Here are a couple of suggestions for affordable and delicious and healthy and safe drinking water
7487 Clarify Reverse Osmosis (azh2o.com)
New RO Development – Boyett’s Family Water Treatment (azh2o.com)
Why are people selecting these units?
Because these rental reverse osmosis units provide Phoenix Metro area and East Valley AZH2O that is delicious, abundant, safe (good for AZH2O) – affordable +Mg+pH+h2o.
Most of the clients we work for rent their units (which saves you at least $1,000 over a 5-year period).
AGE OF a ro unit
Manufacturer Warning for Filter Canister
CAUTION: All filtration systems contain other parts that have a limited-service life. Exhaustion of the service life of those parts often cannot be easily detected. Commonly, it is only after the leakage has been observed or water damage has occurred that one is made aware that the service life has been exhausted.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: To prevent costly repairs or possible water damage we strongly recommend that the bowl or sump of all plastic housings be replaced periodically: every five for all outside filter cannisters. If your sump (filter canister) has been in use for more than the recommended period, it should be replaced immediately. Be sure to date any new or replacement filter canisters for future reference and indicate the next recommended replacement date.
If you don’t change your filter canisters (sumps) periodically…. we recommend you change your filter canisters (sumps) every 5 years to prevent failure.
Because of plasticity
Plasticity is the propensity of a material to undergo enduring deformation under load when compressed. It is the quality or state of being plastic; especially the capacity for being molded or altered. The plasticity of a material is directly proportional to the ductility and malleability of the material.
All the plastics on your reverse osmosis unit can crack and break.
This canister caused a serious flood at our new client’s home. Out of sight – out of mind.
We heard a story recently that said:
A reverse osmosis plastic canister leak – caused a flood; because of black mold, they had to tear the entire home down.
When the plastics get old, they can break and cause a serious leak and flood in your home. You might be required to tear your home down because of black mold caused by a reverse osmosis leak.
We never want our units to cause you inconvenience or problems (we exchange our rental RO units every year at no charge).
On all our reverse osmosis unit installations since 2006 we have installed a leak control device. If a leak is caused by our RO units’ moisture will be detected and shut off the water production to the RO unit.
We install this leak control device on all our reverse osmosis work to prevent any leaks and floods.
The pfas (forever chemical) will be around for a little bit – in our water.
3M reaches $10.3 billion settlement over contamination of water systems
Eva Stebel, water researcher, pours a water sample into a smaller glass container for experimentation as part of drinking water and PFAS research at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Center For Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response on Feb. 16, 2023, in Cincinnati.
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — Chemical manufacturer 3M Co. will pay at least $10.3 billion to settle lawsuits over contamination of many U.S. public drinking water systems with potentially harmful compounds used in firefighting foam and a host of consumer products, the company said Thursday.
The deal would compensate water providers for pollution with per- and polyfluorinated substances, known collectively as PFAS — a broad class of chemicals used in nonstick, water- and grease-resistant products such as clothing and cookware.
Described as “forever chemicals” because they don’t degrade naturally in the environment, PFAS have been linked to a variety of health problems, including liver and immune-system damage and some cancers.
EPA moves to limit toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water
The compounds have been detected at varying levels in drinking water around the nation. The Environmental Protection Agency in March proposed strict limits on two common types, PFOA and PFOS, and said it wanted to regulate four others. Water providers would be responsible for monitoring their systems for the chemicals.
The agreement would settle a case that was scheduled for trial earlier this month involving a claim by Stuart, Florida, one of about 300 communities that have filed similar suits against companies that produced firefighting foam or the PFAS it contained.
Sponsor Message
3M chairman Mike Roman said the deal was “an important step forward” that builds on the company’s decision in 2020 to phase out PFOA and PFOS and its investments in “state-of-the-art water filtration technology in our chemical manufacturing operations.” The company, based in St. Paul, Minnesota, will halt all PFAS production by the end of 2025, he said.
The settlement will be paid over 13 years and could reach as high as $12.5 billion, depending on how many public water systems detect PFAS during testing that EPA has required in the next three years, said Dallas-based attorney Scott Summy, one of the lead attorneys for those suing 3M and other manufacturers.
The payment will help cover costs of filtering PFAS from systems where it’s been detected and testing others, he said.
“The result is that millions of Americans will have healthier lives without PFAS in their drinking water,” Summy said.
Earlier this month, three other companies — DuPont de Nemours Inc. and spinoffs Chemours Co. and Corteva Inc. — reached a $1.18 billion deal to resolve PFAS complaints by about 300 drinking water providers. A number of states, airports, firefighter training facilities and private well owners also have sued.
The cases are pending in U.S. District Court in Charleston, South Carolina, where Judge Richard Gergel is overseeing thousands of complaints alleging PFAS damages. A trial of a complaint by the city of Stuart, Florida, had been scheduled to begin this month but was delayed to allow time for additional settlement negotiations.
Sponsor Message
Most of the lawsuits have stemmed from firefighter training exercises at airports, military bases and other sites around the U.S. that repeatedly used foams laced with high concentrations of PFAS, Summy said.
The 3M settlement is subject to court approval, he said.
Sewage often becomes fertilizer, but the issue is it’s tainted with PFAS
3M’s website says the company helped the U.S. Navy develop foams containing PFAS chemicals in the 1960s.
“This was an important and life-saving tool that helped combat dangerous fires, like those caused by jet fuel,” the company said.
3M said its participation in the settlement “is not an admission of liability” and said if it was rejected in court, “3M is prepared to continue to defend itself.”
The cost of cleansing PFAS from U.S. water systems eventually could go much higher than the sums agreed to in the settlements, Summy acknowledged.
“I’m not sure anyone knows what that ultimate number will be,” he said. “But I do think this is going to make a huge dent in that cost … and you don’t have to litigate for the next decade or longer.”
