People helping People, No government or Corporate Bureaucracy. Its not quite Appalachia but close to it.

http://operationsafedrinkingwater.org/sos-a-human-tidal-wave-on-the-move

Why the SOS?

A heavily populated indigenous “homeland” is just to the south of us, but like many “homelands” set aside for indigenous people it’s extremely poor.

Large dams started construction where we work, attracting thousands of indigenous men — and their families — in search of jobs and medical help often unavailable in their homeland. Thousands of school-aged children came with their parents.

From  Joe Bass

FOCUSING ON MAINLAND SCHOOLS which are much larger than island schools.
Schools are often double or triple the size of island schools. Valle Risco has 985 students. (We installed a 5-tank MEGA SYSTEM for them.

Photo – La Gloria has 500 – plus students and a mega-system from OSDW

For more go to https://www.facebook.com/#!/safewaterguy

A way of working with nature, and it beats the heck out of Concrete and Steel!

http://www.snotr.com/video/7331/The_Living_Bridge 

Low doses of BPA are worse for you than high doses

By Sarah Laskow

19 Mar 2012 10:24 AM

http://grist.org/list/low-doses-of-bpa-are-worse-for-you-than-high-doses/

The pesticide and plastics industry have a lot invested in the safety of chemicals like bisphenol A and atrazine. Such “endocrine-disrupting” chemicals mimic human hormones, and research has tied them to health problems like cancer and infertility. But these industries have always held up studies that look at exposure to huge doses of endocrine disruptors. In massive quantities, the industries point out, these chemicals don’t cause problems. Therefore, they must be safe.

But those huge doses may actually obscure the chemicals’ effects, a new study argues. Endocrine-disrupting compounds “can have effects at low doses that are not predicted by effects at higher doses,” the authors write. In other words, low levels of exposure to these chemicals — like the levels that you’d get from, say, drinking water out of a BPA-laced plastic bottle — can have worse effects than high levels of exposure.

It’s a little confusing, because we’ve been trained to assume that more chemicals equal more problems. But some chemicals affect our bodies differently in small and large doses. Environmental Health News pulls out this example:

The breast cancer drug tamoxifen “provides an excellent example for how high-dose testing cannot be used to predict the effects of low doses,” according to the report. At low doses, it stimulates breast cancer growth. At higher ones, it inhibits it.

Industries that rely on these chemicals also claim to have proven that low doses aren’t dangerous. But the study authors aren’t buying those claims:

vom Saal and other scientists have said that tests that do not find low-dose effects of chemicals such as BPA are often industry-funded, and they often have tested the wrong animals or the wrong doses, or don’t expose the animals during the most vulnerable time of fetal growth …

“There truly are no safe doses for chemicals that act like hormones, because the endocrine system is designed to act at very low levels,” Vandenberg, a postdoctoral fellow at Tufts University’s Levin Lab Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, told Environmental Health News.

Believe whoever you want, but given industry’s long history of funding obfuscating research on health issues like these, it’s probably safer to side with the scientists.

 

 

Sarah Laskow is a reporter based in New York City who covers environment, energy, and sustainability issues, among other things. Follow her on Twitter.

Ground water Farming communities facing crisis over nitrate pollution, study says

 Solution: They should consider Rain Water Harvesting!

“People were dying, and we didn’t know who was going to be next,” Sonia Lopez, shown with and her son, Leonardo, said of the health problems that she saw in the years after the family moved into the San Jerardo Cooperative in Salinas, Calif.,

By Stett Holbrook

Food & Environment Reporting Network

Nitrate contamination in groundwater from fertilizer and animal manure is severe and getting worse for hundreds of thousands of residents in California’s Central Valley farming communities, according to a study released Tuesday by researchers at the University of California, Davis.

Nearly 10 percent of the 2.6 million people living in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley might be drinking nitrate-contaminated water, researchers found. And if nothing is done to stem the problem, the report warns, nearly 80 percent of residents could be at risk of health and financial problems by 2050.

High nitrate levels in drinking water are known to cause thyroid cancer, skin rashes, hair loss, birth defects and “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal blood disorder in infants.

