This tip is part of San Diego Coastkeeper's Earth Day blog series running through April 22, 2012.
I can count on one hand how many times I have seen folks utilizing the grass lawn in their front yard. Backyards I kinda understand, you can let the dog run around, give a spot for your children to play, and wiggle your toes while you BBQ. But front yards? When is the last time you used the grass on your front yard?
The concept of grassy lawns dates back to 1500s England where it rains every month, no irrigation necessary. That model does not make sense in San Diego when we have to import our water. Why pump in water from long distance and at great cost, in both money and energy, to water a lawn that you don’t use? Especially when San Diego is home to many very beautiful plants that evolved to thrive in our dry climate.
Take a walk around Torrey Pines or our many canyons to see how nice these native plants look. You can have that in your front yard. Let’s blur the lines between “nature” and “urban” and make our city look how it is supposed to. You would save water and be the envy of your neighborhood.
To start you out, here is a list of easy-to-grow native plants.
Ultra-purified Recycled Water Cleaner Than Imported Water
Written by Jill Witkowski
The City of San Diego’s Water Purification Demonstration Project has been on-line since last summer, and the first set of water quality testing results are just rolling in. As expected, the news is great! The City tested the ultra-purified water for more than 300 compounds and tested the equipment to make sure it works. The purified water met all drinking water standards, and the equipment works properly. (Take a virtual tour of the facility here.)
The City even tested for 91 Chemicals of Emerging Concern —compounds found in personal care products and endocrine disruptors that might be found in wastewater, but are not currently regulated as drinking water pollutants by state or federal law. Of the 91 compounds, only two were detected in the ultra-purified water. By comparison, 13 of those 91 compounds (including the two found in the ultra-purified water) were detected in the imported water that makes up the bulk of our drinking water.
This is excellent news for San Diegans. The City Councilmembers on the Natural Resources & Culture Committee appeared excited about the results when the City presented them at the committee’s February 1 meeting. Committee Chair David Alvarez asked the City to spread the good news to the public, and Councilmember Lori Zapf asked about cost for a full-scale project. Deputy Director of the City Water Department, Marsi Steirer, explained that the biggest cost of a full-scale project would be a 23-mile pipeline to put the ultra-purified water into San Vicente Reservoir.
That raises an important question: If the ultra-purified water meets all drinking water standards and is cleaner than imported water, why should we waste the money to pump that water all the way out to San Vicente? Why can’t we just add it to our raw water supply, which goes through yet another treatment process before it ends up at our taps?
The National Academy of Sciences recent report “Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater” recognized that “environmental buffers are not essential elements to achieve quality assurance in potable reuse projects.” The renowned scientists who wrote the report also noted that classifying potable reuse projects as ”indirect” or “direct”— to distinguish between projects where ultra-purified water is injected in groundwater or piped to a reservoir before being added to the water supply and those where the ultra-purified water directly supplements the raw water supply-- is “not productive from a technical perspective because the terms are not linked to product water quality.”
If we focus on water quality, like the scientists urge us to, the results of the City of San Diego’s water quality testing for the water purification demonstration project speak for themselves. The project is producing cleaner water than we import.
Have an opinion about this? I’d love to hear it.
In an attempt to solve its water crisis, San Diego has explored several alternatives that include sea water desalination, water recycling and Indirect Potable Re-use (IPR). Out of all these, IPR provides the best results.
Desalination may seem like a good idea because the ocean is so vast, but it's expensive and energy intensive, ranking it low on the sustainability scale.
Water recycling, or “purple pipe” systems, cleans waste water enough so that we can spray it on our lawns and golf courses. The non-potable water is not meant for human consumption or to replenish any of our water sources and actually encourages water-hogging lawns and golf courses.
IPR on the other hand, takes wastewater, filters it and leaves it extremely clean to be re-introduced into a water source. To learn more, I decided to tour the Orange County (OC) Groundwater Replenishment System and the North City Water Reclamation Plant. 
The OC Groundwater Replenishment System has been operating for several years now. This facility has been a model not only for San Diego, but for other facilities worldwide. Here, water is put through a very simple filtration system that takes in wastewater, cleans it and it exposes it to ultraviolet rays to make sure all pollutants are removed. The water, clean as whistle, is then pumped into the Orange County groundwater basin. At the end of the tour, I was given the opportunity to taste the water. A little skeptical at first, I decided to taste it. The water was the best water I had ever tasted! It was so fresh and soft that I wished I had been given the opportunity to take some it home!
