Posted by: rainworks | January 23, 2016

Irrigate with Organic Rainwater

Grow food not lawns water use

 

Add flowers, shade shrubbery, and you too can feed the world with sustainable development and designs using Rainwater Harvesting

I’ll bet my lawn garden is prettier than yours, edible too! I can share with family friends and neighbors also.

Typical rain barrels too small to beat the dry periods? well be ready to upgrade with: The RainBean System

Includes:

The beta (Excel) “RainBean Calculator App” (Includes Drip Irrigation calculations) internal and external water use coefficients and factors along with global monthly and annual climate cycles.

Also includes: a beta (PDF) “Site Planning and RainBean  Installation Manual”

 

Posted by: rainworks | January 16, 2016

Saltwater Intrusion or Rainwater Harvesting

 FL Saltwater Intrusion

The phenomenon that can not be spoken in Florida continues as salt water intrusion moves inland

Instead of pumping our drinking water from the ground water which is contaminated by:

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/

HEAVY METALS:  TOXIC CHEMICALS:  MICROORGANISMS:  ORGANIC:  INORGANIC:

Sources: Human and animal waste;  Soil Runoff;  Water Disinfection chemicals;  Discharge from petroleum refineries,  fire retardants,  ceramics,  electronics,  lead solder;  Discharge of drilling wastes;  Discharge from steel,  metal factories;  Discharge from plastic and fertilizer factories, and pulp mills;  Erosion of natural deposits;  Corrosion of household plumbing systems;  Runoff from fertilizer use;  Leaking from septic tanks, sewage;   Leaching from ore-processing sites;  Discharge from electronics, glass, and drug factories;  Runoff from herbicide used on row crops;  Discharge from industrial chemical factories;  Runoff from insecticides; etc.

Why not promote Rain Water Harvesting to help reduce this crisis and bypass some of the above contaminants. As far back as 1973 I lost my job as a plumber due to a building moratorium in the St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and Tampa, Fl area, because of a severe water shortage. However, I was able to acquire a position as an Aerial Photo Navigator  utilizing my Viet Nam experiences. One of my tasks was to map the Pasco County to Tampa FL water line while under construction, the many miles long pipeline was 12  feet in diameter.

During that 3 year tenure, my pilot and I had to fly to San Antonio, TX to get the Ziess RMK 15/23 mapping camera calibrated. During that visit while discussing our drinking water crisis, the lab engineers chimed in, that San Antonio also had a water crisis. All the residential and commercial construction north of the city were sucking so much from the aquifer, to the point that water wells south of the city were drying up. So the water crisis was well known 41 years ago.

However, Texas does allow and promote Rain Water Harvesting, even by subsidizing homeowner’s RWH implementations.

One Texas man has a perfect solution 

Isn’t it time Florida considers a similar but more robust solution?

BTW, there are Bottled Water companies in Florida which use Rain Water Harvesting as their resource.

With this in mind I am about to launch my project to assist American Citizens with very clean Rain Water Harvesting.

 

 

Posted by: rainworks | December 27, 2015

The Honorable American Farmer Will Not Pollute Americas Rivers

Did my heart good to read the following article. Takes me back to the local farmer who cares about the land and rivers; unlike those in tall office buildings, collecting taxpayer agricultural subsidies.

Agriculture is big threat to water quality. These farmers are doing something about it.

Agriculture, with its fertilizers, has emerged as the biggest threat to water quality in many parts of the US. Some farmers are trying new conservation strategies.

By Richard Mertens, Correspondent DECEMBER 27, 2015 http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/1227/Agriculture-is-big-threat-to-water-quality.-These-farmers-are-doing-something-about-it

DECATUR, IND. — Mike Werling shoulders his way into a field of head-high corn and peers down a row.

DECATUR, IND. — Mike Werling shoulders his way into a field of head-high corn and peers down a row.

“That’s a beautiful sight!” he exclaims.

It was not the corn that delighted Mr. Werling in late September as much as what was growing underneath. Shoots of rapeseed and rye poked up through the dirt, spreading a green flush beneath the tangled leaves. The new plants, sown the week before into the ripe corn, will remain in the field long after the harvest. They’ll protect the soil over the winter and absorb nutrients that might otherwise find their way into the St. Marys River, whose brown-green waters flow past Werling’s farm on their way to Lake Erie.

