In the News

Groups will gather across local communities Saturday for the 2009 annual North Carolina Big Sweep.

The nonprofit organization, with a mission of a litter-free environment, will have participants from all 100 counties in the state participating in the clean up of land and waterways.

Tess Sanders, White Oak-New Riverkeeper, is asking the community to join the White Oak-New Riverkeeper Alliance in a cleanup on Quarry Lakes on the White Oak River Saturday.

Participants will meet at 10 a.m. at the Quarry Lakes Boat Ramp in Maysville. Detailed directions will be e-mailed after registering.

New Riverkeeper Alliance will supply water and trash bags. Canoes or kayaks will be provided to those without their own.

“Pollution in our water destroys wildlife habitat and food sources, and it ruins many opportunities for recreation,” Sanders said. “Everyone suffers from harmful debris entangling boat motors, hurting animals and tarnishing nature’s beauty.”

Register at www.wonriverkeeper.org to reserve a spot or call Sanders at 910-382-1370.

SOURCE: http://www.jdnews.com/news/community-68314-big-groups.html

This week on the Down East Journal, we "fish" for answers as to why high levels of mercury are being found in locally.

Listen to the story

SUZANNE ULBRICH

The U.S. Geological Survey recently tested fish from 291 streams across the country. Mercury contamination was found in every one of them.

Some of the highest levels were reported in the coastal “blackwater” streams of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana, said Tess Sanders, White Oak-New Riverkeeper.

“Even fish you buy at the grocery store or eat at a restaurant can expose you or your children to harmful levels of mercury,” she said.

The study found that the slow-moving coastal streams enhance the conversion of mercury to its more toxic form, methyl mercury, which accumulates in fish tissue and can impact human health, Sanders said.

Sanders said she is not suggesting people stop eating fish. Instead she suggests avoiding those that have been found to be high in mercury — like shark, swordfish and king mackerel — and follow the N.C. Division of Public Health’s advice on the amount of fish per week for various segments of the population.

“People who fish our coastal waters need to be aware of the fish consumption advisories,” she said. “Women of childbearing age and children under age 15 should be particularly careful.”

Pregnant women and nursing mothers should also be careful, according to N.C. Public Health, which recommends those groups limit consumption of fish considered low in mercury to up to two meals per week and completely avoid fish high in mercury. All others should limit consumption of low-in-mercury fish to up to four meals per week and only one meal per week of fish considered high in mercury, according to the health division.

The amount of mercury in fish varies depending on the type of fish; its size, weight and age; what they eat; and where they live. Smaller, non-predatory fish with shorter life spans tend to have lower levels of mercury. Larger, older fish that consume smaller fish are more likely to have the highest levels.

Mercury occurs naturally in the environment, but various studies have shown that human activity has increased emissions of mercury into the atmosphere and into streams and rivers, said Mark Brigham, a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist.

“We’re putting a lot more mercury into the environment than was there during pre-industrial times,” he said.

While mercury contamination was found in every fish sampled, Brigham said the message isn’t to alarm the public.  He said the study can help inform consumers about the issue so they can educate themselves and follow appropriate fish-consumption advisories.

“We want them to be able to balance the benefits with what they know about the risks of mercury contamination,” he said.

FISH WITH MERCURY LEVELS

Certain fish contain high amounts of mercury. According to the N.C. Division of Public Health offers they include:

Ocean Fish high in mercury

Albacore (white) tuna**— fresh or canned

Almaco jack

Banded rudderfish

Cobia

Crevalle jack

Greater amberjack

South Atlantic grouper (gag, scamp, red and snowy)

King mackerel

Ladyfish

Little tunny

Marlin

Orange roughy

Shark

Spanish mackerel

Swordfish

Tilefish

Tuna, fresh or frozen**

 

Freshwater Fish high in mercury

Blackfish (bowfin)*

Black crappie **

Catfish (caught wild)*

Jack fish (chain pickerel)*

Largemouth bass (statewide)

Walleye in Lake Fontana and Lake Santeetlah

Warmouth*

Yellow perch*

 

*High mercury levels have been found in blackfish (bowfish), catfish, jack fish (chain pickerel), warmouth, and yellow perch caught south and east of Interstate 85.

**Different species from canned light tuna

*** High mercury levels have been found in black crappie caught south and east of Interstate 95.

Source: N.C. Division of Public Health 

Jannette Pippin contributed to the article. Contact Suzanne Ulbrich at 910-219-8454 or sulbrich@freedomenc.com.

 

What does the future hold for water and wastewater management in Onslow County?

