Category Archives: Headwaters Magazine

A Plan for Our Drinking Water

29912249693_77c8144aa7_z

Photo Credit: USDA

In 2012, city officials in Flint, Michigan, began to investigate the possibility of saving money by switching water providers. Projecting a savings of $200 million over the course of 25 years, they decided to build their own pipeline to the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) instead of continuing to receive water from Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD). Officials then searched for an additional water source to bridge the gap between the loss of water being provided by DWSD and the completion of their connection to KWA.

800px-flint_river_in_flint_michigan

Flint River

They settled on using the Flint River.

On April 25, 2014, Flint—a city where 40 percent of its people live in poverty—began drawing water from the Flint River for public use. Officials did not implement corrosion control treatment at the Flint Water Treatment Plant—a standard practice that prevents supply pipes from leaching lead. Shortly after switching the water supply, residents complained about water quality, but it was not until early 2015 that city tests verified what people had suspected—levels of lead in Flint’s drinking water exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. An independent test done by Virginia Tech found lead levels at 13,000 parts per billion (ppb). The EPA limit for led in drinking water is 15 ppb and water is considered hazardous waste at 5,000 ppb.

dirty-water

Photo Credit: Ildar Sagdejev

The decisions officials made in Flint brought to light the environmental struggles faced by poor, rural and underserved communities across the nation, forever changing the perception of public drinking water, and prompting people to ask one very pertinent question that they had not previously considered:

How do I know if my drinking water is safe?

550px-environmental_protection_agency_logoOn November 30, 2016, EPA published the results of its six month review of the nation’s drinking water strategy in their report, Drinking Water Action Plan. This plan includes six priority areas, along with recommended actions to improve water quality and health in the United States.

The six priority areas are:

  • Drinking water infrastructure financing and management in low-income, small and environmental justice communities
  • Oversight for the Safe Drinking Water Act
  • Strengthening the protection of water sources
  • Addressing unregulated contaminants
  • Improving overall transparency, public information and risk communication
  • Reducing lead risks
6307672876_b73164a218_z

Photo Credit Steve Johnson

Circle of Blue, an online news source affiliated with the Pacific Institute and founded by journalists and scientists who conduct data analysis and document emerging and recognized crises, states that approximately 27 million Americans are served by public water utilities that are in violation of federal drinking water standards. Millions more draw their drinking water from unregulated, contaminated, household wells. And while 99 percent of Americans have access to an improved water source, underserved communities sometimes receive water from sources that present a health hazard.

These priority areas and actions for improvement would have an impact on Colorado’s rural water supplies, which have seen their own fair share of struggles when it comes to ensuring that the water is safe and free from contaminants. Headwaters magazine article, “The Rural Water Conundrum,” speaks to that exact issue. According to the article, 98 percent of Colorado’s water systems serve communities smaller than 10,000 people. These small communities could benefit from the improved support outlined in EPA’s new action plan.

Implementing change will not only require billions of dollars to be spent in order to update inefficient and outdated infrastructure, but will also call for the cooperation of government officials, water utility services and the public. Currently, the future of the Drinking Water Action Plan is in question, and only as time passes will we know if EPA’s suggestions will take shape in the form of solid action.

Until then, the public will continue to ask: Is my drinking water safe?

hw_fall_2016_final_coverKnowing what is in your water and how policy makers can impact public health is the first step being able to make decisions that will have a positive impact on your personal well-being. Read more about water and its connection to public health in the latest issue of Headwaters magazine, Renewing Trust in the Safety of Public Water.

Not a Headwaters subscriber? Visit yourwatercolorado.org for the digital version. Headwaters is the flagship publication of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education and covers current events, trends and opportunities in Colorado water.

1 Comment

Filed under Colorado Foundation for Water Education, Environment, Headwaters Magazine, Water Quality

What’s in the Water?

 

toothbrushpaste

Photo Credit: Jonas Bergsten

There is a high likelihood that at some point in your life, you have used a product containing fluoride. Many of us have memories of fluoride treatments at the dentist’s office—either in the form of a goopy gel oozing out of ill-fitting trays or as a liquid rinse. Even as adults, most people brush their teeth twice a day with toothpaste containing fluoride; all in the interest of keeping their teeth in tip-top shape.

But, did you know that there is a good chance that fluoride is also present in your tap water?