The report is the most comprehensive assessment so far of nitrate contamination in California’s agricultural areas.

“The problem is much, much, much worse than we thought,” said Angela Schroeter, agricultural regulatory program manager for the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state water agency.

Nitrate-contaminated water is a well-documented fact in many of California’s farming communities.

The agricultural industry, however, has maintained that it is not solely responsible because nitrates come from many sources. While the report focused on California, nitrates in groundwater is a problem that plagues farming communities around the U.S.

But, according to the UC Davis report, 96 percent of nitrate contamination comes from agriculture, while only 4 percent can be traced to water treatment plants, septic systems, food processing, landscaping and other sources.

A financial hit as well

In addition to health risks, tainted water will exact a growing financial toll, the report said. The researchers project that utilities and citizens in the two regions will pay $20 million to $36 million per year for water treatment and alternative supplies for the next 20 years or more.

According to the study, more than 1.3 million people in the two areas currently face increased costs as residents seek alternative sources of water and providers pass on the costs of treatment to ratepayers.

The five counties in the study area – among the top 10 agricultural producing counties in the United States – include about 40 percent of California’s irrigated cropland and more than half of its dairy herds, representing a $13.7 billion slice of the state’s economy.

Water pours from a kitchen tap in a San Jerardo Cooperative home near Salinas, Calif.

The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has produced several reports of its own that show “large-scale degradation” of drinking water aquifers due to nitrates from fertilizer.

“If we don’t address this, we’re going to have a very serious issue in California,” Schroeter said.

Nitrates are odorless, tasteless compounds that form when nitrogen from ammonia and other sources mix with water. While nitrogen and nitrates occur naturally, the advent of synthetic fertilizer has coincided with a dramatic increase in nitrates in drinking water.

Rural residents are at greater risk because they depend on private wells, which are often shallower and not monitored to the same degree as public water sources. Current contamination likely came from nitrates introduced into the soil decades ago. That means even if nitrates were dramatically reduced today, groundwater would still remain polluted for decades to come.

According to the report, removing nitrates from large groundwater basins is extremely costly and not technically feasible. One relatively low-cost alternative is called “pump and fertilize:” Pulling nitrate-saturated water out of the ground and applying it to crops at the right time to ensure more complete nitrate uptake.

Representatives of the California Farm Bureau Federation, the state’s largest agricultural association, would not comment on the report until it was released. But in a written statement, spokesman Dave Kranz said farmers and ranchers have worked on better nitrate management for years.

“Clean drinking water is a high priority for everyone, especially people who live in rural areas,” Kranz said. “Most farmers live where they work and want to be certain that they, their families, their employees, and their neighbors have access to safe water.”

Farmers and ranchers will continue to adapt to new information, technology and science to address nitrate problems, he said. But he said it’s important to “make sure nitrate management programs look at all possible sources to achieve the goal of safe drinking water.”

The safety of groundwater, which is the largest source of drinking water, is managed through the state’s Clean Water Act. But each source of contamination is handled differently, says Schroeter of the Central Coast water board, and agriculture is more lightly regulated than other industries.

‘People were dying’

For the 250 people living in San Jerardo, a farmworker cooperative southeast of Salinas, the threat posed by nitrates is all too familiar. San Jerardo residents live in refurbished old barracks that have been converted into tidy homes.

Sonia Lopez moved into San Jerardo with her parents and five siblings in 1987. The four-bedroom, four-bathroom house was a big improvement over the two-bedroom apartment they once shared. “This was our American dream,” she said.

But something went wrong about nine years ago. Her skin became red and itchy. Her eyes burned. Her hair started falling out. Her family had the same symptoms, and she learned other San Jerardo residents were afflicted, too.

“I got very concerned because some of the residents started passing away from cancers,” she said. “People were dying, and we didn’t know who was going to be next.”

Horacio Amezquita stands beside the water supply for San Jerardo Cooperative in Salinas, Calif. The water is piped in from a clean well two miles away.

While they did not find a cause for the cancers, Lopez and fellow resident Horacio Amezquita learned from health officials that nitrates in their well water had made their eyes red and their hair fall out.