Anxious to see what San Diego was up to, I took a tour of the North City Water Reclamation Plant. San Diego is currently in its third month of its Advanced Water Purification Demonstration Project. The filtration process is the same as that of the OC facility, giving the same water quality results. San Diego is assessing the possibility of using IPR water to augment the San Vicente water reservoir.
IPR works! This is not a case of toilet to tap or dirty water aimed only for low income communities. The water would be the same for everyone. IPR is a great way to replenish our water levels without having to import more water. Many question the use of wastewater, but the process is extremely clean and by re-introducing it into a groundwater basin or reservoir, it allows it to clean itself even more!
If you have doubts, don’t hesitate to tour these facilities. They’re open to the public and welcome public input. We cannot continue to claim that we do not have a water crisis. We must act to solve our water crisis and a great way to do so is to support IPR.
It may seem strange for San Diego Coastkeeper to call a project happening almost 1000 miles away to your attention, but the Flaming Gorge Pipeline has a strong San Diego connection.
The Pipeline is a water project that would divert at least 250,000 acre-feet (81 billion gallons) of water annually from the Green River and Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming, across the Continental Divide, and down the Front Range of Colorado, a total of between 550 and 580 miles. The Green River is the chief tributary of the Colorado River, where San Diego gets half of its water supply. Check out this map of the area and proposed pipeline. The pipeline, a hydropower project as well as a water transfer, would generate up to 1000 megawatts, and the water is intended for future population growth. (Originally the project was solely for water supply, but it is now primarily a hydropower project.)
One complicated detail is the amount of water that will be delivered. Aaron Million, the Colorado businessman proposing the project, intends to transfer at least 250,000 acre-feet. A study by the Bureau of Reclamation, however, found that the Flaming Gorge Reservoir, where most of the water is coming from, has only a 165,000 acre-foot surplus. The remaining 75,000 acre-feet is coming from the Green River above Flaming Gorge. This will drain an approximate 20-25% of the Green River’s flow annually, which has negative impacts on both the environment and the tourist economy. The Colorado River Water Conservation District is opposed to the project, due to concerns about how much water can sustainably be delivered. Million believes that there is plenty of water in the Colorado River Basin for the project, and says that if major environmental problems are found, the project should not go forward. Million also claims that the project will cost only $2.8 to $3.2 billion, while the State of Colorado finds a figure of $9 billion far more likely. The water could cost up to $30,000 an acre-foot, the most expensive water in Colorado history.
A coalition of nineteen conservation groups is opposed to both the project and a $150,000 grant currently under debate that would set up a task force to consider the pipeline. Million himself estimates that $5 million has been spent already on studies, and that $8 million to $12 million more could be needed to finish studying the project. The coalition hopes to avoid spending more money on a project that should not even be considered, due to a number of problems including environmental issues and negative impacts on the tourist industry.
Whether we like it or not, San Diego will be affected by the pipeline. Since we get half of our water from the Colorado River, there is a potential for reduced water supplies or perhaps higher prices due to lower supply, if the pipeline goes through. The pipeline stands to drain all of the water that can be spared from Flaming Gorge, possibly more, which could lead to shortages throughout the Colorado River basin in dry years.
The coalition has a petition at http://StopFlamingGorgePipeline.org that anyone can sign, regardless of where they live. The petition closes September 12, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board votes on whether to fund a study of the project on the 13th and 14th. Sign now to show your opposition to the Flaming Gorge Pipeline!
Wastewater Recycling: Creating Water So Pure We Can Drink It
Written by Hillary ShippsWastewater recycling, reclaimed water, and Indirect Potable Reuse (or IPR) are all ways of treating wastewater and reusing it rather than treating it and dumping it into the ocean.
San Diego reuses wastewater for irrigation, in its purple pipe system. Purple pipe is so-named because it requires two sets of plumbing, one for drinking water (potable use) and a second (purple) set for reclaimed water for irrigation. It’s easy enough to install when constructing a new building, but otherwise it’s a major retrofit, and either way it’s not cheap. But during a bad drought in 1989, purple pipe was touted as the only way we would
Photo Credit Lighthawk / Matthew Meier Photography
make it through with enough potable water for showers and drinking. The City Council even passed an aggressive ordinance to force anyone who could reasonably use reclaimed water for irrigation or industrial uses to do so. But the drought ended, and since then the ordinance has been largely forgotten and essentially unenforced. In fact, according to a Sign On San Diego article, San Diego only uses 15 percent of its two reclaimed water plants’ capacity.