Almost all water has naturally-occurring fluoride. Fluoride is a mineral—like Vitamin D or calcium—that is released from rocks into our air, soil and water; however, depending on the source of the water, fluoride is not always present in concentrations that would be optimal for preventing tooth decay. It is also possible for levels of fluoride to be too high, which is why water providers test  fluoride levels in tap water, allowing them to make adjustments based on current levels.

Fluoride research began in 1901, in Colorado Springs. Initial research was conducted by dental school graduate Fredrick McKay, and in 1909, he was joined by dental researcher, Dr. G.V. Black. Upon arriving in Colorado Springs, McKay noticed that Colorado Springs natives had brown-stained teeth. Having never seen this type of tooth stain before, McKay asked Black to join him so that together, they could determine the source of “Colorado Brown Stain.”

What they discovered was a connection between fluoride in water and dental health. In Colorado Springs, the cause of stained teeth in locals turned out to be dental fluorosis, a cosmetic result of excessive fluoride consumption due to high levels of fluoride in the local water.

dental_fluorosis_mild

Photo Credit: Matthew Ferguson

According to WebMD, dental fluorosis is caused by overexposure to fluoride—sources include water, toothpaste, mouthwash, etc.—during the first eight years of life, when permanent teeth are being formed. Discoloration can range from lacy white markings to yellow or brown stains and may include surface irregularities, including severe pitting. McKay and Black determined that the high levels of fluoride not only caused the staining, but also provided an unusually high resistance to tooth decay.

In 1931, the first fluoride studies were conducted by Dr. H. Trendley Dean. Based on previous research done in the field, he hypothesized that it was possible to have fluoride levels in water that were low enough to be safe for consumption and avoid dental fluorosis, yet high enough to help prevent tooth decay.

In 1945, his hypothesis was put to the test in Grand Rapids, Michigan; the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water. Over the course of 15 years, 30,000 school children were monitored for tooth decay. After 11 years, the caries rate (the rate of tooth decay) was down 60 percent. The study results indicated that tooth decay could be preventable.

running-waterDean’s study spurred a national movement to add fluoride to community water systems and more than 70 years later, the majority of the U.S. population is receiving fluoridated water. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2014, 66.3 percent of the total U.S. population and 74.4 percent of the population receiving water from a community water system were receiving fluoridated water. 74 percent of Colorado residents are receiving fluoridated water, falling in line with the rest of the country.

Many people receive fluoridated water, but wonder if it’s safe to consume. Everyone has the right to know what they are ingesting and how it will impact their health—check on the fluoridation status of the water that you are receiving at My Water’s Fluoride. Learn about  other contaminants that may naturally occur in your water, or additives like fluoride, and how your water provider addresses them by finding your local Consumer Confidence Report on the Colorado Water Quality Control Division’s website here.

Some people are opposed to the addition of fluoride to public drinking water. Opponents of fluoride in drinking water are troubled by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) classification of fluoride as a drug for safety testing purposes. They see the addition of fluoride to water as being for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay, as opposed to improving water quality, making it a medical treatment that is being imposed on them without consent.Another concern includes the inability of an individual consumer to regulate their fluoride dosage. Opponents worry that someone who drinks more water than someone else may receive a higher dosage of fluoride. In this vein, the dosage in a single glass is the same across the board, regardless of the needs of the person ingesting fluoride.

In 2013, Portland, Oregon voters rejected a ballot proposal to add fluoride to their drinking water, making it the largest U.S. city without fluoride in their water, or plans to add it. Opponents of the measure echo the belief that fluoride as a chemical will ruin the city’s pristine water supply, and that adding fluoride violates an individual’s right to consent to medication. From a USA Today article:

800px-woman_drinking_from_a_water_fountain_-royal_botanic_gardens_sydney_australia-18feb2009

Photo Credit: The.Rohit

“I don’t want chemicals in my water,” Sarah Lazzaro said after voting Tuesday. “I know that there are really no known health risks with it, but there’s a lot of things we find out later in life really do have health risks.”

During the summer of 2015, both Snowmass, Colorado and Denver Water debated the practice of adding fluoride to their public water systems. Initially, the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District decided to discontinue adding fluoride to their water; however, in October 2015, under public pressure, the board reversed their decision, and will not discontinue the procedure. Denver Water also found themselves at the center of the fluoride debate, and while they have reduced the dosage of fluoride, per the recommendation of the U.S. Public Health Service, they too, continue to add fluoride to the water they provide. Many who disagree with fluoride being added to drinking water stand firm in their position, keeping the conversation flowing between them and those who view it as beneficial.