About 30 people gathered at Jacksonville City Hall Thursday night for insight on that particular topic at a forum hosted by The New River Roundtable.

The forum featured presenters from the Division of Water Quality, East Carolina University and McKim and Creed Engineering who discussed options for the county including water refuse options, aquifer storage and recovery, wetlands augmentation and emerging technologies.

Scott Shuford, director of Onslow County Planning, said the challenges facing the county are its increasing population, which in turn increases water demand and wastewater generation. He said a lack of initiatives to promote viability of farming could lead to agricultural lands being converted for other uses.  Between 2002 and 2007 the county lost 13 percent of its farmlands. This can increase impervious surfaces and promote more runoff and reduce recharge.

Impending climate change, such as a rise in the sea level and higher temperatures for longer periods of time, may also affect the quantity and quality of the county’s water supply, he said. Threats also include saltwater intrusion, droughts and additional runoff due to high intensity storms.

Robert Rubin, senior environmental specialist with McKim and Creed, provided information on planning for the use of reclaimed water.

“I believe it will be a part of everybody’s water management future,” he said. “Populations are going to grow. We’ve got to find ways of supplying water to those people all the time.”

The benefits of water reuse are preserving and extending existing water resources, comprehensive drought mitigation, improvement in overall utility reliability, reduction of pollutant discharge into the environment and creation of an additional revenue base, Rubin said.

Reuse is not “toilet to tap” but instead about using water “beneficially in the community,” he said.

“We can treat, we can disinfect, we can monitor the water … to assure that the reuse program is safe and effective,” he said.

John Dorney, with the division of water quality, said wetlands augmentation is also an option for wastewater disposal.

In Brunswick and Pamlico counties, upwards of 50 percent of their wetlands are viable for wastewater discharge.

“A large percentage of wetlands in the state could be used for this,” Dorney said.

Dorney said wetlands at Emerald Isle Woods already receive storm water with monitoring requirements. There is an effort underway to modify existing non-discharge rules to make wetlands augmentation more feasible which could be adopted as early as 2010.

Richard Spruill, an associate professor of hydrogeology at ECU, presented an overview of groundwater and geology in Onslow County and discussed alternatives for reuse through aquifer storage. Options include surface wastewater irrigation, cooling towers and underground injection, among others.

While Spruill isn’t opposed to the injection of waste water into aquifers, he said he wasn’t sure there was enough information on the subject to do so “intelligently” right now.

“We have the technology … but do we have the intestinal fortitude?” he asked.

Panelists representing Onslow Water and Sewer Authority, New River Foundation, City of Jacksonville, White Oak New Riverkeeper and Camp Lejeune weighed in on the information presented.

Frank Sanders, engineering director at ONWASA, said the organization is interested in wetlands augmentation and is looking into wetlands in the areas of Holly Ridge and Richlands.

White Oak-New Riverkeeper Tess Sanders said while the organization is in favor of reuse as part of “good water management” they are opposed to the storage of treated waste water in aquifers.

“Reuse is appropriate for things such as washing your car and watering your lawn, but it’s not appropriate for drinking water,” she said.

Jacksonville resident William Blaha attended the forum. He was most concerned about the future of the Castle Hayne aquifer.

“How long are we going to have that source? Are we going to be able to freely pump it out … or should we take some steps to preserve some of that?” he asked. “(I) think we’ve been a little liberal with our water use and discharge permitting in the community.”

Sneads Ferry resident Bob Bryant said he enjoyed the forum but said he’s unsure of the place aquifer storage of wastewater has in Onslow County.

 “I think we’re a long way in Onslow County from being able to utilize that technology,” he said.

Source: http://www.jdnews.com/news/water-67207-county-onslow.html

Tess Sanders said she is relieved the N.C. House Environment and Natural Resource Committee put the aquifer bill on hold to study the issue.

If passed, H643 would have allowed injection of “reclaimed water” — or treated wastewater — to be placed in aquifers for temporary storage. The bill was introduced by N.C. Rep. Russell Tucker, D-Duplin.

As White Oak-New Riverkeeper for the White Oak Riverkeeper Alliance, Sanders spent countless hours voicing strong opposition to the bill.

“It is prudent to really be extra cautious with something as precious as our drinking supply,” she said.

The bill calls for the commission to make an interim report to the General Assembly in 2010 and a final report with recommendations to the General Assembly in 2011, Rep. Robert Grady said.

Grady opposed the bill and said he is not surprised by the outcome.

“The decision to put it to study was simply a courtesy,” he said. “The legislature is never going to agree to put dirty water into an aquifer.”

Grady said he has two big issues with Onslow Water and Sewer Authority — strong supporters of the bill.

