Taylor Made Water Systems

Bottled Water Travelling distances

 

Mother Jones put out another article on Bottled Water, citing the distance traveled by many top bottled water brands and the associated carbon emissions created by the transportation of the bottle to San Francisco (results will vary if you live on the East Coast, but you probably know that).  For those who wonder why bottled water is picked on when we import spices, food, drinks, etc. from all over the world, the main point is that this is water.  And water is water.  Everywhere.  Two hydrogens and one oxygen.  There may be variations in the amount of minerals in the water and the makeup of those minerals, but water is water.  We have local spring water, local purified water, local artesian water, local sparkling water, and any water you can think of right here in the United States.  So, there’s no need to ship an 18 ounce glass bottle over 6,000 miles to quench our thirst.  It’s all right here – if you have to go bottled, at least go local bottled.

Or, you can purify your own at home (shameless plug). 

 

How Far Did Voss and San Pellegrino Travel to My Whole Foods?

We charted the miles per bottle for nine top water brands.

— By Jen Phillips

September/October 2009 Issue


NAME SOURCE MILES TO SF BOTTLE WEIGHT (IN OZ.) CO2 (TRAVEL ONLY; LBS./1 L. BOTTLE) SELLING POINT

Evian(Danone)

Evian-les-Bains, France

6,265

3.35

.61

"French Alps"

Volvic(Danone)

Volvic, Auvergne, France

6,255

2.34

.59

drawn from "deep inside the lush, green ancient volcanoes"

San Pellegrino(Nestlé)

San Pellegrino Terme, Italy

6,135

17.74 (glass)

.80

"preferred by top restaurants"

Perrier(Nestlé)

Vergeze, France

5,900

17.61 (glass)

.63

"50 million bubbles"

Fiji Water

Yaqara Valley, Viti Levu, Fiji

5,470

4.15

.49

"untouched by man"

Voss

Hordaland County, southern Norway

5,100

18.93 (glass)

.57

"pure water unlike any other"

365 (Whole Foods)

Shasta, California

223

1.5

.07

"replenish*refresh*rehydrate"

Balance

Baxter, California

149

2.14

.06

"Australian flower essences"

Dasani(Coca-Cola)

San Leandro, California

22

1.94

.01

"live positively"

         
February 12, 2010 at 9:42 am Comments (0)

Bottled Water Missteps Outlined

 

After its articles on Fiji Water garnered so much attention, Mother Jones followed up with a list of other missteps by bottled water companies.  From Coca-Cola’s drying up a village in India to IBWA’s fake Twitter “Water Babe,” desperate times are creating desperate measures. 

 

From Arrowhead to Volvic, Fiji’s not the only bottled water with a PR challenge.

— By Jen Phillips

September/October 2009 Issue

Sam’s Choice (Wal-Mart)

WET REGRET Water comes from the Las Vegas municipal supply. A test by the Environmental Working Group found it had 200% of the allowable trihalomethane, a carcinogen, and included several chemicals known to cause DNA damage.

Dasani (Coca-Cola)

WET REGRET Coca-Cola’s bottling plant near the village of Plachimada in Kerala, India, began pumping groundwater in 2000. When wells dried up and villagers couldn’t irrigate their fields, Coke offered a goodwill gesture: heavy-metal-laced sludge from the plant to use as fertilizer. After company ignored years of protests—and two government orders to install wastewater treatment and provide drinking water to villagers—the state ordered Coke plant to close in 2004. (Coke won the right to reopen the next year.)

Arrowhead (Nestlé)

WET REGRET Nestlé is seeking a permit to pipe 65 million gallons a year from a spring in rural Colorado. When critics raised concerns about the effect of climate change on local water supplies, Nestlé said it was "illogical" to base decisions on changes "many years in the future."

Volvic (Danone)

WET REGRET Last fall, Japan recalled 570,000 bottles of the French water after finding the toxic paint chemicals xylene and naphthalene in the bottles.