The community also learned that its water had been contaminated with nitrates since at least 1990; over the years, three wells had been drilled and eventually were found to be tainted. Drinking water regulations limit nitrates to less than 45 parts per million. One well measured 106 ppm, or more than double the limit.

After repeatedly asking Monterey County officials to help, Lopez and Amezquita finally got a filtration system in 2006, and in 2010, the community connected to a new well two miles away that doesn’t need to be purified. The cost to Monterey County was about $5 million. San Jerardo residents used to pay about $25 a month for water; now, they pay as much as $130 a month.

Lopez still worries about her health, and like the UC Davis researchers, she warns the nitrate problem will only get worse.

“Our problem is going to be your problem,” she said. “It’s everyone’s problem. There are solutions, but we need the people in charge of our communities to do something about it.”

UC Davis hydrologist Thomas Harter led the team of researchers from the Center for Watershed Sciences that prepared the report, which took 20 months to complete and involved 26 scientists. The report had been requested by the Legislature in 2008.

Water-quality experts said the study provides a new and comprehensive look into the sources of the contamination, the chemicals in the water and the people affected.

Laurel Firestone, co-executive director of Tulare County’s Community Water Center, a nonprofit that helps communities with poor drinking water, said not only does the study show that the nitrate problem isn’t limited to a few isolated rural communities, but it also places responsibility squarely on agriculture’s shoulders. Firestone hopes there will now be the political will to tackle the issue.

“This isn’t a new problem,” she said. “We’ve known it for decades, but we’ve failed to do anything about it.”

Fertilizer fee suggested

The report lists a few potential solutions to help pay for the cleanup of contaminated water, including a fee on fertilizer sales and greater “mill fees” on the production of fertilizer. In California, farmers do not pay sales tax on fertilizer, while water districts and communities bear the cost of cleaning up tainted wells.

Firestone said a fertilizer fee could be a powerful tool because there’s currently no disincentive to use fertilizer and few incentives to switch to safer agricultural practices.

“I think it’s clear that to address this problem, we need agriculture to lead the way,” she said.

Because of the might of the state’s agricultural industry, there has been little political will to tackle the nitrate problem. It will be up to the Legislature to decide how to respond to Harter’s report, but regulatory change might be coming as soon as this week.

The Central Coast water board, one of several regional water agencies that enforce the state’s Clean Water Act, will hold a highly anticipated meeting on Wednesday to decide on new agricultural regulations aimed at reducing the release of nitrates, pesticides and other chemicals into aquifers, as well as creeks, rivers, lakes and the Pacific Ocean.

“We justify these regulations based on very severe threats to water quality,” said Schroeter. “We have the most toxic water in the state.”

Despite the report’s grim news, water policy expert Jennifer Clary said she believes change is coming. She is a program manager for Clean Water Action, a national environmental advocacy group. She said the Central Coast water board’s plan would be a first step toward regulating groundwater contamination.

While she said the proposed rules aren’t perfect, “It’s going to be better than nothing. You can’t continue with nothing.”

Harter, the UC Davis researcher, said the study’s long-term projections for nitrate contamination reveal “just how extensive and interconnected these impacts are.” While his report outlined a number of policy choices, he doesn’t recommend one particular course of action.

“We can certainly do better, but it’s going to take an investment that we will all have to share. … That’s a discussion I hope we have.”

This article was produced by the Food & Environment Reporting Network, an independent and nonprofit investigative news organization.

 http://news.yahoo.com/report-calif-nitrate-contamination-spreading-075906496.html 

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/13/10657809-farming-communities-facing-crisis-over-nitrate-pollution-study-says

Federal government to allow Florida less stringent water standards

Harvested Rain Water can easily fit all Quality Standards at a very small cost and effort. This SOLUTION would provide 1,000,000’s shovel ready JOBS. Water Works (Municipal and Private Companies) need to re-manufacture All the water to meet those above standards, (EPS’s Classes I-V) and most of the times 100% of the re-manufactured water is done to the first Standard “Drink” (EPA’s Class I). Far Far more Class I water is used for Agricultural and Industrial use that just for drinking, which is a waste of $’s. This includes the 1,000’s of truckloads annually of Chlorine, Fluoride each, plus many more chemicals, just for each community water treatment plant.