“Every time they made a presentation it was a different story,” he said. “Each time objections were found, they went back and changed their story … People remember that, they’re not stupid. They are down to zero credibility.”

He said he along with Sen. Harry Brown and Rep. George Cleveland told Jacksonville City Council, the Onslow County commissioners and ONWASA it would never pass.

 “Yet (ONWASA) spent over $75,000 for lobbyists — they keep paying to push a bill we keep telling them will never pass, and I don’t know how to make them stop,” Grady said. “It would not have cost ONWASA anything to get a study bill passed — they could have had that for free. They are throwing away their customer’s money. I think I need to go to ONWASA’s board to make a public appeal to stop spending money on this.”

Cleveland said he too opposes the bill.

“I would have rather seen it die at this point,” he said. “I guess (the study) is the best option though for everybody involved. It will be looked at thoroughly and we’ll make some rational decision about what to do.”

He said ONWASA provided contradictory information on several occasions during hearings.

“ONWASA has not really thought this thing through,” he said. “They’re still grappling with it. They don’t have the money, materials, manpower to use this reclaimed water at this point.”

Brown, who also opposes the bill, said the decision to take a closer look is a good one.

“It is something we can’t make a mistake with, we need the study to make sure it’s the right thing to do,” he said.

Jacksonville resident Patty Remington, who has been following the news about the bill and voiced opposition to treated wastewater in aquifers, said Thursday afternoon she was glad to hear the bill did not pass.

“I don’t want a study either, just leave it alone,” she said.

ONWASA public affairs director Susan Poole told The Daily News Thursday afternoon that ONWASA officials were not surprised by the decision and hope the study points out the benefits of storing water for reuse and its safety to public health and the environment.

She said ONWASA’s focus “right now” is not on lobbying for the aquifer but on “working with the state in any way that we can with regard to the study.”

Source: http://www.jdnews.com/news/aquifer-66000-bill-rejection.html

Bravo to the Onslow County Board of Commissioners who recently passed a resolution opposing NC House Bill 643 that will allow the injection of treated sewage water into our aquifer and instead asking for a legislative study of the proposal before overturning longstanding groundwater protection laws.

The Onslow Water and Sewer Authority (ONWASA) is spending quite a bit of money on lobbyists in Raleigh to push this bill, and evidently has found a willing supporter in the Jacksonville City Council. The Council voted to support the bill as written, ignoring the calls of citizens fully investigate the potential hazards to our drinking water; well-documented problems that have occurred in other states.

But what is most troubling is the venue they chose to pass such a controversial resolution.

Instead of waiting until a regular meeting which allows for public comment, they chose to pass the resolution at a workshop. I was invited to attend the workshop under the pretense of an “informational” opportunity.

City staff gave a presentation provided by ONWASA detailing possible benefits of the proposal then the resolution was proposed and passed unanimously. Possible impacts to our drinking water and public health were largely ignored.  I was never asked to speak.

The problems with aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) are troubling. Often the recovered water has become highly contaminated with arsenic and other potentially harmful trace elements. Additionally, treated sewage water has been found to contain potentially harmful prescription drugs, antibiotics, hormones, insecticides and carcinogens.

There is no way to prevent mixing of the injected water with the groundwater, and there is no legal requirement in North Carolina for private well-users to be notified of groundwater contamination.

It does not make sense to allow the probable pollution of an aquifer; pollution that cannot be easily cleaned up.

Failing to fully research the impacts of ASR could drastically reduce the amount of clean, safe water available for our use. There is no more water today than there was when this earth was formed. Let's not be penny-wise but pound foolish with such a critically important resource.

I urge everyone to contact their local and state elected representatives to seek their opposition to House Bill 643 and to support a legislative study to protect our precious drinking water.


Sincerely,
Tess Sanders
White Oak-New Riverkeeper

Jacksonville City Council is thumbing its nose at a recent county decision.

The council unanimously passed a resolution in support of aquifer storage of treated wastewater and recovery for reuse during Tuesday's workshop.

"What set it off is the (county) commissioners' resolution opposing it," said Councilman Randy Thomas, who is also council liaison to the city's water and sewer advisory board.

House Bill 643 is being considered at the state legislative level and, if passed, would allow treated wastewater to be stored in the state's deep-well aquifers.

On May 18, the Onslow County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution in opposition of the bill by a 3-2 vote and called for a study to consider the long-term health and safety effects of injecting reclaimed wastewater into coastal aquifers.

Thomas said city staff believes in the benefits of the controversial method of wastewater storage and its safety.