TAKE ACTION:

Tackling the issues that most impact the environment today

Werling is a determined and enthusiastic conservationist. A corn, soybean, and grain farmer in northeastern Indiana, he has tried almost every trick in the book to stop erosion and loss of nutrients from his fields that pollute the river – a problem that has produced giant algal blooms in Lake Erie and turned its water to pea soup. In 2014, Toledo, Ohio, had to shut down its water supply.

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGEThink you know the US? Take our geography quiz.

PHOTOS OF THE DAY Our best photos of the year 2015

“I’m … trying to figure out how I can do better,” Werling says. “There’s always room for improvement.”

More than four decades after passage of the Clean Water Act, which cut effluent from industries and sewage treatment plants, agriculture has emerged as the biggest threat to water quality in many parts of the United States. Phosphorus and nitrogen from manure and synthetic fertilizers are causing problems not only in the Midwest, but also in places like the Gulf of Mexico, where a “dead zone” has formed as big as Connecticut.

Still, there are signs of change. Farmers are becoming more aware of nutrient pollution and agriculture’s contribution to it, says Wayne Fredericks, a corn and soybean farmer in Iowa and president of the Iowa Soybean Association. And a growing number of them, including both Werling and Mr. Fredericks, are adopting practices known to curb, if not eliminate, nutrient pollution. Many worry that if they don’t do more on their own, government will force them.

“We know we have issues here,” Fredericks says.

TAKE ACTION:

Tackling the issues that most impact the environment today

The soybean association promotes new conservation strategies, such as building artificial wetlands and underground “bioreactors” to capture nutrients in drainage systems. A research program encourages members to experiment on their farms and share the results with others. Fredericks, for one, has been trying different kinds of cover crops, including radishes, sometimes scattering the seed from airplanes.

Werling also has tried plenty of things. He has stopped plowing, planted swaths of grass to slow runoff and filter out sediments, engineered a drainage ditch to become a long wetland in heavy rain, and figured out how to inject fertilizer into the ground when he plants instead of scattering it on the surface beforehand.

But many farmers remain skeptical. “They ask me why I’m wasting my money on cover crops,” Fredericks says. Most farmers are reluctant to depart from established methods, he says. They are especially reluctant to do anything that could increase their costs or reduce their yields.

Economics of curbing the problem

Indeed, the economics of curbing nutrient pollution has been a major obstacle. Conservation on farms has long depended on the voluntary participation of individual farmers, with federal and state governments, and sometimes private groups, offering financial incentives. The subsidies help because while farmers bear most of the costs of curbing the pollution, most of the benefits accrue downstream.

And the costs are high. For example, the US Department of Agriculture’s Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative is spending $30 million a year to reduce nutrient pollution in dozens of high-priority watersheds. Fertilizers washing down the Mississippi each summer create the dead zone in the Gulf. However, it would cost $2.7 billion annually to reduce nutrient pollution enough to shrink the area, a 2014 study estimates.

This dilemma has inspired some agricultural scientists to seek more cost-effective solutions. In Wisconsin, the Pecatonica River Project grew out of controversy over a proposal to require all Wisconsin farmers to install buffer strips – swaths of grass – along rivers and streams to reduce phosphorus pollution. The project targeted the worst polluters instead. After subsidizing improvements on eight farms, researchers found a 37 percent decrease in phosphorus in the Pecatonica.

“What we wanted was to find something that works within a given system to produce a reduction of phosphorus, but also works for the producers,” says Laura Good, a soil scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Market-based approaches

In some places, farmers, industries, and municipalities are trying market-based approaches, including water quality trading. Such trading allows industries and municipalities to meet their pollution-control obligations by paying local farmers to adopt conservation practices.

One of the oldest projects involves Amish farmers and the Alpine Cheese Co. in Winesburg, Ohio. When Alpine wanted to expand a decade ago, it faced the prospect of spending millions of dollars on new wastewater treatment equipment. Instead, Alpine agreed to pay local farmers, some of whom sold milk to the company, for conservation efforts that resulted in twice the pollution reduction than the technology alone could have achieved.

“It’s just a huge success story,” says Richard Moore, an environmental scientist at Ohio State University and a proponent of small-scale, community-based trading. “Everyone looks at it and sees win-win.”