Deer Park (Nestlé)

WET REGRET In the middle of a drought, convinced officials to let it pump water from Florida’s Madison Blue Spring State Park for 14 years for no fee except a $230 permit (more than offset by nearly $1.7 million in tax subsidies).

Ice Mountain (Nestlé)

WET REGRET Pays nothing (other than small lease and $85 yearly well fee) to pump from a Mecosta County, Michigan, spring. Citizens sued, saying the plant would damage nearby waterways, and prevailed. But Nestlé appealed and this past July won the right to continue pumping up to 200 gal./minute.

International Bottled Water Association

WET REGRET Created @Bottled H20Babe on Twitter: "A lover of bottled water, a convenient, refreshing beverage that shouldn’t be restricted by governments or false claims."

February 9, 2010 at 9:28 am Comments (0)

PHSI purchased by ClearLight Partners

 

As announced in the following press release, Taylor Made Water Systems’ manufacturer, PHSI, was recently acquired by ClearLight Partners LLC.  As PHSI’s first dealer, we are very excited about this development and look forward to the growth and expansion of PHSI and the Point of Use cooler industry in general.

NEWS FROM CLEARLIGHT PARTNERS LLC

 

ClearLight Partners, LLC Acquires PHSI

ClearLight Partners LLC ("ClearLight") and Pure Health Solutions, Inc. ("PHSI") have entered into a definitive agreement that calls for ClearLight to acquire a majority interest in PHSI in a stock purchase transaction.  Specific terms of the transaction, which closed December 30, 2009, were not disclosed.

PHSI, dba Pure Water Technology, is one of the nation’s leading manufacturers and marketers of point-of-use water purification coolers.  The company’s products are distributed to commercial customers throughout the US via a network of more than 100 independent dealers, as well as through direct sales to large, national accounts such as Walmart, Nike, and Delta Airlines.  

"We have searched for investments in the water industry and were attracted to PHSI for several reasons", said Patrick Haiz, a partner at ClearLight.  "PHSI Point Of Use ("POU") water coolers offer customers a less expensive, safer, and environmentally preferable alternative to conventional bottled water or bottled water coolers.  The outlook for this industry is decidedly positive and PHSI represents one of the largest and most successful platforms in the sector".

PHSI was founded by Craig Story and John Windju in 1996 and is headquartered in Sandpoint, ID with production facilities in Seoul, South Korea.  "We welcome ClearLight’s investment", said Craig Story.  "We look forward to working with the ClearLight team in the coming years to assist in bringing our company to the next level and take full advantage of outstanding opportunities that exist for expanding our business."  John Windju added: "This transaction is a positive for both our dealers and our employees.  It will bring them new opportunities for growth and development as we build PHSI into an even more successful leader of the growing water cooler industry".

According to ClearLight, PHSI will grow by providing increased support to the company’s existing dealers as well as expanding distribution of PHSI POU water coolers into regions of the US that are not presently serviced.  "PHSI’s dealers are an invaluable asset and we intend to support them to the fullest", said Mr. Haiz from ClearLight.   He added that the company also plans to continue its relationships with important wholesale partners who distribute the company’s products as well as expand marketing efforts in Asia.

To further the company’s growth and expansion, Alan M. Crosby was named President and Chief Executive Officer of PHSI, effective immediately.  Previously, Mr. Crosby was a Group Vice President at Ionics, Incorporated a multinational water services company that was acquired by General Electric in 2005.  Following that he served as President and CEO of CoolerSmart USA LLC. a POU water cooler company which was part of Ionics and subsequently divested after the GE acquisition.  "We are very excited about Alan leading our company into the future, given his deep experience in the water industry and specific experience within the cooler sector", said Craig Story, PHSI’s founder.  Messrs. Story and Windju were appointed Executive Vice Presidents, reporting to Crosby.  "I look forward to joining the PHSI family and getting to know the company’s dealers and employees as we embark on a mission to grow the business aggressively in the coming years", said Mr. Crosby.

