96,000,000 BALLS DUMPED INTO CALIFORNIA RESERVOIR BY MAYOR

"On his cue of “BALLS AWAY!,” Mayor Eric Garcetti released the final 20,000 shade balls into the reservoir on Monday in the city’s effort to conserve water and maintain the reservoir’s water quality.
http://assets.bwbx.io/images/irUoHXrBb3ks/v1/1200x-1.jpg

CALIFORNIA HAS SOME STRANGE IDEAS...AT LEAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND ONE MAYOR DO.

IN THE MIDST OF A RECORD DROUGHT, THEY'VE DECIDED THEY CAN "CONSERVE WATER" BY COVERING IT WITH A BLANKET OF BLACK ORBS...BLACK, NOT REFLECTIVE COLORS, BUT BLACK...TO "SHADE" THE RESERVOIR.

HOW IT ALL LOOKS AFTER THE BALLS COVERED THE RESERVOIR...WHICH, BTW, IS A 3.3 BILLION GALLON  "POND", BUT HOLDS ONLY ENOUGH WATER TO SUPPLY LOS ANGELES FOR 3 WEEKS.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
THREE THINGS IMMEDIATELY CAME TO MIND.

1.BLACK BALLS WILL ABSORB THE SUN'S HEAT, FOR ONE THING.

2.THEY'RE PLASTIC, A PETROLEUM PRODUCT, SO WHAT WILL THE PLASTIC LEACH INTO THE RESERVOIR ONCE THEY'RE NICE AND WARM?

3.IF ONE WERE INTO GROWING MEGA-COLONIES OF MANY TYPES OF BACTERIA, THERE'S JUST NOTHING LIKE WARM AND MOIST.

THIS EXPERIMENT SHOULD PROVE INTERESTING.

THE ARTICLE THAT ANNOUNCED THIS BIT OF "WISDOM" STATED ...  

"The city just released the last batch of around 20,000 ‘shade balls’ onto the 175-
acre surface of the LA Reservoir to prevent sunlight-triggered chemical reactions, deter birds and other wildlife and protect water from rain and wind-blown dust."   

WAIT...WHAT?
THEY WANT TO PROTECT A RESERVOIR FROM....RAIN?
MAYBE WHOEVER WROTE THAT ARTICLE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT'S A RESERVOIR, AND RESERVOIRS QUITE OFTEN COLLECT RAIN?

OR MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THE RAIN THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP OUT OF THE WATER?

IF THAT'S THE CASE, DID ANYONE WHO PLANNED THIS MAYBE NEVER NOTICE THAT SPHERES TEND TO ALLOW THINGS TO RUN DOWN THEM? 
THEY REALLY WON'T STOP RAIN FROM ENTERING THE "BLACK POOL".

AND THAT BIRD POO THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT?
WELL, WHAT DOESN'T RUN DOWN THE SIDES WILL GET WASHED OFF FROM THE BUMPING AND SHIFTING AND SPINNING AND WHATEVER...WON'T IT?

OR IS SOMEONE GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND CLEAN ALL 96 MILLION OF THESE EACH DAY?

"But it’s actually a new technology – and a very cheap and effective one at that – that is being used in Los Angeles to protect water quality.

The shade balls cost $34.5 million (£22 million), or $0.36 (£0.23) each, and are expected to save $250 million (£160 million). 

Splitting the reservoir into two [SIC] with a dam and installing floating covers were considered as alternatives, but either of these would have cost in excess of $300 million (£192.5 million).  

"In the midst of California’s historic drought, it takes bold ingenuity to maximize my goals for water conservation," said Mayor Eric Garcetti.
"This effort by LADWP is emblematic of the kind of the creative thinking we need to meet those challenges."

REALLY, ERIC?
YOU GUYS ARE SO HOPELESS THEN, SURELY!

WELL, MAYBE THEY'RE "SPECIAL" BALLS, ABSOLUTELY RESISTANT TO THE SUN'S RAYS AND LEACHING AND BACTERIA AND WON'T BREAK DOWN AND CREATE A BIGGER HEADACHE THAN ALL THAT OLD RAIN AND DUST.

GOOD LUCK, GUYS!

ONE LAST THING....IF RAIN IS BAD FOR A RESERVOIR, WHY ISN'T EVERYBODY DELIGHTED CALIFORNIA ISN'T GETTING ANY?

RAIN WOULD CERTAINLY HELP WITH THAT DUST ISSUE, TOO, Y'KNOW.
LOOKING AT THIS, AND THANKS FOR THE TEARS AND LAUGHTER EVERY TIME I LOOK AT THIS, IT SURE APPEARS THAT SOMEBODY DOES NOT KNOW MUCH.  

AFTER REREADING THE ABOVE ARTICLE A FEW TIMES, I WENT SEARCHING FOR ANOTHER, TO SEE IF RAIN BEING BLOCKED FROM THE RESERVOIR WAS, FOR REAL, SOMETHING THEY WERE SHOOTING FOR.

IT WASN'T, NOT EXACTLY...

HERE'S WHAT I FOUND ON A LOCAL ABC NEWS AFFILIATE'S WEBSITE:

“By reducing evaporation, these shade balls will conserve 300 million gallons of water each year,” Garcetti told ABC station KABC. “Instead of just evaporating into the sky, that’s 300 million gallons to fight this drought.”

The shade balls can last about 10 years before the LA Department of Water and Power will remove, recycle and replace them.

Mayor Garcetti’s office did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for additional comment."

BUT LOOK AT WHAT I FOUND NEXT IN VANITY FAIR!
"Not only are the balls designed to keep out nasty things like animals and dust, it also prevents the sun from hitting the water and creating chlorine fumes."

WAIT!
CHLORINE IS ADDED TO MOST AMERICAN WATER SUPPLIES, IS IT NOT? 
CHLORINE IS GOOD FOR US, ISN'T IT?
BUT THIS SURELY MAKES US WONDER, DOESN'T IT?

AND I JUST CAN'T FIND HOW THE SUN'S RAYS CAN PRODUCE CHLORINE FROM WATER MOLECULES... SUN + H2O = CHLORINE???
MAYBE THEY ALREADY DUMPED CHLORINE INTO THE WATER?
[TURNED OUT THAT THEY HAD ALREADY DUMPED IN THE NICE CHLORINE.]

BUT, HOLD ON...ANOTHER ARTICLE SAYS IT'S NOT CHLORINE THE SUN CREATES IN WATER!
The balls will also prevent a chemical reaction caused by the sun which is known to create a carcinogenic compound called bromate.   

[In 2007, the Department of Water Protection in Los Angeles detected high levels of bromate, a carcinogen that forms when bromide and chlorine react with sunlight, in Los Angeles’s Ivanhoe Reservoir. 
Bromide is naturally present in groundwater and chlorine is used to kill bacteria, but sunlight is the final ingredient in the potentially harmful mix. SO, KNOWING THIS, THEY ADD CHLORINE TO THE WATER.
HOW CLEVER, YES?
MORE ON THIS IVANHOE RESERVOIR FURTHER ALONG.]

Unlike their colorful childhood counterparts, the balls contain water that weights them down and helps keep them in place.

But it takes a lot of balls to shield a 175-acre reservoir from the sun

But the shade balls – which now total 96 million and cover three other reservoirs – have cost the city a spectacular amount of money, coming in at just under $35 million.

Los Angeles is the first city in the US to use shade balls, which city officials say should last about 10 years. "

AND IN ALMOST ALL COMMENTS FOR THAT ARTICLE, PEOPLE ARE LAUGHING ABOUT THE UTTER 'DUMB' OF THE HEAT-ABSORBING BLACK BALLS, THE FACT THAT PLASTIC IS A PETROLEUM PRODUCT WHICH WILL INDEED LEACH CONTAMINANTS INTO THE WATER, BUT IT ISN'T FUNNY.
OKAY, URBAN DICTIONARY-WISE, THE 'SHADE BALLS" IS PERHAPS HUMOROUS TO SOME.

YOU'D THINK IT COULDN'T GET ANY MORE DIRE FOR WHOMEVER IS GOING TO BE DRINKING FROM THAT, BUT, YEAH, IT GETS WORSE...

The balls are coated with a chemical that blocks ultraviolet light ...
YAAAY! MORE CHEMICALS!
BETTER LIVING THROUGH CHEMICALS, RIGHT, CALIFORNIANS?

They’re hermetically sealed, with water inside them as ballast, lest when the wind picks up “they’ll blow out, and you’ll be chasing them down the road,” says Sydney Chase, president of XavierC (ONE OF THE COMPANIES THAT MAKES THESE BALLS). 

You could drink the ballast—don’t want nonpotable water leaking into the reservoirs.

[MATH NEVER WAS MY 'LONG SUIT BUT I MUST WINDER HOW MUCH "POTABLE WATER" IS USED TO FILL 96 MILLION 4-INCH BALLS!
SEEMS A BIT ODD TO USE WATER LIKE THAT WHEN WATER IS WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE TRYING TO CONSERVE, NO?]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged the nation’s water managers in recent years to find ways to cover or contain their resources, to prevent sunlight from reacting with chlorine and possibly creating carcinogens, says Ed Osann, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

The shade balls shouldn’t pose a pollution problem in themselves, he says, since “everything that comes in contact with drinking water has to be a certified material.”

