BACA BEAGLE

The Citizens Watchdog

2012 Issue 1, January 7th.

WATER
By Karen Koyote
For those of you who couldnt make the BGW&S board meeting I wanted to provide this update. When the meeting began there was a bit of board business, but then went straightaway to public comment. A.J. Beckman from the Company was present and led the meeting. There was a conference call set up in which the sales manager from Aqua Smart, An attorney (silent for the duration of the meeting), a toxicologist and another representative from NSF was on the line. At first A.J. spoke with them and asked them questions regarding the safety of OPP. The same issues were addressed as have been reported by articles in the Eagle, such as a comparison of the phosphate to phosphates in coke, and how the phosphates were food grade; your body needed phosphates etc. As I was listening however, I noticed that the representatives of NSF were careful to report that they tested for contaminants to the substance in question. This included such substances as arsenic, barium, 1

and copper among others. This is in agreement with the letter as reported by Steve Wade in which the response was:
Dear Ms. Wade NSF Certification of products used to treat drinking water involves evaluating samples of the products for compliance with NSF/ANSI 60. The purpose of this voluntary American national standard is to confirm that an additive will not introduce excessive levels of impurities into a water supply when used up to a maximum usage rate. In summary, the standard limits the introduction of impurities to no more than 10 percent of the federal limit for any detected contaminants. Please note that this standard is not intended to address the potential effectiveness of a product nor the other issues that you have raised. (Health issues! sw) Thank you for your inquiry. Please let us know if you have any further questions about the NSF 60 certification process. Cheryl Luptowski

They went on to cite safety standards for phosphates but nothing specific for SeaQuest 547. They told us that the health data was taken from other existing studies. When queried directly with the question..Has there been any

testing done to measure the effect of long-term exposure of OPP (SeaQuest 547) on human beings?..The answer was no. In short, the testing done by NSF is mainly to ensure the purity of the substance, that it is not introducing other secondary contaminants into the water, they are not testing for health effects. However there was a lot of discussion of the general safety of phosphates, poly and ortho. In the course of looking into this matter I went to the site of Aqua Smart and found some facts that I brought up with these folks. You see the statement that this SQ547 is ONLY a blend of 6 food grade phosphates is not entirely correct, they do state that this 547 technology does not involve any change in phosphate chemistry (they didnt change the phosphates structure) however, they manipulate the Size and Charge of these particles and have some way of grinding the metal particles down. An October 2002 newsletter from Aqua Smart states:
The reason that they (foreign producers of polyphosphates) cannot succeed is often attributed to the black art (emphasis mine) of manufacturing polyphosphates. However if you analyze such products chemically, you find that the foreign products have a much wider and larger polymetric size. Why is this important in drinking water applications? Because when it comes to sequestration of metals in solution (iron, manganese, calcium, and magnesium) the larger the polyphosphate molecule, the less effectively it sequesters. Aqua Smart, Inc. has taken this even farther. By providing its unique SQ547 technology (developed over 18 years of research), Aqua Smart has focused even more upon the molecular distribution sizing to improve upon what (US) manufactures already know. Another newsletter states: In order to accomplish this different than all the rest technology, Aqua Smart created its proprietary SQ 547. Besides making

SeaQuest stable under reversion under varying pH, varying time, and varying temperature, SQ 547 allows SeaQuest to form an integral, uniform non building metal phosphate. This uniform continuous metal phosphate is the corrosion protective mechanism on the inner surfaces of distribution piping. Where corrosion preexists, the same SQ technology slowly removes the pre-existing corrosion and replaces it with its own coating (Emphasis mine)

This information was on track with what I had learned from Justine Love. He had called Aqua Smart a week or two ago and he chatted with a sales representative at the company. Being a very knowledgeable person regarding water and water filtration, the sales rep probably presumed he had a potential client on the phone. Here is what he was told. OPP works through encapsulation. They put OPP through an ionization process giving it a negative charge. As OPP travels through the pipes OPP attracts positively charged metal particles from 1 to 20 microns in size. As this process continues it grinds these metal particles to a smaller size. He described the phosphates as having the function of grabbing the metal particles, and a chemical component that had the function of breaking down the same. The sales representative when asked what the specific size of these particles might be would not answer directly. However, when asked if a reverse osmosis R/O filter would be effective in removing these particles stated that OPP would plug an R/O filter very fast. Justin described why this process may be a health concern in this way. An R/O filter is effective with particles down to the size of .0001mc. The units have to be pressurized to put the water through due to the small size of the R/O filter openings. They are also equipped with a continuous flushing action mechanism to sweep away the particles from the filter as they are separated from the water. This helps to prevent the particles from plugging up the filter rapidly. If the R/O filter is being 2

plugged up very fast as the sales rep stated, this would indicate that the particles are entering into the filter itself making them . 0001mc in size or smaller. We are concerned that the metal phosphates could then be delivered to US through these tiny particles. Another consideration is that the testing may not be picking up these substances, as particles of less than mc in size are not detectable. Also the testing may only be indicating a phosphate and not the metals that are bound up in the phosphates. In the meeting after repeating this information/question a couple of times, the sales director stated that we would not receive metal particles. However this does not make sense to me as the phosphates are designed to attract metals, and make them smaller, and it is known that some of these phosphates are in the tap water. I guess the chemist would have to explain how SQ 547 could REMOVE the metal coating and REPLACE it with its own, without us being exposed to those metal phosphates.
As more and more of the deposit oxide is sequestered and more and more of the hydrogen bonding precursor stage develops, the overall integrity of the deposit mass changes its color (chemistry) and becomes softened. Once softened enough, this mass can be flushed out by hydrant flushing or simply disappears in the normal course of flow without any negative effects to water quality at the tap. (Emphasis mine)

