TalkBaja.com » Baja Mexico Forums » Baja News Wire

As they watch millions of gallons of treated Tijuana wastewater flow into the Pacific Ocean each day, Baja California authorities say they have a better idea: Why not pipe it to the Guadalupe Valley, Baja California’s winemaking region, where the water table has been falling even as the area has risen in international renown?

Proposed aqueduct would quench Baja wine valley

By Sandra Dibble
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Monday, February 1, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

TIJUANA — As they watch millions of gallons of treated Tijuana wastewater flow into the Pacific Ocean each day, Baja California authorities say they have a better idea: Why not pipe it to the Guadalupe Valley, Baja California’s winemaking region, where the water table has been falling even as the area has risen in international renown?

Gov. José Guadalupe Osuna Millán’s government is proposing a 46-mile aqueduct that would carry the treated water from eastern Tijuana to the vineyards and olive groves in the small agricultural valley north of Ensenada.

“If we wanted to use all the treated water in the city, we’d be hard-pressed to find places to put it, no matter how many green areas we had,” said Efraín Muñoz, head of the State Water Commission, Baja California’s water planning agency.

Miles from Tijuana’s crowded hillsides, winemakers in the picturesque Guadalupe Valley say they’re running out of water, and that is threatening the future of a region responsible for 90 percent of Mexico’s wine production.

The valley shares its wells with the city of Ensenada, and the growing demand for urban and agricultural uses has put unprecedented pressure on the aquifer.

The Guadalupe Valley would not be the first to use reclaimed water in its vineyards. Napa Valley has been using treated wastewater in some vineyards for at least a decade, said Jeff Tucker of the Napa Sanitation District.

Hugo D’Acosta, owner of the Casa de Piedra winery and a member of the Baja California Wine Growers Association, offers cautious endorsement for the pipeline proposal.

The reclaimed-water project could offer a solution, he said, “if and when it’s well-executed and meets the needs of the valley.”

D’Acosta and other vineyard owners have become increasingly wary of encroachment by housing developments and fear that without strict zoning regulations, the pipeline could encourage large-scale projects that destroy the valley’s vocation.

“I see it as feasible, but also very dangerous,” D’Acosta said of the proposed aqueduct.

This is not the first proposal aimed at using Tijuana’s wastewater. A U.S. company, Bajagua, for years proposed building a treatment plant in Mexico with $170 million in U.S. government funds, then selling up to 59 million gallons of reclaimed water a day. But the San Marcos company’s much-debated proposal failed in 2008 when the International Boundary and Water Commission opted to instead upgrade its existing San Ysidro treatment plant that treats 25 million gallons of Tijuana sewage a day.

Collecting and treating Tijuana’s sewage has been the subject of binational efforts for decades. The city’s spills and overflows risk contaminating San Diego County beaches and threaten the Tijuana River estuary, a federally protected wetland. Although dry-weather flows have largely been eliminated, cross-border sewage flows during wet weather continue to shut down South Bay beaches.

Last year, officials on both sides of the border celebrated when Tijuana’s state-operated utility, the CESPT, inaugurated the Arturo Herrera sewage treatment plant in eastern Tijuana.

The opening launched Tijuana’s first comprehensive wastewater-reuse program, and the inauguration of a pipeline carrying 470,000 gallons a day from the plant to nearby Morelos Park.

The CESPT is completing a second treatment plant nearby called La Morita, and is planning a third one, Cueros de Venado. The three plants would feed the Guadalupe Valley aqueduct up to 25 million gallons a day of wastewater treated to a secondary level, which is acceptable for irrigation purposes.

Muñoz, the Baja California water planner, said the Guadalupe Valley pipeline proposal has a good chance of becoming a reality, but it faces several hurdles.

Because the state government can’t afford the project’s $169 million price tag, it is turning to the private sector. The winning bidder would recover its investment by selling the water. But to keep water rates down, federal funds are also needed, Muñoz said.

The state hopes to put to the project out to bid this year and begin construction in 2011, Muñoz said.

Before reaching the Guadalupe Valley, some of the water would be diverted to the Valle de las Palmas outside Tijuana, where a satellite city is under construction. Additional amounts would be delivered to agricultural communities along the way, with the remainder stored at a reservoir planned at the valley’s northern end, Muñoz said.

