Fairfax Water Annual Water Quality Report

Every year public water suppliers are required to issue an annual drinking water quality report to their customers before July first of the following year. In June Fairfax Water released their report which can be found in its entirety at this link. Fairfax Water owns and operates the James J. Corbalis Jr. and the Frederick P. Griffith Jr. treatment plants. These plants are the primary source of water for most of Fairfax County and portions of Loudoun county and Prince William County. Fairfax Water acquired the City of Falls Church water distribution system (the green areas) as well as a tiny area (orange area) that serve approximately 120,000 people and obtain their water from the Dalecarlia and McMillan treatment plants, part of the Washington Aqueduct which is owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The result is that now Fairfax Water provides water to county residents from their two water treatment plants and buy water from the Washington Aqueduct to supply residents in and around the City of Falls Church. These were historic systems that were once town owned. The newer developments around Merrifield and the Dunn Loring Metro Station are supplied water from the Fairfax Water owned plants. Thus, they are required to report on the water quality of all these sources. 

Both the Washington Aqueduct and Fairfax Water run excellent water treatment plants. All four plants use advanced technologies and practices in drinking-water treatment, which is the process of cleaning raw water to make it safe to drink. Fairfax Water reports that their water consistently surpasses all federal (US EPA Safe Drinking Water Act) and state standards. Of the 182 compounds that are required to be tested for, very few were found in the finished drinking water. Those found were in concentrations well below the EPA’s maximum contaminant levels under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Fairfax Water’s state-certified Water Quality Laboratory performs or manages the testing required by federal and state regulations. The Washington Aqueduct does the testing for the water they supply. 

Over the years as the county grew Fairfax Water expanded its infrastructure. They built the Frederick P. Griffith Jr. Treatment Plant first and then the James J. Corbalis Jr. plant and expanded their distribution system which today serves over 1.7 million people with the lowest water rates in the region.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the EPA limits the amount of certain contaminants (a list of more than 90 contaminants) that can be in the water provided by public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act. When untreated water enters the treatment plants, coagulants are added to cause small particles to adhere to one another and settle in a sedimentation basin. The water is then filtered through activated carbon and sand to remove remaining fine particles. This produces water with extremely low turbidity and provides excellent barrier against pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia. 

Next, the water is disinfected with chlorine to kill harmful bacteria and viruses. A corrosion inhibitor is added to help prevent leaching of lead and copper that might be in household plumbing (Fairfax Water reports that all lead containing service laterals were removed from the system). Fluoride is added to protect teeth. Powdered activated carbon and potassium permanganate may also be added to the treatment process to remove taste or odor-causing compounds. In addition to these treatment steps, the Corbalis and Griffith plants use ozone to further reduce odors and organic material. Fairfax Water’s state-certified Water Quality Laboratory performs or manages the testing required by federal and state regulations. The Washington Aqueduct does the testing for the water they supply.

Fairfax Water and the Washington Aqueduct continually monitor and test the water during the treatment process and the finished drinking water as it leaves the plant and in customer homes a part of the Lead and Copper Rule testing. The Virginia Department of Health performs, source-water assessments for the watersheds. The assessment consists of maps of the evaluated watershed area, an inventory of known land-use activities, and documentation of any known source-water contamination within the last five years. Based on the criteria developed by the VDH, the Potomac River and the Occoquan Reservoir were determined to be of high susceptibility to contamination.

Nonetheless, the quality of the finished drinking water being produced at Washington Aqueduct and Fairfax Water is excellent. It meets or exceeds all United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) standards and requirements. The water quality report released in June covers the sampling done during calendar year 2019. There were no violations of the U.S. EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act. The full report is at this link. 

Climate Change and Cape Town

Cape Town is South Africa’s second largest city. This past spring after three years of persistent drought, the city was almost out of water. The government was forced to limit water use to 50 liters per person per day (that's 13 gallons a day) in hopes of preserving water supply until the rains or be forced to turn off most of its taps to preserve water for hospitals and other essential and urgent needs.