Now, the city is taking another look at wastewater recycling for drinking water. (Check out how purple pipe and IPR compare – spoiler, IPR wins.) Mayor Jerry Sanders supports a new demonstration project to test the safety of IPR for drinking water – a definite improvement on his previous stance of ceremonially vetoing the “toilet to tap” project. The latest test builds on the successful use of wastewater recycling in:
-
Singapore, where they use reservoir augmentation, the very same process proposed for San Diego, and bottle and sell the stuff under the brand name NEWater
-
And closer to home, Orange County, where they use wastewater recycling for groundwater replenishment
The demonstration project will last a year and is required by the California Department of Public Health to prove the project adequately protects the public health. Tours of the facility are open to the public so you can see the high level of treatment the water receives.
The Advanced Water Purification process, which consists of microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and treatment with hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet light, actually removes more contaminants from the water supply than do the processes used to clean raw imported water. IPR water has been found to contain lower levels of all but six of the 232 tested pollutants, and those six were all still below levels that cause health concerns (check out page 108 of this report for details). The tested pollutants include pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupters, which are a common concern about IPR water.
In the words of Ronald Coss, the technical manager of the Water Reuse Study that made the above finding, “the human health risk from consuming [IPR water] directly is negligible, especially when compared to current drinking water standards and with other water supplies available to San Diego. Augmenting San Diego’s raw water supply with [IPR water] would result in an improvement to water quality over current water supplies.”
If you have lived in San Diego for any length of time, you have probably noticed that it doesn’t rain very often here. Yet if you look around, you’ll find you’re surrounded by lawns and swimming pools. Where does the water come from to support all of this? The short answer – not here. San Diego County is a dry one, where a few isolated areas, the wettest in the county, get up to 45 inches of rain per year. The driest gets nine. San Diego city, where Coastkeeper is located, gets between nine and twelve inches per year. Compare that to Northern California, where the wettest areas get up to 125 inches annually and where 40 to 75 inches is not uncommon. See this map for a breakdown of the annual rainfall in San Diego County, and this one for the average annual rainfall in California.
San Diego’s limited amount of rainfall, in addition to other local sources, only accounts for about 20% of its water supply. (Local supply includes surface water, or lakes and streams; groundwater; recycled water, also known as 'purple pipe'; and conservation.) The other 80% must be imported.
The Colorado River, source of half of San Diego County’s water, was first allocated in 1922 in the Colorado River Compact. The Compact divides the usable flow of the Colorado River – 7.5 million acre-feet (an acre flooded a foot deep) – between the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), and the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada). Each basin subsequently divided its portion among its member states, assigning each state a number of acre-feet for its entitlement. This is important, because that assigned number for each state stays the same no matter how much water is actually in the river. Problems have arisen since the original apportionment due to both simple squabbling over who should have the bigger slice of cake, and more problematically, because the cake isn’t actually as big as it was thought to be when it was apportioned. The 7.5 million acre-foot “total” that can be taken without harm to the river was measured during a wet year, and so when the states use their allocated amount of water, they use more than the river can spare.
The State Water Project has its own set of problems as a water source. The water ultimately comes from the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. The Delta is currently overdrawn, menacing the seven endangered and threatened fish species that call it home. One in particular has served as the poster child for the recent Delta debates – the Delta smelt. It’s a small fish, easily held in the palm of the hand, and its susceptibility to pollution makes it a good water quality indicator. Concern for the species’ survival helped push through the Delta Plan, new legislation from November 2009 which puts conservation of the Delta on par with providing more reliable water supply to Southern California. This has the effect of reducing the water transferred to Southern California – good for the fish, but inconvenient for the humans.
The humans have always had a bit of a problem with water supply in Southern California. They have refused to recognize its limits, preferring instead to rely on massive water relocation projects to meet their needs. This is not a sustainable path – there are very few other places we can take water from. We need to start learning to conserve and live within our limits. Visit http://www.bewaterwise.com/ for some ways to conserve.
Notes from the International Waterkeeper Alliance Conference
Written by Gabriel Solmer
Last month I went to Chicago for the annual International Waterkeeper Alliance conference. I packed up to the last minute, alternating throwing clothes into my suitcase with frantic last minute emails and calls to make sure Coastkeeper would survive until my return. Spoiler alert: Coastkeeper survived my two-week absence.
The Alliance keeps nearly 200 Waterkeepers connected, uniting our voices as we take on major global water issues together. Our annual conference is a homecoming; a place to share your ideas with folks who understand your passion for a stretch of river or coastline. It’s the best and worst of a family reunion, all the squabbling, the cousins you haven’t seen in a few years, the cool uncle that’s taken on mountaintop removal coal mining… well it’s an interesting family.
