treatment) that has exceeded the maximum contaminant level for nitrate (10 parts per million) at least once between 2006 and 2010, according to professors Thomas Harter and Jay Lund, lead investigators for the study. As much as 80 percent of drinking water may require treatment by 2050 if present trends continue.


According to the UC Davis report Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water, the Tulare Lake Basin houses 1 million adult dairy cows and their support stock (more than half of California’s dairy herd). Dairy cattle are by far the largest source of land-applied manure nitro- gen in the area. Manure is collected in dry and liquid forms, recycled within the animal housing area … and ultimately applied to the land.


“Most of this population is pro- tected by water system treatment, or alternative wells, at additional cost,” said the report, “But about 10 percent of the current population is at risk of nitrate contamination in their deliv- ered drinking water, primarily in small systems and self-supplied households.” While nitrate loading reductions “are possible, some at modest cost, large reductions of nitrate loads to ground- water can have substantial economic cost,” according to the report. The “most promising revenue source” is a fee on nitrogen fertilizer use that could be used to compensate affected small communities for mitigation expenses and effects of nitrate pollution. “Signifi cantly raising the cost of commercial fertilizer through a fee or excise tax would fund safe drinking water actions and monitoring and give further incentive to farmers for reduc- ing nitrate contamination,” the report said.


David Orth, general manager of the Kings River Conservation District, faulted the report for pointing the fi nger solely at agriculture for nitrate contamination.


“The report does a terrible job, I


Watch the UCD video “Dairy Nutrient Cycle” with Thomas Harter


think, frankly, in generalizing this issue, primarily because of the limit on funds,” he said. “They had to take existing data and re-churn it and run it through a model and it came out and said, ‘ag is the biggest contributor by far.’” Orth co-chaired the governor’s


Drinking Water Stakeholder Group, which last year recommended that “a variety of locally driven solutions, including (but not limited to) effi cient, effective shared services and facili- ties, technical support and outreach and education” could produce “more sustainable, effective and affordable


6


drinking water solutions … for small, disadvantaged communities.” Orth said the publicity about nitrate in drinking water has height- ened the fi ndings raised by the stake- holders. “Now that we have this heightened awareness of the problem, we need to drill down and create site- specifi c solutions,” he said.


Backed by the UC Davis research,


the State Water Board in February re- leased its recommendations for how to deal with the nitrate problem, picking up on Harter and Lund’s fi nding that “the most promising revenue source is a fee on nitrogen fertilizer” to help pay for “mitigation expenses and effects of nitrate pollution.”


“Creating a reliable, stable funding source, integrated with institutional changes, [is needed] to provide long- term safe drinking water infrastructure and interim solutions for the small disadvantaged communities impacted by nitrate contamination,” the State Water Board said in its Recommenda- tions Addressing Nitrate in Groundwater. The report calls the issue “a wide- spread water quality problem that can pose serious health risks to pregnant women and infants.” The problem “is particularly signifi cant” in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley areas, where more than 2 million people rely on groundwater for their drinking wa- ter. Nitrate contamination goes beyond those regions, however, making it the most frequently detected manmade chemical that exceeds drinking water standards. Testifying before the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials March 18, Tom Howard, executive director of the State Water Board, said that cleaning up ni- trate-contaminated groundwater basins “is generally not an option” because the widespread nature of nitrate makes the cost “simply not feasible.” In- stead, source control is the “preferable method” in dealing with the problem. Often, nitrate detected at levels that exceed safe drinking water stan- dards leaves DACs with little or no viable alternative.


Western Water


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15