In fear of what the South Africans called "Day Zero” – when the city will no longer have running water, the citizens cut back. The rainy season this winter (recall that Cape Town is in the Southern Hemisphere) started early in their winter and fell at rates closer to the long term average than in the previous three years. The city’s dams are reported to be half full. Cape Town officials hope to relax water restrictions in the next few months. Residents of the Washington DC metropolitan area use about 300 liters of water per day per person- personally it is hard to imagine going months using one sixth of my usual amount of water.

The early winter rains easing the drought have given local officials and politicians the time they need to review the water augmentation schemes launched at the height of the drought crisis to establish the best mix. City of Cape Town Deputy Mayor Ian Neilson said in the South African “News24”: "Now that we have navigated our way through the immediate drought crisis, it is necessary that we review our water supply strategy and augmentation plans to ensure that what was devised in a time of crisis is appropriate for longer-term sustainability and resilience."

According to the city government the water crisis appears to have been caused by a combination of climate change- shifting weather patterns and city mismanagement. Municipal water comes primarily from surface reservoirs that rely entirely on rainwater, and were designed to withstand up to three years of lower-than-average rainfall. But with the growing population and a reported increased likelihood of drought, the city needs to have major backup or augmentation resources.

World Weather Attribution (WWA) says that their computer model using proxy data found that changing climate has made the recent drought three times more likely than in the past. WWA is a four year old international effort designed to sharpen and accelerate the scientific community’s ability to analyze and communicate the possible influence of climate change on extreme-weather events such as storms, floods, heat waves and droughts. WWA seeks to identify the human fingerprint on individual extreme-weather events. This has been the goal of the scientific community for more than a decade. Right now, studies of the attribution of extreme events such as those in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) take months to complete and are published long after the event.

A team brought together by WWA used the available southern Africa rainfall records to run several climate models. Rainfall records from Cape Town do not go back very far. The oldest rainfall records in the western cape region of Africa go back to 1930, but most are not that old. The WWA team used the data they had to run their climate models without the 1 degree C increase in temperature the earth has experienced since 1900 and then with the 1 degree C increase. The team concluded that changing climate tripled the risk of such a severe drought and if the planet warms a further degree it will triple again.

Cape Town needs to make its water supply sustainable and resilient to survive more frequent and longer droughts. With the increased demand from a growing population and economy, and with climate change models predicting a drier Cape Town, the City has realized that it cannot rely only on rainfall for future water supply.

Farm Exports- Selling Our Water and Future to China

Paradise, CA

According to the US Census Bureau there are 312 million people in the United States. As population rises, the demand for fresh water for drinking, domestic use, for industry (especially power generation) and for agriculture increases. The demand for food and the water that is essential to produce food grows with population and wealth. Globally, farming is estimated to account for 92% of water footprint of mankind. Farmers in the United States feed 20% of the world’s population on just 10% of the earth’s surface which has resulted in the United States being the largest virtual water exporter on the globe.

Though “on average” the United States actively uses less than 8% of the water that falls as precipitation within our borders annually, the rain and snow does not fall where needed and when it is needed, our groundwater aquifers are necessary to maintain year round water and supplement surface water supplies. However, we are depleting key aquifers in the United States. In the High Plains that was open range land until the groundwater from the Ogallala aquifer was used to turn the range land into irrigated crops, agriculture is depleting the aquifer because the groundwater within it is predominately non-renewable. In the central valley of California where three crops a year can be grown and crop production is only limited by the amount of water delivered for irrigation, the groundwater is used to increase irrigation waters making up an estimated of 30% of water for irrigation from an aquifer that is also predominately non-renewable. So much water has been pumped that the land above the aquifer- the fine-grained confining beds of sediments- that the land has subsided and can never recover. The water level in both these aquifers has fallen hundreds of feet in the past few generations.  

