Is West Sacramento Water Unsafe to Drink?

“The City of West Sacramento receives its water from one of the most polluted sources in the State of California…”

Is this the water source that our Council majority and Public Works Dept. is trying to make our major water supply??

“The City of West Sacramento receives its water from one of the most polluted sources in the State of California…”

Is this the water source that our Council majority and Public Works Dept. is trying to make our major water supply??

I don’t believe so.

I don’t believe so.

Yes hello , Sacramento river, the yuckiest river around…

Yes hello , Sacramento river, the yuckiest river around…

I believe that most of West Sac’s water comes from the Sacramento River and runs throught the treatment plant at the Bryte facility. The Sac River is one of the most polluted in the state. Many of the chemicals in the river are not removed using current treatment methods and many do not even have clean-up standards. That is a primary reason that we have argued against using Sacramento River water.

I believe that most of West Sac’s water comes from the Sacramento River and runs throught the treatment plant at the Bryte facility. The Sac River is one of the most polluted in the state. Many of the chemicals in the river are not removed using current treatment methods and many do not even have clean-up standards. That is a primary reason that we have argued against using Sacramento River water.

WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
The City of West Sacramento’s main water supply is the
Sacramento River. Our intake structure is located at Bryte Bend,
upstream of the confluence of the Sacramento and American
rivers. To ensure an adequate water supply for West Sacramento’s
current and future needs, the City maintains water supply
contracts with the federal Bureau of Reclamation, the state Central
Valley Project and with the North Delta Water Agency.
In addition to surface water, the City has two ground water wells.
These wells are currently on standby status and are available to
supply additional water during emergencies. The City did not
utilize ground water in 2007.

http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/cityhall/departments/pubwks/documents/2008_WQ_Report.pdf

WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
The City of West Sacramento’s main water supply is the
Sacramento River. Our intake structure is located at Bryte Bend,
upstream of the confluence of the Sacramento and American
rivers. To ensure an adequate water supply for West Sacramento’s
current and future needs, the City maintains water supply
contracts with the federal Bureau of Reclamation, the state Central
Valley Project and with the North Delta Water Agency.
In addition to surface water, the City has two ground water wells.
These wells are currently on standby status and are available to
supply additional water during emergencies. The City did not
utilize ground water in 2007.

http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/cityhall/departments/pubwks/documents/2008_WQ_Report.pdf

Source for the above post:

http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/cityhall/departments/pubwks/documents/2008_WQ_Report.pdf

Source for the above post:

http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/cityhall/departments/pubwks/documents/2008_WQ_Report.pdf

http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org

/cityhall/departments/pubwks

/documents/2008_WQ_Report.pdf

http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org

/cityhall/departments/pubwks

/documents/2008_WQ_Report.pdf

The Agriculture Defense Coalition says: “The staggering number of positive readings for agriculture herbicides, pesticides, industrial waste products, uranium, PCBs, etc., is beyond comprehension.”

Really? Who is the ADC? Is it a group of unbiased scientists? Or is it a political group pushing an agenda with hyperbole?

“No water treatment plant can address the synergistic impacts of the combinations of these chemicals nor hope to remove all of them from your drinking water sources.”

Really? Is that a scientific conclusion?

Note: When someone makes a statement about “synergistic impacts,” my bullshit meter goes up. Those sound like the words of someone who is not an expert in water treatment technologies. I could be wrong, but it sounds phony.

This comes from the City of West Sac’s water report:

“All public water supplies must meet stringent federal and state standards. Treated water delivered to you and your family not only meets, but surpasses state and federal standards for quality and safety. We know this because we continually test our water using modern equipment and procedures, in our own state-certified laboratory and commercial laboratories. This regular program of water analysis, including sampling at over forty representative households
throughout the city, assures safe water for you and your family.”