It’s time Americans learn about personal responsibility, and maintain their own water supplies, Community water supplies, etc, and in this way learn how to help clean up the planet!

Read the following article to understand the Political input for those standards:

By Craig Pittman, Times Staff Writer

In Print: Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Despite complaints by environmental groups that it will lead to more pollution, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved Florida’s request to change state standards for its waterways so they aren’t as stringent.

The new standards allow for some waterways — man-made canals, for instance — to be classified as no longer appropriate for swimming or fishing, allowing only “incidental contact.”

The reason, say state officials, is that cleaning them up would cost more than it’s worth.

State Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman Dee Ann Miller said changing the classifications for such waterways allows the DEP “to focus protection on our most valuable water resources.”

But Linda Young of the Clean Water Network contended that the change “is so broad and all-encompassing that it undermines the basis for Florida water protection.” The fact that the Obama administration approved it, she said, means Obama is “as bad or worse than Bush” at protecting water quality.

The current state standards were created in 1968. They divide the state’s waterways into five categories based on their usage.

Class I is for drinking water. Class II means it’s clean enough to eat the oysters and other shellfish harvested there. Class III means it’s clean enough for someone to swim there or to eat the fish caught there. Class IV means it’s only good for irrigating crops, and Class V is primarily for industrial use.

No one is supposed to dump pollution into those waterways in quantities sufficient to change their use. In other words, no one can degrade a Class III waterway so that it becomes a Class IV or V. To make sure that doesn’t happen, the state sets limits on how much pollution can be dumped into each waterway per day, something called a total maximum daily load.

In 1998, state officials drew up a list of 1,200 Florida waterways that had trouble meeting their classification because they were impaired by pollution. About 80 percent had problems with high levels of nutrients and low levels of dissolved oxygen — both manifestations of fertilizer-heavy runoff, which is the target of some controversial regulations that federal officials plan to impose in Florida.

Most of the state’s waterways are designated as Class III, safe for fishing and swimming. What the EPA has approved is a new subcategory called Class III-Limited, which is aimed at waterways that the state says can’t be cleaned up enough to meet Class III status without spending more than it’s worth.

The rules for each one would be site-specific. In those waterways, boating might be allowed, for instance, but not prolonged physical contact with the water.

“They wanted a classification that didn’t have to be clean enough for people to swim in,” Young said.

Class III-Limited would also not have the same kinds of fish and other aquatic life found in a natural system. Whether people would be allowed to catch and eat those fish — or would want to — is a matter of debate.

A Sept. 6 letter from EPA official Jim Giattina to DEP Secretary Herschel Vinyard says the Class III-Limited designation is being approved because it meets the legal requirements for “the highest uses that are attainable.”

The EPA’s letter says the state cannot change any waterways to the new classification without showing that the change “will result in the protection of all existing uses, as well as the standards of downstream waters.” The DEP must post a public notice and also let EPA review the change first.

Craig Pittman can be reached at craig@sptimes.com

Report urges world to secure drinking water access

U N s Green Economy report

By LOUISE NORDSTROM – Associated Press  AP 26aug2011

STOCKHOLM (AP) — Investing as little as 0.16 percent of the world’s gross domestic product — or $198 billion per year — could give half a billion people regular access to safe drinking water within four years, a U.N. official said Friday.

That would halve the number of people who risk serious illness and death on a daily basis, the United Nations Environment Program said.

The findings are presented in the U.N.’s Green Economy report, which also warns that if the global community continues to ignore water services investments, demand for water risks outstripping supply by 40 percent before 2030.

UNEP spokesman Nick Nuttall said the world total of people without access to safe drinking water currently totals around 1 billion people.

According to the report, people living in countries such as Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam are particularly prone to catching waterborne diseases because of the poor water sanitation there.

