Dr. Liewellyn has written before on the hazards of some of these chemicals specifically the Dynamis garbage recycling plant which wanted to vent their smokestack exhaust which would have covered the pristine north end and subjected the grazing animals as well as humans to potential hazards.
I take him seriously but if the Farmers Union Canal is not appropriate why is it more appropriate to dump into the Boise River where downstream water is taken out of the Boise River by other irrigation Districts. Not sure I see a solution here.

Hi Chicago Sam,
Agree that these go down the river isn’t great either. The problem here is that we’ve already contaminated the Boise River, and users downstream of the wastewater treatment plants have adjusted accordingly. Contaminating a high quality source of water that people have relied on for well recharge, organic gardening, as well as potentially much of the Lower Dry Creek aquifer that recharges Eagle’s municipal wells makes no sense. The Farmers Union Canal, an extension of the original Boise Valley Canal, gets its water above Boise’s wastewater plants, and so is of high quality. In general, taking a concentrated source of contaminants and spreading them over a new area isn’t a good idea, especially when they don’t degrade and will accumulate over the years.

Take a look at some of the superfund sites caused by chemicals back east. Locally, fire fighting foam and goldmines comes to mind. It’s really nuts to dump chemicals that will need to be cleaned up in the future, yet here we are with the city’s best and brightest planning to do just that. The green crowd thinks a compost bin will degrade plutonium into harmless nutrients for the garden, so thank you sir for posting this important info. I doubt it will stay in the surface soil. It’s no secret the aquifer is in part replenished by irrigation. This puts fresh water wells at risk too. Maybe we can bottle it and sell to idiots in the Bay Area as ‘Boise’s Best’ reclaimed spring water.

While we are on the topic. Who does a person call when their idiot neighbor is gassing the entire block daily with an insecticide fogger. Based on the strength of it I suspect someone is using a professional or agricultural chemical in the residential backyard. Don’t answer unless you actually know who to call.

Newspeak glossary:

sewage treatment = water renewal

…makes it much more palatable and potable!

Hello Fat Kitty,

While there is certainly already more PFAS around than we want, in Idaho the likely concentrations are where fire fighting foams (AFFF) have been used in training, landfills, and municipal wastewater treatment plants, especially those that take discharge from industries like metal plating. Those point sources should be carefully controlled. The hazardous levels I referenced have taken into account typical soil background levels and been adjusted upward accordingly. Those places that are likely less contaminated (eg the Lower Dry Creek Aquifer) become even more valuable. And finally, one hears this argument in many different ways — during the Dynamis waste incinerator battle, people in favor (which included some environmentalists as the EPA was pushing Waste to Energy as a green solution) would often make a similar argument — since there is already so much mercury in the air in Idaho (wildfires, and Eastern Oregon’s cement plants) what harm would be done to add significantly more? Of course from a biological standpoint the answer should be clear — this isn’t about maintaining some idealized purity but about the accumulation of physical risk.

Thanks everyone. The problem in part is the city and Farmers Union are in charge of the testing. They ARE NOT testing for a range of permanent chemicals (chemicals that do not break down) and are bio-active and cumulative. They ARE ALSO avoiding review from other monitoring bodies. Monitoring bodies I will add that have had there budget gutted from present and past years of cuts. We are in “late stage capitalism”. Similar to before Rome fell. Everyone wants theirs and no one wants to pay for the quality steps necessary to get there.

Solution: 1. This was originally a heat problem.
A: solve the heat problem by cooling the water. Do this by simple low cost means. Churn the water and cause evaporation. Examples: Small water falls, Shaded rapids and water features

2. There are unmonitored pollutants in the water.
A. 2 PARTS: follow existing (low cost) solutions to measure and test for all pollutants.
B. Plant things known to absorb and concentrate said pollutants in the water features

3. The city AND the state is resisting paying for this. Yes, this is a state issue as much as a city issue. WHY?: The water travels over boarders, city, county etc.This also sets a precedent for a way to get around safety regulations.

Tell your friends. THIS IS NOT COOL. If this happens at all it is impossible to reverse. Once it starts the water table is contaminated with an unknown amount of “unknown” literally as Judy so correctly pointed out.

It is our land that will be known forever as “contaminated”. Property values, food quality, health.

Response to the city:
This is water ‘reuse’
A: FALSE- it is NOT pure safe water.

This water is not released into the river.
A: FALSE- all water drains back to the river, this just contaminates a bunch of land on the way.

This saves us money.
A: FALSE- see above AND this costs in property values, lost revenue from farms, potential cleanup.

Organic growers have nothing to fear.
A: FALSE- Pfos and other lasting chemicals are an anthropogenic fluorosurfactant and global pollutant (source Wikipedia) and listed as a disqualifier for organic certification.

Don’t worry about ratings.
A: I don’t want other peoples B rating in my carrots!?!

I focused on PFAS in this writing, as an example of an Contaminant of Emerging Concern (CEC) that is unquestionably emerging and will no longer be ignored. But there many other issues — for example, how wastewater treatment plants essentially catalyze the evolution of antibiotic resistance bacteria, and though a well-operated plant kills almost all of them, the DNA passes through to the bizarre ancient world of ‘semi-autonomous mobile genetic elements’ consisting of phages (virus that infect bacteria), transposons, plasmids, etc, that specialize in collecting DNA and carrying it to other bacteria — eg the ones in your soil. On the other end of the complexity spectrum, there are the salts in recycled water, which could make growing in alkaline Idaho soils all the more difficult.

Well folks I think $$$$$$ has alerted you to some of what’s coming down the road for Boise just as Nampa sewer rates are projected to compound annually at 16% for several years with a $165 million loan in addition.
An online look at PFAS reveals it is a major problem already in many parts of the country with Idaho having two sites identified at the military basses at Gowen Field and Mountain Home.
So far no major problem with drinking water which is identified as a prime source nationally. But what is the testing revealing at the source point for drinking water in Boise or anywhere else in the Treasure Valley. There are filters which supposedly help at your tap at home.
Sewage is quite a different problem and will a much slower build up if dispersed on farmland or compost, but the effluent source from the sewer plants should be the focus of fixing the problem–not just dispersing it in the nearest canal or sending it down the river to your friends and neighbors.

Hi Chicago — I agree that our best chance at dealing with PFAS and other nasties is at the municipal discharge point — everyone knows controlling a point source of contamination (and especially one that doesn’t degrade) is better than dispersing it. Activated carbon does a pretty good job with PFAS — not perfect and is expensive — but perhaps less expensive in the long run than contaminating either a new area (via the Farmers Union Canal) or continuing to send it down the river. Likely the costs would come down for treatment if the standards required it — but right now we are in this limbo of knowing the danger, but not acknowledging it when it matters.

And maybe I didn’t state one problem with sending the inadequately treated effluent down the Farmers Union Canal — the concentration of PFAS and other CECs in the canal water would be far higher — about 10X than in the river much of the summer — and yet this water flows through our properties, in ponds our kids play in, and recharges our wells.

Ain’t growth wonderful !!!

A double-whammy to your wallet with higher rates and higher property taxes due to growth – oops, I mean “progress” – and no impact fees for water infrastructure.

The City will be doubling-down on the future financial impact to citizens and businesses if they continue to upzone, which increases the number of water users for the existing infrastructure. And annexing Boise’s Area of Impact along the southern border will drive the costs allocated to extending future capacity needs. The recent Memos from Public Works to the City Council acknowledge that delivering water to a greater distance and collecting it back from a greater distance to clean it is expensive.

Even if you don’t live in Boise, growth and increased density also places an undue burden on Ada County to provide its required services, which results in the need for more money via the annual 3% budget increase.

At what point does the following stated purpose of Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act apply – – “To avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of the land.”

The major source of air pollution in the Treasure Valley – transportation, cars, trucks, and buses.

You’ll find me on my bike trying to climb high enough to get above it.

How is this legal? If the City of Boise is really planning to do this it seems like there should be legal ramifications.

Thank you Boise Guardian for posting and enlightening your readers with the comments and insights of Dr. Llewellyn. Many of us living in Boise are confused as to why our City Leadership continues to turn a blind eye to the cost of allowing development without the appropriate infrastructure. The current proposal of dumping partially treated water into the Farmers Union canal is more of the same. Poor processes result in poor outcomes.

If anyone doubts the level of deceit Boise City is willing to stoop to in order to get what it wants in this case, please consider the disconnect between a recent statement from Steve Burgos, Boise Public Works Director, and language from the actual contract secretly negotiated between Boise and Farmers Union Ditch Co. in 2014.

In an effort to placate the mayors of Eagle and Star, Mr. Burgos said, “Any recycled water project pursued by the city would include treating the water to the highest non-potable quality (Class A)”. Never mind for the moment that even Class A effluent is mandated to be accompanied by signage saying “Not For Human Contact.”

Now contrast that calculated reassurance with the following provision from the contract: “City shall attempt to obtain a waiver of permit requirements or obtain approval of State and Federal agencies to allow discharges to the canal of water less than Class A quality pending approval of discharges of Class A water.”

Simply put, if/when the City gains regulatory approval to dump Class A effluent into this 26-mile long canal serving hundreds if not thousands in three cities and two counties, it has every intention to violate the public trust even further by seeking approval to dump even dirtier and more dangerous effluent than Class A. A classic, behind-the-scenes bait & switch scheme that virtually no one who hasn’t read the contract knows about, but now you do!

Here’s another tidbit from the contract that illuminates the duration of contractual obligation for both Farmers Union (and thus its shareholders) and Boise City: “After twenty-five (25) years, Farmers may terminate this Agreement by providing at least five (5) years written notice to the City of intent to terminate. The City may terminate this agreement if Farmers is determined to be in material breach of this Agreement; or without cause by providing at least one year written notice to Farmers of its intent to terminate.” Apparently, the lack of concern for its shareholders demonstrated by Farmers Union was exceeded only by its ineptness at negotiating.

One more very-much-overlooked consideration is that the contract calls for effluent discharging of up to 16 million gallons a day of who-knows-what class of effluent into the Farmers Union Canal between April 1 and November 30 each year. The irrigation season for this canal typically runs from April 15 through October 15. That leaves two months where straight, undiluted effluent would be dumped into an otherwise dry canal for pets and wildlife to drink as it contaminated the soil and groundwater to an even greater degree than when it was mixed with canal water during the irrigation season.

Folks, when you know the facts and the actual language of the secretly-negotiated contract that Boise is now seeking to implement, you should find it apparent that this is even more outrageous and just plain wrong than most people ever suspected. Whether you are a direct or indirect user of this canal or not, please join with those of us opposing the implementation of this scheme by voicing your concern to the mayor and council of Boise, as well as attending virtually or in person the public hearing currently scheduled for 6PM on Tuesday, Sept. 15 at Boise City Hall.

The $50,000 per year “blood money” that Farmers Union Ditch Co. negotiated to receive from the City of Boise in exchange for allowing the City to contaminate the canal that Farmers manages is not remotely worth the risk it poses to the health and safety of a huge number of homeowners, farmers, organic gardeners, livestock-raisers, golf courses, schools, and others who indirectly consume agricultural products irrigated with this water. THIS MUST BE STOPPED!

Hi JoJo,
Lining the canal with concrete would be extraordinarily expensive, and also dramatically reduce groundwater recharge for NW Boise, Eagle, and Star. For Boise, at least, that would contradict policy in their Comp Plan which aims to protect groundwater recharge.
It is a substantial amount of water — Farmers Union Ditch Co. charges between 30% and 50% for loss — primarily to groundwater — which is not loss to the larger community but recharge.
Yes, we can thank the engineers and massive labor, much from immigrants, for routing the Farmers Union Canal along the base of the foothills and above almost all agricultural runoff and most urban — and so yes, we have an excellent source of clean water and plan on keeping it that way. I’m sure we can do better in enforcing the no runoff rule. The New York canal also starts clean and in its upper stretches is a good source of groundwater recharge as well. Other canals (many people confuse the Farmers Union Canal in NW Boise/Eagle/Star with the Farmers Coop Canal near Parma) are so contaminated by runoff that mitigation is required even for industrial level agriculture.
No, not great for the river, where is now. If it comes into our canal, however, it is 10x more concentrated, and has the potential to contaminate most of Eagle’s aquifer. Really the water renewal plan should be about cleaning up the water regardless of where it goes — but that’s not the focus.
I think most people on wells are also on septic, which always seemed the appropriate situation to me as ones actions impact themselves. People who are in this situation tend to be much more thoughtful about what they flush or shower with.
Currently, unlined landfills and municipal wastewater treatment plants are the point of discharge into the environment, and as such, they should be the immediate target for advanced cleanup. Unfortunately, however, these industries and their associations (associations largely relied on by Boise for its water renewal policy) are aggressively lobbying to prevent better cleanup mandates (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/pfas-cleanup-backers-face-unexpected-foe-water-utilities).
Yes, PFAS should also no longer be manufactured, but the legacy will continue. Check out the amount of PFOS in groundwater around Gowen Field — and this just one of thousands of types of PFAS, and has been phased out for years: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/

The concept that urbanizing land can lower the water demand compared to agriculture can be true in many cases, but I see this reasoning being applied to land areas in Boise’s southwest and southeast Area of Impact which tends to show “Dry Grazing” as the use when looking at the Ada County Assessor website – therefore water has not been used on some of these land parcels, so urbanizing would be increasing the water demand by adding more water users.

Thanks Jo Jo. Yes — I do hope we can get out in front of the issue — we agree there. I look at Idaho’s elevations and snowpack and think we are living on borrowed time.
Ideally that is what Boise’s new Water Renewal Plan should do — really emphasize the value in clean water — but I’m not sure, with its emphasis on industrial economic stimulus, that it will have that effect (though keeping industrial discharge out of the municipal system would be excellent).
It would be a difficult political sell now, but it really isn’t a good idea to keep pooping in the river, which really is what municipal indoor plumbing facilitates. Composting toilets are entirely workable, and avoid the problems of mixing industrial/medical/landfill contaminants with human waste and making hazardous biosolids and a huge infrastructure requirement. But … that won’t happen until/unless the real costs are no longer externalized. I may be fighting for the property rights / values / long term health of my property (and many of my neighbors), but by doing so, may also make apparent these externalized costs, and hopefully force us to deal with the problem sooner rather than later. Best — Richard