I don’t know who is right, the ADC or the City of West Sac. It would help to know if there is a true and unbiased scientific basis for the comments of the ADC or if instead it is a political group pushing an agenda. It would help even more to get a response about these so-called “synergistic impacts” from West Sac’s water treatment authorities.

The Agriculture Defense Coalition says: “The staggering number of positive readings for agriculture herbicides, pesticides, industrial waste products, uranium, PCBs, etc., is beyond comprehension.”

Really? Who is the ADC? Is it a group of unbiased scientists? Or is it a political group pushing an agenda with hyperbole?

“No water treatment plant can address the synergistic impacts of the combinations of these chemicals nor hope to remove all of them from your drinking water sources.”

Really? Is that a scientific conclusion?

Note: When someone makes a statement about “synergistic impacts,” my bullshit meter goes up. Those sound like the words of someone who is not an expert in water treatment technologies. I could be wrong, but it sounds phony.

This comes from the City of West Sac’s water report:

“All public water supplies must meet stringent federal and state standards. Treated water delivered to you and your family not only meets, but surpasses state and federal standards for quality and safety. We know this because we continually test our water using modern equipment and procedures, in our own state-certified laboratory and commercial laboratories. This regular program of water analysis, including sampling at over forty representative households
throughout the city, assures safe water for you and your family.”

I don’t know who is right, the ADC or the City of West Sac. It would help to know if there is a true and unbiased scientific basis for the comments of the ADC or if instead it is a political group pushing an agenda. It would help even more to get a response about these so-called “synergistic impacts” from West Sac’s water treatment authorities.

David,

No source of drinking water is completely free of pollutants. If you want that, you need distilled water.

West Sacramento uses Sacramento River water. This water has contaminants. The same is true for Davis ground water, but they are different contaminants.

Current State standards have focussed on the contaminants in ground water. I have heard that the next round of standards are going to be focusing on
contaminants found in surface water.

As detection levels of contaminants have improved, state standards have increased to the point that are now unattainable for groundwater, and probably will be unattainable for surface water soon.

The human body has detoxification systems because we evolved in a an environment with many toxins. It is important to distinguish those that are really serious health threats from those that are not.

We will never be able to obtain 100% purity from ground or surface water. Distilled water is available for drinking for those that are really uncomfortable with surface water and groundwater.

David,

No source of drinking water is completely free of pollutants. If you want that, you need distilled water.

West Sacramento uses Sacramento River water. This water has contaminants. The same is true for Davis ground water, but they are different contaminants.

Current State standards have focussed on the contaminants in ground water. I have heard that the next round of standards are going to be focusing on
contaminants found in surface water.

As detection levels of contaminants have improved, state standards have increased to the point that are now unattainable for groundwater, and probably will be unattainable for surface water soon.

The human body has detoxification systems because we evolved in a an environment with many toxins. It is important to distinguish those that are really serious health threats from those that are not.

We will never be able to obtain 100% purity from ground or surface water. Distilled water is available for drinking for those that are really uncomfortable with surface water and groundwater.

Thanks Sue. Your level-headed response to Rifkin’s rant was a welcome breath of fresh air (or fresh water as the case may be).
Rifkin, I am so tired of your immediate assumption that anyone who raises issues is somehow biased or unscientific. Davis would be a better place without your ‘input’.
Sacramento River water has numerous pharmaceutical contaminants. The synergistic combination of these is indeed unknown. When I saw your post, my ‘bullshit meter’ went up, but in my case it’s a reflexive reaction to anything posted by you.

Thanks Sue. Your level-headed response to Rifkin’s rant was a welcome breath of fresh air (or fresh water as the case may be).
Rifkin, I am so tired of your immediate assumption that anyone who raises issues is somehow biased or unscientific. Davis would be a better place without your ‘input’.
Sacramento River water has numerous pharmaceutical contaminants. The synergistic combination of these is indeed unknown. When I saw your post, my ‘bullshit meter’ went up, but in my case it’s a reflexive reaction to anything posted by you.

