Grey Water For Green Spaces

A few months ago, I received an email from a woman representing the Grey Water Guerrillas trying to organize people to campaign for local ordinances friendly to the concept of grey water reuse at businesses and residences.

My response to her was not too optimistic about getting local or State Health Departments to ever get less cautious about grey water reuse. Remember, a bureaucrat's first job is always CYA, so don't think that a professional health guardian will ever do less to prevent you from spreading disease, even during a serious drought.

Another proponent is taking hope in an actual greywater system that was permitted by the City & People's Republic of Berkeley. His comments can be Downloaded if your curiosity and quest for knowledge care to read Download2 even more.

When a recent call went out by a regional waste(d)water group to speak at a seminar on greywater, no one from the public sector or the many consultant engineers wanted to be a speaker. The only written flyer the organizers could supply was from Australia:

Manual Bucketing & Temporary
Diversion of Greywater

Greywater is wastewater generated from bathrooms (showers, baths, spas,
and hand basins), laundries (washing machines, troughs) and kitchens (sinks
and dishwashers). However, kitchen water can contain food particles, grease,
oils and fats and its use is not recommended (particularly without treatment).

Greywater Characteristics
The quality of greywater can be highly
variable due to factors such as number of
household occupants, their age, lifestyle,
health, water source and products used
(such as soaps, shampoos, detergents).
Greywater may contain:
• Disease causing organisms (bacteria,
viruses, protozoa) from nappies and
other soiled clothing.
• Chemicals from soaps, shampoos,
dyes, mouthwash, toothpaste,
detergents, bleaches, disinfectants and
other products (such as boron,
phosphorus, sodium, ammonia and
other nitrogen based compounds).
• Dirt, lint, food, hair, body cells and fats,
and traces of faeces, urine, and blood.
Risks presented by these contaminants
can be reduced by good management
practices and by sensible use.
Manual Bucketing & Temporary
Diversion
Manual bucketing onto lawn and garden
areas using water from the bathroom or
laundry, or temporary use of a hose
manually fitted to the washing machine
outlet hose, is permitted subject to the
following advice:
• Don’t use greywater from washing
clothes soiled by faeces or vomit, for
example, nappies.
• Don’t store untreated greywater for
more than 24 hours, as bacteria and
organic contaminants in greywater will
cause it to turn septic and produce
strong and offensive odours.
• Don’t use greywater if others in the
household have diarrhoea or an
infectious disease, as this could
increase the risk of other people
becoming ill.
• Don’t use greywater to irrigate fruit,
vegetables, or areas where fruit can fall
to the ground and be eaten.
• Avoid splashing of greywater and wash
your hands before eating or drinking or
smoking.
• Keep children away from areas watered
with greywater until it has soaked into
the ground.
Chemical contaminants: detergents,
cleaners and other chemicals
• Environmentally friendly shampoos,
detergents and cleaning products
should be used to protect soil and
plants watered with grey water.
Products containing low levels of boron,
phosphorus and salt should be used.
Boron can be toxic to plants, some
native plants are sensitive to
phosphorous while sodium and other
salts can damage soil structure.
• Washing machine rinse water has lower
concentrations of detergents compared
to wash water. If wash water is used it
should be diluted with rinse water.
• Bleaches and disinfectants can kill
beneficial soil organisms and damage
plants. Avoid using greywater
containing harsh chemicals or bleaches,
or after washing out hair dye or paint
products.
• A useful website that contains
information on laundry products is
http://www.lanfaxlabs.com.au.
Sensible use
• The irrigation setback distances from
swimming pools, bores, dams,
watercourses (inc. River Murray),
buildings and boundaries must be met.
See Section 5 of the Standard for the
Construction, Installation and Operation
of Septic Tank Systems in South
Australia (Supplement B)

• Greywater tends to be slightly alkaline
and this can be harmful to acid loving
plants such as azaleas and camellias.
• Rotate greywater irrigation using mains
(drinking) or rain water, especially in
areas of low rainfall. This will help to
flush salts from the soil.
• Water several locations. This will
prevent salts and other contaminants
accumulating in the soil.
• Prevent pooling and runoff of greywater
onto other properties, into watercourses
and the stormwater system. Pooled
greywater can turn septic and produce
offensive odours.
• Don’t over-water your plants –
greywater shouldn’t be used to irrigate
more than you would with other sources
of water. Plants are susceptible to
waterlogged soil.
• Monitor areas and plants irrigated with
greywater. If there is visual evidence of
damage you may need to modify
watering practices, try a different or
bigger irrigation area, or reduce the
amount of water used.
Soils in many parts of Adelaide have a
high clay content. Clay soils tend to be
more susceptible to build up of salts and
have low permeability. Extra care should
be taken when using greywater in areas of
clay soils to avoid long term damage.
Permanent Greywater Systems
Permanent greywater systems such as
diversion devices or treatment systems, or
any device attached to plumbing, can
increase the use of greywater. However
due to potential risks associated with grey
water, permanent devices require
installation approval from your Council or
the Department of Health.
Information on permanent greywater
systems can be obtained from our
Alternative Onsite Wastewater Systems

Contact
Wastewater Management Section
Public Health
SA Health

1st floor
Citi Centre Building
11 Hindmarsh Square
Adelaide SA 5000

PO Box 6, Rundle Mall
Adelaide SA 5000

Tel 08 8226 7100
Fax 08 8226 7102

ABN 97 643 356 590

Email: public.health@health.sa.gov.au
Web: www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/environ-
health-index.htm

© Department of Health, Government of South
Australia.
All rights reserved.