About ClearLight Partners

ClearLight Partners is a private equity firm based in Newport Beach, California with $600 million under management.  ClearLight invests in market-leading growth companies with $5 million to $25 million of EBITDA. ClearLight typically makes investments of $10-50 million.  ClearLight seeks to partner with strong management teams who have a track record of building successful companies within their industry, and have the vision to build a market leader.  Principals of ClearLight were previously operating executives of successful growth companies in the business services, consumer, and specialty manufacturing sectors that reached $100-300 million in revenues prior to achieving successful liquidity events.  Founded in 2000 with a broad investment charter and a uniquely patient capital base, ClearLight works closely with its portfolio of successful middle-market growth companies and is actively seeking additional investment opportunities across the U.S. in a wide variety of industries, including specialty manufacturing and distribution, business services, education and training, health care services, specialty financial services, and consumer products and services.

January 4, 2010 at 5:56 pm Comments (0)

Legal But Unhealthy Water

The New York Times is taking a deep look at tap water through a series of articles examining various aspects of tap water, pollution, and related issues.  The following article looks at the 35 year old Safe Drinking Water Act, which regulates 91 contaminates in our tap water.  The basic premise of the article is that with over 60,000 chemicals in use in the U.S., the number of regulated contaminants is inadequate and leading to “legal” water that still presents serious health risks.

My two favorite lines from the article:

    • Dr. Parekh has struggled to make his case. “People don’t understand that just because water is technically legal, it can still present health risks,” he said. (Yikes!)
    • “They supposedly discovered these chemicals, and then they ruined the reservoir by putting black pimples all over it,” said Laurie Pepper, whose home overlooks the manmade lake (this line is funnier when read in the context of the article). 

So, what’s the solution?  Black balls on reservoirs to block sunlight, thereby preventing some contaminants from converting to “likely” cancer causing agents?  I cannot believe this was actually done.  Thrown around in a brainstorming session?  Sure.  Drawn up on a cocktail napkin?  Absolutely?  But, workers actually dumped a bunch of balls into a real live reservoir. Wow.   I am not saying that it cannot work.  It may even be the best solution.  I just can’t believe it was actually done.

As for the solution, you cannot regulate and test for 60,000 chemicals. Plus, many of those chemicals are likely not harmful.  But, as the article states there are many harmful chemicals that are not regulated.  And some of the maximum “legal” limits for certain chemicals still allow a harmful level of contaminants in our drinking water.  Eliminating all of these chemicals entirely would be cost prohibitive and unnecessary.  As I’ve mentioned many times, the great majority of tap water is not used for drinking water, but for irrigation, toilets, showers, laundry, etc.  To me, calling tap water “drinking water” is misleading as it presumes all tap water will be consumed when that is clearly not the case.  In my mind, the municipalities should deliver us good, safe “tap water” and those of us who want a higher standard for the relatively tiny percentage that is consumed as “drinking water” should treat it ourselves.  If a technology comes along to purify all tap water to drinking water standards that is not cost prohibitive, that would be great.  But, until then, a small investment in a quality reverse osmosis unit is a pretty good bet. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html?_r=1&sudsredirect=true

Toxic Waters

That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy

Irfan Khan/The Los Angeles Times, via Associated Press

This Los Angeles reservoir contained chemicals that sunlight converted to compounds associated with cancer. The city used plastic balls to block the sun, but nearby homeowners asked why, if the water didn’t violate the law.

By CHARLES DUHIGG

Published: December 16, 2009

The 35-year-old federal law regulating tap water is so out of date that the water Americans drink can pose what scientists say are serious health risks — and still be legal.

Toxic Waters

Outdated Laws

Articles in this series are examining the worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

What’s in Your Water

The data was collected by an advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, who shared it with The Times.  Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times.

But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000.

Other recent studies have found that even some chemicals regulated by that law pose risks at much smaller concentrations than previously known. However, many of the act’s standards for those chemicals have not been updated since the 1980s, and some remain essentially unchanged since the law was passed in 1974.

All told, more than 62 million Americans have been exposed since 2004 to drinking water that did not meet at least one commonly used government health guideline intended to help protect people from cancer or serious disease, according to an analysis by The Times of more than 19 million drinking-water test results from the District of Columbia and the 45 states that made data available.