The ADC has no web site. Rosalind Peterson of ADC is founder of California Skywatch, which does have a web site. It’s hard to assess the credibility of this press release without any evidence of who this group is, or what scientific background they have regarding environmental toxicology, risk assessment, etc.

The language from the “Consumer Confidence Report” is just boilerplate, having nothing to do with the specific test results in that document. If you scan through the specific test results, you don’t find anything that exceeds the federal guidelines. In terms of hardness and salt content, Davis residents would probably be delighted to have this water.

I wonder what the basis is for the statement that Sacramento River water is “one of the most polluted sources in the State of California.” By what criteria? What toxins?

I really don’t see what is so “staggering” or why anyone is “stunned.” The number of positive readings doesn’t surprise me. They reflect our ability to measure the presence of these things in ppb. But the “dose makes the poison” for anything, which is why we have water quality standards and why water districts do ongoing testing. As far as I can tell from a quick perusal, this water doesn’t violate those standards.

Anybody can get the test results for Davis water. In fact, they mail them to you every year, as far as I know. But if you want a current copy, stop by the public works department or call and ask them for them. Or go to the city’s web site, where reports for 2001 – 2007 are available as pdf documents.

The ADC has no web site. Rosalind Peterson of ADC is founder of California Skywatch, which does have a web site. It’s hard to assess the credibility of this press release without any evidence of who this group is, or what scientific background they have regarding environmental toxicology, risk assessment, etc.

The language from the “Consumer Confidence Report” is just boilerplate, having nothing to do with the specific test results in that document. If you scan through the specific test results, you don’t find anything that exceeds the federal guidelines. In terms of hardness and salt content, Davis residents would probably be delighted to have this water.

I wonder what the basis is for the statement that Sacramento River water is “one of the most polluted sources in the State of California.” By what criteria? What toxins?

I really don’t see what is so “staggering” or why anyone is “stunned.” The number of positive readings doesn’t surprise me. They reflect our ability to measure the presence of these things in ppb. But the “dose makes the poison” for anything, which is why we have water quality standards and why water districts do ongoing testing. As far as I can tell from a quick perusal, this water doesn’t violate those standards.

Anybody can get the test results for Davis water. In fact, they mail them to you every year, as far as I know. But if you want a current copy, stop by the public works department or call and ask them for them. Or go to the city’s web site, where reports for 2001 – 2007 are available as pdf documents.

Water quality notwithstanding, can we afford increased water rates, on top of the mammoth increase in sewer rates that is already occurring at an alarming rate?

Water quality notwithstanding, can we afford increased water rates, on top of the mammoth increase in sewer rates that is already occurring at an alarming rate?

I’ll take the salt and hardness of Davis groundwater over the accumulated pesticide and fertilizer run-off and treated waste water (with pharmaceuticals and other made-made chemicals intact) entering the river upstream before it reaches Sacramento.

I’ll take the salt and hardness of Davis groundwater over the accumulated pesticide and fertilizer run-off and treated waste water (with pharmaceuticals and other made-made chemicals intact) entering the river upstream before it reaches Sacramento.

Pharmaceuticals have been found in groundwater supplies in some areas. I have no idea if testing has been done on Yolo county aquifers. But the levels found in surface water and ground water systems is in parts per billion or even parts per trillion. One would have to assess the risk of those versus the selenium, nitrates, etc., that may be in your ground water.
I seriously question the idea that surface water is more dangerous than ground water. Neither source, as far as we can tell from tests that are publicly available, is dangerous.

Pharmaceuticals have been found in groundwater supplies in some areas. I have no idea if testing has been done on Yolo county aquifers. But the levels found in surface water and ground water systems is in parts per billion or even parts per trillion. One would have to assess the risk of those versus the selenium, nitrates, etc., that may be in your ground water.
I seriously question the idea that surface water is more dangerous than ground water. Neither source, as far as we can tell from tests that are publicly available, is dangerous.

