Bleach Francisco

Discussion
1

Thought you might find this interesting....regarding the impact of low flow toilets on the SF sewer system.

Mike

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/79574.html

Writes Jim Brownfield:

Here<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/28/BAVP1HUSUD.DTL&tsp=1> it says San Francisco is having problems with their sewer systems because of low-flow toilets that don't provide enough water to clear out sewage from the system. According to the article, "The city has already spent $100 million over the past five years to upgrade its sewer system and sewage plants, in part to combat the odor problem." They may start pumping 8.5 million pounds of bleach into the sewer system to combat the problem.

The "upside" of low-flow toilets? According to the article: "Well, according to [Tyrone] Jue [,spokesman for the city Public Utilities Commission], they have helped trim San Francisco's annual water consumption by about 20 million gallons."

According to this website<http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/3>, the Gross Annual Water Sales for San Francisco in 2007/2008 was 34,137,635 ccf. One ccf is 100 cubic feet which is approximately 748 gallons/ccf

That means the gross annual water sales for San Francisco is approximately 25,534,950,980 gallons per year.

San Francisco saves 20,000,000 gallons/year from low-flow toilets.

(20,000,000 (gal/yr) / 25,534,950,980 (gal/yr) ) * 100% = .08%

So, San Francisco reduces water consumption by 8 HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT at the expense of hundreds of millions of dollars to the sewer system alone (not counting the cost to consumers of the low-flow toilets and associated plumbing problems), and they are now likely to add millions of pounds of the environmentally hazardous and corrosive bleach to their sewers.

This seems wacko even by government standards.

2

Mike,

  Indeed. I saw this story on SFGate, and commented on it being a good example of how government interference (in this case, forcing people to install low-flow toilets) often results in unintended consequences that render it useless or even harmful.

  I haven't tried to do the math, but another commenter posted that the monetary savings from the reduced water use of the low-flow toilets was only $60,000 (probably that was annually, I don't recall).

  Even if the sewer system needed upgrading anyway -- which it probably did, given the chronic failure of local government to budget for the unsexy task of maintaining infrastructure -- and removing odors caused as little as 1% of their expense ($1 million out of $100 million), it would take the better part of two decades to break even on the water savings (never mind the cost and harm of the bleach operation).

  Meanwhile, at least a couple SFGate commenters noted that pumping bleach into the sewer system will kill off good bacteria that help break down the waste. Bleach is highly toxic, and I suspect this is a bad idea for many other reasons too. The "green" toilets sure sound like a debacle all the way around.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))