share.triangle.com - What do you think of using partially-treated wastewater for irrigation purposes? - Comments

long term, and expensive, solution

Java55 — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:04:59 -0400

One problem overlooked here with long term solutions involving desalination plants at the coast is the projected sea level rise expected in the years ahead. But on a positive note, the piping of partially-treated wastewater to large users such as golf courses and N.C. State for irrigation, although it may not create any new fresh water, it will in fact eliminate a portion of the trace pharmaceuticals found entering into the Neuse River (this is a problem with many rivers now) as there are a great multitude of various microbes such as bacteria within the soil which will consume just about everything including even the strongest antibotics too. In fact there are some forms of soil bacteria which actually thrive on a diet of antibiotics!

we cannot create more water

The_Dude — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:23:03 -0400

we cannot create more water than we have.

That's not exactly accurate. Deslination plants, which cost a lot of money to produce small amounts of "drinkable" water, produce fresh water from salt water. In this case, we are creating more fresh water than we actually have.

If NC wanted a truly robust water system, then they would consider the introduction of desalination plants into the mix. The further that deslinated water can travel west from the coast, to reach its destination, the higher the runoff levels will be for eastern NC.

Desalination will not be suported by those who want to save money on short term fixes, it will be supported by those who understand that a long term, and expensive, solution is needed.

Limited Supply

Java55 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:50:44 -0400

If this recycling plan is to be put into effect this would create a decrease in discharged water back into the Neuse River for those farther downstream. To counter this decrease in discharge more water would need to be released from Falls Lake to make up for this deficit. In a nutshell this plan is flawed at the most basic level and would produce unneccessary expenses with no real benefit. Afterall we have a limited supply of water available and no matter what route it takes we cannot create more water than we have.

Recycling for survival

The_Dude — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:48:24 -0400

We humans live in temporary conditions. It is true that the Earth we've known through documented history has always been compatible with human life, but what if our environment was totally destroyed by an astronomical event?

To be sure, if we are not prepared to live in artifical environments, then any event which destroys our environment also destroys humanity. If we accept that all of our resources are finite, including access to natural habitats which sustain human life, then our survival depends on our ability to create and maintain artificial environmental systems.

The international space station, for example, is a self contained artificial living environment. Though it isn't completely self sufficient, one could make the case that in time, advancing space technologies could result in the creation of fully self-sufficient space stations. Such self-sufficiency would depend on our ability to recycle every form of matter and energy that our living environment processes.

Ultimately, nearly everything would need to be recycled, in order to have a truly self-sufficient renewable habitat. Today, we have the luxury of a natural habitat which precludes an obvious need to recycle human wastewater. But its a luxury that will eventually expire.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you assume humanities time on Earth(as we know it) is limited, then it is only a matter of time before we WON'T have the choice but to recycle the waste. So honestly, this isn't a discussion about IF, but WHEN.

Water Reuse Plan

Visitor — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:24:25 -0400

Who elected these guys?? We all pay if we don't plan for the future demands on our precious water supply. Just because we've had some rain, have they forgotten the drought and its effect. Please direct them to the detailed reuse plan at the city's website. The $86 million is the total of the several phases over a 30-year period. The Southeast Raleigh phase is projected at $8.2M. Approving this phase does not commit them to the entire 30-yr plan. Since they blocked the contract, I am assuming that the design for this phase was completed before it was put out to bid. Couldn't these guys have asked these questions before now or are they just looking for attention in a public forum? Shame on the N&O for not reporting on the whole story.

"Two doubt fairness of water reuse" article

Visitor — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:24:16 -0400

Duh! Myopic morons comes to mind regarding the 2 City Council members who are balking on the water reuse project. The argument that it would benefit only a few large users, hence does not justify the use of taxpayer funds, is specious at best. As ALL Raleigh users pull water from the same, increasingly stressed water supply, any significant reduction in fresh water usage helps ALL users. The city should be spending more on grey water programs, as the water supply is not going to increase any time soon, while usage obviously has, and will continue to do so.

What do you think of using partially-treated wastewater for irrigation purposes?

mwilliam — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:29:34 -0400

What do you think of the plan to pipe partially-treated wastewater to large users such as golf courses and N.C. State for irrigation?