The U.S. Public Health Service recommends a fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L, or 0.7 parts per million (ppm), to maintain the benefits of reducing the risk of tooth decay, while also decreasing the possibility of dental fluorosis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Association regulates fluoride contamination in drinking water with an enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 mg/L, or 4 ppm and an unenforceable secondary standard set at 2 mg/L. Other agencies including the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Public Health Association (APHA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and other major health organizations in the United States, believe that community water fluoridation, in recommended low quantities, is safe.

Having clean, safe, drinking water is important to the health of individuals and the environment. Knowing what is in your water and how policy maker decisions can affect public health is the first step in making decisions that will have a positive impact on your personal well-being.

hw_fall_2016_final_coverRead more about water and its connection to public health in the latest issue of Headwaters magazine, “Renewing Trust in the Safety of Public Water”.

Not a Headwaters subscriber? Sign up here, or visit yourwatercolorado.org for the digital version. Headwaters is the flagship publication of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education and covers current events, trends and opportunities in Colorado water.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Colorado Foundation for Water Education, Headwaters Magazine, Water Education and Resources, Water Quality

2017 New Year’s Resolution: Invest in Water Quality to Invest in Your Health

By Trisha Oeth, Commission Administrator, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Water Quality Control Commission
The views represented are those held by the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment or the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. 

 

256px-bratislava_new_year_fireworks

Credit: Ondrejk, Wikimedia Commons

It’s that time of year again—time for making New Year’s resolutions. Many of our resolutions will involve personal health or investment goals for 2017. But are you tired of setting weight-loss or money-saving goals? This year, consider investing in water quality as an investment in your own and your family’s health.

Safe and readily available water is one of the most vital components of our health. We have already seen our watersheds affected by major floods and wildfires. As climate change occurs and population doubles in Colorado, our waters will come under more pressures. We need to create resilient watersheds that can handle these pressures to avoid catastrophic conditions in our water. Watersheds that support strong ecosystems will produce the ecological diversity integral to our food chain and plants and minerals that someday could be used in medicines.

Water also is fundamental to our mental health. Studies show humans’ mental health improves with time near water. Set a goal this year to stroll on a path along a stream once a week and reflect on the soothing sound of the water. Imagine being connected to the source of our water and where it goes when we flush our toilets, wash our cars and water our lawns. Being connected in this way reminds us about the importance of investing in water, the essence of our existence.

Most of us understand that water is a basic necessity in our lives. We all want clean and safe water in our taps and in our streams. And yet, do any of us know how much we are paying our local utilities to ensure protection of this resource? When was the last time we readily and voluntarily agreed to increase our investment? None of us like increasing costs, but an increase in our water utility bill is not just a rate increase. It’s a proactive step to invest in our health. We know our water and wastewater infrastructure is aging. Reports show if we don’t start investing now, by 2040 we will have a $152 billion funding gap for needed infrastructure. This year, consider changing that trend and instead stand behind your utility when it proposes a rate increase.

The challenges that utilities face are immense. Utilities can use increased funds to protect our water at its source, replace aging pipes that deliver water to our homes, and upgrade treatment processes to keep up with current science and technology. Imagine if we all took the money we might routinely spend on two sugary beverages a month and instead invested it in water quality. Imagine if businesses that provide charitable donations or hold fundraisers directed that money to water quality. Imagine the possible replacement of lead-laden pipes and the removal of arsenic and other metals. Imagine algae-free streams and rivers available for swimming and fishing. Check in with your local utility or watershed group to see what work needs to be done in your area. Maybe it’s aging pipes, stream bank restoration or an upgrade to a water treatment plant. Then ask how you can get involved.

As you are reflecting on the past year and embarking on another, ask yourself how much it is worth to turn on your tap at home and know the water will be good for your health. This New Year, how much are you willing to invest in your and your family’s health?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERATrisha Oeth is the Administrator for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. In that role she provides policy advice and analysis regarding rules, regulations, and policy priorities on all aspects of water quality programs in Colorado. She began working on water quality issues after graduating from CU Law School, and practiced law in the private and public sector. In her free time Trisha enjoys trail running, cooking with her husband and daughters, and learning piano.

hw_fall_2016_final_coverRead more about water and public health in the new issue of CFWE’s Headwaters magazine available here.