What effect does OPP have on the pH of our water? What effect do these acidic phosphates have on the pH of our bodies? What effect does it have on our plants? There was also some discussion regarding chlorine, can we change to another disinfection strategy, do we have to chlorinate above the minimum? Of worthy note A.J. Beckman said that there is an independent 3rd party developing a corrosion control plan and changes will be considered. The recent infractions of BGW&S was questioned in regards to this plan, as it was requested by CDPHE on April 25th 2008 and due on October of 2010. Mr. Beckman described the condition of the BGW&S at that time as in crises and chaos. And that the CDPHE was confusing in what they required. The missing records were mentioned. Christine Canaley spent some time in expressing her qualifications and disappointment in being confronted with an OWS strategy. She also expressed displeasure in the fact that BGW&S could be fined substantially for the violations as brought up by Karen Henderson PC, which is especially concerning for them as they are already paying off fines from a previous infraction regarding wastewater effluent discharges. (A pH issue I believe) I totally agree, it is VERY unfortunate that we (the taxpayers) have to pay for BGW&S mistakes! You may view this meeting in its entirety on the website http://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-waterboard-meeting-videos.html

I did ask him where the deposits went, and how could they just disappear? The sales rep stated that they went out the tap. (But dont worry; he said it is the same as taking an iron pill from whole foods). There were other very good questions presented to this panel of experts such as, Can we call our food organic if using water with OPP? What if a person has a medical condition making it difficult to process phosphates? 3

reports from community members started coming in regarding smell, rashes, sores etc. Then posters went up around the community. My friend, being a conscious person, went to his superiors and told them about the peoples reports. Their reaction (according to him), was for them to buy a filter or move. As the person in charge of dosing the water he took it upon himself to go to those controls and lower them to the appropriate level. It is my opinion that this is the kind of responsible action that I would like to see in the BGW&S. Also, to help aid in your complete understanding, here is some information regarding the impact of chlorine and our districts past and current levels. The EPAs guidelines recommend a .2 level of chlorine as higher levels can cause further corrosion of pipes. This is correct. This is not to say that this is the upper limit recommended by the EPA as a general rule for municipal water. In fact, the upper limit as reported to me is at 4. (Insane) Just to put this into perspective swimming pools are commonly kept at 2. Stephen Wade reported to me the following information. When he started at the BGW&S the job duties included adding the chlorine into the system. The dosage he was given to put in was 2.0. This as I have said is the chlorine level of a swimming pool. OK, when you take a shower, your skin is a VERY efficient delivery system of what is contacting it. That is why medicinal skin patches work. If you take a hot shower at this level, I was told your toxic intake is like drinking 40L of this water. Now I figure this was a decimal point mistake, and the level was really supposed to be at 0.2, (the recommended level for corrosion control). This 2.0 dosage went on for weeks, and soon 4 Overall we have acidic water. The pH of the water is key to corrosion control. And by the way we mainly have PVC pipes as lines so the problem exists AT THE HOUSES that have copper pipes. From what I understand, and bear with me as I am a little fuzzy in this area, the initial water samples were taken from a few houses with copper pipes that were reporting problems. (Could it possibly be as a result of the previous stated issue?? [Hypothesis only, not stated as fact]) One of which was determined to have an electrical problem as the cause. Now I really dont understand this part as I am not an electrician, but I bet someone out there does and can clarify for us. So based on the results of a handful (or less) of houses it was determined that the whole system was to be treated with OPP? I have a copy of a citizens water test as recently as 9/14/2011 by SDC Laboratory and the ph was listed at 5.84. The pH of our water is STILL acidic. And our chlorine levels are set at or around .34. But understand that these levels are not static, they fluctuate. In this next part I am going to take excerpts from a letter written by Karen Henderson PC and addressed to several individuals at the Water Quality Control Division.

