BACA

The Citizens Watchdog

ISSUE I

BEAGLE
WATER
In the interest of these concepts, I humbly present the information that I have found and the dots I have connected. Completion of the water study is a positive step. Yes, removal of OPP from our water is a VERY positive step. But I believe that in the interest of truth, balancing views needs to be presented. In response to this idea, the Baca Beagle was conceptualized. This lovable canine has a nose for news and tenacity for digging out the truth. Right now that nose is twitching; something is in the air. So lets go back a little and get caught up shall we. At the conference call that was set up for the December BGW&S Board meeting, there was on the line; the sales manager from Aqua Smart, an attorney from Special District Management Services (SDMS), a toxicologist and another representative from NSF. The districts representative from SDMS, AJ Beckman, spoke with these panel of experts and asked them questions regarding the safety of SQ547, Ortho Poly Phosphate (OPP) in our drinking water. The same issues were addressed in this conversation as have been reported by several articles in the Eagle, they used the comparison of the phosphates in OPP to phosphates in coke, they spoke of how the phosphates were food grade, your body needed phosphates etc. As I was listening however, I noticed that the representatives of NSF were careful to report that they tested for contaminants that may be in the substance in question. This included such substances as arsenic, barium, and copper 1

January/February 2012

If you would like to submit articles, advertise, announce or put something in the upcoming section FOR TRADE or contribute financially to this publication, send inquires to the editor: Karen Koyote PO Box 492 Crestone, CO 81131 karenkoyote@yahoo.com Three seats are coming open to serve on the BGW&S Board. Forms for self nomination should be available on the BGW&S district website.

QUESTIONS
I (Still) Have Lots of Them

By Karen Koyote
Are you saying to yourself, oh no, not another article about the Baca water! My goodness cant they leave it alone now that the study has been done and they are agreeing to another method Its the new paradigm, cant we all just get along? Truth Is the new paradigm Fearlessness Is the new paradigm Freedom Is the new paradigm Love Is the new paradigm

among others. This is in agreement with the letter as reported by Steve Wade in which NSFs response to his wife was: Dear Ms. Wade NSF Certification of products used to treat drinking water involves evaluating samples of the products for compliance with NSF/ANSI 60. The purpose of this voluntary American national standard is to confirm that an additive will not introduce excessive levels of impurities into a water supply when used up to a maximum usage rate. In summary, the standard limits the introduction of impurities to no more than 10 percent of the federal limit for any detected contaminants. Please note that this standard is not intended to address the potential effectiveness of a product nor the other issues that you have raised. (Health issues! sw) Thank you for your inquiry. Please let us know if you have any further questions about the NSF 60 certification process. Cheryl Luptowski The NSF experts went on to cite safety standards for phosphates in general but nothing specific for SeaQuest 547. They told us that the health data they were citing was taken from other existing studies. When queried directly with the question has there been any testing done to measure the effect of long-term exposure of OPP (SeaQuest 547) on human beings? The answer was no. In short, the testing done by NSF is mainly to ensure the purity of the substance in question, that it is not introducing other secondary contaminants into the water, they do not test for health

effects Why has there been such emphasis from BGW&S and articles in the Eagle on the NSF 60 certification of OPP when this organization has nothing to do with the testing for health effects and only tests for additional contaminates?
2

In the course of looking into this matter I went to the site of Aqua Smart and found some interesting facts. You see, the statement that this SQ547 is ONLY a blend of food grade phosphates is not entirely correct, they do state that this 547 technology does not involve any change in phosphate chemistry; however, they manipulate the Size and Charge of these particles and have some way of grinding the metal particles down. An October 2002 newsletter from Aqua Smart states: The reason that they (foreign producers of polyphosphates) cannot succeed is often attributed to the black art (emphasis mine) of manufacturing polyphosphates. However if you analyze such products chemically, you find that the foreign products have a much wider and larger polymetric size. Why is this important in drinking water applications? Because when it comes to sequestration of metals in solution (iron, manganese, calcium, and magnesium) the larger the polyphosphate molecule, the less effectively it sequesters. Aqua Smart, Inc. has taken this even farther. By providing its unique SQ547 technology (developed over 18 years of research), Aqua Smart has focused even more upon the molecular distribution sizing to improve upon what (US) manufactures already know. Another newsletter states: In order to accomplish this different than all the rest technology, Aqua Smart created its proprietary SQ547. Besides making SeaQuest stable under reversion under varying pH, varying time, and varying temperature, SQ547 allows SeaQuest to form an integral, uniform non building metal phosphate. This uniform continuous metal phosphate is the corrosion protective mechanism on the inner surfaces of distribution piping. Where corrosion preexists, the same SQ technology slowly removes the pre-existing corrosion and replaces it with its own coating (Emphasis mine)