In some cases, people have been exposed for years to water that did not meet those guidelines.

But because such guidelines were never incorporated into the Safe Drinking Water Act, the vast majority of that water never violated the law.

Some officials overseeing local water systems have tried to go above and beyond what is legally required. But they have encountered resistance, sometimes from the very residents they are trying to protect, who say that if their water is legal it must be safe.

Dr. Pankaj Parekh, director of the water quality division for the City of Los Angeles, has faced such criticism. The water in some city reservoirs has contained contaminants that become likely cancer-causing compounds when exposed to sunlight.

To stop the carcinogens from forming, the city covered the surface of reservoirs, including one in the upscale neighborhood of Silver Lake, with a blanket of black plastic balls that blocked the sun.

Then complaints started from owners of expensive houses around the reservoir. “They supposedly discovered these chemicals, and then they ruined the reservoir by putting black pimples all over it,” said Laurie Pepper, whose home overlooks the manmade lake. “If the water is so dangerous, why can’t they tell us what laws it’s violated?”

Dr. Parekh has struggled to make his case. “People don’t understand that just because water is technically legal, it can still present health risks,” he said. “And so we encounter opposition that can become very personal.”

Some federal regulators have tried to help officials like Dr. Parekh by pushing to tighten drinking water standards for chemicals like industrial solvents, as well as a rocket fuel additive that has polluted drinking water sources in Southern California and elsewhere. But those efforts have often been blocked by industry lobbying.

Drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not necessarily make someone ill. Many contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years. And some researchers argue that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long periods, pose few risks. Others argue that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking water does not equal the benefits.

Moreover, many of the thousands of chemicals that have not been analyzed may be harmless. And researchers caution that such science is complicated, often based on extrapolations from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, particularly given that more than 57,400 water systems in this country each deliver, essentially, a different glass of water every day.

Government scientists now generally agree, however, that many chemicals commonly found in drinking water pose serious risks at low concentrations.

And independent studies in such journals as Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Environmental Health Perspectives; American Journal of Public Health; and Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, as well as reports published by the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that millions of Americans become sick each year from drinking contaminated water, with maladies from upset stomachs to cancer and birth defects.

More…

December 21, 2009 at 3:06 pm Comments (0)

DMZ Water – Some Danger in your Bottled Water

Ignoring the land minds and decades of tension, apparently the DMZ (the stretch of “demilitarized” land between North and South Korea) is the source of “pristene” water as its been left alone since 1953.  Proving that no water is out of bounds for the ever growing number of bottling companies, DMZ water is selling throughout Korea and the company is considering exporting. 

http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=73068

World’s most dangerous bottled water source

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

CAMP RED CLOUD, SOUTH KOREA — Many water bottlers draw their raw water from pristine places, but only one has a very hazardous source — the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating North Korea and South Korea, according to a December 1 article in Stars and Stripes.

Lotte Chilsung Co., a bottler in South Korea, is now drawing water from beneath the DMZ for its operation, after having obtained special permission from the South Korea Ministry of Defense to set up a pumping operation, reported Stars and Stripes, a newspaper circulated to the US military.

Because the DMZ has been in a totally natural state since the end of the Korean War in 1953, its ecosystem “is the best in the world,” claims Chun Woo-chul, a spokesman for the company. Sprinkled with land mines, heavily fortified and considered one of the most dangerous places on Earth, the DMZ is a strip of land 2.5 miles wide and 155 miles long, the article says.

For the past three months, the company has been producing and selling its “DMZ” brand of bottled water, sales of which have been good throughout Korea, Chun was quoted saying in the article. He said the company is thinking about exporting the brand.

Naturalists have previously noted the abundance and variety of wildlife and plant species that thrive in the DMZ. Chun said company officials at first were concerned that a “DMZ” brand might have negative connotations due to the continuing tensions between the two Koreas, but apparently many bottled water consumers also know the zone is untouched by human hands.

 

Thirsty after that run? Why not down a DMZ?