The Ohio fertilizer industry is trying another market-based approach, with help from the Nature Conservancy: a voluntary certification program for businesses that sell and apply fertilizer on farms. The program trains workers to use scientific principles when deciding the amount, timing, and method of application. For example, it’s better to fertilize close to planting time than in the fall after the harvest.

The program also requires soil testing to determine just how much fertilizer a field really needs. Farmers often apply too much, researchers say.

Dubious of the results

While supporters extol these and other efforts, many experts are dubious. They say that current efforts, however promising, are just too little to make a meaningful difference, and they question the voluntary approach long favored by federal and state governments and most farm groups.

“The fundamental problem is we’ve relied almost entirely on voluntary programs – in a sense bribing farmers to do this, putting money on the table and hoping to attract volunteers,” says Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the Washington-based Environmental Working Group. “That approach has failed, for a whole bunch of reasons.”

The Clean Water Act doesn’t allow the federal government to regulate agriculture, but it does give the government authority to set water quality standards. In some places, like Chesapeake Bay, the Environmental Protection Agency has used this authority to force states to set limits on nitrogen and phosphorus and to develop strategies for meeting the limits. But critics say it has been reluctant to push too hard.

“The states are not very happy with notions of a strong federal presence,” says David Moreau, a research scientist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. A 2012 National Academy of Sciences report that Professor Moreau oversaw concluded that reducing nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River basin needed stronger federal leadership – which he says has not come.

In a few cases, regulatory pressure is mounting at the state level. Worried about conditions in Lake Erie, the Ohio legislature last year passed a law forbidding farmers to apply manure and other fertilizers on frozen ground and before heavy rains.

Meanwhile, environmental groups and others are applying legal pressure to try to force governments – and farmers – to do more. One place is Iowa. In March, the Des Moines Water Works sued the supervisors of three rural counties over agricultural drainage that officials say is responsible for rising levels of nitrates in the Raccoon River, a source of the city’s drinking water. The case, which could also have consequences for farmers in other areas, is scheduled to go to trial next year.

Good news, bad news

“These are not simple questions,” says Bob Perciasepe, a former EPA official who heads the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a nonprofit in Arlington, Va. “But the good news is we generally know what needs to get done. The bad news is we’ve yet to figure out what the approach is to make that happen.”

On his farm in Indiana, Werling says he doesn’t have all the answers. But he keeps tinkering, trying new things. For him, as for many farmers, conservation is as much art as science, as much skill and conviction as biology and economics.

“It’s a matter of learning a new way of farming,” he says.

Occasionally, Werling invites other farmers to see what he’s been doing. A hundred or more will show up on these days. Not many are prepared to follow his example.

“I’m unusual in the way I farm,” he says. “But I think it’s the right way to solve the problem.”

Posted by: rainworks | December 8, 2015

Just Another Groundwater Contamination

As I am about to launch “The RainBean System” via Indiegogo Crowdfunding; just before Christmas, I ran across the recently attached article:

However, a portion of my Campaign document included information from the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Ground water contamination with the following: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/

HEAVY METALS:  TOXIC CHEMICALS:  MICROORGANISMS:  ORGANIC:  INORGANIC:

Sources: Human and animal waste;  Soil Runoff;  Water Disinfection chemicals;  Discharge from petroleum refineries,  fire retardants,  ceramics,  electronics,  lead solder;  Discharge of drilling wastes;  Discharge from steel,  metal factories;  Discharge from plastic and fertilizer factories, and pulp mills;  Erosion of natural deposits;  Corrosion of household plumbing systems;  Runoff from fertilizer use;  Leaking from septic tanks, sewage;   Leaching from ore-processing sites;  Discharge from electronics, glass, and drug factories;  Runoff from herbicide used on row crops;  Discharge from industrial chemical factories;  Runoff from insecticides; etc

So now when is the EPA going to add Uranium to the list to Defend us from potentially dangerous drinking water.

Read the following article; look for “. If you’ve got a well at home, that’s your business,” said Bruce Macler, a San Francisco-based water program toxicologist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Water Quality Concerns:

Why can RainBean Harvested Rainwater have less contamination?

With the RainBean System, most airborne pollutants are eliminated during the Roof-Wash-Off/First Flush procedure.

While soil, wells, streams, reservoirs, and lake contaminates are continuously concentrating in the soils, lakes, and streams.