This information was on track with what I had learned from Justine Love. He had called Aqua Smart and chatted with a sales representative at the company. Being a very knowledgeable person regarding water and water filtration, the sales rep probably presumed he had a potential client on the phone. Here is what he was told. OPP works through encapsulation. They put OPP through an ionization process giving it a negative charge. As OPP travels through the pipes it attracts positively charged metal particles from 1 to 20 microns in size. As this process continues it grinds these metal particles to a smaller size. He described the phosphates as having the function of grabbing the metal particles, and a chemical component that had the function of breaking down the same. The sales representative when asked what the specific size of these particles might be would not answer directly. However, when Justin asked if a reverse osmosis (R/O) filter would be effective in removing these particles, he stated that OPP would plug an R/O filter very fast. Justin described why this process may be a health concern in this way. An R/O filter is effective with particles down to the size of .0001mc. The units have to be pressurized to put the water through due to the small size of the R/O filter openings. They are also equipped with a continuous flushing action mechanism to sweep away the particles from the filter as they are separated from the water. This helps to prevent the particles from plugging up the filter rapidly. If the R/O filter is being plugged up very fast as the sales rep stated, this would indicate that the particles are entering into the filter itself making them .0001mc in size or smaller. The concern is that the metal phosphates could then be delivered to US through these tiny particles. Another consideration is that the testing may not be picking up these substances, as particles of less than mc in size are not detectable. Also the testing may only be indicating a phosphate and not the metals that are bound up in the phosphates. 3

What does the particle size get down to and what exactly is the chemical component? How can you compare these altered phosphates to those in food? Im sure that the BGW&S board and the management representatives came across the same material I did on SQ547, after all that is their job, so why did they not question the safety of this chemical?
At the December board meeting, the sales director of Aqua Smart stated that we would not receive metal particles. However this does not make sense to me as the phosphates are designed to attract metals, make them smaller, and it is known that these phosphates are in the tap water. I guess the chemist would have to explain how SQ 547 could REMOVE the metal coating and REPLACE it with its own, without us being exposed to those metal phosphates. As the Aqua Smart newsletter states: As more and more of the deposit oxide is sequestered and more and more of the hydrogen bonding precursor stage develops, the overall integrity of the deposit mass changes its color (chemistry) and becomes softened. Once softened enough, this mass can be flushed out by hydrant flushing or simply disappears in the normal course of flow without any negative effects to water quality at the tap. (Emphasis mine) I did ask the Aqua Smart representative where the deposits went, and how could they just disappear? The sales rep stated that they went out the tap. (But dont worry; he said it is the same as taking an iron pill from whole foods).

If we stopped using OPP today, how long would it take for this residue to flush out of the system pipes? Are we still being exposed to metal phosphates during this process?

How can we flush the system quickly without being exposed? Is it true that measuring OPP in the field only truly measures 25% of what is actually in the water? And is it true that in the past the dosage was 4 times more than AquaSmart recommended because of this fact? Has this been taken into account, and if so when was the adjustment in the dosage made to reflect this? Is it true that Aqua Smart prides itself on a product that does not lose potency when traveling through the system?

supposedly costs our district $400,000 a year cannot find out? Who took the records that are missing? What records were taken? Isnt this criminal activity? Was this reported to any authority and was there an official investigation? So why was OPP chosen when there was no baseline study and incomplete data? The board is said to have prioritized a study since January 2011, but was told to complete one in 2008, and only just completed it a few weeks ago?
Again, as I was listening to the report as given by Ron McLaughlin, he kept referring to phosphates and polyphosphates. There are treatments that use these types of phosphates, but remember we have SQ 547 different than all the rest technology at work in our system. You may view the December and January meetings in their entirety on the website http://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-waterboard-meeting-videos.html

The Study
There has recently been a study completed by McLaughlin Engineers Ltd, who recommended ph adjustment as the optimal corrosion control method. This study was reported by BGW&S as being a volunteer effort on their part. However there was a required corrosion control study that was requested by Colorado Department of Public Health and Education (CDPHE) on April 25th 2008 and due on October of 2010. This study was supposedly to be completed prior to a decision on water corrosion treatment and was never finished. Mr. Beckman, at the January board meeting, described the condition of the BGW&S at that time (2008?) as being in crises and chaos. And that the CDPHE was confusing in what they required. Missing records were mentioned as part of the reason for this confusion.