In case you’re wondering, Davis’ Water Quality reports can be found
here.

The most recent is for 2007. It goes back to 2001.

In case you’re wondering, Davis’ Water Quality reports can be found
here.

The most recent is for 2007. It goes back to 2001.

FREDA: “Davis would be a better place without your ‘input’.”

Davis was a better place before you moved here, last week. It will be better again when you go back to Fresno, Freda.

FREDA: “Rifkin, I am so tired of your immediate assumption that anyone who raises issues is somehow biased or unscientific.”

The person from ADC made a claim which directly contradicts the scientists/engirneers in W. Sac who are measuring what is in the water. As such, it seems perfectly reasonable to wonder if the ADC is a scientific group or a political body with an unscientific agenda. If you don’t ask that question, you’re not thinking, Freda.

FREDA: “Sacramento River water has numerous pharmaceutical contaminants. The synergistic combination of these is indeed unknown.”

What is it that you know about synergy, Freda? If you have a scientific background, let’s here it.

I don’t claim any expertise, Freda, but I trust what Don Shor wrote more than your effete claims: “Pharmaceuticals have been found in groundwater supplies in some areas… I seriously question the idea that surface water is more dangerous than ground water. Neither source, as far as we can tell from tests that are publicly available, is dangerous.”

Nice chatting with you, Freda.

FREDA: “Davis would be a better place without your ‘input’.”

Davis was a better place before you moved here, last week. It will be better again when you go back to Fresno, Freda.

FREDA: “Rifkin, I am so tired of your immediate assumption that anyone who raises issues is somehow biased or unscientific.”

The person from ADC made a claim which directly contradicts the scientists/engirneers in W. Sac who are measuring what is in the water. As such, it seems perfectly reasonable to wonder if the ADC is a scientific group or a political body with an unscientific agenda. If you don’t ask that question, you’re not thinking, Freda.

FREDA: “Sacramento River water has numerous pharmaceutical contaminants. The synergistic combination of these is indeed unknown.”

What is it that you know about synergy, Freda? If you have a scientific background, let’s here it.

I don’t claim any expertise, Freda, but I trust what Don Shor wrote more than your effete claims: “Pharmaceuticals have been found in groundwater supplies in some areas… I seriously question the idea that surface water is more dangerous than ground water. Neither source, as far as we can tell from tests that are publicly available, is dangerous.”

Nice chatting with you, Freda.

If you have a scientific background, let’s hear* it.

If you have a scientific background, let’s hear* it.

As I understand it, synergy is a term that describes how 2 chemicals, while each testing below “dangerous” levels, can act in combination to enhance the toxic effect of one, both or form a new compound with its own toxicity.

As I understand it, synergy is a term that describes how 2 chemicals, while each testing below “dangerous” levels, can act in combination to enhance the toxic effect of one, both or form a new compound with its own toxicity.

“Pharmaceuticals have been found in groundwater supplies in some areas…”

You do not need a PHD to understand that groundwater aquifers, fed by rainwater and filtered through layers of clay and sand, have anywhere near comparable levels of pharmaceuticals as river water into which millions of people have their (treated) waste water dumped.

“Pharmaceuticals have been found in groundwater supplies in some areas…”

You do not need a PHD to understand that groundwater aquifers, fed by rainwater and filtered through layers of clay and sand, have anywhere near comparable levels of pharmaceuticals as river water into which millions of people have their (treated) waste water dumped.

“You do not need a PHD to understand that groundwater aquifers, fed by rainwater and filtered through layers of clay and sand, have anywhere near comparable levels of pharmaceuticals as river water into which millions of people have their (treated) waste water dumped.”
Ground water can be at greater risk of contamination from old septic systems and livestock production. Ground water on the west side of the Valley is more likely to contain naturally occurring salts such as selenium, and ground water in ag areas is more likely to contain nitrates.

