Environmental Issues · Local Issues · Water

Sewer Systems: Not just for Ninja Turtles

Combined Sewer Overflow

The availability of clean water is essential to support the health and economy of every nation in the world. A major source of water pollution is the failing infrastructure we use to control and maintain the water we use. Hidden beneath cities is an underground maze of pipes and tunnels that not only carries the water we consume, but also carries waste water, storm water, and the water used to power and drive our everyday lives.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it could cost the nation $700 billion to $1 trillion to replace the physical water infrastructure. Not only that, but cities would have to be torn apart, causing major disruptions for upwards of 10 years. To make these kinds of major improvements, there must be agreements between political, social, and economic forces, which often bring discussion of water infrastructure to a dead halt.

The 2012 Xylem Value of Water Index, a nationwide poll detailing what US voters think should be done about the country’s water infrastructure and who should pay for it, is a great info-graphic report that provides a visual on what a sample of the population is thinking. This report is interactive, allowing you to navigate through the most important aspects of the study.

In the Mill Creek Watershed, located in the City of Cincinnati, the sewer infrastructure is a topic of major concern. Every time we get a heavy rain event, the combined sewer overflow system dumps the excess stormwater/raw sewage mix directly into the Mill Creek. This stream then makes its ways to the Ohio River, where many residents get their drinking water.

It is important to not only look at making infrastructure improvements in the future, but to also reduce the amount of runoff that makes its way into our sewer structures right now. We can do this by installing rain gardens, creating wetlands, using rain barrels, planting trees, and anything else that allows water to absorb and infiltrate back into the ground slowly. The more impervious surfaces (aka streets, buildings, parking lots, etc) we have, the more taxed our sewer system is during rain events.

Environmental Issues · Local Issues · The Great Lakes · Uncategorized

Frack Attack

With most introductions to the newest trend in “clean energy” the public response is explosive. In the Midwest we are seeing this with hydrologic fracturing (or “fracking”), a process used to extract natural gas from deep in the ground.

Pictured right is a shale map from U.S. Energy Information Administration.

With nationwide reports of water contamination and earth quakes allegedly tied to fracking, we find that impact studies and regulations are a few steps behind.

For Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality stated in a report in May 2011:  “The DEQ has not found any cases where hydraulic fracturing has caused adverse impacts to the environment or public health in Michigan.” The major concerns listed by the DEQ are as follows:

  1. Keeping the gas contained once it is fracked from the ground to protect aquifers (water reserves)
  2. Deciding where and how much water is withdrawn (A single fracture treatment for a typical Antrim well requires 50,000 gallons of water while a deeper Marcellus gas well needs about 500,000 gallons of water – Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council-National Wildlife Federation)
  3. Making sure the produced water (or the water that was used and mixed with chemicals) is disposed of properly.
  4. Managing flowback water (or water that comes back up through the piping)
  5. Identifying the chemicals added to the water during the fracking process (Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council does list a few of the known chemicals, Click Here to link to their fact sheet, but many are still undisclosed.)

Other states however, are experiencing adverse impacts. Recently Ohio experienced a 4.0 earthquake, the 11th earthquake to occur near a 9,200 foot deep disposal well where liquid waste from hydrofracking was injected, according to a New York Times report on January 3, 2012. In Texas, 4.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in a “center point for natural gas and oil production,” as stated in a KUT news, National Public Radio report.

Near hydraulic fracking sites in Wisconsin there have been concerns about water quality, prompting the EPA to conduct a study of ground water contamination. In the Draft Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming the EPA states “A lines of reasoning approach utilized at this site best supports an explanation that inorganic and organic constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have contaminated ground water at and below the depth used for domestic water supply. However, further investigation would be needed to determine if organic compounds associated with hydraulic fracturing have migrated to domestic wells in the area of investigation.”

The report also emphasizes a need for future study, believing that there is a “need for collection of baseline data, greater transparency on chemical composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids, and greater emphasis on well construction and integrity requirements and testing.”

While these findings help to pinpoint the problems, they unfortunately arrive after the fact. Regulation is too often behind the curve.

Luckily in Michigan the DEQ has set standards and permit requirements for fracking. As of September 2011, the DEQ implemented a Water Withdrawl Analysis for High Volume Hydraulic-fracturing with a two-phase permitting process to decide if there is any potential for Adverse Resource Impacts (ARI). These evaluations will decide if the area is fit for high volume fracking.

Great Michigan is an effort among environmental, conservation, and public health groups across Michigan to address environmental issues across the state. With the issue of hydraulic fracking wells they state: “At present, these wells are not subject to the highest monitoring and testing requirements because the fluids are designated as oil and gas waste, and this designation results in less protective requirements. There are no requirements to analyze the constituents in the fluids prior to injection.”

While the future of fracking is uncertain, we know it’s not going anywhere and we continue to learn more about the process every day. It is my hope that the industry take a hard look at the environmental impacts before continuing to move forward, or that regulations be put in place to make sure hydrofracking is a responsible and sustainable practice.

If you are interested in what fracking looks like, watch the 2 min video below: