmful anyways so i'd not worry.
the concern is more geared towards those in areas
of harmful dust fallout and those who are using
the water for drinking, cooking or other house-
hold uses.

A friend of ours used to have a first flush diverter on his household
rainwater tank (cistern in USian) but took it off after a year or so
because he found it flushed away too much water and a short passing
shower would result in his not getting any water into his tank
(cistern). And dust or crap settles to the bottom of the tank in a very
short time and is not a worry until it becomes time to desludge the
tank. the tank (cistern) was to supply water for all his household use
so the loss of any water was a problem.

The California Drought
 

On 11/25/2015 4:38 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 21/11/2015 5:23 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/20/2015 9:00 AM, songbird wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
...rainwater capture, swales, seeps, soaks, etc...
Where I live, the soils are so mineralized that any ground water
(including captured rain) is unfit for agricultural use, let alone
domestic use. We do have seeps and springs in the area. During a
drought about 30 years ago, however, a study determined that mixing only
one part of ground water with nine parts of California Water Project
water would yield something that would be illegally tainted.

that sounds rather extreme, but i'd assume
the native plants manage.

rainwater capture in barrels and lined ponds would
be another option for such an extreme case. water
right from the roof and other hard surfaces would
avoid most of the problem.


songbird


I recently had my roof's rain gutters cleaned. The gunk removed would
likely be harmless to my garden but would definitely not be potable.
There were several years of ash fallout from brush fires and Italian
cypress needles from my neighbor's trees. I often hear squirrels
running across my roof, so I would not be surprised if the gunk included
squirrel droppings.

Hmmmm. I doubt whether any of that would be of concern to Australian rural
dwellers such as myself. We collect rain water from our roof and although
I have no idea what a squrrel poop looks like, bird poop is not a problem
and possum poo (not opossum) being from a marsupial is not seen as a
problem. Our roof water is used in our house (unfiltered and untreated)
for all the usual sorts of domestic activities.
snip...

Even if there were concerns about the quality of collected water for
consumption the cost of equipment needed to clean it up, at least in
smallish quantities, is not extreme. There are pathogens in every sort of
excreta and what is there and what it will do is pretty hit-and-miss for
any individual. For the garden, I'd say that anything goes since what is
coming from the roof is exactly what would have fallen on the garden.

The California Drought
 

Fran Farmer wrote:

Hmmmm. I doubt whether any of that would be of concern to Australian
rural dwellers such as myself. We collect rain water from our roof and
although I have no idea what a squrrel poop looks like, bird poop is not
a problem and possum poo (not opossum) being from a marsupial is not
seen as a problem. Our roof water is used in our house (unfiltered and
untreated) for all the usual sorts of domestic activities.


Is that to say the water isn't even boiled before drinking it?

bob prohaska

The California Drought
 

On 26/11/2015 12:41 PM, User Bp wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:

Hmmmm. I doubt whether any of that would be of concern to Australian
rural dwellers such as myself. We collect rain water from our roof and
although I have no idea what a squrrel poop looks like, bird poop is not
a problem and possum poo (not opossum) being from a marsupial is not
seen as a problem. Our roof water is used in our house (unfiltered and
untreated) for all the usual sorts of domestic activities.


Is that to say the water isn't even boiled before drinking it?

No. I've lived rurally for over 50 years of my life and the vast
majority of people who live outside towns or villages collect rainwater
off the roof for use in the house. I've never heard of anyone getting
sick from it or installing any treatment system.

I have heard of local villages advising residents to boil water before
use. Those village uses ground water and it's more suspect IME than
rainwater.

The California Drought
 

Fran Farmer wrote:
....
A friend of ours used to have a first flush diverter on his household
rainwater tank (cistern in USian) but took it off after a year or so
because he found it flushed away too much water and a short passing
shower would result in his not getting any water into his tank
(cistern). And dust or crap settles to the bottom of the tank in a very
short time and is not a worry until it becomes time to desludge the
tank. the tank (cistern) was to supply water for all his household use
so the loss of any water was a problem.

that must be a fun job!

in a place where there are distinct rainy seasons it
would probably be worth letting the first rains
go with the diverter on and then after things are
rinsed off it could be turned off.

my sister had to have their cistern cleaned out as
when it was installed the contractor put it down too
deep and when they weren't around the top lip got filled
over and then a lot of stuff got in so they had to
get the gunk out and put on a taller lip and ... they're
all set up now and have actual heat and running water.
been a long road for her with the property and having
enough $ to put up a house and have it habitable. now
she finally has a place away from the city like she's
always wanted.

i don't think they have rain water collection set up
yet which will be a shame as it will be a higher likely
rainfall year with El Nino. her partner is a gardener
and also is learning how to forage and prepare native
plants. still haven't met him yet (it's a long haul
from here to there and i hate flying).


songbird

The California Drought
 

Fran Farmer wrote:
User Bp wrote:
....
Is that to say the water isn't even boiled before drinking it?

No. I've lived rurally for over 50 years of my life and the vast
majority of people who live outside towns or villages collect rainwater
off the roof for use in the house. I've never heard of anyone getting
sick from it or installing any treatment system.

I have heard of local villages advising residents to boil water before
use. Those village uses ground water and it's more suspect IME than
rainwater.

yeah, living a long ways from larger cities the air
is likely to be much cleaner. i think i'd be ok
sometimes but other times (after high winds and a lot
of dust or times when they're spraying crops) i'd much
prefer to drink well water.

in my continued studies i'm seeing more and more
reports of septic systems not really doing much at all
and so for the longer term a better method should be
adopted. it's really a shame that so much good stuff
for plants is being wasted.


songbird

The California Drought
 

songbird wrote:

in my continued studies i'm seeing more and more
reports of septic systems not really doing much at all
and so for the longer term a better method should be
adopted. it's really a shame that so much good stuff
for plants is being wasted.

Is household wastewater really ok for plants? Cleaning
agents are usually rather alkaline, laundry and auto
dishwasher powders are downright caustic. Won't they make
trouble over time?

I always thought the point of septic systems was to do
as little as possible; control pathogens, certainly, but
no more. The goal always seemed to be simplicity. It's
little technical challenge to make sewage drinkable using
aeration, settling and maybe partial reverse osmosis to
get the TDS down. On a single-house scale the economics
are daunting, but that seems like the greatest hurdle.
The hardware appears to exist. Becaue water stores well
intermittent power sources like wind and solar are quite
usable to drive the process.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

greywater (was: The California Drought
 

User Bp wrote:
songbird wrote:

in my continued studies i'm seeing more and more
reports of septic systems not really doing much at all
and so for the longer term a better method should be
adopted. it's really a shame that so much good stuff
for plants is being wasted.

Is household wastewater really ok for plants? Cleaning
agents are usually rather alkaline, laundry and auto
dishwasher powders are downright caustic. Won't they make
trouble over time?

some of them can be problems, in general if you are
going to use household waste water for the gardens it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed) in
some manner before it gets to the gardens. some things
are toxic above small amounts so should not be used.


I always thought the point of septic systems was to do
as little as possible; control pathogens, certainly, but
no more. The goal always seemed to be simplicity.

the idea was that the soil should filter and clean the
remaining water coming from it, but they are discovering
that the soil does not clean it as much as expected so
effluent plumes are getting into the rivers and lakes.
in the end mixing human waste with water makes the
problem much worse than needed because then the human
waste has to be taken back out of the water anyways.
why not just keep it from the water to begin with? so
until people realize that the initial design is horribly
flawed we'll be stuck with this rotten and pollution
encouraging mess instead of doing things in a much
smarter way.


It's
little technical challenge to make sewage drinkable using
aeration, settling and maybe partial reverse osmosis to
get the TDS down. On a single-house scale the economics
are daunting, but that seems like the greatest hurdle.
The hardware appears to exist. Becaue water stores well
intermittent power sources like wind and solar are quite
usable to drive the process.

with cheap energy much becomes possible, but if you
design a smarter system that doesn't pollute water to
begin with you can avoid a lot of problems (and expenses).


songbird

greywater
 

On 29/11/2015 7:50 AM, songbird wrote:
it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed)

Prince Charles has a reed bed sewage treatment set up installed at his
home, Highgrove.

BTW, for those people who enjoy gardening books, the book on his garden
is called "The garden at Highgrove". This is not a cheap book and I
debated long and hard with myself as to whether I should bother to pay
the money for a book on the garden of a rich royal whose lifestyle is
nothing like mine or even in the same country or in the same gardneing
conditions. I'm so glad that I did eventually buy it as it's real eye
candy and his attitude to his garden resonates with me. He even ignored
advice given to him by that guru Sir Roy Strong because it didn't fit
into what he wanted to do.

I keep pulling it off the shelves when I need a bit of inspiration.
Wonderful book, even more wonderful garden (this is about another book
by him but there are good pics here of his garden):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-new-book.html

greywater (was: The California Drought
 

songbird wrote:

some of them can be problems, in general if you are
going to use household waste water for the gardens it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed) in
some manner before it gets to the gardens. some things
are toxic above small amounts so should not be used.

Are there detergents that really work and don't louse up
the water? Borax is obviously out of the question, bleaches
will have to be h2o2 based, but I think they're available.


the idea was that the soil should filter and clean the
remaining water coming from it, but they are discovering
that the soil does not clean it as much as expected so
effluent plumes are getting into the rivers and lakes.
Nutrients, or pathogens?

in the end mixing human waste with water makes the
problem much worse than needed because then the human
waste has to be taken back out of the water anyways.
why not just keep it from the water to begin with? so
until people realize that the initial design is horribly
flawed we'll be stuck with this rotten and pollution
encouraging mess instead of doing things in a much
smarter way.

Composting toilets are a good option in low-density
environments, but would they work in higher density places,
say 10ksf lots, 3bd/2ba houses? What about apartments?


with cheap energy much becomes possible, but if you
design a smarter system that doesn't pollute water to
begin with you can avoid a lot of problems (and expenses).

Most of the developed world uses single-stream sewage collection
and already makes at least a token effort to clean up the wastewater.
With a little more effort and energy the water could be cleaned up
enough to go back in the supply. From what I gather, solar energy
in Germany has fallen to zero cost for portions of the day. The
same is apt to happen here if wind and solar investments continue.
Reverse osmosis plants can stop and start relatively quickly, that
seems like a good use for the excess energy.

Here's a link that some might find interesting on the subject of
reverse osmosis and its efficiency:

http://urila.tripod.com/Seawater.htm

The article focuses on seawater desalination but the discussion
makes it very clear that domestic wastewater is much more efficient
to recover, especially if the degree of desalination is modest.

Hope this is of interest,

bob prohaska

greywater (was: The California Drought
 

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 01:22:24 +0000 (UTC), User Bp
wrote:

songbird wrote:

some of them can be problems, in general if you are
going to use household waste water for the gardens it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed) in
some manner before it gets to the gardens. some things
are toxic above small amounts so should not be used.

Are there detergents that really work and don't louse up
the water? Borax is obviously out of the question, bleaches
will have to be h2o2 based, but I think they're available.


the idea was that the soil should filter and clean the
remaining water coming from it, but they are discovering
that the soil does not clean it as much as expected so
effluent plumes are getting into the rivers and lakes.
Nutrients, or pathogens?

in the end mixing human waste with water makes the
problem much worse than needed because then the human
waste has to be taken back out of the water anyways.
why not just keep it from the water to begin with? so
until people realize that the initial design is horribly
flawed we'll be stuck with this rotten and pollution
encouraging mess instead of doing things in a much
smarter way.

Composting toilets are a good option in low-density
environments, but would they work in higher density places,
say 10ksf lots, 3bd/2ba houses? What about apartments?


with cheap energy much becomes possible, but if you
design a smarter system that doesn't pollute water to
begin with you can avoid a lot of problems (and expenses).

Most of the developed world uses single-stream sewage collection
and already makes at least a token effort to clean up the wastewater.
With a little more effort and energy the water could be cleaned up
enough to go back in the supply. From what I gather, solar energy
in Germany has fallen to zero cost for portions of the day. The
same is apt to happen here if wind and solar investments continue.
Reverse osmosis plants can stop and start relatively quickly, that
seems like a good use for the excess energy.

Here's a link that some might find interesting on the subject of
reverse osmosis and its efficiency:

http://urila.tripod.com/Seawater.htm

The article focuses on seawater desalination but the discussion
makes it very clear that domestic wastewater is much more efficient
to recover, especially if the degree of desalination is modest.

Hope this is of interest,

bob prohaska

Household grey water including human waste is only problematic
depending on concentration. There are two humans here living on 16
acres using a septic system... very conservatively there's a thousand
times more wild critter waste, probably that much just from song
birds, not counting water fowl, and mammals... and then there are
reptiles, probably more poop from bullfrogs just in my streams than in
my sceptic system. I have my own private well, it's tested yearly,
passes with flying colors every time. Global warming is a red
herring, used to cover up the real problem, over population...
California especially has way too high a concentation of humans,
mostly unproductive subhuman imbeciles that are in dire need of
expiration (conservatively 60% gotta go). If CA got rid of all those
fast food dives there'd be plenty of water, lots less pollution, and
far lower medical costs from not eating that mystery meat poop. And
of course bacon and other cured meats need to be outlawed, bacon
pollutes far more than laundry detergent (nitrates/nitrites pollute),
can always pick out the bacon addicts, they all weigh over 300 pounds.

greywater (was: The California Drought
 

User Bp wrote:
songbird wrote:

some of them can be problems, in general if you are
going to use household waste water for the gardens it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed) in
some manner before it gets to the gardens. some things
are toxic above small amounts so should not be used.

Are there detergents that really work and don't louse up
the water? Borax is obviously out of the question, bleaches
will have to be h2o2 based, but I think they're available.

dunno as i'm still stuck with septic system
and hate it. i'm not in the kind of setup that
i need perfectly white clothes that often nor do
i worry if some stain isn't completely removed.
i don't dribble on my clothes much anyways...
more often it's just dirt that needs to come out
and BO which washes out with a little soap.
sunshine and fresh air take care of sterilizing
and freshening enough for me.


the idea was that the soil should filter and clean the
remaining water coming from it, but they are discovering
that the soil does not clean it as much as expected so
effluent plumes are getting into the rivers and lakes.
Nutrients, or pathogens?

they detect human strains of e.coli, nutrients too
but some are digested in the tank, but once through
the tank to the groundwater leachfield most have little
more happen to them. this is why agricultural pollutants
in wells are being detected (blue baby syndrome), if the
ground was capable of actually digesting this stuff it
would be done... so it isn't and the price will be paid
by future generations in one way or another... if you
want something digested it has to be brought in
contact with the right bacteria/fungi/organisms which
most do not live down deep enough and are not active
enough to take care of it all. wetlands will do a lot of
cleanup and are a good alternative to agricultural and
also grey water, but best of all is to make sure toxins
aren't getting there to begin with.


in the end mixing human waste with water makes the
problem much worse than needed because then the human
waste has to be taken back out of the water anyways.
why not just keep it from the water to begin with? so
until people realize that the initial design is horribly
flawed we'll be stuck with this rotten and pollution
encouraging mess instead of doing things in a much
smarter way.

Composting toilets are a good option in low-density
environments, but would they work in higher density places,
say 10ksf lots, 3bd/2ba houses? What about apartments?

it takes a chamber to collect it and then someone to
move it after the chamber gets full. in a single house
you can design the chambers to the right size so that
they don't get emptied until the compost process is
complete (instead you just change which chamber things
go to when one gets full). that ways you only have to
move composted waste. worms and soil will take care of
it. leave it in a covered pile for a year or two and
there's no remaining issues with bacteria or smell.
needs to be covered though to keep rain from leaching
stuff away. prime garden/soil material when done.
if you're worried about bacteria after a year or two
you can bury it below the plants and use topsoil to
cover it and then nothing gets splashed on plant leaves
or produce.

for apartments the easiest system is gravity fed
chute to a chamber and then the chamber gets emptied
when it gets full and the waste is then composted in
some other location. they have trucks, sucker hoses,
etc. for doing things like this. just has to be be
done and going and then the biogas can be collected
too for burning as it's better to be done than letting
it escape unburned.


with cheap energy much becomes possible, but if you
design a smarter system that doesn't pollute water to
begin with you can avoid a lot of problems (and expenses).

Most of the developed world uses single-stream sewage collection
and already makes at least a token effort to clean up the wastewater.

unfortunately, it really doesn't work that well for
certain drugs, and mixing industrial pollution and other
waste water with human waste and clean water being used
as transport system is really poor design. we have done
it in the past because water was cheap and rivers acted
like wastewater treatment plants, but now they're finding
out that it doesn't work and the rivers smell like sewage
all the time and the animals are being affected by the
drugs, metals, cleaners, etc... so no, it's not really a
good system and it's going to only get worse with the
water being reduced (already they are having problems in
CA because the systems were designed to have so much water
in them and with the drought people aren't using enough
water... oops...).


With a little more effort and energy the water could be cleaned up
enough to go back in the supply. From what I gather, solar energy
in Germany has fallen to zero cost for portions of the day. The
same is apt to happen here if wind and solar investments continue.
Reverse osmosis plants can stop and start relatively quickly, that
seems like a good use for the excess energy.

water can be cleaned up, but you ignore the other side
of the equation, the rejected part of the water is even
more concentrated and unsuitable in many cases for uses
in gardens or agriculture.


Here's a link that some might find interesting on the subject of
reverse osmosis and its efficiency:

http://urila.tripod.com/Seawater.htm

The article focuses on seawater desalination but the discussion
makes it very clear that domestic wastewater is much more efficient
to recover, especially if the degree of desalination is modest.

Hope this is of interest,

they've been doing various projects around the world in
this vein for years. the resulting water is often pumped
into the the ground at some location or sent through a
wetland to make it acceptable at the other end for it to
be withdrawn and then used again (after being treated yet
again). it's a trick used to get people to accept it, but
it is horribly inefficient and expensive when compared to
an alternative system. the problem is that it is the
embedded system so it is hard to get people to change or
to see why the change is needed.

now if you can see the difference in how much those
pipes, pumps, water treatment plants, maintenance, etc.
all cost in comparison to what a dry composting system
would cost and what the maintenance would be. there's
just not enough money in it for the politicians to get
excited about it. not as much room for rewarding cronies,
not consumptive enough, doesn't generate enough taxes,
etc. and of course, people freak out about even thinking
of human waste, so much gets hidden in the waste stream
along with it. a convenient slight of hand for many...


songbird

greywater
 

Fran Farmer wrote:
songbird wrote:
it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed)

Prince Charles has a reed bed sewage treatment set up installed at his
home, Highgrove.

i would hope it isn't sewage and that you mean
gray water instead...


BTW, for those people who enjoy gardening books, the book on his garden
is called "The garden at Highgrove". This is not a cheap book and I
debated long and hard with myself as to whether I should bother to pay
the money for a book on the garden of a rich royal whose lifestyle is
nothing like mine or even in the same country or in the same gardneing
conditions. I'm so glad that I did eventually buy it as it's real eye
candy and his attitude to his garden resonates with me. He even ignored
advice given to him by that guru Sir Roy Strong because it didn't fit
into what he wanted to do.

I keep pulling it off the shelves when I need a bit of inspiration.
Wonderful book, even more wonderful garden (this is about another book
by him but there are good pics here of his garden):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-new-book.html

i'll have to check if i can get it via the library.


songbird

greywater
 

On 11/29/2015 8:22 AM, songbird wrote:
User Bp wrote:
songbird wrote:

some of them can be problems, in general if you are
going to use household waste water for the gardens it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed) in
some manner before it gets to the gardens. some things
are toxic above small amounts so should not be used.

Are there detergents that really work and don't louse up
the water? Borax is obviously out of the question, bleaches
will have to be h2o2 based, but I think they're available.

dunno as i'm still stuck with septic system
and hate it. i'm not in the kind of setup that
i need perfectly white clothes that often nor do
i worry if some stain isn't completely removed.
i don't dribble on my clothes much anyways...
more often it's just dirt that needs to come out
and BO which washes out with a little soap.
sunshine and fresh air take care of sterilizing
and freshening enough for me.


the idea was that the soil should filter and clean the
remaining water coming from it, but they are discovering
that the soil does not clean it as much as expected so
effluent plumes are getting into the rivers and lakes.
Nutrients, or pathogens?

they detect human strains of e.coli, nutrients too
but some are digested in the tank, but once through
the tank to the groundwater leachfield most have little
more happen to them. this is why agricultural pollutants
in wells are being detected (blue baby syndrome), if the
ground was capable of actually digesting this stuff it
would be done... so it isn't and the price will be paid
by future generations in one way or another... if you
want something digested it has to be brought in
contact with the right bacteria/fungi/organisms which
most do not live down deep enough and are not active
enough to take care of it all. wetlands will do a lot of
cleanup and are a good alternative to agricultural and
also grey water, but best of all is to make sure toxins
aren't getting there to begin with.


in the end mixing human waste with water makes the
problem much worse than needed because then the human
waste has to be taken back out of the water anyways.
why not just keep it from the water to begin with? so
until people realize that the initial design is horribly
flawed we'll be stuck with this rotten and pollution
encouraging mess instead of doing things in a much
smarter way.

Composting toilets are a good option in low-density
environments, but would they work in higher density places,
say 10ksf lots, 3bd/2ba houses? What about apartments?

it takes a chamber to collect it and then someone to
move it after the chamber gets full. in a single house
you can design the chambers to the right size so that
they don't get emptied until the compost process is
complete (instead you just change which chamber things
go to when one gets full). that ways you only have to
move composted waste. worms and soil will take care of
it. leave it in a covered pile for a year or two and
there's no remaining issues with bacteria or smell.
needs to be covered though to keep rain from leaching
stuff away. prime garden/soil material when done.
if you're worried about bacteria after a year or two
you can bury it below the plants and use topsoil to
cover it and then nothing gets splashed on plant leaves
or produce.

for apartments the easiest system is gravity fed
chute to a chamber and then the chamber gets emptied
when it gets full and the waste is then composted in
some other location. they have trucks, sucker hoses,
etc. for doing things like this. just has to be be
done and going and then the biogas can be collected
too for burning as it's better to be done than letting
it escape unburned.


with cheap energy much becomes possible, but if you
design a smarter system that doesn't pollute water to
begin with you can avoid a lot of problems (and expenses).

Most of the developed world uses single-stream sewage collection
and already makes at least a token effort to clean up the wastewater.

unfortunately, it really doesn't work that well for
certain drugs, and mixing industrial pollution and other
waste water with human waste and clean water being used
as transport system is really poor design. we have done
it in the past because water was cheap and rivers acted
like wastewater treatment plants, but now they're finding
out that it doesn't work and the rivers smell like sewage
all the time and the animals are being affected by the
drugs, metals, cleaners, etc... so no, it's not really a
good system and it's going to only get worse with the
water being reduced (already they are having problems in
CA because the systems were designed to have so much water
in them and with the drought people aren't using enough
water... oops...).


With a little more effort and energy the water could be cleaned up
enough to go back in the supply. From what I gather, solar energy
in Germany has fallen to zero cost for portions of the day. The
same is apt to happen here if wind and solar investments continue.
Reverse osmosis plants can stop and start relatively quickly, that
seems like a good use for the excess energy.

water can be cleaned up, but you ignore the other side
of the equation, the rejected part of the water is even
more concentrated and unsuitable in many cases for uses
in gardens or agriculture.


Here's a link that some might find interesting on the subject of
reverse osmosis and its efficiency:

http://urila.tripod.com/Seawater.htm

The article focuses on seawater desalination but the discussion
makes it very clear that domestic wastewater is much more efficient
to recover, especially if the degree of desalination is modest.

Hope this is of interest,

they've been doing various projects around the world in
this vein for years. the resulting water is often pumped
into the the ground at some location or sent through a
wetland to make it acceptable at the other end for it to
be withdrawn and then used again (after being treated yet
again). it's a trick used to get people to accept it, but
it is horribly inefficient and expensive when compared to
an alternative system. the problem is that it is the
embedded system so it is hard to get people to change or
to see why the change is needed.

now if you can see the difference in how much those
pipes, pumps, water treatment plants, maintenance, etc.
all cost in comparison to what a dry composting system
would cost and what the maintenance would be. there's
just not enough money in it for the politicians to get
excited about it. not as much room for rewarding cronies,
not consumptive enough, doesn't generate enough taxes,
etc. and of course, people freak out about even thinking
of human waste, so much gets hidden in the waste stream
along with it. a convenient slight of hand for many...


songbird


Where I live, sewage (not merely gray water) is treated at a plant that
is mostly gravity fed. The input is from both residential and
commercial sources. At the plant, liquids are separated from solids.

Liquids are "tertiary" treated and then pumped back uphill to irrigate
parks, school playfields, greenbelts, and two golf courses. So far, the
use of such reclaimed water is not covered by drought-induced
restrictions. Furthermore, the ability to use this on school playfields
means it is biologically safe. However, the reclaimed water contains
too much dissolved minerals for domestic use. Because of that,
individual homeowners are not allowed to tap that source; there is a
concern that amateur plumbers -- the homeowners -- might accidentally
cross-connect a reclaimed water line with a potable domestic water line.
This concern about contaminating potable water with reclaimed water
also means that the mains carrying reclaimed water operate at a lower
pressure than potable mains.

The solids are composted to the extent that they too are biologically
safe. Dried, this compost is free to anyone who brings a container --
including a truck -- to the composting site. Again, the presence of
dissolved minerals (possibly heavy metals from commercial sources of
sewage) is a concern. Thus, users of the compost are advised to place
only a small amount in beds containing edible plants such as vegetables
and fruit trees. Larger amounts can be used on ornamental plants.