1 Comment

Filed under Headwaters Magazine, Water Quality, Water Supply, Watershed Groups

Valuing Water

When we don’t witness water treatment plants in action, infrastructure being maintained and the sale and trade of water rights, it can be easy to forget that the cost of water involves more than our personal usage wrapped up neatly in a monthly bill. In reality, what we pay each month may not appropriately reflect the true cost of water. As Colorado’s population grows, the demand on already limited water resources will rise and the cost of water will likely increase—with higher totals often transferred to your water bill.

colorado-springs

Colorado Springs  Credit: Jasen Miller

Beginning Jan. 1, water rates will increase in some towns and cities around the state ̶ including Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver and Louisville. Depending on where you live, and how your water bill is broken down, utilities may use those monies for standard water treatment and delivery costs, conservation and education programming, infrastructure construction and maintenance, upgraded treatment systems, or even securing new water supplies. Read more about why Denver Water bills are increasing in this new post on Mile High Water Talk.

chuck_howeweb

Charles Howe. Credit: Maeve Conran

“As water becomes increasingly scarce, prices are going to go up,” says Charles Howe  professor emeritus in the Department of Economics, Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Howe joined KGNU’s Maeve Conran for an interview to discuss economics and the value of water on Connecting the Drops, our collaborative radio series between CFWE and Rocky Mountain Community Radio stations.

“Any new [water] use is going to face increasing prices,” Howe says. This is seen in the trade of water rights and reflected in users’ water rates. For water providers and town councils setting rates, the need to stretch scarce water supplies among multiple users and valuable uses increases the necessity of efficient water use and higher levels of conservation. Rates can be an effective tool for encouraging water conservation.

“It is very well established that users are sensitive to water prices. We know that as prices go up, users of every class do reduce use,” Howe says. “They gauge their usage of water so that they are not dumping costly water onto low value uses.”

How can rates encourage conservation? Conservation water rates send a price signal to customers to conserve—a variety of rate structures can accomplish this or can be mixed and combined. Many municipalities including Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver, Durango, Fort Collins, Grand Junction, Steamboat Springs, Vail, Walsenburg and Westminster use some form of tiered or increasing rate structure. In a tiered or increasing rate structure system, cost to the user increases in steps and is dependent on the amount of water used. Lower pricing steps exist because low-income customers and small households cannot afford to pay high prices for essential water usage. As use increases, price increases per thousand gallons of water used. Very high volume users—whether households, industry, or businesses—are charged the highest prices because their demand determines the peak capacity of the system.

denver-water

Denver Water  Credit: Jeffrey Beall

In Denver, the pricing structure moved from a four tier to a three tier system in which anything beyond “essential” use sees a significant increase in price. This, Howe notes, is a mechanism for encouraging conservation. Although prices are on the rise, Howe is of the mindset that municipalities are not charging enough to urban users. An increase of $25-30 per month would better reflect the value of the raw water that is being treated and distributed to the average urban customer, he says. Howe suggests that attention should also be focused on large-volume users in the commercial sector. They can be motivated to conserve water through increased pricing, therefore placing an appropriate value on the amount of water that they are actually using, he says.

hw_summer_coverwebListen to the full interview here and read more about the economics of water in the Summer 2016 issue of Headwaters magazine “Accounting for Water.” Check out the following articles for more information on the value of our most precious resource: A Price for the Priceless and Paying for What’s Ahead.

Not a Headwaters subscriber? Sign up here, or visit yourwatercolorado.org for the digital version. Headwaters is the flagship publication of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education and covers current events, trends and opportunities in Colorado water.

CitizensGuideToColoradoWaterConservation2016 (1)

Interested in water conservation and efficiency? Order your copy of CFWE’s Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Conservation for information on efficiency water use in homes and cities, in commerce and industry, and in agriculture.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Colorado Foundation for Water Education, Environment, Headwaters Magazine, Water conservation, Water Supply

Expanding the Role of Reclaimed Water

One of the main resources needed by any garden, including Denver Urban Gardens‘ (DUG) community gardens, is water. Since 1985, DUG has been working in the Denver Metro area to create sustainable, food-producing community gardens, and today operates more than 155 gardens, with 30 of those located on the grounds of Denver Public Schools (DPS).