This year it is estimated that the Western United States will ship more than 3.6 million tons of hay and alfalfa whose water footprint is more than 50 billion gallons of water to China this year. We do this in a drought year when the limited water of the Colorado River could be better used elsewhere in the United States and by consuming non-renewable groundwater. Farmers pay almost nothing for water- only what it costs to deliver it, not what it is worth. So, for less than $180 American farmers are selling 13,900 gallons of water to China. This water is both the limited flow of the Colorado and non-renewable groundwater resources.  

In many parts of the United States, water resources are limited and strained. Without irrigation even a single crop is impossible with less than 20 inches of rainfall. Yet, we still behave as if water were unlimited and almost free. Irrigated agricultural consumes over 75% or more of the delivered water in California, which produces about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables. In the United States we have used the various complicated, layered and hidden subsidies within the various water rights arrangements and subsidized water to complicate the business of farming and obscure the true costs of food in America and now we are consuming our non-renewable water resources and subsidizing the water cost for hay and nuts for China. The basic laws and regulations governing water and water rights have not been updated to account for today’s water realities and for recent advances in scientific and technical understanding of the relationship between water, groundwater and ecological services that water perform.

The system of water rights that developed in the west assured for generations the allocation of water to agriculture. The water rights system as conceived and administered in the western states was not designed to conserve water. It was developed in a time when population was still sparse, water supplies were believed to be more than plentiful and development and growth were to be encouraged. The system was designed to protect the water and work necessary to build farms in the west and the government actually encouraged the conversion of over 91% of the range land into cultivated agriculture. This management scheme has resulted in non-sustainable use of groundwater and unsustainable agricultural practices. We are draining the High Plains Aquifer and the Central Valley aquifers though agricultural crop volume per gallon of water has increased over the past generation by adopting more efficient irrigation technologies.

The states of the Colorado Compact need more water. The allocations promised under the Compact were more than 100% of the water available , and the water needs of the states have grown over the years. The water allocated under the Colorado Compact was based on an expectation that the river's average flow was 16.4 million acre feet per year. According to the University of Arizona, a better estimate would have been 13.2 million acre feet at the time of the Colorado Compact and there are indications of periods of mega-droughts in the distant past. During the drought of 2001-2006 the Colorado River flow was estimated at 11 million acre feet and hit a low of 6 million acre feet in 2002.  Overuse is killing the Colorado water basin which suffers from decimated aquatic ecosystems, overdrawn and irreparably damaged groundwater aquifers, and polluted agricultural and urban runoff.

California farmers have nontransferable water rights to 20% of the flow of the Colorado River exceeding by an order of magnitude the rights of the state of Nevada. Even with such a large share of the Colorado’s flow California has failed to develop a sustainable water budget. There is little incentive for farmers with senior rights to fully implement water saving strategies- the water is priced too cheap and farmers are unable to sell water rights. By prior appropriation water rights belong to the agricultural irrigation districts despite the changing needs of our nation and a changing understanding of water. The states of the Colorado Compact, the states of the High Plains, and the other major watersheds need to rationalize our water policies and create a sustainable and workable water budget for their communities and our nation as a whole and stop exporting the non-renewable water resources as cheap grains and hay.  

Sustainable Living, Human Environmental Damage and Climate Change

Sustainable living by societies is about managing environmental resources without overexploiting what initially appeared as inexhaustibly abundant. As mankind migrated across the globe waves of extinction and over exploitation of environmental resource followed. Ancient societies have collapsed many believed to have been triggered by the destruction or exhaustion of environmental resources. Normal fluctuations in resource levels between years or decades tend to mask the signs of depletion of resources, as the current heavy rains have done in California. The complexity of ecosystem makes it difficult to know, understand and predict the consequences of human actions. Some water can be pumped from the groundwater basin and diverted from rivers without significantly impacting the water balance and ecology of the area. However, diverting all the water, over pumping the groundwater until the land subsides will destroy the ecology and watershed.