The water would receive further treatment before being delivered to growers, allowing it to be used in spray and drip irrigation systems.

Even with the Guadalupe Valley pipeline in the planning stages, Muñoz is looking ahead to a second project to use the rest of Tijuana’s treated wastewater.

He envisions a coastline pipeline that would supply communities with irrigation water for their green spaces.

“It would be much cheaper than the drinking water we are now using,” Muñoz said.

A really good idea...

What a great idea. I can't wait to see the benefits of this program enhance the products of the valley.
In the future, we'll be able to pack our picnic baskets with crystal goblets, imported cheeses, fine linen and one of these:

Urine diagnostic Reagent Test Strips

You might be surprised how much treated/reclaimed water is used for irrigation these days, all over the planet.

I worked on a project years ago for Texaco, Chevron and Arco up in the San Joaquin Valley. They were "selling" treated / produced water to one of the water districts up there that feeds crops of grapes, cotton, almonds and carrots, among others. Not sure what the status is today but at one time it was as much as nearly a million barrels of water per day. The water contained trace levels of BTEX as well as many other trace level hydrocarbons and organics. The state water resources board ruled that the levels were acceptable for irrigation and the permit was approved.

I am more concerned about pesticide residues...

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

You might be surprised how much treated/reclaimed water is used for irrigation these days, all over the planet.

...

Not really. There's a treatment plant right here by the Army base that pipes treated water for irrigation to Maneadero. YUMMY
I'm more concerned with the quality of the treatment plant than I am of treated water.

You mean you don't like the "Organically Grown" brands???

We have some "purple PVC" irrigation re-use here in San Diego, and are also contemplating a program the wags have dubbed "toilet-to-tap"...

Coincidentally the plumbing/infrastructure for the latter just happens to run so that the rich areas north of I-8 will contribute, and the poorer areas south will be the grateful recipients.

I can see the cartoon now: a thirsty poor on his/her knees guzzling a stream straight out of Mr. Moneybaggs' trousers.

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

You might be surprised how much treated/reclaimed water is used for irrigation these days, all over the planet.

I worked on a project years ago for Texaco, Chevron and Arco up in the San Joaquin Valley. They were "selling" treated / produced water to one of the water districts up there that feeds crops of grapes, cotton, almonds and carrots, among others. Not sure what the status is today but at one time it was as much as nearly a million barrels of water per day. The water contained trace levels of BTEX as well as many other trace level hydrocarbons and organics. The state water resources board ruled that the levels were acceptable for irrigation and the permit was approved.

I am more concerned about pesticide residues...

Being from Kern, as well you should

Kern County has had a long chain of cancer clusters around farming communities that mostly affected families working in the fields - farmworkers. I remember one in McFarland where many young children of farmworkers in this small community were all diagnosed with various forms of cancers and subsequently died.

The state of California sent a few bureaucrats to study the problem but their results were "inconclusive".

Yea, right...

Originally Posted by Marty Cortez

We have some "purple PVC" irrigation re-use here in San

I can see the cartoon now: a thirsty poor on his/her knees guzzling a stream straight out of Mr. Moneybaggs' trousers.

Yep....A new and practical adaptation of the little-used Bidet in every home. I'm tired of washing my face with that darn thing.

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

Kern County has had a long chain of cancer clusters around farming communities that mostly affected families working in the fields - farmworkers. I remember one in McFarland where many young children of farmworkers in this small community were all diagnosed with various forms of cancers and subsequently died.

The state of California sent a few bureaucrats to study the problem but their results were "inconclusive".

Yea, right...

Bureaucrats.. My feelings are hurt.. I worked on that issue for around 5 years.. And believe it our not.. We couldn't find one jump out factor which could account for the "cancer cluster" ... We sampled the water, the air, soil, upstream, down stream side ways and upside down and could not find one thing that was much different from in Pixley, or Tipton, or Taft, Shafter and a number of other sites, in an attempt to figure out what the hell was going on there in McFarland.. the water issue was really big at the time due to findings about a soil fumigant that had been used heavily in the Valley for a number of years.