All this is a result of political pressure from homeowners downstream
from the sewage plant in Malibu. They wanted to restrict the plant's
operation because they feared they too would be required to abandon
their septic tanks and instead connect to sewer lines, thus opening
Malibu to increased development and population density. After the
sewage plant succeeded in developing a market for reclaimed water,
however, those same NIMBY homeowners changed their pressure to require
some of the reclaimed water to flow down Malibu Creek to maintain
riparian wildlife, including fish that had not been in the creek for
decades.

The natural flow of water in Malibu Creek above the sewage plant is
contaminated by wildlife in the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area. Now, the Malibu homeowners have convinced California
state authorities to mandate that the flow of water in the creek below
the sewage plant to be cleaner than the natural flow above the plant.

I pay over $500 a year in sewage fees for only my wife and me. There is
no winning, only different ways of losing.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

The California Drought
 

On 11/25/2015 4:43 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 25/11/2015 2:38 AM, songbird wrote:
Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
...
What do you mean "not very good"? Are you saying that the first rains
caught
in rain barrels should NOT be saved for irrigating plants? Or?

many rain capture systems include some sort of
arrangement for rejecting the first number of
gallons of water so that contamination (from
dust, bird droppings, etc.) is reduced. when
using the water for a garden most of what is
there isn't harmful anyways so i'd not worry.
the concern is more geared towards those in areas
of harmful dust fallout and those who are using
the water for drinking, cooking or other house-
hold uses.

A friend of ours used to have a first flush diverter on his household
rainwater tank (cistern in USian) but took it off after a year or so
because he found it flushed away too much water and a short passing shower
would result in his not getting any water into his tank (cistern). And
dust or crap settles to the bottom of the tank in a very short time and is
not a worry until it becomes time to desludge the tank. the tank (cistern)
was to supply water for all his household use so the loss of any water was
a problem.

I'd have to disagree a bit with the cistern vs. tank and the 'Usian' nature
of either. Cistern is very much in long-term usage in the UK; it was common
when plumbing became popular in old homes to have a cistern constructed in
the uppermost reaches of the attic to provide a head of water. The local
council-provided water was likely to be at low pressure and volume and
keeping some in your own cistern could alleviate both problems. It is even
true that the 'tank' of a flush toilet is referred to as a cistern in the
UK. If you get right down to the meaning of the words themselves, a cistern
is a container with no top while a tank is enclosed all around.

greywater
 

On 30/11/2015 3:33 AM, songbird wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:
songbird wrote:
it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed)

Prince Charles has a reed bed sewage treatment set up installed at his
home, Highgrove.

i would hope it isn't sewage and that you mean
gray water instead...

No, it's a reedbed sewage system.

greywater
 

David E. Ross wrote:
....
Where I live, sewage (not merely gray water) is treated at a plant that
is mostly gravity fed. The input is from both residential and
commercial sources. At the plant, liquids are separated from solids.

arg! precisely the problem which should be avoided.
combined residential and commercial sewage... always a
bad idea as it gives the businesses a free pass to let
trace contaminants and odd chemicals off site without
compensation to the treatment facility to manage the
results and it then also contaminates all the wastes so
that they can't be reused. which is why later on you
mention that they can't be reused in veggie gardens
without restrictions.


Liquids are "tertiary" treated and then pumped back uphill to irrigate
parks, school playfields, greenbelts, and two golf courses. So far, the
use of such reclaimed water is not covered by drought-induced
restrictions. Furthermore, the ability to use this on school playfields
means it is biologically safe. However, the reclaimed water contains
too much dissolved minerals for domestic use. Because of that,
individual homeowners are not allowed to tap that source; there is a
concern that amateur plumbers -- the homeowners -- might accidentally
cross-connect a reclaimed water line with a potable domestic water line.
This concern about contaminating potable water with reclaimed water
also means that the mains carrying reclaimed water operate at a lower
pressure than potable mains.

The solids are composted to the extent that they too are biologically
safe. Dried, this compost is free to anyone who brings a container --
including a truck -- to the composting site. Again, the presence of
dissolved minerals (possibly heavy metals from commercial sources of
sewage) is a concern. Thus, users of the compost are advised to place
only a small amount in beds containing edible plants such as vegetables
and fruit trees. Larger amounts can be used on ornamental plants.

yeah, but once it's applied then it's basically
spreading a contamination issue around. i wonder
what percentage of it is actually used instead of
being landfilled (or in some cases incinerated which
can spread the heavy metals around even more).


All this is a result of political pressure from homeowners downstream
from the sewage plant in Malibu. They wanted to restrict the plant's
operation because they feared they too would be required to abandon
their septic tanks and instead connect to sewer lines, thus opening
Malibu to increased development and population density. After the
sewage plant succeeded in developing a market for reclaimed water,
however, those same NIMBY homeowners changed their pressure to require
some of the reclaimed water to flow down Malibu Creek to maintain
riparian wildlife, including fish that had not been in the creek for
decades.

if the water is there and the stream benefits why
would this be bad? it returns a previously damaged
river to some forms of life and gives fish habitat
that they'd lost.


The natural flow of water in Malibu Creek above the sewage plant is
contaminated by wildlife in the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area.

i wouldn't call it contamination but that's just me.
animals poop/pee. just if it is safe or not for people
to swim in it or fish it or ...


Now, the Malibu homeowners have convinced California
state authorities to mandate that the flow of water in the creek below
the sewage plant to be cleaner than the natural flow above the plant.

with modern wastewater treatment plants this is actually
not uncommon at all. the troubles from treatment plants
and sewage is often storm water overflows driven by combined
waste and storm water drains. in many cities here they are
gradually removing such combined systems to give the rivers
a better chance of not being contaminated by sewage overflows.
and it's working. things are gradually improving. but it's
taking time and a lot of money. money which would not be
required to be spent had the systems been dry compost forms
instead. ah well...


I pay over $500 a year in sewage fees for only my wife and me. There is
no winning, only different ways of losing.

that is water and sewage cost or just sewage/disposal
cost?

even if we include the cost of the whole plumbing system
here and septic field we could get it to around $300/yr but
that's because we've been here almost 20 years now (wow how
time has gone by!). it doesn't cost that much to have the
tank pumped and taken to the sewage treatment plant. i still
don't like it. a dry system would be much cheaper. sawdust
can be had by the truckload here for not much, leaves and
dirt are free. the gardens would be much happier too.


songbird

greywater
 

Fran Farmer wrote:
songbird wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:
songbird wrote:
it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed)

Prince Charles has a reed bed sewage treatment set up installed at his
home, Highgrove.

i would hope it isn't sewage and that you mean
gray water instead...

No, it's a reedbed sewage system.

ah, i'll have to check it out then.


songbird

greywater
 

On 11/30/2015 8:08 AM, songbird wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
...
Where I live, sewage (not merely gray water) is treated at a plant that
is mostly gravity fed. The input is from both residential and
commercial sources. At the plant, liquids are separated from solids.

arg! precisely the problem which should be avoided.
combined residential and commercial sewage... always a
bad idea as it gives the businesses a free pass to let
trace contaminants and odd chemicals off site without
compensation to the treatment facility to manage the
results and it then also contaminates all the wastes so
that they can't be reused. which is why later on you
mention that they can't be reused in veggie gardens
without restrictions.

No one want to pay the costs of duplicate sewage plants and sewer lines
that would be required to treat residential and commercial sewage
separately.


Liquids are "tertiary" treated and then pumped back uphill to irrigate
parks, school playfields, greenbelts, and two golf courses. So far, the
use of such reclaimed water is not covered by drought-induced
restrictions. Furthermore, the ability to use this on school playfields
means it is biologically safe. However, the reclaimed water contains
too much dissolved minerals for domestic use. Because of that,
individual homeowners are not allowed to tap that source; there is a
concern that amateur plumbers -- the homeowners -- might accidentally
cross-connect a reclaimed water line with a potable domestic water line.
This concern about contaminating potable water with reclaimed water
also means that the mains carrying reclaimed water operate at a lower
pressure than potable mains.

The solids are composted to the extent that they too are biologically
safe. Dried, this compost is free to anyone who brings a container --
including a truck -- to the composting site. Again, the presence of
dissolved minerals (possibly heavy metals from commercial sources of
sewage) is a concern. Thus, users of the compost are advised to place
only a small amount in beds containing edible plants such as vegetables
and fruit trees. Larger amounts can be used on ornamental plants.

yeah, but once it's applied then it's basically
spreading a contamination issue around. i wonder
what percentage of it is actually used instead of
being landfilled (or in some cases incinerated which
can spread the heavy metals around even more).

None of the compost is burned or transferred to landfills. It is free
for the taking, and many landscape contractors take large amounts.


All this is a result of political pressure from homeowners downstream
from the sewage plant in Malibu. They wanted to restrict the plant's
operation because they feared they too would be required to abandon
their septic tanks and instead connect to sewer lines, thus opening
Malibu to increased development and population density. After the
sewage plant succeeded in developing a market for reclaimed water,
however, those same NIMBY homeowners changed their pressure to require
some of the reclaimed water to flow down Malibu Creek to maintain
riparian wildlife, including fish that had not been in the creek for
decades.

if the water is there and the stream benefits why
would this be bad? it returns a previously damaged
river to some forms of life and gives fish habitat
that they'd lost.

Much of the cost of treating reclaimed water is paid by the users -- the
parks, golf courses, home-owner association greenbelts. The price of
reclaimed water is about 75% of the cost of potable water, and there are
no drought-imposed restrictions on how much a customer may use. During
the current drought, the demand for reclaimed water approximately equals
the supply. The demand to pour that water into Malibu Creek creates a
shortfall in the supply.


The natural flow of water in Malibu Creek above the sewage plant is
contaminated by wildlife in the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area.

i wouldn't call it contamination but that's just me.
animals poop/pee. just if it is safe or not for people
to swim in it or fish it or ...

In those terms, it is safe. That is why making the flow even cleaner
downstream from the sewage plant than it is upstream is so outrageous.

Now, the Malibu homeowners have convinced California
state authorities to mandate that the flow of water in the creek below
the sewage plant to be cleaner than the natural flow above the plant.

with modern wastewater treatment plants this is actually
not uncommon at all. the troubles from treatment plants
and sewage is often storm water overflows driven by combined
waste and storm water drains. in many cities here they are
gradually removing such combined systems to give the rivers
a better chance of not being contaminated by sewage overflows.
and it's working. things are gradually improving. but it's
taking time and a lot of money. money which would not be
required to be spent had the systems been dry compost forms
instead. ah well...

Throughout southern California, storm drains and sewage mains are quite
separate. However, the "gunk" rinsed by rain into storm drains can
cause significant pollution at beaches after a major rain storm.


I pay over $500 a year in sewage fees for only my wife and me. There is
no winning, only different ways of losing.

that is water and sewage cost or just sewage/disposal
cost?

even if we include the cost of the whole plumbing system
here and septic field we could get it to around $300/yr but
that's because we've been here almost 20 years now (wow how
time has gone by!). it doesn't cost that much to have the
tank pumped and taken to the sewage treatment plant. i still
don't like it. a dry system would be much cheaper. sawdust
can be had by the truckload here for not much, leaves and
dirt are free. the gardens would be much happier too.

That $500+ is for sewage only. Twice each year, I pay half of it with
my property tax bill; but it is a service charge and not a tax. I pay
my water bill monthly. Water is also expensive. Almost half of my
total utility costs -- water, electricity, phone, and natural gas -- is
for my water bill.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

greywater
 

David E. Ross wrote:
songbird wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
...
Where I live, sewage (not merely gray water) is treated at a plant that
is mostly gravity fed. The input is from both residential and
commercial sources. At the plant, liquids are separated from solids.

arg! precisely the problem which should be avoided.
combined residential and commercial sewage... always a
bad idea as it gives the businesses a free pass to let
trace contaminants and odd chemicals off site without
compensation to the treatment facility to manage the
results and it then also contaminates all the wastes so
that they can't be reused. which is why later on you
mention that they can't be reused in veggie gardens
without restrictions.

No one want to pay the costs of duplicate sewage plants and sewer lines
that would be required to treat residential and commercial sewage
separately.

of course! but in the end it's much better to
make incentives for businesses to clean up their
processes so that things aren't contaminated to
begin with.


Liquids are "tertiary" treated and then pumped back uphill to irrigate
parks, school playfields, greenbelts, and two golf courses. So far, the
use of such reclaimed water is not covered by drought-induced
restrictions. Furthermore, the ability to use this on school playfields
means it is biologically safe. However, the reclaimed water contains
too much dissolved minerals for domestic use. Because of that,
individual homeowners are not allowed to tap that source; there is a
concern that amateur plumbers -- the homeowners -- might accidentally
cross-connect a reclaimed water line with a potable domestic water line.
This concern about contaminating potable water with reclaimed water
also means that the mains carrying reclaimed water operate at a lower
pressure than potable mains.