“Accelerated investment in water-dependent ecosystems, water infrastructure and water management, coupled with effective policies, can boost water and food security, improve human health and promote economic growth,” said U.N. Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

Prof. Mike Young, lead author of the water chapter of the report, said that “without this investment and policy reform, water supply crises will become increasingly common.”

UNEP said that more water productivity, recycling, new dams and desalination plants could largely help avoid increased drinking water scarcity but that money also needs to be put toward infrastructure, water policy reforms and technologies.

The findings were presented during this week’s World Water Week in Stockholm.

Its participants also signed a statement urging next year’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to commit to achieving “universal provisioning of safe drinking water, adequate sanitation and modern energy services by the year 2030.” That would include making water safer and more available, reducing water pollution, increasing the quantity of recycled water, and using water more efficiently in energy production, agriculture and the food supply chain.

Message from Blogger: Rainworks

SOLUTIONS:

Rain Water Harvesting (RWH): Benefits and Advantages

1.     Applicable to rural and/or urban environments

2.     High quality water

3.     Soft water

4.     It is free water

5.     Reduces Erosion

6.     Needs minimal treatment for potable use

7.     Reduces utility bills for consumers

8.     RWH are relatively low-cost systems

This is a perfect example of utilizing the most available and abundant resource for clean fresh water – Rainwater Harvesting. Already so many cities, counties, and states recognize this solution. Many parts of the globe utilize this resource. It is time to promote this resource locally and put many of our local labor force back to work.

This is a: “Shovel Ready Work” on a local level!

An example would start with a new Steel roof, they now have 50 year warranties and are designed to look like Tile, Slate, Standing Seam, or even shingles in a multitude of colors. They are fireproof, Wind proof, and a perfect solution to help the salability of your home.  Next is the Point of Entry Infrastructure (POE) for your fresh water. Add a professional gutter system with leaf guards, (the 1^st line of defense for clean water), and add a diverter as the 2^nd line of defense for clean water, these will divert any large materials missed (from by the gutters leaf guard) to your storm drain.

3^rd is the Roof wash off system,  this will finally provide you with a clean water source to fill your cistern (Extra large rain barrel). By ensuring  the remaining water entering the catchment cisterns are free of; dust, pollens, remaining bird dropping residue, and other small particulate matter which may even cause allergies, or carry harmful micro organisms/pathogens. The roof wash off diverts the 1^st gallon+ per 10 sq feet of roof surface washing the dust, pollens, of finer debris from wind born seed dispersals, bird droppings, Squirrel droppings, etc. This can be considered Gray water and useful for Irrigation practices. Gray water is simply wash water; laundry, showers, flushing toilets, and bathroom vanity).

Finally after that gray water is diverted the clean Rainwater enters the storage Cistern. From the Cistern to the home, also known as Point of Use (POU), you need to be concerned with Water qualities a for potable (Consumption) and Non-potable; washing Irrigation etc.

Why Catch the Rain?

Unsustainable Water Facts:

•       90 percent of all groundwater systems under major cities in China are contaminated

•      75 percent of India’s rivers and lakes are so polluted that they should not be used for drinking or bathing

•      60 percent of rural Russians drink water from contaminated wells

•      20 percent of all surface water in Europe is seriously threatened

•      Globally – Major rivers are so degraded that they no longer support aquatic life

•      UN warns of rising demand for clean water  AP 16 March, 2009

•      Rivers are siphoned off for the agricultural and other domestic uses that at times 90% for the usual outflow volume never reaches the ocean

•      February 4, 2009 – With California in a critical drought, every shower, load of laundry and glass of tap water counts. But only in Bolinas, CA could those things cost you your water connection. Each customer – with the exception of schools and some businesses – may use no more than 150 gallons a day, about 4,500 gallons each month.

February 4, 2009  – Reporting from Washington — California’s farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said Tuesday. February 27, 2009 SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency Friday because of three years of below-average rain and snowfall in California, a step that urges urban water agencies to reduce water use by 20 percent.

Black Gold to Blue

1.   Gold Oil Tycoons: Now Drilling for Water!

2.   Water Rights go for up to $45,000 per acre-foot.

3.   Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway revealed a new position in one of the world’s largest water-treatment companies.