2005-girl-watering-and-smiling-at-curtis-park

Photo Credit: Denver Urban Gardens

“School community gardens connect students, parents, teachers and the larger neighborhood community,” says Shannon Spurlock, director of public affairs and policy for DUG. “Our goal is to support the farm to school movement that introduces students to fresh, healthy, food choices that will lead them to make good food choices in the future.”

In the interest of sustainability, DPS has a long-term goal of switching all of their outdoor irrigation systems over to reclaimed water; however, an increase in the use of reclaimed water for irrigation could cause the number of school gardens to dwindle.

2009-youth-gardener-at-south-lincoln-park

Photo Credit: Denver Urban Gardens

Spurlock continues, “When a school’s irrigation system switches to reclaimed water, the school can no longer run a garden.” This limitation is due to Regulation 84, a public health policy that controls the ways that reclaimed water can be used, in order to protect public health and safety in Colorado. One of the ordinances that make up Regulation 84 states that reclaimed water cannot be used on crops meant for human consumption, which includes the school gardens run by DUG.

reclaimed_water_jars

Reclaimed Water

In Colorado, nonpotable reuse water—or reclaimed domestic wastewater that has received secondary treatment by wastewater treatment works, as well as additional treatment needed to meet standards for approved uses—is restricted to landscaping irrigation and some commercial and industrial uses. Key issues that concern the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) include the potential for bacterial and viral pathogen growth in storage and distribution systems, the development of antibiotic resistant genes and bacteria (ARG/ARB) that may be found in reclaimed water and having no clear treatment options, and the accumulation of salt due to reuse

DUG, Denver Water and WateReuse Colorado have been active proponents of amending Regulation 84 in favor of crop irrigation, as a way to make further use of a nonrenewable resource and extend the Denver Metro area water supply. DUG views the successful use of reclaimed water in other states, such as California, as an opportunity to safely increase the role of reclaimed water to agricultural irrigation, including community gardens.

“The use of reclaimed water on crops is not new,” Spurlock says. “We are benefiting from the technology and knowledge of others when it comes to food safety and security.”

23317759915_3d61f3250e_z

Reclaimed Water Greenhouse              Photo Credit: USDA

In California, crops have been irrigated with reclaimed water for 50 years. California Water Recycling Criteria allows for 43 specific uses of reclaimed water and encompasses the irrigation of all types of food crops, including those meant for human consumption. Different water quality requirements are necessary depending on how the final product will be consumed. Having a variety of treatment options supports water safety and reduces the potential for pathogens and ARG/ARB to be found in the water.

The California Ag Water Stewardship Initiative (CAWSI) addresses the issue of increased salt in reclaimed water, stressing the importance of farmers having access to water quality data that will allow them to adjust fertilization and irrigation practices accordingly for the most effective use of reclaimed water on crops.

23235267581_d3d2e87bec_z

Photo Credit: USDA

California’s success using reclaimed water for irrigation gives DUG cause to be hopeful about the future of expanded reclaimed water use in Colorado. Discussions between CDPHE and proponents of increased reclaimed water usage began in spring 2016 and are slated to continue to determine whether or not the amendment process will continue, and to ensure that public health protection remains a priority if Regulation 84 is amended.

By 2050, Colorado’s population is projected to surge from 5.4 million to 10 million people. This rate of growth places a strain on the state’s already stressed water supply, widening the gap between supply and demand, and leaving water providers searching for ways to stretch a limited resource. One possible way to meet the ever-increasing demand for water is through the use of reclaimed water, and should Regulation 84 be amended in the future, its effect may stretch beyond watering a neighborhood garden.

2011-fairmont-yfm-angel-harvesting-squash-lq

Photo Courtesy of Denver Urban Gardens

“Food connects our students to the land, our urban areas to rural farming, and gives everyone an opportunity to experience fresher, healthier, food that they might not experience, otherwise,” Spurlock says. “Families take what they learn in a school garden and start gardens in their own home. I have seen how growing food can have a positive influence on lives, and by amending Regulation 84 and incorporating reclaimed water into our daily lives, we can continue to have an impact.”

Watch for related coverage, including a story about water reuse and public health, in the upcoming issue of Headwaters magazine, focused on public health and water, which will hit mailboxes in early December. Not a Headwaters subscriber? Visit yourwatercolorado.org in December for the digital version. Headwaters is the flagship publication of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education and covers current events, trends and opportunities in Colorado water.

