— from Bill Gincig —
I have been following all of the statements and comments concerning Eastsound Water and have asked myself what can I do. I can conserve water, which I do and continue to pay the same rate, which doesn’t make any sense. But of more importance is the use of water that is used every day to water the lawn at Buck Park. Why is this necessary? Has anyone ever looked to see how much of the field actually receives water.
If this is a requirement for some unknown reason, why can’t we use reclaimed water. Would it be a huge problem and if so why? It would seem that with water becoming more and more critical, we could make some changes in this area. No one knows if and when rain will come and how much we will receive, so maybe we should look to reclaimed water as an irrigational source.
Bill, While the Eastsound Sewer District does an excellent job of treating our effluent, their treatment plant does not provide the level of treatment needed to meet the standards for surface irrigation.
Eastsound Water is encouraging the State Department of Health to develop standards that would allow EWUA to treat the Sewer District’s discharge to potable water standards. While the technology exists to do so safely and it is in use in multiple locations around the globe, it is not legal to do so in WA yet.
Potable water from EWUA is not used to irrigate Buck Park. Please call me if you wish to discuss further. Paul Kamin EWUA 376 2127
If I’m recalling the facts correctly, the well that is used to irrigate Buck Park is not a potable well, and only used for irrigation purposes. This same well is also used to water the school fields. This well is monitored and if is drawing too much water and affecting other nearby wells the water usage is cut back. Paul should have more information about the specifics of this well, as will Bob Eagan.
I Salute Bill Ginsig for saving water, and asking the question about the use of water to irrigate Buck Park. Without the question we would not have gotten the answer. I salute Paul Kamin of EWUA, for telling us the facts. Lets keep asking and listening and saving, and we are doing our share.
Great question Bill. Most of us hate to see resources wasted. The State has hoops and regulations to discourage using household water from sinks and showers to water the plants in the yard. They claim it is a matter of public health. My guess is that if the current drought in Washington continues, the State could be encouraged to take a more progressive view of how to use perfectly good water that is now wasted. If one can do without a garbage disposal in the sink I can not see that there is any problem using sink, shower and cloths wash water in the yard and save the potable water for a more beneficial use …. keeping us hydrated. Ha.
John Evans
We regularly catch our rinse water and use it to water a few thirsty plants. It’s only a few gallons a day, but if everyone did it we’d save thousands of gallons a day. And I hope the public health department isn’t reading this!
When investigating the possibility of a grey water system for my home I found kitchen sink water was considered the least problematic. Laundry and shower are next, because they are expected to include some fecal matter, utility sinks after that because of grease and antifreeze concerns, then toilet flushes. The other issue is transpiration, the rate at which the plants use the water. For a legal system you have to calculate the transpiration rate of your plants, then only use it in the growing season but if you are not putting out more eater than you plants use there is no runoff/pollution concern. If you are dedicated enough to save rinse water you are probably looking to see which plants need it.
There have been many good comments about the concept of reclaimed water as a renewable resource. Pauls’s comment about further treatment of the discharge water from the Eastsound Sewer District plant is a practical possibility on a volumetric scale.
The Sewer plant discharges 100,000 gallons of treated water PER DAY in the summer, enough water to meet the needs of 500 households. The cost of doing so, however, is significant. Perhaps water should not be so inexpensive, and like OPALCO rate increases, the higher costs would encourage conservation.
Bill’s question is a valid one and begs for a discussion as to alternatives to the status quo.