Source:
I give this source all the credit for this information
We have several solutions to remove this dangerous chemical in your AZH2O:
PFAS Whole House Carbon Filtration – Boyett’s Family Water Treatment (azh2o.com)
Whole House Carbon Filtration – Boyett’s Family Water Treatment (azh2o.com)
Farmer uncovers company’s dark secret after cows kept dying: ‘An imminent and substantial threat to health’
Despite their name, “forever chemicals” haven’t been widely understood for very long –– by most members of the public, at least.
And if it weren’t for one West Virginia farmer, Wilbur Tennant, we still might not know much about them.
Back in the ‘90s, Tennant noticed something strange was happening to his cows. No matter how much he fed them, they kept losing weight, developing tumors, and dying, reported the Chicago Tribune.
Considering that the farm was situated near a DuPont factory and landfill, Tennant figured something might be amiss. As it turned out, waste from the factory, which produced Teflon nonstick products, had made its way into a nearby stream, poisoning the cows that were drinking from it.
What are forever chemicals?
Because of Tennant’s persistence, it was discovered that these DuPont products contained perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as a PFOA. PFOAs are now called “forever chemicals,” because they essentially don’t degrade in the environment and stay in the human body for a very long time, causing disease.
PFOAs are used in nonstick products, firefighting foam, and textiles, among other products. Because of their widespread use, they’re hard to avoid. But staying away from nonstick pots and pans, as well as regularly reading product labels to see if they have these forever chemicals, can help protect you.
Yet forever chemicals like PFOAs are still found throughout the environment, and in people, because products containing them are made, distributed, and disposed of so widely.
Once people come into contact with PFOAs, the chemicals accumulate in their blood and can even be passed to fetuses during pregnancy, causing deformities. Since they are so hard to get rid of, they can also be found in drinking water, fish, soil, the air … basically everywhere.
The Tennant family engaged in a prolonged legal battle, with the help of attorney Rob Bilott, which eventually resulted in a settlement in 2004.
“An imminent and substantial threat to health and the environment”
Throughout the course of the lawsuit, Bilott discovered a letter from DuPont scientists to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The letter mentioned the presence of PFOAs in the landfill, as well as the fact that DuPont had been testing its employees’ blood for the presence of dangerous chemicals. And perhaps unsurprisingly, PFOAs had accumulated in their blood.
Further research from the Tennants’ lawyer stirred up records showing that DuPont, as well as other industry leaders, knew for decades that PFOAs, as well as some similar chemicals, were toxic. They had known since the early 1960s that PFOAs had the potential to be toxic to animals. Yet DuPont hid this information from the public, arguing for years that they were safe.
After the Tennant lawsuit was settled, Bilott continued his work to expose the company, creating a detailed timeline on DuPont’s knowledge about the dangers of PFOAs and mailing the evidence to the EPA and the Department of Justice.
“During the course of the litigation, we have confirmed that the chemicals and pollutants released into the environment by DuPont … may pose an imminent and substantial threat to health and the environment,” Bilott wrote in his letter, which the Chicago Tribune obtained.
He then sued DuPont on behalf of the thousands of people living near the same Teflon plant as Tennant, resulting in the company agreeing to finance a study on the health impacts of PFOAs.
We’re learning more about forever chemicals every day. And while some industry leaders are fighting to not pay for their actions, we have Tennant and Bilott to thank for bringing this environmental and health hazard to the public’s attention.
Join our free newsletter for cool news and actionable info that makes it easy to help yourself while helping the planet.
Source:
I give this source all the credit for this information
These are several other products that we provide that will remove these dangerous pfas (forever chemical)
11870 Chromium Brochure (azh2o.com)
9679 Whole House Mercury (azh2o.com)
Project would pipe water from Mexico to parched Arizona — if anyone can agree on it
As arid Arizona scrambles to quench the thirst of a rapidly expanding population, officials are eying the Sonoran seaside in Mexico as a potential wellspring for future demand.
But whether the Mexican state and federal governments would be on board with the arrangement — and the hefty infrastructure such a project would require — remains to be seen.
“I am going to defend the interests of Sonorans. That is my responsibility,” Sonora Gov. Alfonso Durazo said at a recent press conference, describing the plans as “utter absurdity.”
At the core of the project, proposed by Israel-based IDE Technologies, would be a $5 billion desalination plant rooted in the resort city of Puerto Peñasco. While some of the treated water would go to Sea of Cortez coastal towns, most of it would be piped 200 miles north to the Phoenix area.
‘It’s a complicated project’
“We’re still very early in this process,” Chuck Podolak, the newly hired director of the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), an independent agency established by the state legislature last year, told The Hill. “It’s a complicated project, with complicated politics and permitting on both sides of the border.”
Cross-border tensions began mounting at the end of January, when Durazo denied any involvement in the plans, appearing to backtrack on previous comments. He was fielding criticism from Sonoran businessman Óscar Serrato, who had resurfaced comments made in December about the governor’s meetings with IDE.
At two separate hearings on Dec. 20, representatives from IDE relayed to WIFA board members and Arizona state legislators the warm reception from Durazo that their project had received.
“We had meetings with the state of Sonora. We have received the support both from state and federal,” Erez Hoter-Ishay, manager of an IDE-led consortium called the Arizona Water Project Solution, said at a Joint Legislative Water Committee session that afternoon.
Hoter-Ishay said he met with Durazo in July “to answer all the questions about the environmental issues” and make sure that the governor was comfortable with the plans.
The Sonoran government then “came back with the support,” as well as some asks, which the IDE-led team accounted for in the project’s financial models, Hoter-Ishay explained. State officials see the project as “strategic,” he had said at a public WIFA meeting four days earlier.
Following the consortium’s presentation, board members of WIFA adopted a resolution to engage in formal conservations about the proposed Arizona Water Project Solution.
The resolution calls for WIFA’s professional staff to conduct an analysis of the plans, after which the board can “discuss a non-binding term sheet” for the purchase of imported water.