1 Comment

Filed under Agriculture, Headwaters Magazine, Water Quality, Colorado's Water Plan, Water conservation

Solutions for Drinking Water Contamination Issues in Colorado Springs Area

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has ensured the safety of public drinking water supplies throughout the nation. As part of the federal program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for drinking water quality, and periodically requires the testing of public drinking water systems that serve more than 10,000 people to examine potential emerging contaminants to determine the need for future regulation.

In October 2015, water samples taken from public water sources in Security, Widefield and Fountain, Colorado, showed elevated quantities of Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs). PFCs are manmade compounds that can be found in non-stick cookware, stain-resistant sofas and carpets, food packaging, as well as Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, used to fight petroleum fires. The military airfields at Peterson Air Force Base, in Colorado Springs, are the suspected source of PFC contamination; however, further water and soil testing is necessary to determine the definitive origin.

PFCs are not currently regulated by the SDWA; however, according to the El Paso County Health Department, prolonged exposure to PFCs is linked to potential health hazards, such as developmental damage to fetuses during pregnancy, low birth weight, accelerated puberty, kidney and testicular cancer, and liver tissue damage. It is suggested that pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children may be at higher risk due to exposure to PFCs.

An EPA press release from February 22 indicated that, according to the October samples, some of the public water sources in Security, Fountain, and Widefield, had concentrations of PFCs above the health advisory level set by the EPA in 2009. It recommended that residents consider testing their well water or installing a reverse osmosis under-the-sink treatment option.

After the initial testing by the EPA, Security began to manage PFC levels in area wells by blending the water to lower levels, as well as using low-level wells, according to Roy Heald, general manager of Security Water and Sanitation Districts. They suspected that PFC levels in their well water would be on the high side when the new levels were announced just months later; however, it was difficult to prepare for the unknown standards that the EPA would set.

“We did not know how stringent the new EPA concentration allowances would be,” Heald says. “We could only estimate based on rumors.”

Local officials had no direct contact with the EPA until 24 hours before the agency issued a new health advisory announcement on May 19. They were caught off-guard when the EPA announced that acceptable levels of PFCs needed to be below 70 parts per trillion (ppt); the prior level was 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) for PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic Acid) and 0.02 ppb for PFOS (Perfluorooctane Sulfonate), or a combined total of 400 ppt. Areas where both PFOA and PFOS are found are meant to adhere to the new standard of 70 ppt. Concentrations of PFCs in all 32 of Security’s wells were considerably higher than the EPA’s newest health advisory level, with one well reaching 1,370 ppt, nearly 20 times higher than the new limit.

People were concerned for their safety, health and the future of their water. You can learn more about this situation via these Denver Post articles: “Water contamination issues grip Colorado Springs-area residents” and “Drinking water in three Colorado cities contaminated with toxic chemicals above EPA limits.”

Needless to say, communities affected by high levels of PFCs in their water supply have been through a lot in the last 10 months. Local water and sanitation districts scrambled to find short-term solutions that would allow citizens to have safe water as quickly as possible. They have also been working to develop long-term solutions that will ensure the future welfare of well water in the Security, Widefield and Fountain areas, all while simultaneously continuing to run regular business operations. As of September 9, all wells in Security have been shut down. None of the wells are being used, and none of them will be used until treatment is implemented. The three zones that make up the total community are now receiving 100 percent surface water, which is being transported from Pueblo Reservoir through the Southern Delivery System (SDS), and there are no PFCs in the water, according to Heald.

The Widefield and Fountain areas have also transitioned from using well water to water piped in from north of Pueblo. Widefield set up free bottled water distribution at the onset of the situation and installed water dispensers in schools. All eight of Fountain’s municipal wells have PFC levels above the new EPA limit. In an attempt to lower these elevated levels, an engineering firm has been hired by the city.

Heald is quick to note that this is a short-term solution, at a higher cost; the diverted water costs three times more than local well water. However, money spent on the urgent situation has not affected customer rates. Yet. Currently, Security residents pay about $25 a month for their water service, but Heald insists that even if customers see an increase in their bills, the Security Water and Sanitation District will continue to have competitive rates for the area.

“The $3 million dollars that we have spent was, thankfully, from our reserves,” says Heald. “This district has been well-managed for 60 years and we had the reserves that enabled us to take emergency action; however, it was earmarked for other projects that, now, cannot be completed—like improving infrastructure. Continuing to spend money in this way is simply unsustainable.”