Mankind does not learn restraint easily. This is classically illustrated by “The tragedy of the Commons,” by Garreth Hardin was published in Science, December 13, 1968. The concept from the article that has survived is that what is a free and common resource is abused. Hardin said “Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all.” Because of fluctuations in “renewable” resources it is easy to mask or ignore signs of the beginnings of destruction of the water resources that California depends or any other resource that a society depends on. Fluctuations in climate or rainfall and imperfect measurements and vantage points mask trends from clear view. Despite knowledge that there are always droughts after wet years, Californians and the Western States maintain policies for rural and urban/suburban use of water and water allocations drawn up during the wet El Nino years. These are assumed to be the “normal” water allocations. In California agriculture is entirely based on profligate use of irrigation water, the vast three crops a year agri-industrial empire of this semi-arid state is based on irrigation. Water costs less than the real resource cost, so farmers plant and grow as much as their water allocation and any groundwater available can produce as the state continues down the path of ruin. Our technology and engineering have allowed us to mine the water and allow the west to expand beyond the carrying capacity of the land and the water. Vast amounts of energy are needed to deliver unsustainable amount of water to farmers and the southern cities of the state. Hard choices and restraint will be delayed until ecological and financial bankruptcy.

The "American Clean Energy and Security Act” also know as the Waxman-Markley energy bill is dead. The bill included a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. It set an overall cap on such carbon dioxide emissions that decreased over time reducing what can be emitted. This was intended to push utilities and industry to release less carbon dioxide by utilizing cleaner energy sources or increasing efficiency of the existing ones. However, it probably would have achieved it’s goal by exporting carbon burning, jobs and business and the bill is probably dead because of unintended consequences to the economy. It is unclear what impact if any this failure will have on the earth’s ecology. Climate change is constant. As seen in the geological record, throughout earths’ history climates become hotter or colder, wetter or drier, more or less variable because of natural forces like volcanic eruptions, changes in the orientation of the earths axis, variation in the heat put out by the sun (it is not constant), changes in the continents. There have been ice ages millions of years ago, the often cited “Little Ice Age” from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century, climate disruptions caused by volcanic explosions, vanishing of the rivers and lakes from the Sahara leaving it a desert. Archeologists, geologists, and the human record tell us that the climate of earth is constantly changing, but there does not appear to be a single cause that explains these changes. In each change of the climate there are those societies that fail and those that thrive. The idea that we are experiencing global warming caused by man seems a little arrogant. To think that mankind, like the Sun has the power to change the climate or prevent climate change is a naïve view of the world and the forces at play. Certainly, mankind is engaged in exploiting and overexploiting the earth’s resources and there will be local ecological collapses. How we harness technology, trade and the human capacity to adapt to changing environment to respond to these changes will determine the fate of our society and others. The future will tell us if a society that has depleted its resources can survive the further depletions of resources and environment due to changes in climate.

More Thoughts on Sustainable Living, Energy Use and Ecological Impact

Last spring Dr. Chu, US Energy Secretary, advocated for "white roofs everywhere". He said lightening roofs and roads in urban environments would offset the global warming effects of all the cars in the world for 11 years. Unfortunately, I’ve discovered that blanket statements like that need to be more closely examined before blindly accepting them even from Nobel Prize winning physicists working for the government. Both Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Con Edison performed studies of different roofing materials. Livermore Lab only looked at the reduction in energy used for air conditioning probably because their Lab is located in California.
Con Edison divided their training center's roof into three parts: a traditional dark roof section, a section painted white, and a green section with plants growing on it. An energy-efficiency study by Columbia University was designed to help researchers understand how each kind of roof performs. The green and white roofs were found to perform equally well in preventing the “heat island effect,” in which conventional dark roofs absorb sunlight during the day and radiate heat back into the atmosphere at night which is postulated to create along with asphalt pavement the increased temperatures associated with urban and suburban areas.
However, the green roof is beneficial in summer and winter as well as reducing rain water runoff. The green roof reduces summer heat gains by up to 84% and winter heat losses by up to 37% compared to a black roof. The white roof reduces summer heat gains by up to 67%, but reflects heat in the winter when it is desirable to maintain heat. In a cold climate, a dark roof can lower heating costs by soaking up the winter sun. White-roof advocates counter that, in the continental United States, the "winter penalty" is just 10 percent of the overall savings because the roof is covered with snow for much of the winter, but many locations with freezing or near freezing temperatures do not have significant amounts of snow throughout the winter.
Green roofs are clearly the better choice for energy consumption year around. The obvious problem is green roofs only work with flat roofs, my house has a traditional peaked roof so a green roof is not really and option. I can not even imagine my neighbor’s reactions to a white reflective roof glaring at all drivers from the end of the cul-de-sac. Another problem I did not even imagine is maintenance requirements for a green roof. I went to see the Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. building in Gainesville, VA which was one of the first LEEDS certified buildings in Virginia and was dismayed to discover that weeding and replanting after extreme weather was necessary. WSS actually utilizes its interns to weed the roof. I can barely keep up with the hand weeding of my garden (because I do not use weed killers or other chemicals, I dig out the weeds in my beds).
Living in a moderate climate (last winter not withstanding) my roof does not spend the greater part of the winter covered in snow and I might benefit by having my roof absorb heat in the winter. Though, throughout the summer a dark roof would results in extra load on the air conditioning/heat exchanger. One of my goals in the insulation of my attic was to thermally isolate the attic from the rest of the house. For the insulation project, the attic and accessible areas of the basement and crawl spaces were inspected for adequate insulation. Then following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. My total electricity bills for the following 12 months were 27% less than I paid in the 12 months before I added the additional insulation to the house, and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume use December through March both years) was reduced by 25%. Also, the overall comfort in the bedroom over the garage and the master bedroom has been vastly improved. I was very surprised at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home. The payback on this project was under 4 years, unbelievably good.
My solution to the roof question was to begin to fill the southern roof span with solar panels. I have covered about 60% of that span with solar panels (so far). The goal is to test their production and function and save up more money for more panels down the road, though my estimate is that the savings from the solar panels will be about the same as from the insulation project. The problem is they cost (before rebates, tax credits and sale of SRECS) ten times as much. A more cost effective next step would be to convert the entire house heating and cooling to “geothermal” heat exchangers, though in truth, I have yet to find any models to estimate my cost and savings from that conversion.
Other recommendations for sustainable living or energy efficiency are based on a set of assumptions that may not be true for all situations. People’s patterns of living are starting to diverge. As an example we live, work and relax from home. I leave the house a few times a week to purchase supplies, pray, and volunteer. I rarely go more than 10 miles from home and drive (my little hybrid) only a few thousand miles a year. My water supply and waste disposal are private and sustainable. According to research performed in Dutchess county the average daily aquifer recharge (from rain and snow only excluding septic recycling) for Soils types C, C/D and D prevalent in this part of Virginia are estimated 326-583 gallons per acre. It is essential in a sustainable system that the groundwater level be maintained with recharge and adequate surface water is supplied to maintain the ecology even during drought years. My property totals more than 10 acres and our total indoor and outdoor household water usage was clocked during the early summer at between 100 and 150 gallons a day. We do not water our garden; trying to plant only what will thrive in the natural environment unaided. Virginia gets plenty of rainfall and it seems silly to plant anything that requires irrigation. Thus, not only is my septic system non-consumptive, the recharge rate vastly exceeds our water usage (and hopefully our neighbors since our water supply is dependent on total demand and recharge of the aquifer). I have an alternative septic system and I am incredibly careful of its operation, management of the load and maintenance.
Yet, with that I use a large amount of electricity for entertainment, to store my meat bought in bulk and the wine put up for the next decade. Thought my refrigeration units are energy star, there are several of them. Our home theatre is an LCD which is far more energy efficient that plasma, but less energy efficient than the now available LED TVs. It may be an LCD, but its large. Sustainable living is about thoughtfully using the earths resources. A fun place to start thinking about the sustainablility of your life is to go to the energy star home page and measure your home energy score.