A century of water from the Sea of Cortez
The project proposal, submitted to WIFA a week prior to the board meeting, outlines an intent to withdraw, desalinate and move water from the Sea of Cortez — with a goal of providing Arizonans with up to 1 million acre-feet annually “for 100 years and more.”
The project’s first phase, which could be online by 2027, would generate up to 300,000 acre-feet of water annually, per the proposal. Only later would the capacity expand to the upper limit of 1 million-acre feet, which would be enough to fulfill the needs of 3 million households.
At the project’s core would be a desalination plant in Puerto Peñasco, about 60 miles southwest of the Arizona border. While this city, as well as Hermosillo, Sonoyta and Nogales, would receive some water, most of it would be piped across the border, according to the plans.
Four pumps located on the Mexican side of the border would bolster the uphill portions of the journey, powered predominantly by solar and battery storage, the consortium explained. This arrangement allows the project to circumvent Arizona’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, according to IDE.
Within a Phoenix-area Arizona Water Distribution Facility, an on-site reservoir would be able to store four days of water for customers and include a tie-in to the Central Arizona Project — a 336-mile aqueduct that diverts Colorado River water across the state.
Buyers would adhere to a fixed price structure, while WIFA would place $750 million in a temporary escrow account to demonstrate the state’s long-term commitment, per the proposal.
Hoter-Ishay had stated at the Dec. 20 meeting that the consortium would be submitting its plans the next day to the Bureau of Land Management for review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
However, The Hill could find no record of such a filing, aside from a draft copy of the document obtained from WIFA, and IDE declined to comment about the submission.
Sonora governor offers support — and then takes it back
Just two days after the WIFA board authorized the resolution permitting continued discussion about the plans, Durazo, the Sonora governor, appeared to be on board with the project.
He discussed “the possibility of selling desalinated water to the United States” at a Dec. 22 press conference, touting the Sea of Cortez’s location just “100 kilometers from the border.”
Stressing that Arizonans “need water,” the governor cited one “condition” for the project’s development: it also must help “solve the water problem” of Sonoran cities.
“If there is consent from our counterpart, I will be willing to add my efforts to help the project materialize,” Durazo said.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador also recently expressed support for the plans, which would require federal authorization, as water is considered a national resource in the country.
Responding on Jan. 24 to a question about the desalination facility, López Obrador said that if there is no opposition and if assessments show that the plans pose no problem to the environment, then “we are authorizing everything.”
But when Serrato, the Sonoran businessman, resurfaced IDE’s claims at the end of January, Durazo denied his participation in the plans. Acknowledging that he had met with IDE, he stressed that “at no moment” did they discuss the supply of water to Arizona.
“I received the representatives of an Israeli company that came to sell technology for the desalination of water, in view of the eventual necessity that the state of Sonora might have,” Durazo said.
He stressed that water in Mexico “is a federal issue” and that any exchange would need to occur through a binational agreement. Such action would be a “matter of national security,” his office added in an accompanying Twitter thread.
“Given the lack of ethics of the company that tried to turn the courtesy with which it was received into a negotiation for the sale of desalinated water, the Government of Sonora will never deal with it again,” Paulina Ocaña, a spokeswoman for Durazo, said in a statement.
“This was a project between the former governor of Arizona and the former governor of Sonora,” Ocaña added.
Slamming both Sonoran and Arizonan leaders for “a total lack of transparency,” Serrato argued that Durazo “should have sat down and listened to the people of Sonora.”
“I don’t believe him and obviously he knows I don’t believe him,” Serrato said, noting that the day after Durazo’s Jan. 31 press conference, he saw the governor at a business roundtable.
“And he went and said and told me, ‘I answered you,’” Serrato added.
Across the border, things are also unclear
Arizona’s handling of the plans has been equally opaque, according to Serrato. The businessman described his surprise that a Republican-led governorship and legislature would “push for a project of this size and this controversial in the last days of their administration” before current Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) took over.
During the Dec. 20 WIFA board meeting, Hoter-Ishay said that his presentation comes “after more than three years of working, surveying and planning on both sides of the border.”
Among those with whom he recalled meeting, in addition to Durazo, were former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), former Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers (R), and other leaders of relevant state agencies.
At the WIFA board meeting, Bowers confirmed that he had signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) about the project. Bowers said that when he was asked about it on the Arizona House floor, he responded, “I’m under an NDA, and I can’t talk about it or any other as yet.”
“But I knew it was exactly what we all know right now. There’s all the work that was done,” Bowers said at the WIFA session. “We need the water. And we need it as fast as we can get it.”
At the Joint Legislative Water Committee meeting later that afternoon, former state Sen. Lisa Otondo (D) questioned this specific NDA, noting that Bowers was serving on the WIFA board, although in a non-voting capacity.
“For a legislator to sign an NDA with a company that is going to benefit from that piece of legislation stinks of collusion,” Serrato said. “In Mexico, that will be a crime.”
The Hill has reached out to Bowers for comment.
Regarding the consortium’s interactions across the border, Hoter-Ishay said that the group has yet to request any official resolution from Mexico but stressed that it does intend to do so.
“The reason is to have everything in parallel, both in Arizona and in Mexico,” he said at the legislative session.
Although WIFA’s voting board members granted unanimous approval on Dec. 20 to the resolution to begin discussions on the project, participants raised many objections over the course of the three-and-a-half-hour meeting.
Non-voting board member and former State Senate President Karen Fann (R), who was instrumental in passing the legislation that led to WIFA’s creation, expressed concern that the process has not been “open to anybody and everybody” and that it “is a little rushed.”
“Our legislators wanted to make absolutely sure that everything was transparent, that it was vetted properly, that it was done above board and out front,” Fann said.
Otondo, who also took part in the joint legislative session, told WIFA board members that she questioned the “speed and lack of transparency” in a process that “reeks of backroom deals.”