4.   Blue Gold – the largest opportunities will be in the private sector providing employment at the local level.

At this point because there are so many varied opinions and regulations per city and state, use this following resource: http://www.harvesth2o.com/statues_regulations.shtml This resource also specifies the Cities, Counties, and States that offer Residential and Commercial rebates or subsidies.

 Many State are producing Statewide Guidelines such as:

Georgia ; www.dca.state.ga.us/development/constructioncodes

or Texas; http://texrca.org/index.html

As well, local Governments are beginning to see Residential Rainwater Harvesting as big Business as a source of revenue, See the following for the city of Atlanta, GA http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/interspire/news/2011/06/28/atlanta-proposes-charging-for-collected-rainwater-2.html

Tucson AZ http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/What_s_New/DS_10-03_Commercial_Water_Harvesting_04-27-09.pdf

Keep in mind Rainwater Harvesting has been in use globally for many years. I have yet to find a figure that proves how many people have died as a result of drinking clean rainwater. No lead or arsenic poisoning, Ground water contaminations, and other man induced contaminations.

As a simple example concerning costs of implementing a Rainwater Harvesting system, please review the following examples:

How much does it cost:  “To Put In a Water Well”

On the Ground; Drilling a Well

(Point of Entry (POE)

—Average depth/6-8” casing @ 40-300 feet (@ $12-20/ft)

—Site preparation and road for drill rig,  sludge or trailing pond $1,200 – 1,800

—Infrastructure for water system. $200 – 500

Sub-total; Water access costs  @ $2,480-10,200

Water Use/Qualities; smell, taste, color, hardness/softness

(Point of Use (POU)

—Pump, filter, pressure tank @ $800-1,600

—Carbon filter, Debris filter 10-20mu

—Water softener $550 -2000.00

—Annual upkeep – @ $140 & $600, typical service contracts @ $20 to $50 per month.

TOTAL 1st year water costs (POE and POU)  @ $2,970-12,000

—Additional annual costs after first year @ $140- 600

How much does it cost to implement “Rain Water Harvesting”

On the Roof

(Point of Entry (POE)

—Upgrade roofing and gutters @ $1,000- 3,000/1000 sq/ft (unless its new construction)

—Pre storage filtering/wash off @ $500 – 1,200

—System infrastructure @ $200-500

—Cisterns -1000-3000 gal @ $800-1700

Sub-Total; POE  @ $3,100-7,200

Water Use/Qualities; smell, taste, color, hardness/softness

(Point of Use (POU)

—Pump, filter, pressure tank @ $300-800

Non-potable only; irrigation, laundry, car washing, etc.

—Smell, color, particulate matter; filters

—Annual upkeep – @ $100 & $200 (filters and cleaning)

Potable (drinking, cooking, etc.)

—UV sanitizer light @ $500

—Annual upkeep – @ $200 & $300 (filters,

UV bulb, and cleaning)

TOTAL 1st year Rainwater Harvesting costs (POE and POU) @ $2,900 – 7,700

—Additional annual costs after first year @ $100-300

Sinkholes – Insurance Companies call for 2000% Rate Increase

Senator calls for Citizens sinkhole rate hike hearings

By Janet Zink, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Posted: Jul 27, 2011 11:35 AM

 

TALLAHASSEE — The board that oversees Citizens Property Insurance unanimously approved massive increases to sinkhole premiums on Wednesday, saying the rate hikes — which could cost policy holders thousands of extra dollars — are necessary to cover the cost of sinkhole claims.

Sinkhole premiums would rise by an average of 429 percent under the Citizens proposal, though rates would rise more than 2,000 percent in some parts of the Tampa Bay area. The rate hikes, which surfaced Monday, still must be approved by the Office of Insurance Regulation. It is expected to schedule a rate hearing in Tallahassee.

The increases are on top of a proposed 8.8 percent average increase in non-sinkhole related coverage.

Citizens officials say the increases are necessary because premiums collected don’t cover the cost of payouts made for claims. In 2010, the company collected $32 million in premiums and but had loss-related expenses of $245 million, Citizens chief financial officer Sharon Bunnun told the board.

