Page 7 - the NOISE September 2012

Ursula Schuch, PhD, a horticulturist at the University of Arizona, found these elements in greater quantities from Tucson’s grade A reclaimed wastewater facility (their respec- tive percentile increases from Tucson’s po- table water follow parenthetically):
Phosphorous (21,000%) Nitrogen (46%) Calcium (67%) Magnesium (550%) Potassium (500%) Sodium (417%) Chlorine (558%)
Sulfur (712%)
Ms. Schuch, while not seeking specifically for the effects of reclaimed wastewater on native plants, did discover that plants noted for their intolerance to salinity — namely the desert willow, the yellow bell, the Chihua- huan sage, and the moss verbena — were adversely effected when irrigated solely with the substance for 12 weeks. She wrote:
“Reclaimed water with higher salinity for ir- rigation of ornamental plants brings poten- tial problems of increasing soil salinity and possibly causes reduced growth, foliar injury, or death of plants over time. An estimated 200 to 400 milligrams per liter increase in salt content is expected from water that has been reclaimed one time from a treatment plant. Further treatments of effluent from reclaimed water will incrementally increase salinity of the water ... Evaporation without leaching will lead to salt accumulation in the soil and therefore much higher concentra- tions of salts in the plant root zone.”
Further, Ms. Schuch concludes in her study, as if marking the “burn” found in Valley golf courses from reclaimed wastewater: “Loss of plants in landscapes due to saline water and soil conditions can become very costly and result in tremendous input requirements for replacement of plants, labor for installa- tion, and the loss of functional and aesthetic value of plants in the interim, which can be several years. Previous research has shown that several of the species widely used in Southwestern landscapes are not tolerant to higher salinity and will likely be damaged if irrigated with higher salinity water.”
In a correspondence with this writer in mid-August, Ms. Schuch stated: “Reclaimed water is an important issue for use in irriga- tion of landscape plants in Arizona. Many golf courses, parks, schools and other entities use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation. It is has been well documented that reclaimed water has higher salinity than potable water. Potential problems can develop for plants irrigated with reclaimed water depending on the plant species, soil conditions, and ir- rigation and other horticulture management practices. In 2000, there were no data on sa- linity tolerance of plants commonly planted in the Southwest and Arizona which is why I started this research.”
Notably, even while ADEQ and the City of Flagstaff measure for 144 “parameters” of chemical compounds in reclaimed waste- water, neither tests for Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium, Phosphorus, or Potassium in re- porting statements. In turn, these reporting statements of “wastewater safety” were in- cluded in the 2005 Environmental Impact Statement approving snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks — the same document judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals read and made a determination from, ne- gating years of legal challenges that under- scored standards to the National Environ- mental Policy Act were unmet by the Forest Service.
The Forest Service, under then-supervisor Nora Rasure, dedicated limited discussion of the effects of reclaimed wastewater on
plant life in its massive shock-and-awe En- vironmental Impact Statement. In the 611- page document, 55 pages were dedicated to an economic analysis, 30 pages to recreation analysis, 64 pages to watershed analysis, 53 pages to soil analysis, but only 19 were dedi- cated to vegetation.
The EIS’ vegetative analysis lists and de- scribes the type of plantlife found within the San Francisco Peaks, even mentioning endangered and sensitive species, like the Dalmation toadflax, the Mullein, the Hound- stongue, the Bull & Musk thistle, and the Ko- chia — but only speaks of the effects of its re- moval as a result of Snowbowl upgrades, not as a result of the use of reclaimed wastewa- ter. Mysteriously, the EIS vegetative analysis bares no mention of the Ponderosa Pine, the Gambel Oak, the White Fir, the Englemann Spruce, or the Quaking Aspen — nor does it analyze the effects of reclaimed wastewater on their livelihood.
To date, this writer has found no scientific study of the effects of reclaimed wastewater on conifers or other tree species found with- in the boundaries of the San Francisco Peaks.