By Jon Rabiroff and Hwang Hae-rym, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Jon Rabiroff/Stars and Stripes

The makers of DMZ bottled water hope the name conjures up images of the natural beauty of Korea’s Demilitarized Zone and not the danger and tension.

CAMP RED CLOUD, South Korea — After a long run or grueling workout, U.S. service members around South Korea will now be able to reach for a refreshing bottle of “DMZ” brand natural mineral water.

That’s right, bottled water named after the Demilitarized Zone — one of the most dangerous places on the planet, known for its land mines and the ongoing tension between North and South Korea.

Chun Woo-chul, spokesman for the Lotte Chilsung Co., which distributes the water nationwide, conceded that company officials “had fears and concerns about the negative image many people have of the DMZ, such as heightened tensions and conflict between the two Koreas, war, division, lethal mines and how the area is heavily fortified.”

However, he said, surveys showed that more people had a positive image of how the DMZ’s “ecosystem is the best in the world, that has been left untouched by humans for the past 50 years.”

“We decided there was no better name than (Lotte Icis) DMZ 2km to pinpoint the purity and cleanness of this water,” Chun said.

Indeed, ecologists consider the DMZ one of the most important natural areas in the world thanks to the fact that the strip — which is 2.5 miles wide and runs 155 miles from coast to coast — has been left unspoiled by humans since hostilities ended in 1953.

Chun said the name on the bottles is more than a marketing ploy. The water is drawn from inside the DMZ (the “2km” on the label) and bottled nearby, he said. In fact, the company needed special permission from the South Korea Ministry of National Defense to set up its pumping operation.

The DMZ water has been on the market for about three months, and sales have been so good company officials are talking about possibly distributing it overseas.

“Reaction has been good and hot,” Chun said. “We are so proud of the quality of this water drawn from an area where nature has been left undisturbed.”

December 14, 2009 at 2:09 pm Comments (0)

20 Percent of US Water Violates Safe Drinking Water Act

 

Okay, so that is pretty alarming.  Twenty percent is a significant figure.  According to the New York Times, this figure includes only significant violations, not paperwork or minor problems.  One in five of our water treatment systems have violated our own Drinking Water standards for “Safe” water.  Yikes!

Here are some highlights of what they found in water data since 2004:

  • Over 3 million Americans were exposed to illegal levels of arsenic and radioactive contaminants through their tap water
    • Arsenic Standards:  “A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.”  Double Yikes!
  • In NY, over 200 water systems delivered illegal levels of bacteria in their tap water.
  • Up to “19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water” 

The politicians will continue to point fingers to deflect blame and while they do, very little will change.  The US does need to address its water issues and a serious effort will be required to solve the many issues.  Providing safe drinking water to everyone in the US is no easy task and we realistically cannot expect perfection.  In the meantime, however, I would still suggest taking matters into your own hands and providing your own level of protection with a quality reverse osmosis system.  Yes, self promotion once again, but the New York Times brought it up, not me!

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34323634/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/page/2/

Millions in U.S. drink dirty water, records show

Only 6 percent of systems that broke law since ’04 were fined, punished

By Charles Duhigg

updated 4:48 a.m. PT, Tues., Dec . 8, 2009

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.

Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

‘Top priority’
On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

“This administration has made it clear that clean water is a top priority,” said an E.P.A. spokeswoman, Adora Andy, in response to questions regarding the agency’s drinking water enforcement. The E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, this year announced a wide-ranging overhaul of enforcement of the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution into waterways.

“The previous eight years provide a perfect example of what happens when political leadership fails to act to protect our health and the environment,” Ms. Andy added.

Water pollution has become a growing concern for some lawmakers as government oversight of polluters has waned. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in 2007 asked the E.P.A. for data on Americans’ exposure to some contaminants in drinking water.

The New York Times has compiled and analyzed millions of records from water systems and regulators around the nation, as part of a series of articles about worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.

Carcinogens
An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state. In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.

However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.

The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority.

“There is significant reluctance within the E.P.A. and Justice Department to bring actions against municipalities, because there’s a view that they are often cash-strapped, and fines would ultimately be paid by local taxpayers,” said David Uhlmann, who headed the environmental crimes division at the Justice Department until 2007.