So now to share this article about Uranium contamination of groundwater:

Fear at the tap, Uranium contaminates water in the West

http://news.yahoo.com/fear-tap-uranium-contaminates-water-west-051019824.html

AP

By ELLEN KNICKMEYER and SCOTT SMITH1 hour ago

8 Dec 2015

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — In a trailer park tucked among irrigated orchards that help make California’s San Joaquin Valley the richest farm region in the world, 16-year-old Giselle Alvarez, one of the few English-speakers in the community of farmworkers, puzzles over the notices posted on front doors: There’s a danger in their drinking water.

Uranium, the notices warn, tests at a level considered unsafe by federal and state standards. The law requires the park’s owners to post the warnings. But they are awkwardly worded and in English, a language few of the park’s dozens of Spanish-speaking families can read.

“It says you can drink the water — but if you drink the water over a period of time, you can get cancer,” said Alvarez, whose working-class family has no choice but keep drinking and cooking with the tainted tap water daily, as they have since Alvarez was just learning to walk. “They really don’t explain.”

Uranium, the stuff of nuclear fuel for power plants and atom bombs, increasingly is showing in drinking water systems in major farming regions of the U.S. West — a naturally occurring but unexpected byproduct of irrigation, of drought, and of the overpumping of natural underground water reserves.

An Associated Press investigation in California’s central farm valleys — along with the U.S. Central Plains, among the areas most affected — found authorities are doing little to inform the public at large of the growing risk.

That includes the one out of four families on private wells in this farm valley who, unknowingly, are drinking dangerous amounts of uranium, researchers determined this year and last. Government authorities say long-term exposure to uranium can damage kidneys and raise cancer risks, and scientists say it can have other harmful effects.

 

In this swath of farmland, roughly 250 miles long and encompassing major cities, up to one in 10 public water systems have raw drinking water with uranium levels that exceed federal and state safety standards, the U.S. Geological Survey has found.

More broadly, nearly 2 million people in California’s Central Valley and in the U.S. Midwest live within a half-mile of groundwater containing uranium over the safety standards, University of Nebraska researchers said in a study published in September.

Everything from state agencies to tiny rural schools are scrambling to deal with hundreds of tainted public wells — more regulated than private wells under safe-drinking-water laws.

That includes water wells at the Westport Elementary School, where 450 children from rural families study outside the Central California farm hub of Modesto.

At Westport’s playground, schoolchildren take a break from tether ball to sip from fountains marked with Spanish and English placards: “SAFE TO DRINK.”

The school, which draws on its own wells for its drinking fountains, sinks and cafeteria, is one of about 10 water systems in the farm region that have installed uranium removal facilities in recent years. Prices range from $65,000 for the smallest system to the millions of dollars.

Just off Westport’s playground, a school maintenance chief jangles the keys to the school’s treatment operation, locked in a shed the size of a garage. Inside, a system of tubes, dials and canisters resembling large scuba tanks removes up to a pound a year of uranium from the school’s wells.

The uranium gleaned from the school’s well water and other Central California water systems is handled like the nuclear material it is — taken away by workers in masks, gloves and other protective garments, said Ron Dollar, a vice president at Water Remediation Technology, a Colorado-based firm.

It is then processed into nuclear fuel for power plants, Dollar said.

Before treatment, Westport’s water tests up to four times state and federal limits. After treatment, it’s safe for the children, teachers and staff to drink.

Other Central California farm schools opt to buy bottled water in place of drinking fountains, which are off limits because of uranium and other contaminants.

“We don’t have a choice,” said Terri Lancaster, principal of the 260 students at Waukena elementary school in rural Tulare County. “You do what you have to do.”

Until winning a state grant to pay for trucked-in drinking water, her school was spending $10,000 a year from its general fund on bottled water.

Meanwhile, the city of Modesto, with a half-million residents, recently spent more than $500,000 to start blending water from one contaminated well to dilute the uranium to safe levels. The city has retired a half-dozen other wells with excess levels of uranium.

State officials don’t track spending on uranium-contaminated wells. But the state’s Water Resources Control Board identified at least $16.7 million the state has spent since 2010 helping public water systems deal with high levels of uranium.

In coming years, more public water systems likely will be compelled to invest in such costly fixes, said Miranda Fram, a researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey in Sacramento.