She said she was worried about the board moving forward with considering such a project before WIFA — a new agency — has even completed its own procurement rules.
At a last-minute public meeting just four days before, WIFA Chairman David Beckham had cited similar concerns, even thanking members “for gathering on such short and unexpected notice.”
Beckham attributed the “exigent timing” to a call he had received from the Arizona Commerce Authority indicating that “there was urgency involved” — even though he had only received the consortium’s 50-page proposal a few days prior.
“That was the first time I have heard any type of urgency to act this promptly,” Beckham said at the time.
Asked for further comment on behalf of the consortium, a spokeswoman for IDE Technologies told The Hill that “IDE isn’t able to discuss the project at this time,” and that “when the timing is better, we hope to revisit this conversation.”
Moving forward could take time
Despite the urgency with which the board vote took place, Podolak, WIFA’s director, said that his professional review of the IDE proposal — required by the resolution before the board can entertain a non-binding term sheet — could take some time, as he is still building his staff.
Podolak began his role as the agency’s director at the beginning of January, and he is in the process of hiring additional staff.
“There’s a lot of focus on what the project proponents brought, but that’s really not what the board approved,” he said. “The board approved a thorough due diligence, and then a chance — if that meets all the criteria — to begin discussions.”
The state legislature last year established both WIFA and an accompanying $1 billion Long-Term Water Augmentation Fund, with the vision of “using state dollars to invest in projects that bring new water supplies to Arizona,” according to Podolak.
The law requires WIFA — whose appointed board was seated only in November — to develop rules and processes before proceeding with any project, Podolak explained.
Asked whether there would be a bidding process for the desalination project, he said that WIFA has been “getting a lot of informal outreach” and has an application available online.
“It’s formal to the extent that we have a place for people to outreach to us, to collect those, to have a record of all those documents and ideas,” Podolak said.
Noting that IDE’s presentation occurred following “a very defined and specific request of the board,” Podolak acknowledged that “there was some discussion by the board members about not having a full process in place.”
He said he characterizes the board’s decision to sign the resolution, however, as “a direction to us to do the due diligence on the process.”
“I do not see this as a first come, first serve,” Podolak said. “I think we will look at the IDE proposal along with any other good proposals that we get and bring the recommendations to the board about which ones they should fund.”
Desalination up for debate
Before any water departs from the Sea of Cortez — let alone travels 200 miles to Phoenix — this expansive cross-border project would need to overcome a long list of bureaucratic hurdles in multiple states and countries.
And it’s not the only desalination project under consideration in the region.
The International Boundary & Water Commission, a U.S.-Mexican partnership that administers binational water resources, began studying the possibility of binational desalination on the Sea of Cortez in April 2020.
The main difference, however, is that the water generated by such a facility — likely financed by a U.S. state — would go directly to Mexican farmers in the region, in exchange for some of Mexico’s Colorado River entitlement.
These binational desalination talks are ongoing, Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources and a U.S. negotiator in the process, confirmed to The Hill.
Buschatzke, who is also a non-voting WIFA board member, raised several environmental issues to IDE at the Dec. 20 meeting, including questions as to how the brine — the residual salt solution left from the desalination process — would be dispersed into the sea.
Serrato, who was not present at the meeting, expressed similar concerns, noting that the currents capable of dispersing that brine are not as strong in the Sea of Cortez as they are in the Pacific Ocean, where IDE also runs multiple desalination plants.
“The Sea of Cortez is a very ecologically fragile environment,” Serrato said.
Meanwhile, because about 70 percent of Mexico’s gross fishing production comes from this sea, Serrato said such activity could be disruptive to the industry and the region’s food chain.
“I’m not opposed to desalination when that technology evolves to be environmentally feasible and economically feasible,” he said.
Jennifer Martin, a programs manager at the Sierra Club, warned WIFA board members about the habitat fragmentation that can occur following pipeline construction.
The project, she argued, would “shift the ecological burden for Arizona’s unwillingness to confront our water limits to our neighbors to the south.”
But other members of the public argued in favor of the plans — such as Terri Sue Rossi, of the Arizona Water Company, who described a need for “a diverse water supply portfolio.”
“It is not the panacea — it is a piece of the puzzle, and it is a piece of the puzzle that is worthy of exploration,” Rossi said.
Craig MacFarland, mayor of Casa Grande, said that his region’s agricultural industry is feeling a “sense of urgency,” while Tony Smith of Pinal County said that a lack of water is forcing farmers to fallow their fields.
Acknowledging that “Arizona needs water,” Serrato told The Hill that the state’s “best shot” would be to “build a desalination plant on the Pacific side of Mexico and then transport the waters.”
“They’re trying to balance whatever sources of water they have with their predicted growth, and they do not have enough water for growth,” Serrato added, noting that desalination will be necessary, but that it’s the last option officials should consider.
Podolak, meanwhile, reiterated the complicated nature of the project and the fact that it will necessitate getting a variety of permits on both sides of the border.
Biden rallies abortion advocates: ‘The court practically dared the women of America to be heard’Scorching heat to push Texas electric demand to record levels next week
He emphasized the importance, however, of continuing to engage in negotiations and discussions in Mexico — both in Sonora and with the federal government in Mexico City.
And while Podolak expressed his support for Arizona’s continued investment in conservation, stormwater recovery, water reuse and other “lower-hanging fruits,” he stressed that it’s not an “either-or” situation.
“Just because we’re doing those, I don’t think that means that we can’t plan for the future,” he added.
Source:
I give all the credit for this content to this source
Here are three things we are doing to save AZH2O
- We are recommending no water waste, no salt, non-electric whole house units. Here are two examples
11870 Chromium Brochure (azh2o.com)
2 We are recommending you install a rental hot water recirculating pump. We have performed calculations (16,000-gallon water savings per year).
hot water re-circulation – Boyett’s Family Water Treatment (azh2o.com)
- On all of our reverse osmosis rental drinking water systems, we utilize the most efficient membrane to save you 85% on your water.
This is a Pentair gro reverse osmosis membrane.
We will always pursue the most efficient membranes on your equipment.
These are three choices to put to use in this membrane
7487 Clarify Reverse Osmosis (azh2o.com)
New RO Development – Boyett’s Family Water Treatment (azh2o.com)
Reverse Osmosis – Boyett’s Family Water Treatment (azh2o.com)
Arizona Considers Water Pipeline From Mexico to Combat Drought
A proposed desalination plant could be the answer to the dwindling water supply from the Colorado River.
A bleached ‘bathtub ring’ is visible on the banks of Lake Mead on August 19, 2022 in Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada
In an effort to avoid drawing more water from the drought-stricken Colorado River, Arizona officials are looking as far as Mexico for reliable water supply.
Arizona’s Water Infrastructure Finance Authority passed a non-binding resolution this week in support of a large desalination plant in Mexico’s Sea of Cortez, Arizona Central reported. The idea was initially pitched to the state board by Israeli desalination specialists from IDE Technologies, who claimed that a desalination plant could replace water that flows from the Colorado River through the Central Arizona Project canal. The project would focus on getting water to Pinal, Pima, and Maricopa counties.
IDE representatives plan on submitting an official proposal this week for environmental review. To move forward, the plan will need approval from Mexican officials as well, according to Arizona Central, and IDE said that it had discussed a potential plan with the governor of Sonora, a state in Northern Mexico. According to the IDE representatives, if their proposal passes environmental review and permits are granted, the project could begin producing water by 2027.
The Sea of Cortez is in the Gulf of California, nestled between Baja California and the Mexican state of Sonora, which is right under Arizona. This makes it an ideal location for a desalination plant. Communities in Mexico and the U.S. could both draw water from the project if it is approved. Once the sea water is desalinated, it will travel from Mexico to Arizona through a series of pipelines. The freshwater would flow into the U.S. in the Organ Pipe National Monument and then follow State Route 85 and into Maricopa County, according to Arizona Central. The water would also flow to the city of Buckeye and into two new reservoirs in White Tank Mountains Regional Park. Past that point, the freshwater would go into the Central Arizona Project’s canal system, which provides water to 5 million people. Cities like Tucson and Phoenix would have access to the water from there.
IDE representatives envisioned a desalination plant in Sonora that would cost more than $5 billion to construct. Once completed, it would supply 300,000 acre-feet, which they say would be enough for more than a million households in Arizona. But this would cost $2,500 per acre-foot (an acre-foot is over 325,000 gallons of water). If that water is mixed with other sources, officials predict it will only raise homeowners water bills a few dollars a month. The plant could be scaled up to provide up to 1 million acre-feet. IDE would finance the construction, but Arizona officials would have to commit to a 100-year purchasing agreement, Arizona Central reported.
Some of the board members worried that the plans were being pushed forward too quickly. But boardmember Andy Tobin worried about acting too slowly. “We’ve got folks running out of water,” he said, according to Arizona Central.
Tobin is right: Many communities around the state are in desperate need of water solutions. Some people in the state may run out of water by the new year. Rio Verde Foothills, an unincorporated community in Maricopa County, doesn’t have its own water system. Residents rely on water trucked in from Scottsdale. But late last year, Scottsdale announced that it would cease hauling water there by the beginning of 2023
Source:
I give this source all the credit for this article
https://gizmodo.com/arizona-water-pipeline-mexico-drought-desalination-1849923930
Here is what we do when we are not working
How do we get clean water out of the tap?
It’s a feat of chemistry, physics and engineering and needs constant maintenance
From left, a lead pipe, a corroded steel pipe, and a lead pipe treated with protective orthophosphate. Lead pipes cause health problems and drive up water bills.
I recently returned from a trip to Costa Rica. Our hosts advised us that the tap water was “probably safe” to drink. I chose not to. Unfortunately, that’s a familiar experience for many U.S. citizens here at home; even for some who live in Minnesota.
In general, Minnesota’s drinking water is safe, but it’s hard to ignore the constant news about both the quantity and the quality of drinking water across the U.S.
Safety issues in Jackson, Miss., Flint, Mich., and Philadelphia illustrate how real the problem is.
And it’s not just quality, it’s quantity. The water supply impacts business and economic growth, with water needed for manufacturing in direct competition with that for drinking: choosing one over the other is not easy. We want microchip and semiconductors to be produced locally, but the process requires enormous amounts of water.
The Colorado River provides water to about 40 million people, and it is slowly drying up. Arizona has done the unthinkable for a Sun Belt region: Curtailed growth around Phoenix because of water shortages. There’s more: States along the Colorado River just agreed to leave a major portion of their water supply in the river in hopes of keeping Lake Powell and Lake Mead from falling so low that they can no longer produce hydropower. That water is badly needed for energy production, but the deal cost more than $1 billion to pay farmers and others to forgo water use, meaning unsown fields and potential job losses in some of our country’s major agricultural regions.
Remember the (unsuccessful) proposal to pipe drinking water from Dakota County to western states? Get ready for that to become a common request — or even demand — as safe and plentiful drinking water becomes more valuable.
Water may be all around us here, but it’s still precious. Most of our drinking water comes from underground aquifers (or layers of rock that hold water), with some coming from rivers and lakes. In the metro area, our water is locally sourced by each city (with some cities sharing water sources; local water disputes have also been in the news!)
The widespread availability of drinkable water is one of the great technological advances of modern life, but it’s complicated and requires significant resources. Here’s a brief overview of how water gets from the ground to our tap:
Typically, water treatment is achieved using simple chemistry. If you’ve taken a chemistry class, you probably remember the periodic table. Each element on it has a positive or negative charge. So, if we need to remove a certain element (like iron), we add a chemical that reacts with it (like oxygen or calcium). That element binds to the dirt and dissolved particles in the water, forming larger particles called “floc.” Usually, that’s all the treatment that’s needed: The floc is heavier than the water, so it drops to the bottom of the tank. We design the tanks so that clean water flows out the top and the floc settles on the bottom (where it can be removed).