Whether the presence of pharmaceuticals in the ground water is greater or less than in river water is going to depend on the concentration at any given time in our cycles of snow melt and rainfall. River water is continuously flushing out to the Bay, whereas ground water isn’t going anywhere.

This all assumes that the pharmaceuticals pose a threat in the first place. Selenium and nitrates (among other things) are known risks, which is why we test for them and set safety levels. Pharmaceuticals at ppb and ppt are not known to be risks. The dosage would be infinitesimally small.

The impact of pharmaceuticals and any synergistic effects of those and the other contaminants in surface AND ground water is a subject that is worth pursuing. But it isn’t a basis for obstructing the proposed water project, nor is it likely a reason to be concerned about drinking water in West Sacramento based on what we know now. If these pharmaceuticals are a genuine risk, dozens of water supplies across the nation would have to be shut down. They find some levels of pharmaceuticals in nearly every water system that is tested.

For the record, the statement in the West Sacramento Consumer Confidence Report (persons “should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers….”) appears verbatim in the Davis water quality report.

“You do not need a PHD to understand that groundwater aquifers, fed by rainwater and filtered through layers of clay and sand, have anywhere near comparable levels of pharmaceuticals as river water into which millions of people have their (treated) waste water dumped.”
Ground water can be at greater risk of contamination from old septic systems and livestock production. Ground water on the west side of the Valley is more likely to contain naturally occurring salts such as selenium, and ground water in ag areas is more likely to contain nitrates.

Whether the presence of pharmaceuticals in the ground water is greater or less than in river water is going to depend on the concentration at any given time in our cycles of snow melt and rainfall. River water is continuously flushing out to the Bay, whereas ground water isn’t going anywhere.

This all assumes that the pharmaceuticals pose a threat in the first place. Selenium and nitrates (among other things) are known risks, which is why we test for them and set safety levels. Pharmaceuticals at ppb and ppt are not known to be risks. The dosage would be infinitesimally small.

The impact of pharmaceuticals and any synergistic effects of those and the other contaminants in surface AND ground water is a subject that is worth pursuing. But it isn’t a basis for obstructing the proposed water project, nor is it likely a reason to be concerned about drinking water in West Sacramento based on what we know now. If these pharmaceuticals are a genuine risk, dozens of water supplies across the nation would have to be shut down. They find some levels of pharmaceuticals in nearly every water system that is tested.

For the record, the statement in the West Sacramento Consumer Confidence Report (persons “should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers….”) appears verbatim in the Davis water quality report.

THe argument that if the presence of phamaceuticals in surface water is a problem, then many water supplies would have to shut down is interesting, because that is exactly what may happen. We are just beginning to realize that these chemicals are in many of our surface water supplies. We are just beginning to measure them and to understand that constant exposure to very low levels (how low we don’t even know yet) can pose serious health problems. For many of these chemicals there is no standard (level at whick they are not hazardous) to measure against, so we don’t know whether the levels are above a potential risk or not. Surface water from rivers such as the Sacramento River is full of chemicals that we have insufficient knowledge of in terms of long-term exposure, especially in terms of developing fetuses or young children. And we do not know how to remove them or to what levels so that the water is safe to consume.

Synergism is a well established, long-used term in toxicology. Many chemicals alone may not be a hazard at certain levels but in combination with other chemicals, create a synergistic effect which does pose a hazard to human health and/or development. Rich and others need to do their home work before dumping on others.

Sue is absolutely right in her analysis as well.

Given all the knowns and unknowns, and the testimony of several water experts from UCD, I will take our ground water over Sac River water any day, at least until we learn more about the contaminants in Sac River water and how to remove them or treat them to levels that are “safe” for human consumption.