It’s difficult to pinpoint the best thing about the conference. Certainly meeting some of the stars of our movement, like WKA President Bobby Kennedy Jr. or Rick Dove, a former Riverkeeper in North Carolina who’s taken on the destructive hog farming industry was inspiring. Sleeping just 12 hours over four nights so I didn’t miss the impromptu jam sessions or late-night discussions (on the dance floor no less) about ocean acidification was exhausting and exhilarating. And I got a lot of practical tips from the sessions led by experts in our field – everything from engaging volunteers, to better fundraising, to testifying in a water pollution lawsuit.
However, I think my favorite moment of the conference came from the talk by the newest Waterkeeper program, the Upper Tigris Waterkeeper, a project of Nature Iraq. Meeting Waterkeeper Nabil Musa and Nature Iraq CEO Dr. Azzam Alwash was so uplifting and inspiring. We might think of Iraq as a warzone or a desert, but you’d be hard-pressed to describe it as the Garden of Eden, or a marshland. Yet that’s what it has been, and, thanks to the work of this Waterkeeper program, that’s the future. When we saw the pictures of restored marshes and returned species (including communities who depend on the reeds), there wasn’t much hope of a dry eye. Knowing what’s possible with drive and determination (and a little bit of denial of the impossible) is extremely empowering.
So it’s not hard to say what the best thing about coming back to San Diego was: returning with that same sense of empowerment and walking into my office with a renewed sense of purpose to protect San Diego’s beautiful coastline and waters. I can’t wait until next year’s conference. Although I will start packing a little earlier.
This is the fourth of a 5-part blog series examining the nature of our local water supply and how to increase the reliability of our supplies now and into the future.
Today’s match-up features two contenders, both aimed at solving San Diego’s water crisis. 
In the first corner, the “purple pipe system” is looking to continue its reign in San Diego. San Diego currently reuses a small fraction of its sewage for irrigation. This recycled water is distributed through a separate purple pipe system. Because the water is non-potable, it is not fit for human consumption.
In the second corner, the up-and-coming “Indirect Potable Reuse” (IPR) is looking to solve San Diego’s water problems. In s
cientific terms, IPR is a process to treat wastewater and sewage using advanced technology to produce potable water fit for human consumption. Essentially, we would be drinking purified sewage. Right now, you are probably cringing at the thought of drinking recycled wastewater; I know I did. But then I did some research, and I found out that the water produced from IPR is actually superior to our existing water supply. How is this possible?
First, advanced water technology removes any remaining solids through microfiltration. Next, reverse osmosis is used to eliminate viruses, bacteria, pharmaceuticals, and other microbes. The water is then disinfected by UV light and hydrogen peroxide. 
Finally, it is added to groundwater or surface water reservoirs where it is further purified by natural processes. Once drawn from the groundwater or reservoir, the recycled water goes through the standard water purification process all drinking water undergoes to meet EPA standards. Once this IPR-produced water is fit for consumption, it is distributed through the existing drinking water infrastructure. Now that doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Round 1: Costs
The cost of producing one acre-foot of water with IPR ranges from $1,200-$1,800. The purple pipe system ranges from $1,600-$2,600 per acre-foot.
Purple pipe recycled water cannot be added to the existing drinking water infrastructure, so it requires a separate pipe system which costs about $2 million per mile to build. It also requires homes and businesses to be plumbed with two sets of pipes—one for recycled water and one for potable water. This is beginning to sound expensive!
Although the purification process of IPR sounds expensive, the City of San Diego estimates that implementing IPR would be cheaper than expanding the purple pipe system. This is because IPR negates the need for a separate water infrastructure and would maximize the use of the available recycled water supply.
IPR – 1; Purple Pipes – 0
Round 2: Energy
The energy intensity of the IPR process is higher than that of the recycled water in purple pipes. Compared to non-potable recycled water, IPR generates a higher carbon footprint. However, IPR uses significantly less energy than other potential water sources in San Diego, such as desalination or imported water.
IPR – 1; Purple Pipes – 1
Round 3: Environmental Impact
By using recycled wastewater, IPR reduces the amount of waste flowing to the Point Loma Treatment Plant. In doing so, IPR reduces the amount of potentially harmful pollutants being released into the ocean from the Point Loma Plant’s effluent.
Purple pipe recycled water does have some red flags. Particularly, the use of non-potable recycled water can lead to the accumulation of byproducts over time in the irrigated soil.
IPR – 2; Purple Pipes – 1
Round 4: Water Quality/Safety
Studies show that water produced through IPR treatment processes contains fewer contaminants than our existing treated imported water supply. Further, a study performed by the 
National Research Council concluded that there were no significant health risks as a result of IPR.