The solids are composted to the extent that they too are biologically
safe. Dried, this compost is free to anyone who brings a container --
including a truck -- to the composting site. Again, the presence of
dissolved minerals (possibly heavy metals from commercial sources of
sewage) is a concern. Thus, users of the compost are advised to place
only a small amount in beds containing edible plants such as vegetables
and fruit trees. Larger amounts can be used on ornamental plants.

yeah, but once it's applied then it's basically
spreading a contamination issue around. i wonder
what percentage of it is actually used instead of
being landfilled (or in some cases incinerated which
can spread the heavy metals around even more).

None of the compost is burned or transferred to landfills. It is free
for the taking, and many landscape contractors take large amounts.

interesting!


All this is a result of political pressure from homeowners downstream
from the sewage plant in Malibu. They wanted to restrict the plant's
operation because they feared they too would be required to abandon
their septic tanks and instead connect to sewer lines, thus opening
Malibu to increased development and population density. After the
sewage plant succeeded in developing a market for reclaimed water,
however, those same NIMBY homeowners changed their pressure to require
some of the reclaimed water to flow down Malibu Creek to maintain
riparian wildlife, including fish that had not been in the creek for
decades.

if the water is there and the stream benefits why
would this be bad? it returns a previously damaged
river to some forms of life and gives fish habitat
that they'd lost.

Much of the cost of treating reclaimed water is paid by the users -- the
parks, golf courses, home-owner association greenbelts. The price of
reclaimed water is about 75% of the cost of potable water, and there are
no drought-imposed restrictions on how much a customer may use. During
the current drought, the demand for reclaimed water approximately equals
the supply. The demand to pour that water into Malibu Creek creates a
shortfall in the supply.

all of the water is then being used and is in
some manner contributing to ground water recharging
and stream flows so to me that's much better than
just sending it out to sea.

i guess i'd rather have a stream flowing than not
even if it means some costs are a little higher.


The natural flow of water in Malibu Creek above the sewage plant is
contaminated by wildlife in the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area.

i wouldn't call it contamination but that's just me.
animals poop/pee. just if it is safe or not for people
to swim in it or fish it or ...

In those terms, it is safe. That is why making the flow even cleaner
downstream from the sewage plant than it is upstream is so outrageous.

my guess is that they really can't release water from
any point in the process earlier without causing an
environmental problem. many of the more modern treatment
plants have things in place to recapture the various
chemicals/additives used and the very last part of the
water treatment is an UV flash to kill off any
remaining bacteria/virii. skipping that would be a
bad idea, especially in a warm climate.


Now, the Malibu homeowners have convinced California
state authorities to mandate that the flow of water in the creek below
the sewage plant to be cleaner than the natural flow above the plant.

with modern wastewater treatment plants this is actually
not uncommon at all. the troubles from treatment plants
and sewage is often storm water overflows driven by combined
waste and storm water drains. in many cities here they are
gradually removing such combined systems to give the rivers
a better chance of not being contaminated by sewage overflows.
and it's working. things are gradually improving. but it's
taking time and a lot of money. money which would not be
required to be spent had the systems been dry compost forms
instead. ah well...

Throughout southern California, storm drains and sewage mains are quite
separate. However, the "gunk" rinsed by rain into storm drains can
cause significant pollution at beaches after a major rain storm.

yep. cars are not designed to be clean. however,
horses weren't all that good either...


I pay over $500 a year in sewage fees for only my wife and me. There is
no winning, only different ways of losing.

that is water and sewage cost or just sewage/disposal
cost?

even if we include the cost of the whole plumbing system
here and septic field we could get it to around $300/yr but
that's because we've been here almost 20 years now (wow how
time has gone by!). it doesn't cost that much to have the
tank pumped and taken to the sewage treatment plant. i still
don't like it. a dry system would be much cheaper. sawdust
can be had by the truckload here for not much, leaves and
dirt are free. the gardens would be much happier too.

That $500+ is for sewage only. Twice each year, I pay half of it with
my property tax bill; but it is a service charge and not a tax. I pay
my water bill monthly. Water is also expensive. Almost half of my
total utility costs -- water, electricity, phone, and natural gas -- is
for my water bill.

ouch! but it makes sense to me that in an arid
climate that water/sewage would be more expensive to
treat. out there with the somewhat hilly terrian
that isn't all that stable i think maintenance would
also be higher.


songbird

greywater
 

On 11/30/2015 12:03 PM, songbird wrote [in part]:
I also wrote in part:

[snipped]


Much of the cost of treating reclaimed water is paid by the users -- the
parks, golf courses, home-owner association greenbelts. The price of
reclaimed water is about 75% of the cost of potable water, and there are
no drought-imposed restrictions on how much a customer may use. During
the current drought, the demand for reclaimed water approximately equals
the supply. The demand to pour that water into Malibu Creek creates a
shortfall in the supply.

all of the water is then being used and is in
some manner contributing to ground water recharging
and stream flows so to me that's much better than
just sending it out to sea.

i guess i'd rather have a stream flowing than not
even if it means some costs are a little higher.

In this area, ground water recharging is meaningless. The soils and
subsoils are so mineralized that any springs or wells are unsuitable
even for wildlife to drink and, in some cases, not even suitable for
irrigation. Before my area was served by the California Water Project
aqueduct, ranchers here would pump water into enameled basins and let it
stand in the sun for several day just to get rid of the hydrogen sulfide.

Note that, while users of reclaimed water pay much of the cost of
treating it, those of us who create sewage pay much more of the cost.


In those terms, it is safe. That is why making the flow even cleaner
downstream from the sewage plant than it is upstream is so outrageous.

my guess is that they really can't release water from
any point in the process earlier without causing an
environmental problem. many of the more modern treatment
plants have things in place to recapture the various
chemicals/additives used and the very last part of the
water treatment is an UV flash to kill off any
remaining bacteria/virii. skipping that would be a
bad idea, especially in a warm climate.

The residents downstream from the sewage plant are the problem. They
want the plant not only to treat sewage almost to the quality of
drinking water, but they also want the plant to treat the natural flow
from upstream in Malibu Creek to the same standard.

[snipped]

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean, see
http://www.rossde.com/garden/climate.html
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary

The California Drought
 

On 30/11/2015 7:00 AM, John McGaw wrote:
On 11/25/2015 4:43 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 25/11/2015 2:38 AM, songbird wrote:
Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
...
What do you mean "not very good"? Are you saying that the first rains
caught
in rain barrels should NOT be saved for irrigating plants? Or?

many rain capture systems include some sort of
arrangement for rejecting the first number of
gallons of water so that contamination (from
dust, bird droppings, etc.) is reduced. when
using the water for a garden most of what is
there isn't harmful anyways so i'd not worry.
the concern is more geared towards those in areas
of harmful dust fallout and those who are using
the water for drinking, cooking or other house-
hold uses.