The requirements for the Lead and Copper Rule are readily available on the internet. I found them easily when I Googled Lead and Copper Rule. I even found an easy to read summary of the timeline and steps for a corrosion control study. What is so hard and confusing that certified staff and a professional management company that

Also, to help in your complete understanding, here is some information regarding our districts past and current levels of chlorine and the possible impact of these levels on the corrosion problem. The EPAs guidelines recommend a .2 level of chlorine if corrosion of pipes is an issue. Higher 4

levels can actually contribute to corrosion in metal pipes. This is not to say that this is the upper limit recommended by the EPA as a general rule for municipal water. In fact, the upper limit as reported to me is at 4. (Insane) Just to put this into perspective, swimming pools are commonly kept at 2. Stephen Wade, a past employee of BGW&S reported to me the following information. When Steve started at the BGW&S the job duties included adding the chlorine into the system. The dosage he was given to put in was 2.0. This as I have said is the chlorine level of a swimming pool. When you take a shower, your skin is a VERY efficient delivery system of what is contacting it. That is why medicinal skin patches work. If you take a hot shower at this level, I was told your toxic intake is like drinking about 40L of this water. Now this may have been a decimal point mistake, and the level was really supposed to be at 0.2, (the recommended level for corrosion control). This 2.0 dosage went on for weeks, and soon reports from community members started coming in regarding smell, rashes, sores etc. Then posters went up around the community. Steve, being a conscious person, went to his superiors and told them about the peoples reports of health problems. Their reaction (according to him), was for them to buy a filter or move. As he was the person in charge of dosing the water, he took it upon himself to go to those controls and lower them to an appropriate level of .2. It is my opinion that this is the kind of responsible action that I would like to see in the BGW&S.

Why has there been so much resistance to public concern from the BGW&S board and obvious (to me at least) slant in the water districts favor from the local paper?
From what I understand, the problem began with a few houses with copper pipes reporting problems, one of which was determined to have an electrical issue as the cause. The initial water samples were taken from these houses and were shown to exceed appropriate levels. (And by the way we mainly have PVC pipes making up our lines so the problem exists AT THOSE FEW HOUSES that have copper pipes.) Also, overall we have acidic water. I have a copy of a citizens water test as recently as 9/14/2011 by SDC Laboratory and the ph was listed at 5.84. And our chlorine levels are testing at or around .34. But understand that these levels are not static, they fluctuate. The pH of the water and chlorine levels is key to corrosion control. Studies have shown that the combination of high chlorine levels and a low ph is a very corrosive combination. A 1995 report from the American Water Works Association found that copper release tended to decrease at higher pH without the need for a phosphate-based inhibitor. This report also provided that: In waters with alkalinity of [less than] 74 mg/L as CaCO3, raising pH from [less than] 7.40 to 7.40-7.80 resulted in a 4368 percent reduction in average 90th percentile copper releasechanges that are significant to the 95th percent confidence level.

Has anyone ever taken responsibility for the chlorine mistake? Was Steve fired for releasing information about the water treatment to the board? Isnt transparency required for a public municipality?

Could it possibly be that the corrosion problem was caused as a result of the previous stated issue of high chlorine levels, in combination with the low ph of our water?

Has baseline data ever been established at the 20 required sites without OPP being in the water? How many houses actually have a copper leaching problem? I heard three, is this true?
The corrosivity of chlorinated water is enhanced by low pH because of the greater oxidizing strength of hypochlorous acid (favored at low pH) over that of hypochlorite ion. The researchers conclude that free chlorine levels should be maintained no higher than .2mg/L and the pH of the water maintained between 7 and 8 in order to minimize copper corrosion. The General Manager of the District reported to the Board that on April 18, 2011, the free chlorine residual in the finished water was .33mg/L. There is evidence to suggest that free chlorine is primarily responsible for the corrosion of copper in chlorinated drinking water systems, especially in systems with a pH below 7.0 Chlorinated water with a low pH can also irritate skin and eyes, among other unwanted side effects. The chlorine level that is required when a sample level is taken from your house is a trace. So the optimal is .2 at source and trace at your house. This is because the chlorine is used up as it travels the system, more if it meets up with bacteria. I have been told that what is occurring now in this system is a target of .4ish at the source and .2 at your house. This is unnecessary and doses those who live closer to the BGW&S treatment facility with higher chlorine levels. But I was also told that by maintaining a double than necessary level, that it eliminates the required routine testing for bacteria in the system. You can make your own assumptions here.