"With what the city has done in the past 10 years you have to say the city has been environmentally friendly - with getting (sewage) out of the river (and) the expansion of the land application system ... but it's getting horrendously expensive," Thomas said. "(We've) got to search for alternatives, or we're going to be stuck or at the point where we're facing no growth."

Grant Sparks, the staff liaison to the water and sewer advisory board and the director of public services for the city, gave the council an abbreviated version of a presentation the Onslow Water and Sewer Authority prepared for a Natural Resources briefing.

"The city and ONWASA have been actively looking for alternatives for wastewater disposal for recovery and reuse for ... years," he said. "We can reuse this water for watering parks and lawns, even cooling water for large industries that use large quantities of water ... instead of using fresh water."

Believing the federal, state and health department would not allow anything that would harm people, Councilwoman Alva Williams has no concerns about supporting aquifer storage of treated wastewater.

"We have got to find an alternative method for water conservation and to reduce demand on our aquifers and drinking water and establish a barrier of saltwater intrusion," she said.

She said she hopes the resolution encourages study of the method and its alternatives.

"Sometimes we have to step out and be bold about what we do and pray we're doing the right thing for all concerned," she said. "If we run out of land we will have to stop growth."

Tess Sanders, White Oak-New Riverkeeper for the White Oak-New Riverkeeper Alliance, has been speaking out along with other environmental groups against the bill.

At Sparks' invitation, she said, she attended the workshop but was not given the opportunity to share her point of view.

"The presentation (by Sparks) was verbatim from ONWASA's point of view - no other opposing views were presented. I thought I was invited to participate in the workshop," she said.

She said it was wrong of council to present a resolution and vote during a workshop, instead of during a public meeting that would give people the opportunity to speak.

"To vote on something so controversial without public comment from citizens - this couldn't wait a week?" she asked.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/water-64385-city-resolution.html

magazinearticle.jpg

I would like to clarify a few things about the bill pending in the NC House which would allow the injection of treated wastewater into our groundwater.

ONWASA’s bill, H643, would allow sewage treatment facility operators to inject partially treated sewage water into our drinking water. This process, called Aquifer Storage and Recovery or ASR, is currently illegal in North Carolina and almost every state for use with wastewater. However, H643 would overturn that law, allow direct injection of treated sewage water into the aquifer and expose residents to risks.

I encourage people to contact ONWASA, local elected officials and their state legislators and tell them we don't want treated sewage water in our groundwater.

Experience of other states using ASR, such as Florida, is not reassuring. ASR wells in Florida draw arsenic out of the surrounding rocks and contaminate the groundwater. In some cases, ASR wells raised arsenic levels in the aquifer to ten times the drinking water standard. Florida municipalities were required to ban the use of drinking water wells within one mile of a new wastewater ASR well. Jeff Pearson, Executive Director of ONWASA, has stated that he opposes the use of ASR for drinking water due to these risks.

Though Federal law requires injected water to be treated to primary drinking water standards, injected treated sewage water will likely fail some secondary drinking water standards. Because the source of the water is sewage this “reclaimed” water cannot legally be used as drinking water or for irrigating most crops for human consumption. It also is illegal to allow it to run off into storm drains or directly into surface waters.

Reclaimed water has a significantly higher fecal bacteria level than drinking water and contains prescription drugs, antibiotics, hormones, insecticides and other chemicals known to cause illnesses such as cancer. No tests will be done for some of these chemicals because they are not yet included in drinking water standards. We have no idea how these chemicals will interact with the native groundwater or the rocks in the aquifer. This is particularly frightening because the law does not require notification of nearby private well-users of any groundwater contamination.

Florida has a reason for their use of ASR. Florida’s rainfall varies widely, with dry winters and extremely wet summers. ASR is used to pump the water back out of the aquifer during dry periods to use to irrigate lawns. Unlike Florida, however, North Carolina has a very steady average precipitation and several North Carolina cities have extremely successful reuse programs that do not store partially treated sewage water in our aquifers. In North Carolina there is no need to risk contaminating our drinking water to solve a storage problem that doesn’t exist.

The proposal also poses a large financial gamble that ONWASA can ill afford. ASR systems are incredibly expensive, and suitability can only be determined after the costs of construction and testing are already incurred. If the tests fail then the injection well must be abandoned, leaving ONWASA customers with a worthless reminder of a risk that should not have been taken.

You can find contact information and learn more about the issue at these two web sites: www.wonriverkeeper.org or www.nccoast.org  Please contact your legislators and tell them to say “NO” to H643.

Sincerely,

Tess Sanders, White Oak-New Riverkeeper