Last revised August 2008

But the real folks leading the local charge on grey water are those that actually do it and tell others about their experience. My neighbors Angelica & Sergio recently put the following in our weekly CSA e-mail:

Heard about California's water crisis? For so long we have been letting go of precious (grey) water down our home drains. Our own MANO member Pat Ferraro, former water district board director for Santa Clara Valley taught us the simple thing of saving our bath water to flush the toilet, rather than using 5-6 gallons of clean water every time we flush. Read more about water concerns at Pat's great blog http://neverthirstpatferraro.blogspot.com . As of last weekend we became true guerrillas, as we disconnected our sewer pipes in the bathroom and kitchen sinks to hold on to that water, and the washing machine too. It has made a great difference in the garden and compost piles. Read on about greywater.

What is grey water?

Greywater is water that flows down sink, shower, and washing machine drains--but not the toilet. Greywater may contain traces of dirt, food, grease, hair, and household cleaning products. While greywater may look “dirty,” it is a safe and even beneficial source of irrigation water. If released into rivers, lakes, or estuaries, the nutrients in greywater (mainly phosphate from detergent) become pollutants, but to garden plants, they are valuable fertilizer. Aside from the obvious benefits of saving water (and money on your water bill), reusing your greywater keeps it out of the sewer or septic system, thereby reducing the chance that it will pollute local water bodies Reusing greywater for irrigation reconnects urban residents and our backyard gardens to the natural water cycle.

You probably won't hear much from any public agency like San Jose or the Water District encouraging grey water reuse, because of their concern over crossing the health officials they deal with on many other issues. This is unfortunate for the people running water efficiency programs at either agency, for grey water use reduces both water demand and wastewater flow to the South Bay.

San Jose has a State-mandated flow cap on their waste(d)water discharge into the South Bay during summer months. This restriction is in place to keep salt marsh habitat from changing to fresh water marsh due to the large volume of low salinity water coming from the water pollution control plant. And when that habitat is home to two endangered species, San Jose is required to do whatever it takes to comply with the State's order.

Until this State mandate, all the engineering and economic studies that had been funded to examine the feasibility of water recycling were never able to get a positive political response from local decision makers at either San Jose or the Water District. It took a federal law, the Endangered Species Act, to move past the culture of built-in bias against water recycling at the Water District. And as long as San Jose could continue to get all the water it needed for continued growth, the City had no concern of their own about the ever increasing flow of waste(d)water to the Bay, except to make the plant capacity bigger and meet the standard discharge requirements.

All that changed when the State of California issued the order to cap the summer discharge from the San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant at 120 million gallons per day (mgd). Today, San Jose has built 108 miles of purple pipe and pump stations which today delivers 10-15 million gallons per day of non-potable reclaimed water through a program called South Bay Water Recycling, managed by my friend and neighbor, Eric Rosenblum.

Much of this water is used for irrigating green spaces, parks, athletic fields, school grounds, common areas and parkway landscaping on major thoroughfares. All this irrigation is also highly regulated by the State Health department, with a continuously cautious eye from the local health department and potablewater purveyors. The latest use of this water will be to irrigate the new community gardens at Guadalupe Parks and Gardens near the corner of Coleman Aveue and Taylor Street. Click here for flyer information.

I wanted to be among the first users of recycled water in California at one of San Jose's community gardens, so I signed up for a plot. Last week I was notified that I would have to attend two trainings as a requirement of the State Health Department for participation as a gardener using recycled water.

The first two-hour session included an introduction to recycled water and the benefits and safeguards involved with using the recycled water to grow food and flowers in our plots. After being told that a specially designed $80 "key" made of brass pipe and a standard hose bib faucet (which had to remain onsite) would be our personal responsibility, a lengthy discussion ensued concerning the security of the garden facility at night, with strong warnings especially from other gardeners who had prior experience with failed security at other community gardens centers.

This was much better than hearing concern for the safety of the water for growing food. During introductions, I mentioned that I had used water from Coyote Creek to irrigate my home gardens for 20 years. I expressed my own concern for some of the constituents of the creek water that I used may have contained chemicals that I would probably not want in my drinking water, but that the plants responded very well to a water supply that contained some plant nutrients and did not have any chlorine, which tends to inhibit growth of living things in the soil and the plants themselves.