And that the data submitted by Shell Oil, to the EPA and then to the State of California was fraudulent

There was not argument in my mind that there was in fact a cluster of people who were getting cancer at a higher rate than other towns in the Valley.. but, they didn't even have a Ag Chem Dealership in McFarland... OxyChem was down the road, and down wind.. we weren't finding any more DBCP in the water than just about any other place, other than the old Shell plant in Lathrop, where that whole problem first really came to light..( all the men who were working at the plant were not having children..due to the exposure to the material in its formulation, and distribution to growers.. you most likely know the rest of that story.. a find example of Corporate responsibility, very much like how Grupo Mexico SAB has run their operations in the United States.. operate until it's a God awful mess, file bankruptcy, and bail.. sell it to someone else, as they have no liability for the previous owners problems, as they were "did not participate in management" of the previous operator.. that's why we have established levels for DBCP in our drinking water.. Nationally as it's in all the water in the United States. This as it was used by just about all .. it was a very cheap and very effective soil steriliant for marginal land and good land, it allowed increased production, through the elimination of soil pest and keep weed germination down too... and it was allowed to be water run application.. they would take 55 gallon drums and turn them on there sides in the canals and just let them empty...

But, I'm getting off McFarland.. Your right about the overall feeling of folks and their collective response... We were accused of being in bed with the Chemical Companies.. And just about run out of town on a rail with the Departments findings..

It was again, again and again investigated.. Their were a lot of folks that really wanted to find out "what the hell" was going on there..

Looked at it just about every-way we could think of.. diet, age, smokers, you name it, it all was put under a magnifying glass.. we worked with: Department of Fish and Game, State Water Board, State Air Board, Cal OSHA and I was with the Department of Food and Agriculture, which regulated the registration, certification, use, worker health and safety and environmental monitoring, we were also on contract with EPA Region IX.. with credentials from the EPA

You again gave me a flash back to another time and place.. Liked the first one much better.. Basque Food at the Wool Growers, having a few beers listening to Merle and Buck.. and fishing on the Kern.. plus a lot of good folks that I worked with on a lot of different things .. was a very interesting period in my life..

Thanks.. sorry we didn't get an answer to the question.. and many times one could not say what one wanted too.. you had orders on how "we" want to spin this.. sad but true...

Agency turf fights were not uncommon, as it meant more funds in next years budget.. More personnel, more, and more.. ... Seems I keep saying that ..

Well that's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Wiley:

I owned a testing lab up there at the time and we had done a lot of analysis of the water, soil and pesticide residues on crops. We did something else - we collected air samples a half mile or more down wind of where they were spraying and many of the results had alarming levels of pesticide. We then collected swipe samples off of fence posts, trees and other immovable objects down wind of spraying and obtained similar results. When we would sample days later, very little residue if any could be found.

I figured there was a good chance that pesticides were reaching the kids living and playing nearby the fields or even brought home on the clothing of workers from the fields. What is the first thing many parents do when they get home? Pick up their kids in their arms who would then come in contact with the pesticides.

You never found conclusive results in the water or soil because by that time they were mass diluted to the point of any levels that were detected would appear non-threatening. If contact occurred by direct breathing from the spraying or transferred from working coveralls their mom or dad would wear at work, the levels would be higher. Not sure why it was more at McFarland but it was something I thought deserved more attention.

I offered our results that were performed by GC-ECD and GC-MS to the study group but were told they had already taken those factors into account. I seriously wonder how deeply they looked into that angle.

It has always troubled me...

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

Wiley:

I owned a testing lab up there at the time and we had done a lot of analysis of the water, soil and pesticide residues on crops. We did something else - we collected air samples a half mile or more down wind of where they were spraying and many of the results had alarming levels of pesticide. We then collected swipe samples off of fence posts, trees and other immovable objects down wind of spraying and obtained similar results. When we would sample days later, very little residue if any could be found.

I figured there was a good chance that pesticides were reaching the kids living and playing nearby the fields or even brought home on the clothing of workers from the fields. What is the first thing many parents do when they get home? Pick up their kids in their arms who would then come in contact with the pesticides.

You never found conclusive results in the water or soil because by that time they were mass diluted to the point of any levels that were detected would appear non-threatening. If contact occurred by direct breathing from the spraying or transferred from working coveralls their mom or dad would wear at work, the levels would be higher. Not sure why it was more at McFarland but it was something I thought deserved more attention.

I offered our results that were performed by GC-ECD and GC-MS to the study group but were told they had already taken those factors into account. I seriously wonder how deeply they looked into that angle.

It has always troubled me...