Fram and colleagues at USGS have taken the lead over the past decade in identifying the problem in farm centers including Central California, which produces a quarter of the country’s agriculture.

Geologists and water experts are still piecing together the ways levels of uranium exceeding federal and state health standards are seeping into more public water systems and household wells in major farm areas.

Fram and her colleagues believe the amount of uranium increased in Central Valley drinking water supplies over the last 150 years with the spread of farming.

In California, as in the Rockies, mountain snowmelt washes uranium-laden sediment to the flatlands, where groundwater is used to irrigate crops.

 

Irrigation allows year-round farming, and the irrigated plants naturally create a weak acid that is leeching more and more uranium from sediment, said Fram and Bryant Jurgens, a fellow researcher at the federal agency’s office in California’s capital.

Groundwater pumping pulls the contaminated water down into the earth, where it is tapped by wells that supply drinking water.

California is now experiencing its driest four-year span on record, and farmers and other users are pumping groundwater at the highest rates ever, helping to pull yet more uranium into areas of aquifers tapped by water wells.

“This has been a decades-long process that has occurred,” Jurgens said.

And even if authorities were to intervene to somehow curb uranium contamination — and no such effort is under way — “we expect that it’s going to take many decades to reverse this,” Jurgens said.

 

The USGS calculates that the average level of uranium in public-supply wells of the eastern San Joaquin Valley increased 17 percent from 1990 to the mid-2000s. The number of public-supply wells with unsafe levels of uranium, meantime, climbed from 7 percent to 10 percent over the same period there.

But the problem remains so unpublicized that even Fresno County farmer Mark Sorensen — who grows grapes and blueberries in one of the most impacted parts of the country, and deals with water issues routinely as a leader of the local farm bureau — admits to not knowing about it.

“To be honest, I have never spoken to anybody about uranium,” said Sorensen, a fifth-generation farmer. “I’ve never even heard of it in drinking water.”

Scientists have long known that uranium can damage kidneys and increase the risks of cancer when consumed over a year or more, which is why authorities have set maximum levels for drinking water.

Drinking water tainted by uranium is the chief concern — but uranium also sticks to potatoes, radishes and other root vegetables if they’re not properly washed. (While studies have confirmed livestock and people can ingest high levels of uranium by eating contaminated vegetation, scientists have yet to fully research the dangers involved.)

 

Though people think mainly about uranium’s radioactivity, the danger in water mainly comes from the toxic chemical effects of the metal.

Old public health models for uranium date back to the U.S. uranium boom of the 1940s and 1950s, when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission set off a nuclear-age mining boom in the Central Valley and other points West as the country sought to build uranium stockpiles. Countless miners succumbed to cancer from breathing radioactive gas.

But those models now need revising to deal with the larger population exposed through sources like drinking water, academics say.

“We should not have any doubts as to whether drinking water with uranium in it is a problem or not. It is,” said Doug Brugge, professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. “The larger the population that’s drinking this water, the more people that are going to be affected.”

Because “there has not been an appreciation of the number of people exposed, it has received a lot less attention” than it should, said researcher Johnnye Lewis at the University of New Mexico, which along with Brugge’s team is studying the health impacts of uranium on communities.

Research teams at Tufts and the University of New Mexico also link long-term exposure to signs of reproductive and genetic damage, among other problems.

In California, changes in water standards since the late 2000s have mandated testing for uranium in public water systems, and the state frequently helps public water systems deal with wells testing at high levels.

For private well owners and small water systems, however, officials were unable to point to any public health campaigns in the most-affected areas or any help with testing or dealing with wells that do test for high levels.

USGS researchers recently sampled 170 domestic water wells in the San Joaquin Valley, and found 20 to 25 percent bore uranium at levels that broke federal and state limits.

State and federal regulators say the U.S. Congress, outlining drinking water standards, has limited their enforcement authority to public water systems. “Your home’s your castle. If you’ve got a well at home, that’s your business,” said Bruce Macler, a San Francisco-based water program toxicologist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Uranium is on the radar of California water officials, but the officials are paying more attention to other farming-related contaminants, including nitrates, as well as simply having enough water in the fourth year of the state’s drought, said John Borkovich, head of water quality at the state Water Resources Control Board.