To aid in the selection of an optimal corrosion control treatment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued its Revised Guidance Manuel. As in evidenced by the EPA Guidance Manuel, maintaining a stable ph is a key element in controlling corrosion. A ph below 7.0 creates water of high corrosivity. A 1995 report from the American Water Works Association found that copper release tended to decrease at higher pH without the need for a phosphate-based inhibitor. This report also provided that: In waters with alkalinity of [less than] 74 mg/L as CaCO3, raising pH from [less than] 7.40 to 7.40-7.80 resulted in a 4368 percent reduction in average 90th percentile copper releasechanges that are significant to the 95th percent confidence level. Therefore, it appears that the District could address its copper corrosion problems without the need for a phosphate based inhibitor. Rather, it could adjust the pH of the water from the current 5.84 to something between 7.2 and 7.8 as well as increase the alkalinity of the water to increase buffering capacity. In addition, the low pH of the Districts water in conjunction with the use of chlorine as a disinfectant may be creating a corrosive combination. A report regarding the effect of chlorine on corrosion in drinking water systems found that: The corrosivity of chlorinated water is enhanced by low pH because of the greater oxidizing strength of hypochlorous acid (favored at low pH) over that of hypochlorite ion. The researchers conclude that free chlorine levels should be maintained no higher 5

than .2mg/L and the pH of the water maintained between 7 and 8 in order to minimize copper corrosion. The General Manager of the District reported to the Board that on April 18, 2011, the free chlorine residual in the finished water was . 33mg/L. There is evidence to suggest that free chlorine is primarily responsible for the corrosion of copper in chlorinated drinking water systems, especially in systems with a pH below 7.0 Chlorinated water with a low pH can also irritate skin and eyes, among other unwanted side effects. It is our understanding that the Districts customers have voiced concerns over itchy and irritated skin and eyes after bathing in the water. This may be exacerbated by the fact the districts finished water has a low pH and the chlorine levels are over the recommended levels of .2 mg/L. It is also worth mentioning that the findings in the above mentioned reports are also consistent with the EPA Guidance Manuel, which notes that copper tends to dissolve and enter drinking water less frequently when water has higher pH levels; target pH levels should be maintained throughout the distribution system; and chlorine can increase copper corrosion. The Districts use of a blended phosphate without adjusting pH levels is not effective and simply attempts to cover up the underlying corrosive combination of low pH and higher chlorine levels in the finished water. In addition the benefit of using blended phosphates and/or orthophosphates to reduce the corrosion of water is not clear. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the use of orthophosphates may increase the level of copper corrosion after a period of extended use. Further, the use of polyphosphates, which

makes up 77% of SeaQuest, may actually increase the leaching of pipe metal into water under certain conditions; therefore, until these conditions are identified the use of polyphosphates can be risky. (End of excerpt) The chlorine level that is required when a sample level is taken from your house is a trace. So the optimal is .2 at source and trace at your house. This is because the chlorine is used up as it travels the system, more if it meets up with bacteria. I have been told that what is occurring now in this system is a target of .4ish at the source and .2 at your house. This is unnecessary. But I was also told that by maintaining a double than necessary level, that it eliminates the required routine testing for bacteria in the system. You can make your own assumptions here. There is a whole lot more where this came from, but I dont want to overwhelm you today. And I have copies of the exhibited documents up that back up these statements. (Except the anecdotal ones of course) Come on BGW&S, do the right thing! Remove OPP from and flush our system Raise the pH to above 7.2 Lower chlorine levels to .2-source, and tracehouse Develop and monitor a corrosion plan that meets EPA requirements AND reduces the peoples concerns from your District! Important dates

January 20th at 8:30-BGW&S Board meeting Seats are coming open to serve on the BGW&S Board. Forms are supposed to be available at the end of January on the district website. Including a presentation from the company that is doing the corrosion control study.

If you would like to submit articles, advertise, Put something in the upcoming section FOR TRADE or contribute financially to this publication, send inquires to Karen Koyote PO Box 492 Crestone, CO 81131 719-256-4522

Next issue will be titled EARTH And will attempt to answer the question Who and Why did they really block access to a public road?? A road that was used to get to Cottonwood Creek trail, Shumi and to a BGW&S storage tank?

Ushering In the New Paradigm

We face a very interesting challenge with the Baca Water & Sanitation District... By delivering to us, without our collective consent, water that's contaminated with questionable chemicals, the District has provided us with a Golden Opportunity... As a Community, we are already joining our Heart together in order to address this problem, creating solutions as we go along... The old ways, the ones that serve the few at the expense of the many, will NOT work in a Community such as this is..... Only the caring ways of the New Paradigm will work here, obviously...

And, if this change is to happen, it must come from the ground up. It's time for us to re-shape the Baca Water and Sanitation District into something that's far more in alignment with our spiritual Community and its core values of caring for and Loving One Another... We must embrace and create a NEW Community Charter, forming a NEW Township that serves the highest good of All, first and foremost... and one that would deliver only the purest of water to our homes.

Think of a life in Paradise (or however else you would choose to describe it)... That IS what we want to create here, reflecting the energy, beauty and wonder of the land about us. It really does not take a whole lot of thinking to do this, to create this, because each of us has that in our Heart already. We ARE The People, The One Heart In All... And, it is about time we came out of our little shells and began living the Life we've always envisioned, as a Group of caring beings, a Family, a Community... for once and forever!

And, we can thank the difficulties with the old Water District for providing the impetus to do this.

-Grandpaw Peter Koyote Dec. 25, 2011 (Ho, Ho, Ho!)