Sustainable Garden Maintenance

First of all, I am not a gardener. I have no natural gift for it and limited inclination and experience. However, as time goes on, am developing a deep affection for my garden. I am attempting to develop a flourishing and sustainable organic ornamental garden surrounding my house. I am trying to concentrate on native species assuming they will be the most likely to flourish with my form of benign neglect. I did not originally start out to be organic, I actually never thought about it until faced with a nursery consultant wanting to sell me bags of chemicals the year I began planting my garden. The groundwater that I drink is very shallow with limited soil overburden to protect it. In addition, nutrient runoff is a major problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For the most part, the back seven acres of my property are part of the Resource Protected Area under the Chesapeake Protection Act. Anything that goes into my septic system, is spread on my lawn, or sprayed around my house could easily find its way into my water or the water shed (someone else’s water). My first reaction to the offer of fertilizer and weed killers was no. Since that time the more I read about pesticides, herbicides and insecticides derived from naturally occurring substances that are now commercially available, the less I am inclined to use any synthetic chemical products in the garden. Some of the more natural pesticides were introduced in the 19th century, and are derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. At the moment I am practicing a form of feeding the soil through composting. I try to always use the least toxic method to address any pest issues. This requires an integrated pest management approach that includes a series of methods for preventing and managing pest populations based on an ecological understanding of the problem. Time, patience and diligence are necessary for the success of any natural program of sustainable garden and pest management. Chemical annihilation of pest colonies and weeds are not an option.

These older, methods and naturally occurring chemicals are a step back, but believed to be safer than the new generation of pesticides and herbicides developed during last quarter century (encouraged by the US EPA to replace the first round of pesticides banned by the agency). The lower concentrations of the new chemicals and their breakdown products rendered them virtually invisible in water. We could not detect them and assumed they were not present. Now it seems that the degradation products of these new chemical herbicides are far more persistent in the environment that originally believed or hoped. Recent studies have documented endocrine disruption in a wide variety of marine gastropods, frogs, and fish associated with exposure to low levels of non specific endocrine disrupting chemicals of unknown sources. The current state of analysis only allowed the documentation of EDC presence. EDCs are a structurally diverse group that includes natural and synthetic estrogens, alkyl phenols surfactants, phthalates, bisphenol A, brominated flame retardants and some pesticides.

Pesticide' is a broad term, covering a range of products that are used to control pests. The slug pellets, ant powder, weed killers, and rat and mouse baits that you may use in your everyday life are all pesticides. Other pesticides you may have heard of including: insect killers (insecticides), mould and fungi killers (fungicides), weed killers (herbicides), slug pellets (molluscicides), plant growth regulators, bird and animal repellents, and rat and mouse killers (rodenticides). Often people only think of pesticides as chemicals, but they include a very large range of different types of products. Some as described above are natural, while many are altered versions of natural chemicals. I choose to stay away from the synthetic chemicals. My organic garden requires me to weed the beds on a regular basis, where spraying 2, 4-D, commonly found in household weed killers is certainly much easier. However the more chemical pesticides are investigated the more questions are raised. For example, in a 1991 National Cancer Institute study examined dogs whose owners' lawns were treated with 2,4-D four or more times per year. The study found those dogs had double the risk of developing canine malignant lymphoma than dogs whose owners do not use the herbicide. Our knowledge of the consequences of pesticide use is really so limited considering the widespread use of the substances. I think just doing without pesticides and weed killers in my garden are best. There is simply no justification for adding chemical contaminants to the earth and the watershed for a greener lawn and prettier flowers.

Without the need to spread fertilizer or weed controlling chemicals, my spring clean up of my garden involved, edging, weeding and mulching the beds, replacing the shrubbery that the deer pulled out and the snow crushed and replacing the snowplow damaged sections of the lawn with sod and calling it a day. (It was actually 5 man days and 50 bags of mulch.) For full disclosure purposes I still have one of the worst lawns in my neighborhood, I apply no chemicals to my lawn and never water. However, I do hope to improve the lawn by continuing my fall program of aerating and over seeding and applying my limited amount of compost. So far, not so good despite soil analysis that showed decent soil composition. I may not have a great garden, but at least it is a neat one. Next we are onto assessing the condition of my dozen hollies trees that appear to have been severely damaged by the harsh winter we just had. The arborist will be out to determine what can be saved and what needs to be replaced and I will plant some saplings on the forest edge to increase its footprint.

Spring Cleanup and Good Stewardship of my Resource Protected Area

It was a long harsh winter in this part of Virginia. Spring as always seems to arrive suddenly and I was faced will a garden that had been damaged by the severe winter storms and a few misses by the snow plow. The past week and a half have been warm and spring like and that is all it took for the first buds of spring to appear. It was time to assess the garden, the woods and do a spring cleanup. As I walked the few miles surrounding my house I watched homeowners take different approaches to the spring cleanup. There were lots of homes (mine included) where trees were downed by the storms. We maintain woods on most of our property an area larger than the mandated Resource Protected Area (RPA) under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and manage it as one riparian forest buffer. Our spring assessment began with the woods.

The Regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act require that a vegetated buffer area of at least 100-feet wide be located adjacent to of all tidal shores, tidal wetlands, certain associated non-tidal wetlands, and along both sides of all water bodies with perennial flow within the Tidewater region. These aquatic features, along with the 100-foot buffer area, are the RPAs and serve to protect water quality by reducing excess sediment, nutrients, and potentially harmful or toxic substances from groundwater and surface water entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In the RPA the roots of the woody vegetation helps to maintain the stability of the stream bed, minimizing bank erosion to limit sediment. A wooded buffer has porous soils from leaf litter, fungi, twigs, fallen branches and associated bacteria all help to enhance the infiltration of the rain water and snow runoff. The root mass and forest floor also retains nutrients, aids in denitrification and pollution degradation.

As an engineer, I do not truly understand the nuances of the forest ecosystem. It is a complex mix of trees, understory shrubs and groundcover. Over time the process of natural succession occurs. Small saplings develop and will become the next generation of trees as the older ones die out. I take on faith that understory trees are a necessary part of this ecosystem and that insects, disease, ice and wind are a normal part of the succession process. In a forested area the roots, twigs and leaf litter and detrius are important for slowing storm water runoff and trapping debris and sediment. The twigs and roots also trap blown litter. So, our spring clean up of the RPA is to walk the woods collecting plastic bottles, and other litter. We walked the woods to make sure that nothing is amiss, pick up litter and see the river. There is always something magical about flowing water. This year my husband made a little video of the river running.

Several trees had been downed in the woods along with many branches. Pretty much we don’t have to worry about those trees. Benign neglect is the rule for RPAs which appeals to my lazy heart. We did cut off a section of tree that had crushed our fence and fallen into our manicured garden. However, that tree was not in the RPA. We left the two parts of the tree in the woods. I am thinking of expanding the wooded border with some additional tree plantings. Our big cleanup in the RPA this year was finding an old tire and a part of an appliance (I would guess washing machine). We removed the trash from the woods and took a bunch of pictures of the river and called it a day after ensuring we had not picked up any ticks. (Lyme disease is not a joke.) Now we are done, so much for spring cleanup of the riparian buffer zone. Next up the manicured garden.

Quit Dreaming of Water

In 1995, the Pacific Institute published a report that summarized the condition of the water supply in California:
“California’s current water use is unsustainable. In many areas, ground water is being used at a rate that exceeds the rate of natural replenishment. This is causing land to subside and threatening some aquifers with possible collapse. The use of ground water is almost entirely unmonitored and uncontrolled, hindering rational management. Urban water use is inefficient and poorly managed. Agricultural policies encourage the production of water-intensive, low-valued crops. Environmental water needs are poorly understood and rarely met. Fish and wildlife species are being driven toward extinction and habitats are being destroyed by withdrawal of water, as well as by development.”