In fact, the only independent study the EIS completes with reclaimed wastewater is of a duration of 60 hours, and that is in its soil analysis of 44 gallons of reclaimed wastewater percolated through 14 sample soil columns. It then measured the physical properties of the soil — weight, moisture level, settled soil depth, and soil density — and proclaimed the volume “corresponds to 38 years of seasonal snowmaking applica- tion.” What the Forest Service’s experiment does not take into account is that 1.5 million gallons of reclaimed wastewater will be ap- plied to the soil every day that Arizona Snow- bowl is in operation, nor does it measure the changes in complete soil chemistry and the soil’s synthesis of reclaimed wastewater over time. The only chemical analysis of the soil it regards is that of nitrate content, and even admits:
“The manner in which these dynamics would be manifested in field conditions is subject to some uncertainty. The addition of reclaimed water had the effect of remov- ing nitrogen from the soils in the accelerated laboratory experiment. However, the labo- ratory experiment does not consider the important processes of vegetative uptake, or nutrient cycling by soil microbes.”
In its very next paragraph, the EIS then incongruously counterclaims the above as- sessment with a controlled experiment in Colorado that treated soil with an ammo- nium nitrate fertilizer, and concluded, pre- cariously: “It is likely that the response of the soils at the Snowbowl to increased nitrogen inputs would be similar.”
Indeed, a blurry-eyed Ninth Circuit judge might pass over this blatant inconsistency before scratching his head.
The Environmental Protection Agency, to which ADEQ, the City of Flagstaff, and the US Forest Service are ultimately beholden, merely provides a “broad framework of com- mand and control for municipal wastewater treatment” and for all points and purposes, delegates safety considerations to local au- thorities. At the date of this writing, neither entity has presented research that purports conifers — like the juniper or the ponderosa pine — maintain beneficial effects when ir- rigated with reclaimed wastewater.
| Charles Seiverd professes to be neither a scientist nor a politician. If you have further relevant information for this ongoing series, please email charles@thenoise.us
06. Ach Nein! Yellow Trees, Reclaimed Wastewater, & the Big Gap
08. Tree Sit Halts Construction
on Reclaimed Wastewater Pipeline
10. State’s Rights Going to Pot?
Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Hang-Up
12. the Dog Days of Autumn
Regulars
14. Film!
16. It’s the Arts
25. Jerome ArtBeat
26. Prescott’s Don’t Miss List 28. Music for the Masses
30. Question Man
34. Letters to NEd
34. MisAdventures of Miss Rose 35. Supplement Calendar
37. La Otra Arizona
39. Strangeology
39. Green Gold
40. Old Town
42. Business News
Livre Pour Livre Edition
September 2012 • #136
Editorial Board:
Clair Anna Rose, Ellen Jo Roberts Kyle Boggs, Sarah Gianelli Bobby Carlson, Joe Grumbo Cindy Cole
Contributors:
Tony Ballz
Logan Phillips
Sarah Irani, Lisa Aguiñaga Angie Johnson-Schmit Bob Reynolds, Jon Jensen Mike Frankel Annabel Sclippa, ThunderfooT Shane Mortiz
Publisher: Charles Seiverd
The Noise is a free forum for ideas and cre- ative expression, hence all opinions ex- pressed herein are of no affiliation to the directors of Weavel Inc and are strictly those of the individual artist. Copyrights are held by the individual artist and no part of this publication may be duplicated without ex- plicit consent by the artist.
Readership: 52,000
Distribution: 350 locations in Northern Arizona: Flagstaff, Grand Canyon, Williams, Sedona, Cottonwood, Clarkdale, Prescott, Prescott Valley, Camp Verde & Jerome.
Cover Art: Om on the Range by David Wilder INQUIRIES: 928-634-5001 | thenoise.us
POB 1637 • Flagstaff AZ 86002 | POB 1257 • Clarkdale AZ 86324
CORRECTIONS FROM LAST EDITION
a publication of
an Arizona 501c3 nonprofit organization
In the Old Town section, the image at left was not attributed to artist, Nance McKinney, whose additional work can be found at NanceMcKinney.com. Many apologies for the oversight.
In the article “Yellow Trees, Reclaimed Wastewater & the Big Collusion,” it was erroneously stated that University of Ari- zona scientist Ursula Schuch’s research on reclaimed wastewater found a 233% increase of Ethylene Carbonate (EC) and a 245% increase in Sulfuric Acid Recovery (SAR) when compared to potable water; when in fact those increases should be attributed to Electric Conductivity and Sodium Absorption Ration, respectively. Many apologies for the confusion.
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news magazine • SEPTEMBER 2012 • 7