This short-term fix will carry the community through the winter. Additional infrastructure, in the form of a $825 million treatment plant and pipeline that will transport water 45 miles from Pueblo Reservoir in Colorado Springs, is being built to meet summer 2017 water demands. Beyond next summer, long-term treatment solutions for the wells will be employed in order to return to the use of groundwater wells.

“Rates are low in this area because the infrastructure is bought and paid for. The water rights are also bought and paid for,” Heald explains. “Long-term solutions involve treatment on our wells so that we can get back to using groundwater.”

A self-described eternal optimist, Heald praises the “phenomenal cooperative effort” of the surrounding communities, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and local health departments for their quick action and the success of applied solutions. “There are people who deserve more credit than they will ever get for getting us through this. We’ve done things that I didn’t know were possible.”

Learn more from Roy Heald about how Security plans to provide water that is PFC free:  Ron Heald Speaks on Security Water Supply.

And watch for related coverage in the upcoming issue of Headwaters magazine, focused on protecting public health through drinking water supplies, which will hit mailboxes the second week of December. Not a Headwaters subscriber? Sign up here, or visit yourwatercolorado.org in December for the digital version. Headwaters is the flagship publication of the Colorado Foundation for Water Education and covers current events, trends and opportunities in Colorado water.

4 Comments

Filed under groundwater, Headwaters Magazine, Uncategorized, Water Quality

South Denver Metro Shares Lessons on Path to Sustainable Water Future

By Eric Hecox

This month the South Metro Water Supply Authority, with our technical consultants CH2M, released a comprehensive assessment of the South Denver Metro region’s water future.

The study shows we have come a long way from the days of front-page headlines decrying the region as “running dry.” We can now say with confidence that we are on the path to a secure water future. We know where we’re going, and we know how to get there.

The results are summarized in recent newspaper articles (“The Future Looks Bright for Local Water Sources”) and on our website. In short, we have accomplished three major goals:

  • We have made significant progress in transitioning to a renewable water supply that will continue to become more balanced over time. By 2065, renewable water sources will account for 85 percent of our water supply, up significantly from just 12 years ago.
  • We have determined our future needs and what we need to do to meet them. While there is still work to be done, we are on the right path.
  • We have established an ethic of conservation with a 30 percent reduction of per capita water demand over the last 12 years, and a commitment to do even more.

For regions facing their own water challenges, there are lessons to be drawn from our work in the South Denver Metro region.

First is the importance of partnerships. By working together, the 13 water providers that comprise SMWSA have made a much larger impact than they could working in isolation. Partnerships with other regional water entities – including Aurora Water and Denver Water on the WISE Project and other initiatives – have been instrumental to our success. Similarly important are collaborative working relationships with entities such as the Colorado Water Conservation Board, other basins and their roundtables and many others.

Second, none of this is possible without investment. Our progress is a result of a number of significant projects. In addition to WISE, they include the ACWWA/ECCV Northern Project, the Rueter-Hess Reservoir, the Chatfield Reallocation Project, and many more.

Lastly, conservation and efficiency play a critical role in our success. By aggressively pursuing conservation strategies and becoming a leader in the state in water reuse, we have put the South Denver Metro region on a path to a sustainable water future.

If you would like to learn more about our efforts to date and plans moving forward, feel free to get in touch by sending me an email at erichecox@southmetrowater.org. M
ore information is available on our website: SouthMetroWater.org.

You can also read more about the WISE Project and other regional collaborative effHW SUMMER coverorts in “Linking Up: The Case for Regionalization” from the summer issue of Headwaters magazine, published by the Colorado Foundation for Water Education:  And explore CFWE’s new Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Water Conservation for a comprehensive overview of the most current and effective strategies to improve water efficiency at an individual and community scale.

 

Eric_Hecox head shot large

 

Eric Hecox is executive director of the South Metro Water Supply Authority, a regional water authority comprised of 13 water provider members that collectively serve about 80 percent of the population of Douglas County and 10 percent of Arapahoe County. SMWSA was established in 2004 to develop and execute a plan to provide a secure and sustainable water future for the region. Eric is also president of the board of directors for the Colorado Foundation for Water Education. 

1 Comment

Filed under Headwaters Magazine, Uncategorized, Water conservation, Water Supply