 |
Recently the MWC Council passed a plan to sell water to Norman. I voted against it, but the item passed 5-2. I was opposed to the plan due to the fact that Norman has not been a good partner recently in my opinion. The Council passed a resolution against allowing Norman to dump their waste water into our drinking water (Lake Thunderbird). Unfortunately 2 of the 3 MWC representatives to COMCD did not stand with the MWC Council and oppose the measure. Below is a similar story along with a story in support of the idea. We can't get out all of the contaminants so I do not feel it is best for MWC. We still have plenty of time to stop it, but everyone needs to be aware and up to speed on whats going on.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/07/405027471/a-fish-with-cancer-raises-questions-about-health-of-susquehanna-river
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/toilet-to-tap-water-programs-gain-support-in-california/
What are our options to stop it?
ReplyDeleteWe have 3 members on the board, 2 of them are in favor of the plan. Last year the legislature passed a law preventing us from removing them. WHen they come up for reappointment it would seem like we could replace them at that time.
ReplyDeleteCouncilman McClure,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that your time is valuable, and I thank you in advance for reading this all the way through. This is an important issue for the future of not only our community, but for Del City and Norman as well.
A little about myself: I am a professional engineer with college-level training in water treatment and hydrology.
Reclaiming treated wastewater makes sense and is the responsible thing to do. How many times have reservoir-dependent communities had to ration water because the reservoir has gotten so low? Putting the treated wastewater back in the lake keeps the availability of water more reliable.
Those of us dependent upon Lake Thunderbird are in a special situation: our reservoir is at the top of the hill, so to speak. I have heard people make the argument that because our lake doesn't have any wastewater flowing into it, it's pristine; but it's not pristine. A substantial portion of the lake's catchment area is urban, so the inflow to the lake already contains contaminants associated with urban runoff.
Because our reservoir is at the top of the hill, there are no upstream reservoirs that feed our lake. Because neither Midwest City, Del City, nor Norman reclaim our wastewater, we all send it down the hill to Lake Eufaula. (Incidentally, those communities dependent on Lake Eufaula drink our treated wastewater, and their water quality is fine.)
From standpoint of our community having a reliable supply of water, we must agree on one fact: water doesn't flow uphill. When we send it down the hill, it's gone forever. We have to wait for rain to recharge our reservoir, and you and I both know that the rain isn't dependable on the scale of time that it takes for the combination of municipal water use and evaporation in the hot summer sun to diminish our stockpile of water. Droughts are the biggest reason to reclaim our wastewater. I have no reason to believe that the droughts will diminish, and if current climate patterns continue they may increase in intensity and frequency.
The concerns about accumulation of wastewater contaminants in the reservoir are legitimate, but in reality there is an upper limit to the amount of contaminants that can accumulate. While there is a constant supply of wastewater effluent entering the lake, there is also a reliable (over the long term) supply of creek and river water entering the lake. When it is not in flood (or in drought), the lake maintains a relatively constant surface elevation, and therefore a relatively constant volume. To maintain the constant volume, water must be removed from the reservoir through municipal use or release through the dam, and with that removal will go some of the contaminants, because the lake is constantly mixing. I have done some calculations based on available data on the lake (found here: ), and my calculations show that the fraction of treated wastewater effluent that composes the lake will reach steady state within ten years, and will remain constant at about 5.7% thereafter. Those calculations assume a constant lake level, which is obviously an approximation; in reality, the fraction would fluctuate according to the availability of creek and river water entering the lake. In drought times, the concentration would be higher; in flood events, the lake would get a good flush and the concentration would be lower. After a drought or flood, the concentration would tend to about 5.7% again.
Thank you for reading my position on this. I understand the concerns with Norman's proposal, but the water quality impact would be negligible and our supply of water would be more sustainable.
Hey Kevin, thanks so Much for the reply. For starters I love that people are engaging on this issue. I think a lot of the focus of the conversation has been on IF it can be safe enough to drink. BUT I think the bigger and more pertinent conversation is, even if they could which I of course doubt, why would we want to risk it? MWC is comfortable with our long term water plan. We dont need water dumped into the lake to get our portion out of the lake each year. Norman I believe does have concerns with the long term water plan. If they feel so comfortable, they can run a line from their out side to their in side and drink it. I am not sure why if they are SO confident they dont just play ball by themselves. I had a cancer patient call me not too long ago. She was in remission, but concerned that there may be unintended consequences for people like her who are at high risk. A lot of time governments have told people things are safe, and later we find out they are not. If we dont need it I dont want to put people like her, or our kids at risk if we dont absolutely have to. Thanks again for the reply!
ReplyDelete