It moves big time.. a large grower on the westside of Kern County was getting 2,4-D damages to his grapes in the spring.. right around bud break.. we confirmed it with State samples, and the grower did confirmation testing with a private lab (they also found 2,4 D and metablolites of same.. only problem, 2,4-D gets shut down.. no applications allowed for this very reason.. we were checking inventory against shipping records, Kern sure was not issuing permits for 2,4-D and neither was Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Madera or Merced they all had grapes too.. and they sure in hell were not going to get their grower upset. as they would go directly to the Board of Supervisors with out passing go!!

Well the first year we were all scratching our heads going where is this coming from, and then we said let's just see who in California was issued a permit for 2,4-D .. .We found that permits had been issued out of the District office of SLO County in Paso Robles. They did not have grapes or other sensitve crops.. so they did not have permit restrictions at that time for 2,4-D cut off.. it was for the wheat grower out to the eastside and the 2,4-d was moving all the way to Buttonwillow.. better than 50 air miles..

Well the wheat growers weren't to happy about the new permit conditions, nor were a lot of the chemical Company's and aerial applicators, as it was just another example of how one can't keep it on site.. which at the time was just kill that side of the industry.. the Chemical and the aerial applicators.. and then throw in a couple of Cancer Cluster, Fradulent registrations on "REGISTERED" products.. when lets just say the Industry was just shooting holes in their feet just about everyday.. then throw in worker safety, Cheza Chaves.. finding of groundwater contamination through out the State and other States as well.. it was an interesting period of employment, a lot of things going on. The movement from the long term persistent materials which were bad for the birds DDT, Chloradne .. to materials which were develped for war applications.. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or nerve gas compounds.. which brought on a whole new set of problems.. but then that is another story..

End point.. the effect use of aerial application of chemicals for crop production creates a very lot of difficult problems.. their solution is costly to the grower, the Chemical Company, the those who regulate it.. folks need to eat.. and unless they have seen salt marsh catipilers so thick that cars run off the road, as they are a carpet of living insects..
it's a hard sell for their use (the Chemicals)..

Been there on that one too.. please spray.. the bugs are eating everything, and.. well then that's another story..

You must know where I'm talking about, Kettleman City.. they the folks demanded that South Lake Farms and J.G. Bosewel give a buffer to the City of at least one mile..

Well all that did was herd all the creepy crawlers to one location to get away from getting killed.. and yep.. where they all went was Kettleman City.. the town was over run my insects.. the people then wanted the guys to treat the town, don't stop spraying .. kill them all, but that could not be allowed, as it was against the law which these folks had wanted... keep the pesticides away from ... you get the idea..

But, they do move.. and we were constanly setting up monitoring station all over the entire State.. As our part was to insure the safe production of food and fiber using Agricultural Chemicals, and another part of our division took care of Feeds and Fertilizers.. and ladies.. if you knew what is used to create your makeup.. oh, boy...

Oh, one other thing.. the breakdown of the newer materials which were a lot more deadly.. broke down much quicker in the environment.. that was good, but bad too... as treatment was then required more often therefore more gallons and more and more.. there I go again with the more..

It's all good, still alive.. my exposure to hazardous materials has to date not done me in.. can say what it's done to my brain.. some have thoughts about that....

if this is too incoherent, I apologize.. but, its not going to print.. I'm not employed and if someone wants to sue me have at it... I've been through that drill too...

Great post Wiley and I learned a couple things from it - thanks. When i faulted the McFarland study I wasn't directing my anger at the people in the group as much as I felt there was a command decision made farther up the chain of command to protect the growers. Kern County needs to take care of its farmers but I don't see kids as an expendable cost of doing business.

Lots of rumors flew around that study and I saw some pretty convincing evidence to support a few of them. Its probably best we not put them all in print lest we both get sued...

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

Great post Wiley and I learned a couple things from it - thanks. When i faulted the McFarland study I wasn't directing my anger at the people in the group as much as I felt there was a command decision made farther up the chain of command to protect the growers. Kern County needs to take care of its farmers but I don't see kids as an expendable cost of doing business.

Lots of rumors flew around that study and I saw some pretty convincing evidence to support a few of them. Its probably best we not put them all in print lest we both get sued...

Not to worry.. it's all good oh, and to stay consistent.. here is some good newss

Originally Posted by wessongroup

Not to worry.. it's all good oh, and to stay consistent.. here is some good news