“When it comes to private domestic wells, we do what we can to get the word out,” Borkovich said. “It’s safe to say that there’s always more that can be done.”

The Associated Press commissioned sampling of wells at five homes in the countryside outside Modesto, to look more closely at whether unregulated private wells that families depend on were as vulnerable as contaminated public water systems nearby.

The results: Water from two of the five wells contained dangerous levels of uranium.

None of the five families, however, had ever heard that uranium could be a problem in groundwater — let alone that it was a problem in their area.

 

“That’s something I’m sure a lot of people are unaware of,” said Reyna Rico, whose rural home overlooking farm fields had a well that tested three times the federal and state health limits.

“It would be nice to be informed, so we can make an informed decision, and those wells can be tested,” said a resident nearby, Michelle Norleen, who was relieved to know that her own water — unlike those of two of her neighbors — tested below the limits in the AP sampling.

Even for bigger water systems for which government help is available, accessing safe water doesn’t always come quickly. That’s true at the Double L Mobile Ranch outside Fresno, where Giselle Alvarez lives in the one-room trailer with her mother and father.

Authorities have recorded years of tests showing dangerous levels of uranium in the water provided to the Double L’s low-income residents.

The park’s owner, Carl Hunt, minimized the health risks to the families who live there.

“Not afraid of that water at all,” Hunt told the AP.

An independent water test commissioned by the AP found water at Hunt’s trailer park remained over the limits for uranium.

Officials trying to set up delivery of safe water for the Double L’s families have arranged with a local farm town, Kerman, to run its own water lines out to the trailer park — but Kerman is awaiting funding to deal with its own, uranium-contaminated well first. State officials expect it will take another three years to get safe water to the trailer park.

For now, families in the rural trailer park mostly throw away the regular water notices, unable to comprehend their meaning. Suspicious in general of the park’s tap water, families at the Double L who can afford it buy bottled water.

That doesn’t include Alvarez’s family.

“We can’t really do anything about it,” she says on the wooden steps of her mobile home. “As you can see, we’re not rich.”

___

Manuel Valdes and Serdar Tumgoren contributed to this report.

 

Posted by: rainworks | September 27, 2015

The 50 year Drinking Water Cycle!

The 50 year Drinking Water Cycle is upon us for the next 50 years, therefore it’s not sustainable!

Click to review the following links.

Drinking water systems imperiled by failing infrastructure

Help yourself with a sustainable Freshwater resource. It’s in your hands to provide drinking water, for gardening, water for bathing, and all your household needs. A decentralized and sustainable freshwater supply for your well being.

Coming soon; a Rain Water Harvesting infrastructure kit  for your Home, Business, or Farm.

Posted by: rainworks | September 26, 2015

Drinking Water Costs Will Forever Rise

One solution may be the adoption of Rain Water Harvesting. Could this Alternative fresh water solution help in the reduction of the energy costs of supplying drinking water. Not just industrial water use; for washing car parts, the manufacturing of bottled water containers, crop irrigation,  etc, but also the many other industries, businesses and government uses that use a municipalities processed drinking water for non drinking water uses.

Adding the collection of rainwater as a resource can alleviate much of the pressure demand on a Water Works system. I find the below article relating to drinking water costs are attributed to the cost of energy, and a more sustainable freshwater resource.

Small scale Conservation would also add a beneficial factor for analysis. an

One drop Facts:

  • 120 drops = 5mL

  • 1 gallon = 3785 mL

  • 90840 Drops in 1 Gallon

  • If a faucet dripped once a second how many gallons of water would it waste?

  • It would waste 347 Gallons of water a year!

  • 1 year ~ 31,536,000 seconds

  • 24 drops in 1 mL

  • 1 gallon/3785 mL X (1 mL/24 drops) X (1 drop/ 1 s) X (31,536,000 s/ 1 year) = 347.1598415 gallons / year

  • NOW ask:

  • What is the Kw energy loss if the One Drop were a Hot water resource?

Now review the following recently published article

As much as 80% of water isn’t used for drinking or bathing.

A Rain Water Harvesting implementation can cost less than drilling a home water well. Providing an ROI in as few as 5-7 years.

Coming soon, a complete RainWater Harvesting infrastructure kit.