Next week we will get assigned our plots and soon we should all be tending our 16x20 plots and growing beautiful plants for both food and flowers. Hopefully this pilot will lead to more green spaces in our urban core, as we evolve our culture to appreciate the wisdom of reusing water, whether it's greywater in our home or recycled water in the community derived from our highly treated municipal waste(d)water supply which also came from our homes and businesses.

Click here to view an award winning PBS-style video on water recycling in California called
Water in an Endless Loop

How Clean IS Clean?

I admit that in one election campaign, 1984, I printed and posted signs around my district, using ink and paper and some chemically-based silk screen material. The signs read: Re-Elect Pat Ferraro for Clean Water, Accept No Substitutes. Of course, the substitute I really meant was my competition, three challengers in the primary, and then a runoff election with a conservative poly sci teacher at San Jose City College. The Clean Water part was the buzzword hot button for the electorate. Yes I was FOR, not against, Clean Water. Damn it!

To just finish the story of the election, I was re-elected in the fall runoff, with over 70% of the vote. But not getting a majority of the votes in the primary is usually a deadly situation for an incumbent's future as an elected official. And my opponent, being a specialist on political theory, he knew he had me,

But fortunately for me, an historic event occurred at the Democratic National Convention that summer - a woman was selected to be the vice-presidential candidate in the Fall 1984 Presidential Election. And her name was FERRARO, Aunt Geraldine, as I began referring to her, both in jest and joy. For the next 10 weeks until the election, FERRARO was in no-less-than 80 point fonts on the pages of every newspaper everyday. Women would drive by and cheer out the windows as we were nailing up our campaign signs. My modest and common Italian surname (meaning smith) was suddenly on everyone's lips. So Arnold & I won't be the last persons elected because of name recognition.

But How Clean IS Clean?

This answer requires "wiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over"sort of thinking. The numeric values that define the "SAFE" consumption of any given water pollutant is the remnants of a long and fierce battle between government regulators and the responsible parties that are currently discharging said pollutant.
These battles are fought and fought again if someone proposes to change them. Remember the punt of the arsenic standard from Clinton's to Bush's so-called administration?

When I first began my sanitary engineering career after graduating from San Jose State University in 1970,
we used the simple standard for toxicity of waste(d) water discharges as a per cent survival of some small fish called three-spined stickleback, held in a sample tank for a week. Of course the water was, by then, a week into the receiving water body and not recallable. So the State could fine the discharger instead, often moving local cash back to the state bureaucrats. Everyone loses.

When I became an elected official of a large metropolitan water agency, my focus on the quality of water widened to include every drop of water that passed the lips of the humans living and working in this county. Defining what quality of water is good or bad for human health now involved doctors, with M.D.'s not PhD's in aquatic biology. It also involves all the research scientists feeding the world data and postulations that certain things are indeed good or bad for human health, from their food, their air and their water.

In the mid 1980's, as Silicon Valley companies were cleaning up their terrible and terrifying mess from their leaking chemicals tanks, their friends at the Industrial Protection Agency began peddling a health impact system they called "Acceptable Risk" Using wildly extrapolated lab animal toxicity studies, these federal regulators began to set clean up standards as the number of additional cancers per million people as an acceptable risk and allowed the residual contamination to be present in the drinking water systems using this groundwater for potable uses by the residents of this valley.

When I testified before the State Water Boards that administered the Clean Water Act in California, I would always refer to these new standards as "Acceptable DEATH" which would make them a bit mad, since they were overwhelmed with data and reports claiming this was good science, or good-enough science to get these companies out from the enormous clean up bills that resulted from such gross negligence.

There are about 200 chemicals contaminants that must be tested (out of 80,000 known chemicals, mostly manufactured) in all municipal drinking water systems, all of, once per year, or less frequently if "the concentrations do not change frequently." An annual report is sent to customers once a year. If you rent and don't get a water bill directly, you don't get the report at all.

The Water District and many cities are actively campaigning against the purchase and use of bottled water, claiming in their advertisements that tap water is safe and tastes good(enough) and doesn't cost nearly as much as plastic bottled water, both in dollars and environmental footprint. And they cite the lax regulation of the bottled water purveyors compared with the above scrutiny on testing public water delivery systems.

The taste issue may drive bottled water sales more then health concerns. Tap water almost always has detectable taste issues. Most of that originates in the residual chlorine that's added to the tap water as it leaves the well head or water treatment plant. Even when chlorine has been replaced with on-site generated ozone, chlorine is still added before the water enters the distribution piping to guard against microbial re-growth before it reaches your tap..

I always point out the "We Pollute, We Clean it Up, Business Couldn't be Better" model when I see it.
Knowing that the Chlorox Company owns Brita Water Filter Company has always amused me. But it's the appropriate technology for a household and an inexpensive and efficient way to protect yourself from many possible chemicals plus taste and odor problems that your Less-Than-Clean water may present you.

Never Thirst!