After clear water flows out, it’s forced through filters made of sand and charcoal. This causes more flocculation, removing more dissolved particles such as dust, parasites, bacteria and viruses.
If you visit a water treatment plant (I suggest the one just north of Duluth, which is open for tours) you’ll learn how these filters work, and how the filters are cleaned by running clean water backwards through them to force out the collected materials. The water is then disinfected with chlorine to kill any remaining parasites, bacteria, viruses and germs. Some cities add fluoride to prevent tooth decay.
One more thing from chemistry class: remember pH? It’s a measure of how basic or acidic something is. Chemicals (like salt) can be added to adjust the pH of the water to “harden” or “soften” it (much like you do in your home). The pH also impacts the corrosiveness of water, which can impact the condition of the pipes.
Many old water pipes are made of lead, and without taking preventive measures, the lead from the pipes may leach into the water supply. Lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, especially for children. While the most effective solution is to replace lead pipes entirely (and thanks to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we now have money to do that), water utilities usually add some form of phosphate to the water supply to create a protective film between the lead pipe and the water flowing through it.
This works fine except when it doesn’t: The water problems in Flint serve as a tragic example. The city changed its water source to one that contained significantly more chloride than they’d been using. They did not add the required phosphate to provide the protective film between the water and the pipes, which caused corrosion, putting high lead levels in the water.
As noted, the chemistry in water treatment is both simple and important.
And while we’re talking about lead pipes: Replacing them is not so easy. For example, the city of St. Paul (like many others) is in the process of replacing miles of lead water mains, which are the pipes that feed the entire system. This is great and will do much to improve the safety of our drinking water supply. However, cities are typically only responsible for maintaining the piping to a home’s service valve (often called the “curb stop” because it’s located behind the curb). The service line is the pipe between the curb stop and the meter, and many older homes (built before 1986) contain both lead service lines and plumbing, which are the homeowner’s responsibility to replace. That requires ripping out walls and replacing service pipes; both are very expensive and disruptive operations.
St. Paul is using federal funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to help 26,000 homeowners replace the pipe from the meter to their homes, but the internal plumbing and soldering is still lead in many houses. Other cities have similar programs, and the Legislature smartly allocated more money into the effort this year.
Bonding is the only way many small towns can fund improvements or maintenance of their drinking water systems. In Minnetonka, our water bill is about $40 per month. That’s not the case everywhere: A small town still needs a distribution system, and with the loss of population comes the loss of residents paying for that system.
For a small town —like, say, Red Lake Falls — to fund the replacement of its aging water tower, each resident would be assessed thousands of dollars. Residents in Red Lake Falls pay five times as much for their drinking water as I do (and no, that is not a typo).
Also: Small towns do not have the property tax base to finance projects on their own. Just this session, more than 60 Minnesota communities submitted funding requests to the Senate Capital Investment Committee totaling more than $500 million just for drinking water treatment projects. The list is long and represents every corner of Minnesota (but mostly rural areas).
Safe drinking water is important and should be expected in Minnesota. We must maintain our systems. One broken water main in Jackson, Mississippi, is spewing 5 million gallons each day. So, in Jackson (where residents spent months drinking bottled water due to poor water quality), water for 50,000 people every day is literally running down the drain because of a broken water main.
Even worse: The break has gone unrepaired since 2016, and until the Biden administration came to the rescue, the city had no resources to fix it.
Let’s not let that happen here.
Azh2o.com has some ideas on how we can help clean up the water here and elsewhere. Because of the trust and loyalty of our clients, we feel the processes and methods in which we are developing will have a great impact on our AZ and may be useful in other parts of the world.
A fundamental characteristic of our rental water treatment development is our industry-specific computer software system that allows us to keep meticulous records when your equipment needs to be serviced. If your water treatment equipment does not receive the proper maintenance (your water may be microbiologically contaminated).
When your units are due for service we utilize a process called ‘indubitably exchanging your water equipment’
- We send an email
- We send a postcard
- We call you
- Hayden Boyett stops by your home and knocks on your door and leaves a note
We are serious about getting your water equipment properly maintained.
If you do not properly maintain your filters and your whole house water treatment equipment – your water will be contaminated.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8740859/
Source:
I give all the credit to this source
How do we get clean water out of the tap? – Minnesota Reformer
I present this to you
The finest group of water treatment professionals I have ever had the opportunity to work with.
Reducing PFAS in Drinking Water with Treatment Technologies
Per- and Polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that persist in the environment. These chemicals have been used for decades in consumer products to make them non-stick and water-resistant. They are also found in firefighting foams and are applied in many industrial processes. Unfortunately, the characteristics that make them useful are the reason they persist in the environment and can bioaccumulate, or build up, in our bodies and the bodies of animals.
PFAS also dissolve in water, and combined with their chemical properties mean traditional drinking water treatment technologies are not able to remove them. Therefore, EPA researchers have been studying a variety of technologies at bench-, pilot-, and full-scale levels to determine which methods work best to remove PFAS from drinking water.
Certain technologies have been found to remove PFAS from drinking water, especially Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), which are the most studied of these chemicals. Those technologies include activated carbon adsorption, ion exchange resins, and high-pressure membranes. These technologies can be used in drinking water treatment facilities, in water systems in hospitals or individual buildings, or even in homes at the point-of-entry, where water enters the home, or the point-of-use, such as in a kitchen sink or a shower.