THe argument that if the presence of phamaceuticals in surface water is a problem, then many water supplies would have to shut down is interesting, because that is exactly what may happen. We are just beginning to realize that these chemicals are in many of our surface water supplies. We are just beginning to measure them and to understand that constant exposure to very low levels (how low we don’t even know yet) can pose serious health problems. For many of these chemicals there is no standard (level at whick they are not hazardous) to measure against, so we don’t know whether the levels are above a potential risk or not. Surface water from rivers such as the Sacramento River is full of chemicals that we have insufficient knowledge of in terms of long-term exposure, especially in terms of developing fetuses or young children. And we do not know how to remove them or to what levels so that the water is safe to consume.

Synergism is a well established, long-used term in toxicology. Many chemicals alone may not be a hazard at certain levels but in combination with other chemicals, create a synergistic effect which does pose a hazard to human health and/or development. Rich and others need to do their home work before dumping on others.

Sue is absolutely right in her analysis as well.

Given all the knowns and unknowns, and the testimony of several water experts from UCD, I will take our ground water over Sac River water any day, at least until we learn more about the contaminants in Sac River water and how to remove them or treat them to levels that are “safe” for human consumption.

Potentially misleading Don Shor statements:

“If these pharmaceuticals are a genuine risk, dozens of water supplies across the nation would have to be shut down.”

Water quality standards are political public health/public policy decisions and not necessarily based soley on risk. These standards have a large “political” component that considers the risk along with the difficulty of removing that risk. An example of this in the Clinton Administration years was when the acceptable Arsenic level standard in some SouthWest local drinking water sources was raised to deal with the fact that these water sources were considered the only ones available and removal of the Arsenic to the government-determined “safe” level was judged to be(economically) not feasible.

“River water is continuously flushing out to the Bay, whereas ground water isn’t going anywhere.”

Isn’t aquifer groundwater “moving” when it is depleted by use and then refreshed as it is recharged with fresh water?

Potentially misleading Don Shor statements:

“If these pharmaceuticals are a genuine risk, dozens of water supplies across the nation would have to be shut down.”

Water quality standards are political public health/public policy decisions and not necessarily based soley on risk. These standards have a large “political” component that considers the risk along with the difficulty of removing that risk. An example of this in the Clinton Administration years was when the acceptable Arsenic level standard in some SouthWest local drinking water sources was raised to deal with the fact that these water sources were considered the only ones available and removal of the Arsenic to the government-determined “safe” level was judged to be(economically) not feasible.

“River water is continuously flushing out to the Bay, whereas ground water isn’t going anywhere.”

Isn’t aquifer groundwater “moving” when it is depleted by use and then refreshed as it is recharged with fresh water?

“Isn’t aquifer groundwater “moving” when it is depleted by use and then refreshed as it is recharged with fresh water?”
My point was the concentration levels. Which is more likely to have higher concentrations of salts and contaminants: water moving through the Sacramento river, flushed by water melting from snow of the Sierra, or rainwater percolating through agricultural soils and septic systems?

“These standards have a large “political” component that considers the risk along with the difficulty of removing that risk.”
Good point. Of course, we don’t even have any evidence that there is any risk from the pharmaceuticals at the tiny amounts that are present.
Again, as Sue stated, no water is completely free of contaminants.
And we don’t know if there are any of them present in Davis ground water. Probably not, but it would be interesting to know. We do know the other things that are present, some of them in higher levels than in river water.

“Isn’t aquifer groundwater “moving” when it is depleted by use and then refreshed as it is recharged with fresh water?”
My point was the concentration levels. Which is more likely to have higher concentrations of salts and contaminants: water moving through the Sacramento river, flushed by water melting from snow of the Sierra, or rainwater percolating through agricultural soils and septic systems?

“These standards have a large “political” component that considers the risk along with the difficulty of removing that risk.”
Good point. Of course, we don’t even have any evidence that there is any risk from the pharmaceuticals at the tiny amounts that are present.
Again, as Sue stated, no water is completely free of contaminants.
And we don’t know if there are any of them present in Davis ground water. Probably not, but it would be interesting to know. We do know the other things that are present, some of them in higher levels than in river water.