Chlorine is not poisonous and the district needs it to meet requirements, particularly since the system is 65 miles long and biofilms tend to accumulate and sit, especially at the end of the line, which highlights the need for chlorine I strongly disagree with this statement that chlorine is not poisonous, and can find plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Chlorine introduced into the water supply reacts with other naturally-occurring elements to form toxins called trihalomethanes (THMs), which eventually make their way into our bodies. THMs have been linked to a wide range of human health maladies ranging from asthma and eczema to bladder cancer and heart disease. In addition, Dr. Peter Montague of the Environmental Research Foundation cites several studies linking moderate to heavy consumption of chlorinated tap water by pregnant women with higher miscarriage and birth defect rates.

However there are alternatives:

Alternatives to Chlorine Eliminating water pollution and cleaning up our watersheds are not going to happen overnight, but alternatives to chlorination for water treatment do exist. Dr. Montague reports that several European and Canadian cities now disinfect their water supplies with ozone instead of chlorine. Currently a handful of U.S. cities do the same, most notably Las Vegas, Nevada and Santa Clara, California. At the very least we can filter out the chlorine, and I would recommend that everyone do so.

In Februarys issue of the Eagle, Sandia Belgrade quotes McLaughlin as saying:

In the past, the Baca water was clean and pure without the need for these additives.

The water was flushed on a regular basis preventing the bacteria build up. Why was the Cottenwood Creek plant not repaired and put back into service? Is it true that this plant processed surface water? Is it true that if this surface water is not utilized that the rights to the same will be lost after a period of time? Oh dear, I have exceeded my three minute

caring for and Loving One Another... We must embrace and create a NEW Community Charter, forming a NEW Township that serves the highest good of all, first and foremost... and one that would deliver only the purest of water to our homes. Think of a life in Paradise (or however else you would choose to describe it)... That IS what we want to create here, reflecting the energy, beauty and wonder of the land about us. It really does not take a whole lot of thinking to do this, to create this, because each of us has that in our Heart already. We ARE The People, The One Heart In All... And, it is about time we came out of our little shells and began living the Life we've always envisioned, as a Group of caring beings, a Family, a Community... for once and forever! And, we can thank the difficulties with the old Water District for providing the impetus to do this. -Grandpaw Peter Koyote December 25th, 2011

limit

Ushering In the New Paradigm

We face a very interesting challenge with the Baca Water & Sanitation District... By delivering to us, without our collective consent, water that's contaminated with questionable chemicals, the District has provided us with a Golden Opportunity... As a Community, we are already joining our Heart together in order to address this problem, creating solutions as we go along... The old ways, the ones that serve the few at the expense of the many, will NOT work in a Community such as this is..... Only the caring ways of the New Paradigm will work here, obviously... And, if this change is to happen, it must come from the ground up. It's time for us to re-shape the Baca Water and Sanitation District into something that's far more in alignment with our spiritual Community and its core values of

Guidelines for article submissions

1. Research your facts. Provide the readers with citations or mention where you found your information so they can verify it themselves. 2. If you give an opinion, state it as such. Do not present opinion as facts. 3. Mention names only if you are describing an event that you witnessed yourself, or if you are very very sure that what you are relating is absolutely correct. If you are relaying information that comes from someone else, say so. 4. Provide the readers with links to internet sources. 5. Please do not use inflammatory labels. 6. Please do not name call. 7. You can be quite confrontational and still be respectful. 8. Respect your own intuition and follow its lead. 9. Dig, dig, and dig! 10. Articles will be reviewed and notice given if accepted. 11. Provide contact information with submission

Guidelines for buy, sell, trade and announcements

1. Ads and announcements are free, donations accepted. Provide contact information.
2. Limit the ad to what is necessary, to the point, not so wordy please. 3. Send the ad to karenkoyote@yahoo.com or Box 492 at least one week prior to the 1st of the month. 4. No guarantee for printing after the above stated time line. 5. Creativity encouraged Guidelines for advertisements

1. Ads are free, donations accepted. Provide contact information. 2. You design them, I will print them. 3. Send the ad to karenkoyote@yahoo.com or Box 492 at least one week prior to the 1st of the month. 4. No guarantee on getting it in if sent later than indicated above. 5. If the ad runs into technical difficulties help solve the problem. Smaller is cheaper to print..just saying. Printing and distribution subject to available budget.