Activated Carbon Treatment
Activated carbon treatment is the most studied treatment for PFAS removal. Activated carbon is commonly used to adsorb natural organic compounds, taste and odor compounds, and synthetic organic chemicals in drinking water treatment systems. Adsorption is both the physical and chemical process of accumulating a substance, such as PFAS, at the interface between liquid and solids phases. Activated carbon is an effective adsorbent because it is a highly porous material and provides a large surface area to which contaminants may adsorb. Activated carbon (GAC) is made from organic materials with high carbon contents such as wood, lignite, and coal; and is often used in granular form called granular activated carbon (GAC).
GAC has been shown to effectively remove PFAS from drinking water when it is used in a flow through filter mode after particulates have already been removed. EPA researcher Thomas Speth says, “GAC can be 100 percent effective for a period of time, depending on the type of carbon used, the depth of the bed of carbon, flow rate of the water, the specific PFAS you need to remove, temperature, and the degree and type of organic matter as well as other contaminants, or constituents, in the water.”
For example, GAC works well on longer-chain PFAS like PFOA and PFOS, but shorter chain PFAS like Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) and Perfluorobutyrate (PFBA) do not adsorb as well.
Another type of activated carbon treatment is powdered activated carbon (PAC) which is the same material as GAC, but it is smaller in size, powder like. Because of the small particle size, PAC cannot be used in a flow through bed, but can be added directly to the water and then removed with the other natural particulates in the clarification stage (conventional water treatment or low-pressure membranes – microfiltration or ultrafiltration). Used in this way, PAC is not as efficient or economical as GAC at removing PFAS. Speth says, “Even at very high PAC doses with the very best carbon, it is unlikely to remove a high percentage PFAS; however, it can be used for modest percent removals. If used, however, there is an additional problem with what to do with the sludge that contains adsorbed PFAS.”
Boyett’s family water treatment service has many options for whole house activated carbon treatment pfas removal. Boyett’s family rental activated carbon whole house treatment will remove all the pfas (forever) chemicals from your water.
Ion Exchange Treatment
Another treatment option is anion exchange treatment, or resins. Ion exchange resins are made up of highly porous, polymeric material that is acid, base, and water insoluble. The tiny beads that make up the resin are made from hydrocarbons. There are two broad categories of ion exchange resins: cationic and anionic. The negatively charged cationic exchange resins (CER) are effective for removing positively-charged contaminants and positively charged anion exchange resins (AER) are effective for removing negatively charged contaminants, like PFAS. Ion exchange resins are like tiny powerful magnets that attract and hold the contaminated materials from passing through the water system. Negatively charged ions of PFAS are attracted to the positively charged anion resins. AER has shown to have a high capacity for many PFAS; however, it is typically more expensive than GAC. Of the different types of AER resins, perhaps the most promising is an AER in a single use mode followed by incineration of the resin. One benefit of this treatment technology is that there is no need for resin regeneration so there is no contaminant waste stream to handle, treat, or dispose.
Like GAC, AER removes 100 percent of the PFAS for a time that is dictated by the choice of resin, bed depth, flow rate, which PFAS need to be removed, and the degree and type of background organic matter and other contaminants of constituents.
Boyett’s family water treatment specializes in providing whole house ion exchange treatment for your home. In 1966 this is the main product we provided and we have been improving on this concept every day.
High-pressure Membranes
High-pressure membranes, such as nanofiltration or reverse osmosis, have been extremely effective at removing PFAS. Reverse osmosis membranes are tighter than nanofiltration membranes. This technology depends on membrane permeability. A standard difference between the two is that a nanofiltration membrane will reject hardness to a high degree, but pass sodium chloride; whereas reverse osmosis membrane will reject all salts to a high degree. This also allows nanofiltration to remove particles while retaining minerals that reverse osmosis would likely remove.
Research shows that these types of membranes are typically more than 90 percent effective at removing a wide range of PFAS, including shorter chain PFAS. With both high pressure membrane types, approximately 80 Percent of the feed water, the water coming into the membrane, passes through the membrane to the effluent (treated water). Approximately 20 percent of the feedwater is retained as a high-strength concentrated waste. A high-strength waste stream at 20 percent of the feed flow can be difficult to treat or dispose, especially for a contaminant such as PFAS, according to Speth. Perhaps this technology is best suited as a point of use technology for a homeowner, since the volume of water being treated is much smaller and the waste stream could be disposed of more easily with less cause for concern.
For more information about drinking water technologies available for removing PFAS, please visit EPA’s Drinking Water Treatability Database. This interactive literature review database contains more than 65 regulated and unregulated contaminants and covers 34 processes commonly employed or known to be effective. Users can search by contaminant or technology.
Boyett’s family water treatment provides high-pressure membranes to remove all the pfas (forever) chemical from your water. We have been fortunate to work with high-pressure membranes since the 1960’s and we continue to improve on this process every day.
Source:
I give this source all the credit for this information
Reducing PFAS in Drinking Water with Treatment Technologies | US EPA
How Much Can a Water Filter Do?
Lead, bacteria and PFAS are among the contaminants cropping up in drinking water.
Over the past few years, water safety crises have cropped up in several cities, including Baltimore, Flint, Mich., Jackson, Miss., and Newark, N.J., where lead or bacteria have leached into tap water, forcing people to rely on bottled water or on boiling their tap water to rid it of pathogens.
In Wilmington, N.C., high levels of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, chemicals commonly known as PFAS, were detected in the local watershed. PFAS have been linked to a host of health issues, including cancer, liver damage and problems with fertility. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations in March that would crack down on drinking water levels of six types of PFAS, substantially lowering the allowable detectable amounts. (Drinking water is not the only source of exposure to PFAS, which show up in food wrappers, cooking pans and waterproof clothing, among other places, but reducing contact wherever possible is advisable.)
These events raise questions about just how safe municipal water supplies in the United States are, and whether additional filtration steps are required even outside of areas experiencing an acute crisis. And if that’s the case, are there home water filters that will help?
Problems with the system
Water sanitation is often listed as one of the greatest health advancements of the 20th century, helping to significantly reduce the death rate from infectious diseases. Water safety standards were enshrined in the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, which gives the E.P.A. authority to restrict the amounts of many metals, bacteria, pesticides and other harmful contaminants that can be detected in water. State agencies monitor water treatment plants to ensure they are adhering to the law, and if any violations emerge, they are required to notify consumers within 24 hours. (Owners of private wells are responsible for ensuring that their water is free of contaminants.)
Since the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act, though, other water-monitoring issues have arisen. For example, most water treatment plants are not set up to remove more modern contaminants, such as PFAS, pharmaceutical drugs and endocrine disrupting chemicals, said Detlef Knappe, a professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, who was one of the first to publish on the Wilmington PFAS problem.
Another concern is whether we are “setting standards at a pace that is reflective of what we know about the science of our water,” said David Cwiertny, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Iowa. He gave the example of nitrate, an agricultural pollutant that’s present in the water supply in Des Moines. While the local water treatment plant takes steps to remove the contaminant, there are questions about whether the allowable levels could still cause health harms.
Aging infrastructure is also a problem. In several of the recent crises, contamination occurred when lead leached into the water as it traveled through the distribution pipes. National regulations about the amount of lead permitted in pipes have been strengthened over the years, but many old water distribution systems have not been updated and contain unsafe levels.
“Often, things go wrong because of just underinvestment into this type of infrastructure,” Dr. Knappe said. “The rate at which we’re replacing the distribution system pipes in the network is not keeping up with the rate at which the system really needs to be maintained.”
Finally, experts say water treatment plants are not equipped for the extreme weather events that have become more common with climate change. That was part of the problem in Jackson, where flooding caused by heavy rains overpowered one of the city’s treatment plants, resulting in untreated, bacteria-laden water traveling to people’s homes.
The crises in Flint, Baltimore, Jackson and Newark are currently exceptional cases — public water supplies in the U.S. are generally safe, said Thanh Nguyen, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. But “the number of exceptions may increase with time if we don’t” update the infrastructure, she said.
What home filters can do
If there is a known crisis in your area, local officials will provide recommendations for how best to keep yourself safe. If you’re generally concerned about potential contaminants, at-home water filters can help with some issues.
Most filters contain activated carbon to capture contaminants, which can be used in pitchers, refrigerator dispensers, faucet attachments or systems installed under the sink. Activated carbon is good at removing many chemicals and metals but not all (it doesn’t capture nitrate, for example), and it cannot filter out most bacteria.
The American National Standards Institute and NSF — two independent groups that evaluate product performance — have established standards for water filters. Companies aren’t required to make products that meet NSF/ANSI standards, but because “there is no federally regulated requirement,” certification can help to “ensure that the product isn’t a counterfeit or it’s actually effective,” said Kyle Postmus, senior manager of the Global Water Division at NSF.
NSF/ANSI Standard 42 is for aesthetics, such as taste, smell and appearance (people often want to filter out traces of the disinfectant chlorine). Standard 53 focuses on safety, ensuring levels of lead or mercury, as well as some pesticides and industrial chemicals, are below the accepted limit. The certifications are for individual contaminants, and the product should specify all the contaminants it is approved to reduce.
Home filters appear to work decently well for PFAS and can now be NSF/ANSI Standard 53 certified for some of those chemicals, too. In a study published in 2020, Dr. Knappe and his co-authors found that, on average, pitcher and refrigerator filters that use activated carbon reduced PFAS levels by about 50 percent. More advanced filtration systems that use a process known as reverse osmosis were over 90 percent effective, but they are much more expensive and waste a significant amount of water.
Sometimes filters can cause more harm than good. Dr. Nguyen’s research revealed that if water sits in a faucet or under-sink filter for a long period of time, such as overnight, it can actually pick up more contaminants, including lead and bacteria. That’s because the water is essentially bathing in high concentrations of the contaminants that were trapped by the activated carbon. When the faucet is turned on again, the contaminant-infused water comes rushing out. As a result, Dr. Nguyen said that it is important to flush your water filter for at least 10 seconds before drinking from it. Also, be sure to change your filter regularly.
Most of the experts interviewed for this article said that they used an at-home filter, but none said it was essential. Some used filters for taste issues, while others said it was a precautionary measure. “Not everybody needs them, but I can think of a lot of reasons why people might,” Dr. Cwiertny said. “What I would encourage is that people make informed decisions and know why they’re purchasing a device” — for example, for a specific taste concern or for filtering out a known contaminant.
If you’re worried about the quality of your water and want to know whether you should invest in a filter, you can use a home test kit. You can also request a Consumer Confidence Report from the E.P.A. that will detail what’s in the water when it leaves your local treatment plant, although the report does not account for what the water might encounter as it travels through the distribution pipe network.
The experts cautioned that if your region has a known issue with lead or another contaminant, a filter is a bandage on a wound that needs surgery — the larger problem with the pipes or water supply still must be addressed.
Source:
I give this source all the credit for this article
Do Home Water Filters Work? What Experts Say – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Boyett’s family water treatment (with your important help) is developing cutting-edge water treatment technology that we feel will help our AZH2O water users have safe, affordable, delicious (good for AZH2O) – no salt – no electricity and no water waste processes that will give you peace of mind and fabulous water to quench your thirst.
On a personal note (about my mother and father – founders of our company).
This article was published about their water treatment legacy
When I graduated from Arizona State University in December 1988 (I studied accounting and economics) I began working in my family’s rental water treatment company. I left for a few months to pursue my dreams several times, but I always returned for this:
My onus is to aggrandize my mother and father’s water treatment heritage here in AZ. My parents were hard-working and highly ethical people who wanted our work done right. They had an eager desire to be great pioneers in our rental AZH2O water industry and leave a big impact. I am hoping that our great team will have the honor to work with you to continue my parents’ legacy at your homes to make our AZH2O water treatment industry spectacular. Together we can be many.
With humility and great respect, Hayden Boyett
Cell 602.291.4157 text is best