“Our rate need for sinkhole coverage is enormous,” she said. “We’re optimistic that the sinkhole claims will stem losses over time and help reduce premiums.”

The board approved the tentative increases 4-0 during a meeting via conference call.

If approved, the rate increases mean the average premium for a sinkhole policy in Tampa would increase from $156 to $3,651. In coastal Pasco County, rates would increase from $1,270 to $3,598. In coastal Hernando County, premiums would soar from $1,356 to $5,734.

Overall, about 94,400 property owners in the Tampa Bay area currently have sinkhole coverage provided by Citizens.

Bunnon said the state-run insurer is working to develop plans so policyholders can pay premiums on a semi-annual or quarterly basis.

Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, who unsuccessfully fought 2011 legislation that allows Citizens to massively boost its sinkhole insurance premiums, is calling for statewide hearings.

“The economic impact on homeowners will be devastating,” Fasano wrote in a letter to insurance commissioner Kevin McCarty. “In light of these almost incomprehensible rate increases I respectfully expect that all Floridians be given the chance to have their voices heard on this issue before the Office of Insurance rules on the application. Hearings held throughout the state, especially in those areas which will receive the highest rate increases, must be held before the application is given consideration.”

Comments on the rate proposal can be sent to ratehearings@floir.com, with the word Citizens in the subject line.

Janet Zink can be reached at jzink@sptimes.com or (850) 224-7263.

 

Hot spot for sinkholes

Sinkhole claims to insurance from 2006-2010. Percent is percent of statewide total, which was 24,671. The Tampa Bay area had 72 percent of the total claims in the state.

Hernando	6,036	24.5%
Pasco	5,932	24.0%
Hillsborough	4,450	18.0%
Pinellas	1,466	5.9%

Source: Florida Office of Insurance Regulation

Proposed increases at a glance

Citizens Property Insurance released proposed rates for

sinkhole insurance Monday. Here is a look at what average rates could be:

Region	Current average	Proposed average	Percent increase
Tampa	$156	$3,651	+ 2,239%
Hillsborough remainder	$260	$3,651	+ 1,304%
Hernando coast	$1,356	$5,734	+ 323%
Hernando remainder	$1,084	$6,192	+ 471%
Pasco coast	$1,270	$3,598	+ 183%
Pasco remainder	$1,475	$4,440	+ 201%
Pinellas coast	$3	$72	+ 2,046%
St. Petersburg	$38	$100	+ 164%
Pinellas remainder	$243	$256	+ 5%

 

Comments by the Blogger

Sinkholes – Insurance Companies call for 2000% Rate Increase

Why, because in 2010, Insurance paid out $245 million in claims. That’s like an average of 1225 – $200,000 dollar homes lost in Sinkholes in Florida in one year; how many more in the next 5-10 years? Florida the new Atlantis!

Wonderful things do happen on this planet through the hearts of people, not politicians.

Rainwater Harvesting Infrastructure for the Indigenous of Bocas del Toro.

http://operationsafedrinkingwater.org/blog/tank-location-map

Click on this link to and see rich and basic
Healthcare,  people helping people.

 

Joe Bass – This is Project Long Reach Part ii.The area is remote, rarely visited and very needy. Thank you all for going along with us!

Floating Doctors we are so excited for the collaboration with Operation Safe Drinking Water for next week’s clinic! Joe, you have put together an amazing trip for us!

prep prep prep for next week’s mobile clinic! Five 600 gallon water tanks being delivered tomorrow, boat getting ready for departure, and meds being pre bagged! The team will consist of 15 for this trip including 4 doctors! BOCAS Residents- we are taking donations of school supplies and non-perishable foods that can be dropped off at the Bocas Marina!

In this photo: Floating Doctors We carried 5 – 600 gallon water tanks on board for Joe Bass and Operation Safe Drinking Water for installation in the schools we visited

See the complete Slide Show

Schools for the Indigenous in Panama were provided by the Government, along with a subsidy for food and clothing of each student.