Surely biosolids go first

LETTER

I wonder if there is a mistake in the reporting of the proposed extension of the sewage treatment system by introducing a disinfection component earlier than planned. The article suggests that annual operating costs will increase by $500,000 due to the cost of transporting the eloquently-named biosolids out of the district, until a suitable alternative use or disposal here is settled on.

I would have thought that disinfection would occur after the removal of biosolids and therefore not add to that cost.

I also suggest, somewhat flippantly, that anyone objecting to any suggested changes, or perceived lack of progress, or for whatever reason, can institute a meaningful protest by refusing to use their facilities for a period of their choice. Gives withholding a whole new nuance.

I certainly hope we will end up using that disinfection stuff advertised on TV which gets rid of 99 percent of evil greeblies. Personally I suspect a surreptitious attempt by those holding the “(flushing) levers of power” to implement Agenda 21, which most probably has biosolids among its constituents . . .

Ron Taylor

I wonder if there is a mistake in the reporting of the proposed extension of the sewage treatment system by introducing a disinfection component earlier than planned. The article suggests that annual operating costs will increase by $500,000 due to the cost of transporting the eloquently-named biosolids out of the district, until a suitable alternative use or disposal here is settled on.

I would have thought that disinfection would occur after the removal of biosolids and therefore not add to that cost.

I also suggest, somewhat flippantly, that anyone objecting to any suggested changes, or perceived lack of progress, or for whatever reason, can institute a meaningful protest by refusing to use their facilities for a period of their choice. Gives withholding a whole new nuance.

I certainly hope we will end up using that disinfection stuff advertised on TV which gets rid of 99 percent of evil greeblies. Personally I suspect a surreptitious attempt by those holding the “(flushing) levers of power” to implement Agenda 21, which most probably has biosolids among its constituents . . .

Ron Taylor

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

CRAIG MONK, Waxahachie, Texas - 22 days ago
Disinfecting sewage or sewage sludge called biosolids will have NO effect on potentially 85,000 chemicals found in commerce dumped into the sewage system. The sewage industry will say that's just not true, that industrial pre-treatment takes care of those chemicals which is a bald face lie. Read US EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) report no 14-P-0363 (More Action Is Needed to Protect Water Resources from Unmonitored Hazardous Chemicals) to find out why. Then read OIG's report 11/15/2018 no. 19-P-0002 ("EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of Unregulated Pollutants in Land-Applied Biosolids on Human Health and the Environment) to find out just how dangerous biosolids are put out on top of the ground contaminating everything.
Wake up!

Peter Jones - 20 days ago
Great to see agenda 21 and our sewerage debt loading linked together. Aren't we supposed to be pumping it into our underground aquifer? Who would trust the "experts"?