HEY, ED, WHY IS IT THEN THAT YOU ALLOW "X NUMBER" OF DEAD RODENTS AND OTHER UNFORTUNATE DROWNING VICTIMS IN EACH LITTLE POOL OF DRINKING WATER?
RELYING ON THOSE 'GREAT' FILTRATION SYSTEMS THAT ARE SO OFTEN BYPASSED OR TOO CLOGGED TO FILTER ANYTHING, ARE YOU?
HOW MANY FACILITIES COULD BE FINED EACH INSPECTION FOR THAT FAILURE OF FILTRATION SYSTEMS, EDDIE?

WHY DID THE EPA JUST UP THE LEVELS OF RADIATION WE ALL CAN GET IN DRINKING WATER?
WHEN WAS RADIATION A "CERTIFIED MATERIAL"?
HOW ABOUT THAT FERTILIZER RUNOFF INTO EVERYTHING THAT HOLDS WATER, HMMM?
IT'S CERTIFIABLY INSANE TO ALLOW THAT, DON'T YOU THINK?

BUT THE EPA DOES ALLOW IT.

AND LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT CHLORINE AND FLUORIDATED WATER, WANT TO?
WEREN'T BOTH THOSE SUBSTANCES DECLARED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ONCE UPON A TIME, ED?THINK CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS, EDWARD.

READ THIS BOOK, EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT GOOD OLD CHLORINE AND THAT TASTY FLUORIDATED WATER, ED.
IT PLAINLY CALLS THEM WHAT THEY ARE.
WE ATTACKED IRAQ AND HUNG SADDAM FOR "WMDs", OR DID YOU FORGET?
CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS...YUP...NASTY AND LETHAL.

HERE'S ANOTHER  STUDY OF THOSE WMDs, NAMES THEM "HAZARDS", BIOHAZARDS, TOXIC TO LIFE.

WHAT THE EPA DOES NOT ALLOW IN OUR DRINKING WATER WOULD BARELY FILL A PAGE, WOULD IT?
LET'S BE HONEST.

WHAT IT DOES ALLOW AND LISTS THE "MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS" FOR FILLS HUNDREDS OF PAGES.

FOR AN IDEA OF WHAT THE EPA ALLOWS SEE THIS RATHER SHORT LIST <HERE>.

THEY ALLOW "CERTAIN LEVELS" OF ...

• Microorganisms
• Disinfectants
• Disinfection Byproducts
• Inorganic Chemicals
• Organic Chemicals
• Radionuclides

AND 96 MILLION HDPE PLASTIC BALLS.

ONLY A COUPLE OF ARTICLES ON THIS FIASCO MENTION THAT HDPE BREAKS DOWN INTO A SYNTHETIC ESTROGEN AND KNOWN CARCINOGENS.

YES, THAT'S TRUE.  

SEE ANY OF THESE 'STUDIES':

Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved.   
"Chemicals that mimic or antagonize the actions of naturally occurring estrogens are defined as having estrogenic activity (EA), which is the most common form of endocrine disruptor activity [Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) 2003, 2006; National Research Council 1999]    
Chemicals having estrogenic activity (EA) reportedly cause many adverse health effects, especially at low (picomolar to nanomolar) doses in fetal and juvenile mammals.    
Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled—independent of the type of resin, product, or retail source—leached chemicals having reliably detectable EA, including those advertised as BPA free.   

Many plastic products are mischaracterized as being EA free if extracted with only one solvent and NOT exposed to common-use stresses. "

ANOTHER ONE:  
"HDPE geomembranes have low puncture resistance and low multi-axial extensibility, and are therefore, considered to be disadvantageous in applications where these properties are desirable, for example, in landfill cover applications."(Simpson and Siebken 1997; Scheirs 2009).

"Exposed geomembranes are highly susceptible to degradation by UV, oxidative, and thermal mechanisms." (Koerner et al. 1990, 2005).

"At a given time, more than one degradation mechanism can take place and the resulting synergistic effects can accelerate the degradation processes. Of the degradation mechanisms, UV degradation is the most harmful for an exposed geomembrane." (Qureshi et al. 1989).

According to Suits and Hsuan (2003), photons with similar or higher energy than the energy of the polymer chemical bonds cause a series of reactions to polymers that are exposed to sunlight and liberate free radicals which cause bond scission in the polymeric structure and eventually makes the polymer brittle and susceptible to environmental stress cracking. 