“But some systems won’t come into compliance unless they are forced to,” added Mr. Uhlmann, who now teaches at the University of Michigan law school. “And sometimes a court order is the only way to get local governments to spend what is needed.”

A half-dozen current and former E.P.A. officials said in interviews that they tried to prod the agency to enforce the drinking-water law, but found little support.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

It is unclear precisely how many American illnesses are linked to contaminated drinking water. Many of the most dangerous contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have been tied to diseases like cancer that can take years to develop.

But scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.

Informal methods
The violations counted by the Times analysis include only situations where residents were exposed to dangerous contaminants, and exclude violations that involved paperwork or other minor problems.

In response to inquiries submitted by Senator Boxer, the E.P.A. has reported that more than three million Americans have been exposed since 2005 to drinking water with illegal concentrations of arsenic and radioactive elements, both of which have been linked to cancer at small doses.

In some areas, the amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit, according to E.P.A. data.

But federal regulators fined or punished fewer than 8 percent of water systems that violated the arsenic and radioactive standards. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that in a majority of situations, state regulators used informal methods — like providing technical assistance — to help systems that had violated the rules.

But many systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered, according to E.P.A. data. And for over a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity standards, there is no record that they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing their violations.

Those figures are particularly worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with. A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.

Despite the expected announcement of reforms, some mid-level E.P.A. regulators say they are skeptical that any change will occur.

“The same people who told us to ignore Safe Drinking Water Act violations are still running the divisions,” said one mid-level E.P.A. official. “There’s no accountability, and so nothing’s going to change.”


December 8, 2009 at 11:43 am Comments (0)

$11 Billion for California Water Infrastructure

 

Governor Schwarzennegger signed a $11.14 billion bond bill to help fix California’s aging water infrastructure.  As I’ve mentioned a few times, our State (and National) water infrastructure is in serious danger after decades of neglect, so some attention is good.   It remains to be seen if this bill is the answer, but something definitely needs to be done to fix aging water mains and delivery systems throughout the State.  According to Bloomberg, the bill is part of a $40 billion effort also using federal and local funds. 

http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=72924

CA guv signs $11.14B water bond bill

 

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

SACRAMENTO, CA — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on November 9 signed a $11.14 billion water bond bill, which is part of California’s historic multi-bill package designed to overhaul the state’s stressed water system.

The bill is designed to give Californians more reliable water sources and restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which supplies water to two-thirds of the state’s 36.7 million residents.

The referendum calls for voters to decide in November 2010 whether the state should invest $11.14 billion to finance the water system’s overhaul. The bond measure would be combined with federal and local monies for a total of $40 billion for water infrastructure projects, Bloomberg reported November 9.

During the bill-signing at Friant Dam, north of Fresno, Schwarzenegger said, according to Bloomberg, “This is long overdue. This is the linchpin of the water package. Today we are setting forth a bold vision of the future. I hope the people are going to be with us in passing these bonds.”

According to the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), the “Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010” provides $455 million for drought relief; $1.4 billion for regional water supply projects; $2.25 billion for Delta restoration and sustainability; $3 billion for water storage projects; $1.79 billion for watershed conservation; $1 billion for groundwater cleanup and protection projects; and $1.25 billion for water recycling and conservation projects.

The governor this week is scheduled to sign other bills that are part of the water reform package, including conservation and Delta policy bills.

Last week, Schwarzenegger signed bills on groundwater monitoring and water rights enforcement that were also part of the legislative package.

November 13, 2009 at 11:20 am Comments (0)

TMWS Warehouse Sale!!

Taylor Made Water is having a warehouse sale this Friday from 10-4.  We’re offering “experienced” equipment at rock bottom prices to clean out our warehouse.

Get rid of the bottled water in your house and have your own pure water any time you want it.  We’ll have a full line of gear available from full 6 stage purification coolers with hot, cold, and room temp purified water to under counter filters.  Now is your chance to get a commercial grade water purification system and eliminate bottled water from your life.  We’ll also have water pumps, large water tanks, filters, and a host of other items.