Because the water in the purple pipes is not treated to the point that it is drinkable, it contains pathogens and harmful chemicals. Simply stated, the consequences of ingesting non-potable recycled water can be severe.
IPR – 3; Purple Pipes – 1
After four hard fought rounds, IPR has dominated the ring, proving that it would be a strong, viable addition to San Diego’s arsenal for fighting the water crisis.
Still think “from toilet to tap” sounds less than appetizing, or has your mind changed? Tell us what you think!
This is the third of a 5-part blog series examining the nature of our local water supply and how to increase the reliability of our supplies now and into the future.
Recently we posted a video of watering turf grass at Liberty Station. We asked you to see if you could spot whether there were any water unwise things in the video. I am sure you have been waiting with baited breath for the answer.
As I hinted in the last blog post, to get a sense of what is technically incorrect, we need a quick review of what our local ordinances say about irrigating.
- First thing we need to know is that the San Diego City Council removed the Drought Level 2 status. Our City Council exercised some foresight last year and made a few of the drought level 2 restrictions permanent. Now, drought or no drought, there are just some things you cannot do, end of story.
- Which brings us to the next important things you need to know - it is still illegal to water your lawn between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. (June to October) and 10 a.m. and after 4 p.m. (November to May); and "City of San Diego water customers must prohibit excessive irrigation and must immediately correct leaks in their private water systems" (emphasis mine). The City's regulations now state that customers "shall not allow water to leave their property due to drainage onto adjacent properties or public or private roadways or streets or gutters due to excessive irrigation and/or uncorrected leaks."
Thus, according to the letter of the law, Liberty Station is within the bounds of legal limits in terms of when they water all that turf - the video was shot in May, at 9 AM. BUT, the video clearly shows excessive irrigation (as evidenced by the water flowing on the sidewalks, pooling around the sprinkler head and flowing into a drain).
The video demonstrates a clear violation of the letter of the law.
But beyond that, there is a clear violation of the spirit of the law as well, which in my mind is meant to keep all San Diegans - whether they manage a small house or a large commercial development - living within our water means. Given our climate and troubled water supply, we should always be striving to make the best water use decisions possible. To their credit, Liberty Station is participating in a pilot Water Savings Performance Program. They have installed an automated irrigation system that determines the length of time and the days to irrigate based on weather, soil, microclimate and plant material. This is a good start but is clearly not sufficient.
But what is a historical site that is trying to pay tribute to its military roots supposed to do?
Well, there are many things Liberty Station could have done and still could do. As Morgan, one of our commentators pointed out "Turf is not water wise ... period." There are other native and drought tolerant ground covers that look similar to turf grass and would help maintain the look of old military training fields of yore.
While it is great that Liberty Station has installed a fancy water-saving irrigation system, they lose half the battle if they don't check to make sure it is working properly:
- sprinkler heads spraying water onto concrete should be addressed immediately;
- lawns could easily be watered earlier in the morning (just around dawn is generally considered best);
- water should be applied more slowly by switching to more efficient irrigation heads (thanks again to our commentator Morgan for that idea).
Of course, these kinds of changes cannot happen overnight. But with a thoughtful plan for improving water management on site, Liberty Station could identify opportunities over the coming years to change its water path. We believe that any place - not just Liberty Station - can and should craft plans of action that lays out a vision and tasks for achieving water sustainability.
This is the second of a 5-part blog series examining the nature of our local water supply and how to increase the reliability of our supplies now and into the future.
Among the many things that make working at Coastkeeper great is the location of our offices. We come to work each day at Liberty Station – from our windows we can see a glimpse of San Diego Bay, the old navy channel, gardens and playing fields and historic buildings. But our buildings also stand amid a sea of turf grass. Personally, I prefer walking around gardens and pseudo-open space over walking through looming skyscrapers. But, turf grass means water – a lot of it.
At Coastkeeper, we like to think of ourselves as good water-Samaritans, so our staff is always on the watch for water waste. Recently, our intrepid Communications Director Jamie Ortiz, noticed clear signs of water waste right outside our front door at Liberty Station. Being the tech savvy person that she is, she documented it on video. I thought this might make for a fun water-wise quiz – How many water unwise things can you spot in this video? The video was taken on May 3, 2011 at 9 a.m.
Hint: you might need to check the City of San Diego’s current water use ordinances to find out what is technically not allowed.
Feel free to fill out your answers in a comment box or just remember your answers and check back in one week when we post the answers.
 for a breakdown of the annual rainfall in San Diego County, and this one (http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/californiaannualprecip.html){kind=link}