For instance, the chemical bond strengths of C-C and C-H bonds are 420 and 340 kJ/mol, respectively. On the other hand, the energies of 300 and 400 nm photons (in the UV range) are 390 and 300 kJ/mol, respectively (Suits and Hsuan 2003).

Therefore, UV radiation has adequate energy to break the polymer bonds. 

To retard the UV degradation, carbon black or other chemical-based light stabilizers are normally added to a polymeric geomembrane. 

However,the stabilizers in the geomembrane are depleted with increasing exposure time."

WELL, WHATEVER, RIGHT?
WHAT'S DONE IS DONE AND NO ONE IS LIKELY TO DO THE RESEARCH (SINCE NO ONE DID BEFORE THE DUMPING OF THE BALLS) AND GET THOSE 96 MILLION BLACK ORBS OUT OF THERE.

AND WHEN ILLNESSES ARISE THAT COULD BE LINKED TO THIS DECISION, EXPECT EVEN THE EPA TO DENY IT TO THE END OF TIME.

THE EPA MAKES "ALLOWANCES", GIVES "EXTRA TIME FOR COMPLIANCE", FINES THE SAME FACILITIES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR THE SAME VIOLATIONS.

FROM THE EPA's OWN WEBSITE:
What is a significant deficiency?
Significant deficiencies cause, or have the potential to cause, the introduction of contamination into water delivered to customers. This could include defects in design, operation, or maintenance of the source, treatment or distribution systems. They could also be represented by the failure or malfunction of those systems. The rule requires each state to define and describe at least one type of specific significant deficiency for each of the eight sanitary survey elements. 
An example of a source-related significant deficiency could be a well located near a source of fecal contamination (e.g., failing septic systems or a leaking sewer line) or in a flood zone. 

EPA will develop guidance to help states carry out sanitary surveys and identify significant deficiencies that could affect the quality of drinking water.

"GUIDANCE", NOT PRISON TIME FOR VIOLATORS, UNLESS IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN.
JUST A LITTLE "GUIDANCE" FOR ALL THE MAJOR POLLUTERS, FOR INDUSTRY.
INDUSTRY SPENDS A LOT OF TIME IN COURT FIGHTING OFF THAT "GUIDANCE".
THEY CAN AFFORD TO DO SO.

What are the monitoring provisions?

A ground water system is subject to triggered source water monitoring if it does not already provide treatment to reliably achieve at least 99.99 percent (4-log) inactivation or removal of viruses. If a system receives notice of a total coliform-positive distribution system sample collected under the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), it must take a source water sample within 24 hours.

The system does not have to take a source water sample if the state can determine that the positive sample was due to an issue in the distribution system and not the source.

 If any initial triggered source water sample is fecal indicator-positive, the system must collect an additional five repeat source water samples over the next 24 hours for each of the sites that was initially fecal indicator-positive. States can also require immediate corrective action to address contamination at those sites.   

The GWR also allows states to require systems that do not provide sufficient disinfection treatment to remove 99.99 percent of viruses to conduct optional assessment source water monitoring at any time and require systems to take corrective action.

States may evaluate the need for assessment monitoring on a case by case basis.

EPA recommends that the following risk factors be considered by states in targeting high risk systems:

1. high population density combined with on-site wastewater treatment systems;
2. aquifers with restricted geographic extent, such as barrier island sand aquifers;
3. sensitive aquifers (e.g., karst, fractured bedrock and gravel);
4. shallow unconfined aquifers;
5. aquifers with thin or absent soil cover; and
6. wells previously identified as having been fecally contaminated.

For those systems that already treat drinking water to reliably achieve at least 99.99 percent (4-log) inactivation or removal of viruses, the rule requires regular compliance monitoring to ensure that the treatment technology installed is reliably removing contaminants.

TRANSLATION: WE TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT, BASICALLY. 
THEY "MONITOR" THEMSELVES.
BUT IF THEY GET CAUGHT NOT PROPERLY TREATING WATER SUPPLIES, WE'LL GIVE THEM TIME TO COMPLY.
GIVE THEM A FEW "OPTIONS".

What types of options does a system have for corrective actions?       