‘Crypto’ Parasite Outbreaks Increasing in Pools Across US

LiveScience – By Rachael Rettner'Crypto' Parasite Outbreaks Increasing in Pools Across US

http://news.yahoo.com/crypto-parasite-outbreaks-increasing-pools-across-us-172439156.html

Now, what about Cryptosporidium in harvested rainwater?

Also as with potable rainwater we must utilize many preventive measures in providing a clean drinking water infrastructure. The captured rainwater should be the cleanest possible in the storage tank (cistern).This has been accomplished with the RainBean System Design With its dual stage debris diverter (particulate size above 1.0 micron) is separated out, and with the pre-filter (0.1 micron stainless steel) most of the Crypto hosting materials: sediment/debris is discharged. The captured rainwater is then directed toward the cistern. However, the RainBean System goes one step further, which includes a First Flush component; which collects a calculated amount of the roofs wash off water during the beginning of a rain event; it is slowly discharged as graywater. Thereafter, the remaining clean rainwater is re-directed to the point of entry (POE) of the storage cistern(s).

The total purpose of the system design is to have as near as possible; a potable water resource without having to occasionally clean out the cisterns. But when using fresh water from the cisterns as potable water, additional treatment is advised. Certainly Chlorine can be added to the cistern, but it does not kill all the Cryptosporidium, and leaves a bad taste. So at the point of use (POU), additional filters are required; a 20 micron sediment filter and a 0.5 micron Carbon Block filter will trap 99.9% of Cryptosporidium and even Guardia. Although for that ultimate confidence of potability; and most economically, a UV light system can be used. Another option, but more expensive is a whole house reverse Osmosis system.

Posted by: rainworks | June 16, 2015

A Thirsty Colorado Is Battling Over Who Owns Raindrops

Deb Neeley, an office manager and urban farmer who lives in Denver, collects water from a gutter off her greenhouse. In Colorado, rainwater barrels are still largely illegal. Credit Michael Ciaglo for The New York Times.

New York Times By JACK HEALY JUNE 15, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us/a-thirsty-colorado-battles-over-the-destiny-of-its-raindrops-drought.html?_r=0

Now Think Eminent Domain

Maybe it’s time to apply the laws of “Eminent Domain” to the acquisition of clean water resources. Governments have been using Eminent Domain to take private land to use for other purposes, many times for commercial interests, and right of ways.

There is really no or little loss of ground water from Rain Water Harvesting, captured Rainwater(rain barrels/cisterns) is initially used as fresh water and then slowly added to the ground water as Graywater, even during droughts. Normally there is a ground water loss through evaporation from several inches of the earth’s surface after a rain event. Also there is a great loss through storm water runoff during that same rain event. The use of Xeriscaping techniques (landscaping technique) can decrease or eliminate runoff. Many agricultural operations waste water through out moded irrigation techniques (ditches, canals and overhead spraying), where possible drip irrigation would be more beneficial.

The moral to the story is to allow the sustainable recycling of a precious resource; a “Clean Water Resource” for human lives.

Posted by: rainworks | May 28, 2015

Survive Droughts by Going Low-Tech for Sustainability

Australians Survived a 13-Year Drought by Going Low-Tech

http://news.yahoo.com/australians-survived-13-drought-going-low-tech-221536226.html 

We can do it in America also. In a big way, and providing tens of thousands of shovel ready jobs, and increase American industrial production and sales of tanks, plumbing, accessories, test kits, etc.

Posted by: rainworks | April 19, 2015

Water Quality Puts ‘Iowa Nice’ to a Test

Brent Johnson straddling a tilled field and wetlands on his farm in Calhoun County, Iowa, one of three counties that have been sued over nitrates seeping into water supplies.                     Credit Ryan Donnell for The New York Times


Quandary, we need to make decisions about our food abundance and water quality. It’s not only question of balance, but the concept of working together. Do we promote GMO crops, and their required increase of Chemical fertilizers, Herbicides and Pesticides which reduces soil health? Or adopt Rain Water Harvesting projects to balance out the polluted existing water resources for a communities drinking water? Certainly many large buildings, barns, Storage parks, etc have large roof footprints for rainwater capture with hardly any nitrates. Is this a possible solution?

The following article points out the related crisis with our fresh water resources.

APRIL 18, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/us/conflict-over-soil-and-water-quality-puts-iowa-nice-to-a-test.html

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers