Do- It- Yourself Wetlands

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Levy
Keyword(s):  
Municipal Wastewater ◽  
The State ◽  
Wild Plants ◽  
Polluted Water ◽  
Max Planck ◽  
Water Board ◽  
Wetland Treatment ◽  
Environmental Engineer ◽  
State Water ◽  
Do It Yourself

Bob Gearheart emerged as Arcata’s marsh guru during the city’s long battle with the state water bureaucracy. This unpaid post demanded that Gearheart crank out proposals for wetland treatment at a frenetic pace, knowing that the city’s financial future depended on his work. He wore a smile, energized by the pressure. Gearheart’s son, Greg, grew up to become an environmental engineer working for the state water board. He earned his engineering degree at Humboldt State, studying with his father. He remembers his dad happily engaged during the battle for Arcata’s alternative treatment system, at the same time he was teaching a full load of classes. “My dad likes a fight,” Greg says. “He adapts well. People put an obstacle in front of him, and he figures out a way to make it look like it’s not really a problem. He makes it look like it was stupid on his opponent’s part to put the obstacle there.” In 1977, the elder Gearheart proposed a first: a wetland built to treat municipal wastewater to the standards required under the Clean Water Act. He possessed a serene certainty that he could make this untried system work. “I had no data until we did the pilot study,” he remembers, “but I was one hundred percent confident.” The power of aquatic plants to cleanse polluted water had first been tested in the 1950s by Käthe Seidel, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. She showed that while some wild plants were killed off by waters tainted with phenol—a toxic organic compound used in making plastics—others had a remarkable ability to adapt. At first contact, effluent containing phenol caused bul­rush stems to wither away, but the roots survived and in time sent up healthy new shoots. Bulrush, it turned out, could break down phenol, metabolizing it into the amino acids that build protein. The plant also thrived in domestic sewage. Seidel used carefully groomed cultures of wetland plants, rooted in beds of gravel or sand through which effluent flowed.

Revolution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Levy
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Sewage Treatment ◽  
The State ◽  
Appropriate Technology ◽  
Board Members ◽  
The Us ◽  
Wetland Treatment ◽  
State Water ◽  
Obsolete Technology

The fight over the Humboldt Bay Wastewater Authority (HBWA) project had turned bitter and personal. HBWA’s attorney, John Stokes, and most of its board members had lobbied hard against Arcata’s alternative treatment plan. Dan Hauser, usually diplomatic, seethed with resentment. “HBWA has set itself up as the enemy,” he wrote in a September 1977 opinion piece in the Arcata Union. “Therefore, we have no alternative but to defend ourselves by attacking HBWA . . . We must stop this $52 million boondoggle.” Hauser, still Arcata’s representative on the HBWA board, pledged to work toward the “total redesign or total destruction” of the regional sewage system. Other members of HBWA were growing panicky. The Committee for a Sewer Referendum’s lawsuit kept the board from issuing bonds to finance construction, while inflation caused the project’s already huge price tag to balloon. Concealing the move from Hauser, the board applied for a $5.9 million loan from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Arcata, at Mayor Hauser’s suggestion, promptly sued HBWA for seeking the loan without the city’s consent. Meanwhile, Hauser organized an appeal for Arcata’s wetland treatment system before the State Water Resources Control Board. The city mustered support from representatives of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Audubon Society, along with academic experts on Humboldt Bay oysters and low-tech sewage treatment. Wade Rose, the shaggy upstart from the governor’s Office of Appropriate Technology, would speak. After Stokes cross-examined Rose at the regional board hearing, “it became a crusade for the entire Office of Appropriate Technology,” Hauser explains. “They singled out HBWA as the ultimate in obsolete technology and concrete overkill.” When the Arcata contingent arrived at the state board hearing in Sacramento, one of the board members, brandishing a newspaper clipping in his hand, called Hauser forward. The clipping was a story from the Arcata Union, quoting Hauser saying that the marsh project would not get a fair hearing. “He asked why I was there if I believed they were already biased against me,” Hauser remembers. “I told him we have to go through this process to get to the next step.”

scholarly journals Товарная интервенция – механизм защиты сельскохозяйственных товаропроизводителей и обеспечение продовольственной безопасности региона

2019 ◽  
pp. 55-66
Author(s):  
Александр Пахомов ◽  
Василий Дарбасов ◽  
Михаил Охлопков ◽  
Екатерина Федорова ◽  
Михаил Соломонов
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Agricultural Products ◽  
Transport Infrastructure ◽  
Wild Plants ◽  
Agricultural Product ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Federal Center

Статья написана в связи с выходом в 2018 г. последней редакции постановления Правительства Российской Федерации «О государственных закупочных интервенциях сельско-хозяйственной продукции». Целью исследования является обоснование продвижения государственного регулирования рынка местной сельскохозяйственной продукции в виде закупочных интервенций в регионах. Проведен анализ существующих зарубежных и отечественных государственных закупочных интервенций, дано обоснование закупочных интервенций в регионе, а также выработаны предложения по продвижению закупочных интервенций с федерального центра в регионы. This article was written in connection with a September 2018 release of the latest edition of a Regulation of the Russian Fed-eration Government on government purchasing interventions of agricultural products. An aim of the authors of the article is substantiation of promotion of the state regulation of a market of the local agricultural products in the form of the purchasing interventions in regions. The authors analyzed the existing for-eign and domestic government purchasing interventions, comments on the latest version of the Regulation of the Russian Federation Government on the govern-ment purchasing interventions, the substantiation of the purchasing interventions in the region and de-velopment of proposals to promote the purchasing interventions from the federal center to the regions. Relevance of the promotion of the purchasing interventions from the federal center to the regions fol-lows from Russian particularity: remoteness of the regions from the center, weak regional transport infrastructure, necessity to replicate a federal technology of the state regulation of the agricultural product market in the regions of the Russian Federation. In the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), repeated attempts were made to create compensation funds of the regulation of agricultural product prices. However, in the region there is no full-fledged intervention fund effectively influencing sales of the agri-cultural products. Consequently, in conditions of the Republic, where a shortage of the agricultural products, raw materials and food is acute, implementation of the commodity intervention is the neces-sary condition for the regulation of the agricultural market. For the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), in our opinion, it is advisable to carry out the commodity interventions concerning beef, meat of young horses, venison, fish, dairy products, game, fruits of wild plants and even for rough and succulent fodder for livestock. The latter are relevant due to droughts and floods that regularly occur in a area of the region. Manufacturing costs of the local products will always be higher than the ones of imported food, given the harsh natural and climatic conditions, the remoteness of agricultural commodity producers from the sale markets in the conditions of absence of the transport infrastructure. In this regard, the prices of the local products should be regulated by the state in order to support the local producers. Obviously, the government regulation should not replace market functions or impede operation of its laws. Its main task is to mitigate undesirable consequences of manifestations of market power. One of the main regula-tory methods is the commodity intervention.

The Supreme Court of India and Inter-State water dispute: an analysis of the judgments on Mullaperiyar Dam

Water Policy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1003-1018
Author(s):  
M. P. Ram Mohan ◽  
Krittika Chavaly
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Tamil Nadu ◽  
The State ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Water ◽  
Inter State

This paper addresses the issue of the Mullaperiyar Dam dispute between Kerala and Tamil Nadu with specific reference to the two judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India on the matter. This paper attempts to examine the arguments, facts, and the judgment of the Court on each of the primary issues raised during the course of the dispute. The first case was filed by the Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum in 2001, wherein the Court adjudged the case in favour of the respondents, the State of Tamil Nadu. Consequently, due to certain developments, examined in the course of the second case, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a petition before the Supreme Court against Kerala in 2006 seeking relief for the actions on the part of the latter after the judgment in the first case. A Constitution Bench was constituted to adjudicate this case, which re-examined certain issues raised during the first case and conclusively laid down its decision in favour of Tamil Nadu.

Mechanism of radiation purification of polluted water and wastewater

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 131-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.K. Pikaev
Keyword(s):  
Municipal Wastewater ◽  
Paper Mill ◽  
Petroleum Products ◽  
Polluted Water ◽  
Water Radiolysis ◽  
Primary Products ◽  
Removal Of Heavy Metals ◽  
Water And Wastewater ◽  
Cadmium Lead

The paper summarizes the results of the studies on radiation purification of polluted water and wastewater conducted in the author's laboratory in cooperation with other institutions. The removal of heavy metals (cadmium, lead, chromium and mercury) from water and wastewater, the purification of wastewater from surfactant and petroleum products, molasses distillery slops, municipal wastewater in the aerosol flow, river water from colored natural organic pollutants, wastewater of dyeing complex and paper mill, the decomposition of some dyes, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine-containing organic compounds, formic acid, etc. were investigated in detail. As a rule, electron-beam treatment in combination with ordinary methods (biological, coagulation, adsorption, flotation, etc.) was used. The main attention is paid to the mechanism of purification of the studied systems. The role of redox reactions of primary products of water radiolysis and secondary short-lived species formed from pollutants, formation of precipitates capturing the pollutants etc. is discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document