Toilet To Tap?

Opinion

I received an email with an attached letter from the Mayor. Apparently, she is deeply concerned about how candidates for City Council are discussing PURE. Gotta love making George Orwell feel proud. "PURE is a process. It is not a specific project" so reads the letter. I would say it is a specific project. It is a project that seeks to find a way to sell the public on drinking a reclaimed wastewater cocktail. Yes, it is treated. Yes certain things are settled out and chlorine and other chemicals are added but it is still wastewater. There are potentially hundreds of chemicals that we send down our pipes where the EPA has not set safe exposure levels that won't even be checked.
Just this past August the EPA issued a proposal to designate two of the most widely used PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA or Superfund. PFAS are referred to as "forever chemicals" because they break down so slowly that they endure for unknown periods of time.

"EPA is proposing to designate two per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), including their salts and structural isomers -- as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. The proposed designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances is based on significant evidence that PFOA and PFOS may present a substantial danger to human health or welfare and the environment. PFOA and PFOS can accumulate and persist in the human body for long periods of time and evidence from laboratory animal and human epidemiology studies indicate that exposure to PFOA and/or PFOS can cause cancer, reproductive, developmental (e.g., low birth weight), cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and immunological effects."

Of particular concern, a common "characteristic of concern of PFAS is that many break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time."

"When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was first passed in 1976, thousands of chemicals were grandfathered in under the statute and allowed to remain in commerce without additional EPA review. Before TSCA was amended in 2016, EPA completed formal reviews on only about 20% of new chemicals and had no authority to address new chemicals about which the Agency lacked sufficient information, which is part of the reason why many chemicals, including PFAS, were allowed into commerce without a complete review."

Now I am not a chemist or scientist but the above sections taken from the EPA website and publications were actually a far easier read than the letter that went out over the Mayor's signature. If it was so concerning that the state legislature mandated an end to surface water discharges of this "purified water" (the Mayor's words, not mine) has to cease by 2032, I must ask why. I am assuming for environmental reasons. But swirl it around and pump it in and out of the ground and it is now okay to serve in your finest crystal.

But the letter goes on with other statements that make no sense. "... smart water meters that will be installed all over the city in the next decade will save 5 million gallons of water every day." Excuse me but how does a water meter save water? A "meter" measures water. It is an inanimate object. People either save or wastewater but all a meter does is measure the flow of water through the device. So it would seem that the actual "saving" will largely come from catching people watering other than assigned dates and times. And I would guess a smart meter would catch some residential leaks resulting in some savings providing the city promptly notified the water account holder that there were indications of a possible leak.

Or how about this "Since taking office, it has become apparent that much of the opposition to Tampa securing its own water supply is rooted in a fear that the City’s self-reliance would reduce our dependence on the regional water wholesaler and may negatively impact its ability to meet our future water supply needs." Are we self-reliant? Or are we dependant? And if we are self-reliant then where is the source of our "dependence" and why would they be supplying our needs if we are self-reliant. Remember, I said this would make George Orwell swoon.

So until the questions are answered this "process" needs to be stopped in its tracks. It is a process in search of a justification. The fact of the matter is that Toilet-to-Tap is the one thing I have seen in Tampa that brings Progressives, Democrats, Independents, and young Republicans together. The fact that there is such an effort to lock us down on this path I find very disturbing. Charlie Miranda, one of my opponents in District 6, has pushed this reclaimed water hobby for more than 20 years. Please ask him why he wants to obligate us to a BLANK CHECK that STARTS AT A HALF BILLION DOLLARS and could go as high as $6,000,000,0000.

The letter concludes with this gentle admonition: "At the end of the day, politics should never get in the way of doing the right thing, and misinformation should never get in the way of the truth when it comes to making decisions for the benefit of our community." Sadly it seems lobbyists and politics are what is driving Purify Useable Resources for the Environment (PURE). I think we have plenty of examples around the country of leaders who never played politics with water like those in Hinckley, CA or Flint, MI or Camp Lejeune, NC, etc.

If you have doubts about this project, do some reading and if your questions are NOT answered, You need to Vote on March 7th for those who share your concerns. I am a firm NO unless my concerns are resolved.

For more information click on the link Rick Fifer for Tampa City Council District 6

Approved by candidate Rick Fifer, non-partisan, for Tampa City Council District 6