Though the report gained much publicity the public was not engaged and life continued as usual for most. The conclusions of that report are still true today only the need for action is more urgent. Planning for the future was pushed off. In their 2005 the Pacific Institute published another report. Pointing out that water demand and use exceeds sustainable supply. Mining of groundwater unconstrained by environmental or ecological limits will doom California. “The costs to the state of such a future will include:
• lost industrial competitiveness and revenue;
• destroyed natural resources;
• continuing uncertainty about long-term water supplies; and
• Further ill will among urban, agricultural, and environmental interests.”

The day of reckoning is nearer. Water wars are erupting in the state. The Pacific Institute is cursed as Cassandra. Right but never believed.

The State of California has routinely prepared water scenarios and projections as part of long-term water planning. The California Water Plan, a regular analysis published by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is the major guide book for water planning within the state. The latest version of the Plan was released for public review in January 2009 and stated:
“We must adapt and evolve California’s water systems more quickly and effectively to keep pace with ever changing conditions now and in the future. Population is growing while available water supplies are static and even decreasing. Climate change, as evidenced by changes in snowpack, river flows, and sea levels, is profoundly impacting our water resources. The Delta and other watersheds and ecosystems continue to decline. The state’s current water and flood management systems are increasingly challenged by legal remedies and regulatory protections, with economic and societal consequences. The entire system—water and flood management, watersheds, and ecosystems—has lost its resilience and is changing in undesirable ways.”

In August 2009 the Environmental Water Caucus published California Water Solutions Now under a grant from the Goldman Institute pulling together a unified view and list of recommendations from a diverse group of stakeholders. The report points out that California’s state water agencies cannot report on how much water is actually being used, where it is being used, where it is being diverted to, how much is being diverted, or how many diversions are illegal. Where it does have such data, the State Water Board estimates that the number of illegal diversions may be over 40 percent of the number of active permits and licenses, which also fails to comply with the law in many cases. Enforcement authority and resources are extremely limited, and violations rarely if ever receive a meaningful state response. Water rights enforcement must increase if we are to police the illegal use of California’s waters and ensure its beneficial use, in accordance with the state Constitution.

The state needs transparent and independent accounting assessing the sustainable water supply and water use in California. This will have to include monitoring groundwater use throughout the state. Sustainable use of water resources cannot be a voluntary program. The current water rights systems needs to be reformed. The SWP has never been able to consistently deliver all the water supplies on which its contracts were based. The main input to the Delta, the Sacramento River does not provide sufficient water for all the present claimants. The system cannot provide full delivery of water to the most junior holders in most years without even taking into account the recent court-ordered restrictions that protect endangered fish species.

Many of the conclusions drawn by the Environmental Water Caucus are difficult and painful, but the reality is water resources are limited. The report points out that 37% of all years since 1960 are drought years in California and in response local politicians, the Governor and Senator Feinstein want to build more major dams and canals to store and more water at a time when changing climate will most likely make less water available. Publicly subsidized farm water has created and insatiable appetite for more irrigation water. The true cost of water must be paid for and the mining groundwater to cover the water shortfall needs to stop.

Subsidized water has resulted in the unsustainable practices in the western San Joaquin Valley, which is an ancient ocean bed. Selenium, boron, molybdenum, mercury, arsenic and various other salts and minerals are highly concentrated in these soils. Irrigation of this land with water from the Delta adds enormous amounts of salts to the soils in the western San Joaquin Valley and requires the water wasteful “pre-irrigation” of the land to push down the salt level before planting. Only subsidized water could produce this behavior. These lands need to be taken out of agricultural production. There is no more water. Both urban and suburban water conservation must take place as well as agricultural water conservation, since agriculture uses more than three-quarters of the state’s developed water supplies, unsustainable use of water begins here. Reducing water use through conservation efficiencies and recycling will increase available water at significantly less cost than constructing new storage dams and reservoirs according to Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.