When a system has a significant deficiency or a fecal indicator-positive ground water source sample (either by the initial triggered sample, or positive repeat sample, as determined by the state), the ground water system must implement one or more of the following corrective action options:

1. correct all significant deficiencies (e.g., repairs to well pads and sanitary seals, repairs to piping tanks and treatment equipment, control of cross-connections);
2. provide an alternate source of water (e.g., new well, connection to another PWS);
3. eliminate the source of contamination (e.g., remove point sources, relocate pipelines and waste disposal, redirect drainage or run-off, provide or fix existing fencing or housing of the wellhead); or
4. provide treatment that reliably achieves at least 4-log treatment of viruses (using inactivation, removal, or a state-approved combination of 4-log virus inactivation and removal).      
   

What are the deadlines for completing actions required by the rule?
States have two years to adopt the rule.

The compliance date for triggered monitoring (and associated corrective actions) and compliance monitoring is December 1, 2009.

There are no timeframes associated with the assessment monitoring because it is at the option of state.
States must complete their initial round of sanitary surveys by December 31, 2012 for most community water systems. 

States will have until December 31, 2014 to complete the initial sanitary survey for community water systems that are identified by the state as outstanding performers and noncommunity water systems.

AND ALL THAT HAS DRAGGED ON AND ON AS THE WHINE WENT UP THAT MANY NEEDED MORE TIME, THAT IT WAS UNFAIRLY COSTLY, THAT THE OLD RULES (NO RULES?) HAD WORKED JUST FINE, THANKS.

AND WHAT IF A MAJOR EMPLOYER WITHIN A STATE IS THE CULPRIT BEHIND POLLUTION?
IF THE STATE SLAPS THAT COMPANY ON THE WRIST AND FORCES IT TO CLEAN UP ITS ACT, WHY, THEY MIGHT GET MAD AND MOVE OUT OF THE STATE!

PERISH THE THOUGHT OF LOSING A BIG COMPANY!
BEST TO KEEP THINGS QUIET, EVEN IF A LITTLE CHEATING IS IN ORDER TO COVER UP THE FACTS.

MUST KEEP INDUSTRY HAPPY!

How will drinking water systems pay for the new requirements?

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, Congress created a new financial assistance program to help states and communities finance the costs of improving drinking water treatment facilities.  

To date, more than $8.6 billion has been appropriated by Congress to ensure that local drinking water systems have the resources to protect America's drinking water and states are providing more than $1 billion annually to public water systems to finance costs of infrastructure needed to improve public health protection and ensure compliance with regulations.

THAT'S NICE.
BUT IF 'PORKY'S PIG FARM', WHICH EMPLOYS 400 FOLKS IN ANYTOWN/SMALLTOWN, USA WON'T STOP FUNNELING ITS WASTES INTO THE CREEK/RIVER/LAKE, THEN WHAT GOOD ARE THE BILLIONS IN FUNDING WHEN THE FILTRATION SYSTEM FAILS REPEATEDLY FROM THE OVERLOAD?

IF THE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY DOESN'T FISH OUT ALL DEAD ANIMALS IN THE WATER THEY'RE TREATING AND KEEP ALLOWING CARCASSES, UNCHECKED, MAKING NO AMENDMENT TO HOW THE WATER IS TREATED, HOW MUCH OPOSSUM OR RACCOON CRUD CAN EACH WATER CUSTOMER EXPECT COMING OUT OF THAT TAP?

JUST WHO'S MONITORING THE MONITORS?
What is EPA doing to assist SMALL systems?

Through their Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs, states must annually provide a minimum of 15 percent of their drinking water loans to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. 

These loans will help pay for fixing defects in systems or adding disinfection. 

EPA will be developing a variety of guidance documents for small system operators to inform them about new requirements associated with the rule, best available technologies to meet new requirements, and funding available to them.

I ALMOST FORGOT, ABOUT THE IVANHOE RESERVOIR IN 2008...
VERY SIMILAR SITUATION...

The 102-year-old facility serves about 600,000 customers downtown and in South Los Angeles. When the Department of Water Protection realized the problem, they began construction of a new underground reservoir in Griffith Park, but while the new facility was being built they had to determine a way to keep the sunlight out of the water.
The possibility of tarps and metal coverings were explored but they were either too expensive or will take too long to install. So one of the DWP's biologists, Brian White, suggested "bird balls," commonly used by airports to prevent birds from congregating in wet areas alongside runways. The balls are made of polyethylene and cost only 40 cents each. The coating contains carbon...
400,000 balls were dropped into the reservoir on June 2008, where they will remain for the next four to five years until the new underground reservoir is completed."

WELL, CALIFORNIA, SORRY.

MAYBE SOMEONE WHO LIVES NEAR ONE OF THE THREE RESERVOIRS WITH PLASTIC BALLS IN THEM CAN TELL US WHAT KIND OF SOUND THAT MANY BUMPING BALLS MAKES?