Isn’t it prudent,given the still-to-be investigated UNKNOWNS we have identified, to take the slower and more cautious approach with continuing scientific investigation. Other than the universally accepted clear choice of our Davis flora for Sacramento River irrigation water over Davis groundwater, I don’t think that we have been offered a compelling case for this pressing need for Sacramento River water NOW.

I thought that selenium(found in our groundwater) was considered a trace element nutrient and only a problem at high levels of concentration. Does our groundwater selenium concentration approach this toxic level?

Isn’t it prudent,given the still-to-be investigated UNKNOWNS we have identified, to take the slower and more cautious approach with continuing scientific investigation. Other than the universally accepted clear choice of our Davis flora for Sacramento River irrigation water over Davis groundwater, I don’t think that we have been offered a compelling case for this pressing need for Sacramento River water NOW.

I thought that selenium(found in our groundwater) was considered a trace element nutrient and only a problem at high levels of concentration. Does our groundwater selenium concentration approach this toxic level?

To the extent that I understand it, the selenium issue is an issue with the discharge of our water into the environment rather than an issue of health risks for drinking.

To the extent that I understand it, the selenium issue is an issue with the discharge of our water into the environment rather than an issue of health risks for drinking.

I believe selenium’s “bad rap” comes from the story of Central Valley irrigation water leaching selenium from the soil with increasing selenium concentration being built up in the water table below. This water was then extracted and moved to surface ponds to lower the water table as its high salt concentrations damaged the crops growing above. This extracted water had high selenium levels and the animals living in these surface collecting areas exhibited severe genetic malformations.

I believe selenium’s “bad rap” comes from the story of Central Valley irrigation water leaching selenium from the soil with increasing selenium concentration being built up in the water table below. This water was then extracted and moved to surface ponds to lower the water table as its high salt concentrations damaged the crops growing above. This extracted water had high selenium levels and the animals living in these surface collecting areas exhibited severe genetic malformations.

“Isn’t aquifer groundwater “moving” when it is depleted by use and then refreshed as it is recharged with fresh water?”

Yes, but often not recharged as fast as it is depleted. Urbanization tends to channel more water into surface river systems and divert it away from recharging the groundwater. During rains, think of how we are interested in removing water quickly from streets through storm drains.

“Isn’t aquifer groundwater “moving” when it is depleted by use and then refreshed as it is recharged with fresh water?”

Yes, but often not recharged as fast as it is depleted. Urbanization tends to channel more water into surface river systems and divert it away from recharging the groundwater. During rains, think of how we are interested in removing water quickly from streets through storm drains.

If climate change continues as predicted, we will see less snowpack/snowmelt water and more rain in winter directly charging our aquifers. Our groundwater aquifers may very well be a more reliable source of Davis water than Davis getting in line for its share of the dwindling Sacramento River supply.

If climate change continues as predicted, we will see less snowpack/snowmelt water and more rain in winter directly charging our aquifers. Our groundwater aquifers may very well be a more reliable source of Davis water than Davis getting in line for its share of the dwindling Sacramento River supply.

“If climate change continues as predicted, we will see less snowpack/snowmelt water and more rain in winter directly charging our aquifers.”

I’m not so sure about that. First rains soak the ground pretty good. While that water is soaking into the ground and saturating the pores, subsequent rains fall more as runoff into river system.

The way I see it, less snow pack = more river runoff. Ground water is slower to flow than surface water.

“If climate change continues as predicted, we will see less snowpack/snowmelt water and more rain in winter directly charging our aquifers.”

I’m not so sure about that. First rains soak the ground pretty good. While that water is soaking into the ground and saturating the pores, subsequent rains fall more as runoff into river system.

The way I see it, less snow pack = more river runoff. Ground water is slower to flow than surface water.

“We are just beginning to measure them and to understand that constant exposure to very low levels (how low we don’t even know yet) can pose serious health problems.”

Who are the “we” you are talking about here? I’m not denying what you are saying. I am simply asking to know about the scientific research done by unbiased scientists.

“Synergism is a well established, long-used term in toxicology. Many chemicals alone may not be a hazard at certain levels but in combination with other chemicals, create a synergistic effect which does pose a hazard to human health and/or development.”

I claim absolutely no expertise on this subject. If it is your area of scholarship, I defer to your knowledge. But as long as you won’t identify yourself, how am I to know you really are an expert? Unless you can point me to the actual science, I have no reason (yet) to think that “synergistic effect” is not political gobbledygook.

“Rich and others need to do their home work before dumping on others.”

I have not dumped on anyone. I sign my name to my posts and get attacked by anonymous cowards. All I have done is asked questions — and for doing so I have been told my input is unwanted in my town.

Please, if you can point me to the science, then do so. Otherwise, I will presume that “synergistic effect” is questionable.

“We are just beginning to measure them and to understand that constant exposure to very low levels (how low we don’t even know yet) can pose serious health problems.”

Who are the “we” you are talking about here? I’m not denying what you are saying. I am simply asking to know about the scientific research done by unbiased scientists.

“Synergism is a well established, long-used term in toxicology. Many chemicals alone may not be a hazard at certain levels but in combination with other chemicals, create a synergistic effect which does pose a hazard to human health and/or development.”

I claim absolutely no expertise on this subject. If it is your area of scholarship, I defer to your knowledge. But as long as you won’t identify yourself, how am I to know you really are an expert? Unless you can point me to the actual science, I have no reason (yet) to think that “synergistic effect” is not political gobbledygook.

“Rich and others need to do their home work before dumping on others.”

I have not dumped on anyone. I sign my name to my posts and get attacked by anonymous cowards. All I have done is asked questions — and for doing so I have been told my input is unwanted in my town.

Please, if you can point me to the science, then do so. Otherwise, I will presume that “synergistic effect” is questionable.

Let me clarify my last post — what I am doubting is that at the levels of toxins found in West Sacramento drinking water, I am dubious of a “synergistic effect”. I fully understand the idea of drug toxicity, where a person taking two different pharmaceuticals which don’t interact well in the body can be dangerous, while each in and of itself may be safe. But that is not what is happening in West Sac, as far as I know.

Let me clarify my last post — what I am doubting is that at the levels of toxins found in West Sacramento drinking water, I am dubious of a “synergistic effect”. I fully understand the idea of drug toxicity, where a person taking two different pharmaceuticals which don’t interact well in the body can be dangerous, while each in and of itself may be safe. But that is not what is happening in West Sac, as far as I know.

From yesterday's Raleigh News & Observer:

“RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK – Despite rising fear — and rhetoric — about the presence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, there is actually very little evidence of whether there are health risks related to the issue.

“The two-day conference, the first by a collaborative group of Triangle environmental health experts, was an attempt to answer some of the questions being raised by regulators, scientists and lawmakers.”

From yesterday's Raleigh News & Observer:

“RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK – Despite rising fear — and rhetoric — about the presence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, there is actually very little evidence of whether there are health risks related to the issue.

“The two-day conference, the first by a collaborative group of Triangle environmental health experts, was an attempt to answer some of the questions being raised by regulators, scientists and lawmakers.”

“The way I see it, less snow pack = more river runoff.”

The important point is snowpack is a critical storage component for our reservoir system. Decrease in snowpack negatively impacts the reservoir system while increased rainfall positively impacts our groundwater storage in both volume and quality.

“The way I see it, less snow pack = more river runoff.”

The important point is snowpack is a critical storage component for our reservoir system. Decrease in snowpack negatively impacts the reservoir system while increased rainfall positively impacts our groundwater storage in both volume and quality.