A friend of ours used to have a first flush diverter on his household
rainwater tank (cistern in USian) but took it off after a year or so
because he found it flushed away too much water and a short passing
shower
would result in his not getting any water into his tank (cistern). And
dust or crap settles to the bottom of the tank in a very short time
and is
not a worry until it becomes time to desludge the tank. the tank
(cistern)
was to supply water for all his household use so the loss of any water
was
a problem.

I'd have to disagree a bit with the cistern vs. tank and the 'Usian'
nature of either. Cistern is very much in long-term usage in the UK; it
was common when plumbing became popular in old homes to have a cistern
constructed in the uppermost reaches of the attic to provide a head of
water. The local council-provided water was likely to be at low pressure
and volume and keeping some in your own cistern could alleviate both
problems. It is even true that the 'tank' of a flush toilet is referred
to as a cistern in the UK. If you get right down to the meaning of the
words themselves, a cistern is a container with no top while a tank is
enclosed all around.

I'm not in the UK. The only use of the word "cistern" here is the one
that sits on top of the toilet.

Since I've never managed to identify any poster here who is from the UK,
(other than a few strays who post once using gardenbanter) I don't
bother to try to post so that Brits can understand what I am saying. I
do try to make sure that the majority of posters (Americans) CAN
understand. I won't bother in future.

greywater
 

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:41:45 PM UTC-8, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 29/11/2015 7:50 AM, songbird wrote:
it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed)

Prince Charles has a reed bed sewage treatment set up installed at his
home, Highgrove.

BTW, for those people who enjoy gardening books, the book on his garden
is called "The garden at Highgrove". This is not a cheap book and I
debated long and hard with myself as to whether I should bother to pay
the money for a book on the garden of a rich royal whose lifestyle is
nothing like mine or even in the same country or in the same gardneing
conditions. I'm so glad that I did eventually buy it as it's real eye
candy and his attitude to his garden resonates with me. He even ignored
advice given to him by that guru Sir Roy Strong because it didn't fit
into what he wanted to do.

I keep pulling it off the shelves when I need a bit of inspiration.
Wonderful book, even more wonderful garden (this is about another book
by him but there are good pics here of his garden):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-new-book.html
\
Thanks for that wonderful Chanukah gift. I could almost smell the flowers in those marvelous pictures. Again, many thanks.

(Wonder what kind of king he would have made. Any thoughts?)

HB

greywater
 

On 7/12/2015 1:41 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:41:45 PM UTC-8, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 29/11/2015 7:50 AM, songbird wrote:
it
is a good idea to switch to products which can be
biodegraded (often via what is called a reed bed)

Prince Charles has a reed bed sewage treatment set up installed at his
home, Highgrove.

BTW, for those people who enjoy gardening books, the book on his garden
is called "The garden at Highgrove". This is not a cheap book and I
debated long and hard with myself as to whether I should bother to pay
the money for a book on the garden of a rich royal whose lifestyle is
nothing like mine or even in the same country or in the same gardneing
conditions. I'm so glad that I did eventually buy it as it's real eye
candy and his attitude to his garden resonates with me. He even ignored
advice given to him by that guru Sir Roy Strong because it didn't fit
into what he wanted to do.

I keep pulling it off the shelves when I need a bit of inspiration.
Wonderful book, even more wonderful garden (this is about another book
by him but there are good pics here of his garden):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-new-book.html
\
Thanks for that wonderful Chanukah gift.

You're welcome.

I could almost smell the flowers in those marvelous pictures. Again,
many thanks.

(Wonder what kind of king he would have made. Any thoughts?)

I don't think he will ever be king. Sadly. I've always been a Charles
fan even when he was being pilloried by the press due to the expert
manipulations of Dianna. He always seems to be very thoughtful and to
reach conclusions which I've never thought to be at all controversial.
His mother will be a very hard act to follow given how well she has done
since the early 1950s. I suspect William will see the end of the
Monarchy. He is a very different kettle of fish. Despite the nice
exterior, I'm not convinced that he will be a good King.

The California Drought
 

David E. Ross wrote:
Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
....
After a long period without rain, the public is advised to avoid Pacific
beaches near storm drain outlets. For the same reason, the first rain
on my roof -- even after having my gutters cleaned -- is not very good.

What do you mean "not very good"? Are you saying that the first rains caught
in rain barrels should NOT be saved for irrigating plants? Or?

[...]


If there were recent brush fires dropping ash in your area, the first
rains will be quite alkaline. Our southern California soils are
generally too alkaline already. I am always using sulfur around many
plants in my garden to make the soil more acid.

in my times of reading and wandering around the web and
seeing what people are doing even in tough soil and arid
climates with alkaline soils i keep an eye on:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/31...s0x0:0x0?hl=en

which is a permaculture site in a pretty tough location.
you can see that the surrounding area is mostly devoid of
ground cover of any kind, goats are allowed to graze anything
not protected. there is nothing there for holding what rains
they do get, no organic matter or topsoil with any carbon
content.

yet you can see they've managed to grow trees there and
also veggies. drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting,
some limited deliveries of water perhaps (i'm not sure
exactly what they've done as i've never been there).
composting toilets, recycling all organic wastes back
into the gardens, i'm pretty sure they also keep
chickens and do things with worms.

i have read some articles on the site and some mentions
of having to amend because of the high alkalinity, but this
will change over time.

another thing i've come across in my wandering and watching
videos on restorative agriculture is having someone come from
the other direction (high acidity) and over the years just by
practicing soil conservation techniques and getting plants
to grow and not overdoing the grazing the guy has been able
to get the pH of his fields up from 5.0-5.5 to 6.0-6.5
without ever having to add lime.

my third item of interest is that even in arid climates
where you might not think it would do much good is to put
down surface mulch. eventually the organic materials will
encourage the soil bacteria and fungi and that added
activity will boost soil fertility and water infiltration
and storage capacity.

these are three examples given so that others in tough
climates and hard soil conditions can have some hope and
know that others have been working on this and are seeing
results.


songbird

The California Drought
 

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 22:55:18 -0500, songbird
wrote:

snip

my third item of interest is that even in arid climates
where you might not think it would do much good is to put
down surface mulch. eventually the organic materials will
encourage the soil bacteria and fungi and that added
activity will boost soil fertility and water infiltration
and storage capacity.

these are three examples given so that others in tough
climates and hard soil conditions can have some hope and
know that others have been working on this and are seeing
results.

Anything is possible, in the Netherlands they're trialling growing
veggies in salty water:
http://www.voanews.com/content/farmi...e/2510044.html