baca beagle jan feb revised

8/3/2019 Baca Beagle Jan Feb Revised

1/8

1

BACA BEAGLEThe Citizens Watchdog

ISSUE I January/February 2012

WATERIf 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

[email protected]

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.

QUESTIONSI (Still) Have Lots of Them

By Karen KoyoteAre 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

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 ManagementServices (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 ofSQ547, 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 thephosphates 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


2/8

2

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 thepotential 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 thehealth 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?

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 muchwider 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 evenmore 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 pre-

exists, the same SQ technology slowly

removes the pre-existing corrosion and

replaces it with its own coating

(Emphasis mine)


3/8

3

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. Thesales 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 thesmall 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.

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 themanagement 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 thetap 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?


4/8

4

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 thanAquaSmart 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?

The StudyThere 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 becompleted 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. Ifound 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

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 andwas 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-water-

board-meeting-videos.html

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
http://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.htmlhttp://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.htmlhttp://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.htmlhttp://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.htmlhttp://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.html


5/8

5

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 thislevel, 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 hissuperiors 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.

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?

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 beganwith 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 todecrease 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 43-

68 percent reduction in average 90th

percentile copper releasechanges

that are significant to the 95th

percent

confidence level.

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?


6/8

6

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, thatit eliminates the required routine testing for

bacteria in the system. You can make your own

assumptions here.

In Februarys issue of the Eagle, Sandia

Belgrade quotes McLaughlin as saying:

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 healthmaladies ranging from asthma and eczema

to bladder cancer and heart disease. In

addition, Dr. Peter Montague of

theEnvironmental Research

Foundationcites 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 the past, the Baca water was clean and

pure without the need for these additives.
http://www.rachel.org/http://www.rachel.org/http://www.rachel.org/http://www.rachel.org/http://www.rachel.org/http://www.rachel.org/


7/8

7

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 surfacewater?

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

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

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


8/8

8

Guidelines for article submissions

1. Research your facts. Provide the readers with citations or mention where you foundyour 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

baca beagle jan feb revised

Documents