Also check out our Keurig coffee brewers, Kcups, fresh roasted coffee, and more!!

10-4 Friday November 6!!

1915 Mark Court, Suite 110, Concord, CA.

 

Click here for Map

November 2, 2009 at 4:40 pm Comments (0)

Not So Fast, Nestle! Sacramento Puts Halt on New Plant

 

Here’s yet another update on the Sacramento Nestle plant that was going far too smoothly for Nestle (it isn’t now).  Sacramento officials ordered Nestle to stop work on the plant over environmental concerns and a possible public hearing process.  I’m glad to see Sacramento sticking up for itself and taking a deeper look at the potential for 80 million gallons of water per year being bottled.  Time will tell if Nestle has another McCloud on its hands.

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2283859.html

Sacramento tells Nestle: Stop building bottled water plant

By Ryan Lillis
The city of Sacramento has ordered food giant Nestlé to stop work on construction of a new bottled water plant in south Sacramento while the City Council decides whether to impose new planning requirements on such facilities.

The council is scheduled to vote tonight on whether to require special permits for beverage bottling plants – which means they would have to go through public hearings before the Planning Commission and council.

Stricter environmental regulations could also be placed on the projects if the proposed ordinance is passed, said David Kwong, acting director of the Community Development Department.

"With a pending ordinance, the issue of allowing work to more forward came into question," Kwong said. "This was a prudent measure."

Brendan O’Rourke, a supply chain director for Nestlé, criticized the city for issuing the stop work order without an immediate explanation. The order – which was taped to a warehouse door around 3:45 p.m. Friday – put 80 people out of work, according to Nestlé.

Kwong said city officials contacted Nestlé on Monday to explain the delay.

"We’ve complied with the rules, we’ve followed the process and to change that process midstream is very concerning for us and for any business that would come here," O’Rourke said. He said the company has invested more than $3.8 million in the project, which is located in the Florin Fruitridge Industrial Park.

If the council votes against the special permit ordinance, city staff could decide to rescind the stop work order as early as Wednesday, Kwong said. If the ordinance passes, it will be up the council – on the advice of the city attorney whether the changes should apply to the Nestlé plant, where construction began last month, according to Kwong.

Environmental concerns and complaints that the Nestlé plant was approved without broader input led Councilman Kevin McCarty, whose district includes the facility, to call for the council discussion on stricter permits. Councilwoman Lauren Hammond also urged the discussion.

Nestlé completed the first phase of its construction on Oct. 7 and was given the authority to begin a second phase, including plumbing and electrical work, according to building officials. A third phase is pending.

Both Kwong and O’Rourke said Nestlé has complied with its permits.

City officials have said the Nestlé plant could draw an estimated 80 million gallons of water a year – or about two-tenths of a percent of the city’s total water consumption.

But Nestlé officials said the amount of water drawn from the city water system will be closer to 30 million gallons next year. Another 20 million gallons of spring water will be trucked to the facility from sources in Placer, El Dorado, Tuolumne and Napa counties.

City staff said the Nestlé plant did not require special permits because it is being built in an area already zoned for industrial use.

There were no public hearings held in connection with the Nestlé plant, which was approved by staff in the Community Development Department.

McCarty said he went to the plant on Monday with a camera and that "major work" appeared to have been completed.

"I have concerns after what we saw in North Natomas that we want to make sure all permits were authorized appropriately, no special treatment was given and the correct permits were in place to do the work," McCarty said.

An investigation is under way into a series of permits that were issued by a development department supervisor to allow for new-home construction in the Natomas flood zone, an apparent violation of a federally mandated building moratorium.

McCarty said he also maintains concerns about the Nestlé plant’s environmental impact.

"Water is increasingly valuable, and we want to make sure we’re making smart decisions," he said.

October 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm Comments (0)

Joey – Water Bottle

Another reason for TM Water…

October 26, 2009 at 2:31 pm Comments (0)

« Older Posts