TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
12.08.2008
Cleaner Than Your Current Water

I've been remiss in not linking to Elizabeth Royte's New York Times Magazine article from this past weekend, about her visit to Orange County's sewage treatment plant, by volume the largest indirect potable reuse ("toilet-to-tap") program in the world. Royte makes a very important, and often overlooked, point: It's not like ordinary freshwater is all that fresh.

To understand the basics of contemporary water infrastructure is to acknowledge that most American tap water has had some contact with treated sewage. Our wastewater-treatment plants discharge into streams that feed rivers from which other cities suck water for drinking. By the time New Orleans residents drink the Mississippi, the water has been in and out of more than a dozen cities; more than 200 communities, including Las Vegas, discharge treated wastewater into the Colorado River. ...

It’s one of the many pardoxes of indirect potable reuse that the water leaving the plant in Fountain Valley is far cleaner than the water that it mingles with. Yes, the water entering the sewage-treatment plant in Fountain Valley is 100 percent wastewater and has a T.D.S.--a measure of water purity, T.D.S. stands for total dissolved solids and refers to the amount of trace elements in the water--of 1,000 parts per million. But after microfiltration and reverse osmosis, the T.D.S. is down to 30. (Poland Spring water has a T.D.S. of between 35 and 46.) By contrast, the “raw” water in the Anaheim basins has a T.D.S. of 600.

There is some reputable opposition to indirect potable reuse--in particular, even if the process usually works fine, there's always the risk that human error or mechanical failure might result in occasional snafus, which could threaten public health. But most of the opposition, in cities like my own hometown of San Diego, results simply from the "yuck" factor. For some reason, reusing other cities' wastewater doesn't strike most people as nearly as objectionable as reusing your own wastewater. And the best solution to that is the market. If water from other sources becomes increasingly scarce and citizens are informed that their water bills would be, say, 40 percent higher in the absence of indirect potable reuse, my guess is the "yuck" factor wouldn't seem quite as compelling. (They may not like toilet-to-tap in Orange County, but what they really don't like is higher bills from governmental agencies.) In the meantime, though, we're likely to mostly just see more use of treated wastewater in industry, to water golf courses, and so on.

--Josh Patashnik

Posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:27 PM with 3 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

aeromonas said:

Last year I lived in Windhoek, Namibia whose toilet-to-tap facilities may not be as large as OC's but are significant in that they make Windhoek the only municipality in the world that recycles 100% of its sewage to potable H2O.  I drank the water and I didn't get sick.  That's saying something.  Remember this is AFRICA.

August 12, 2008 9:06 PM

sdemuth said:

The public health concern is easy to overstate here.  Certainly a failing system could let pathogens through and endanger the public, but this is also true with, say. St. Louis drawing water that has gone through previous municipal processing.  If St. Louis' treatment plant doesn't work right, they are drinking potentially contaminated water from upstream.  You have to monitor the output any treatment plant to verify that the treatment is working, before you drink the water.

With full recycling like this, that might mean a hold-and-release buffering mechanism, so that you can do the required tests prior to any possibility of release of contaminated water.  But overall the monitoring is eminently manageable.

The problem with this, as the article rightly points out, is about 99$ "yuck" factor.

August 13, 2008 1:12 PM

ndmackenzie said:

It used to be said that the water in London had been through six people before it got to you. This sort of tasted true although that might have been the chalk.

August 13, 2008 6:55 PM