#16. To promote reclaimed water use to supplement raw water for potable demand. I'm in favor of most anything to use reclaimed water for anything other than irrigation, as long as the current poor level of Florida's state standard treatment continues where nutrients are not limited in the treated effluent when used for irrigation. I have no problem with leaving nitrogen and phosphorus in the effluent if it's going to be blended with raw water for consumption as long as the nitrogen concentration remains less than 10 mg/L, which should be easy enough to achieve.
#18. While I support the notion of collecting and treating upstream surface storm water runoff from an agricultural area to renovate water quality, the noted goals of achieving reduction of only 0.2 tons of phosphorus and 4.4 tons of nitrogen from the Caloosahatchee River watershed seem pathetically low, especially for the $6.5 million construction contract value. For perspective,if Marco were to upgrade it's reuse to AWT it would eliminate 12.5 tons of phosphorus and 25 tons of nitrogen from Marco's watery environment, for not much more than $6.5 million. So I don't the the practical value of the District doing this project.
#22. I gather there's litigation between the District and its contractor for the C-43 West Basin Storage Area which is supposed to provide treatment for surface water runoff to improve the quality of the water in the Caloosahatchee River and its estuary in Ft. Myers. But what catches my attention is the change order "extra" of $3.5 million for the lawyer's fee in representing the District. We all know lawyers are expensive, but that seems like an execeptioal amount on top of whatever $ amount has already been contracted. Why can't the lawyers work on consignment? Perhaps they are not confident in winning this, where perhaps a settlement may be in order? What's not clear is if the District is the plaintiff, or the defendant whereby insurance may come into play. However an expense like this would be far above whatever deductible the District may have. Perhaps it's self-insured?
#16. To promote reclaimed water use to supplement raw water for potable demand. I'm in favor of most anything to use reclaimed water for anything other than irrigation, as long as the current poor level of Florida's state standard treatment continues where nutrients are not limited in the treated effluent when used for irrigation. I have no problem with leaving nitrogen and phosphorus in the effluent if it's going to be blended with raw water for consumption as long as the nitrogen concentration remains less than 10 mg/L, which should be easy enough to achieve.
#18. While I support the notion of collecting and treating upstream surface storm water runoff from an agricultural area to renovate water quality, the noted goals of achieving reduction of only 0.2 tons of phosphorus and 4.4 tons of nitrogen from the Caloosahatchee River watershed seem pathetically low, especially for the $6.5 million construction contract value. For perspective,if Marco were to upgrade it's reuse to AWT it would eliminate 12.5 tons of phosphorus and 25 tons of nitrogen from Marco's watery environment, for not much more than $6.5 million. So I don't the the practical value of the District doing this project.
#22. I gather there's litigation between the District and its contractor for the C-43 West Basin Storage Area which is supposed to provide treatment for surface water runoff to improve the quality of the water in the Caloosahatchee River and its estuary in Ft. Myers. But what catches my attention is the change order "extra" of $3.5 million for the lawyer's fee in representing the District. We all know lawyers are expensive, but that seems like an execeptioal amount on top of whatever $ amount has already been contracted. Why can't the lawyers work on consignment? Perhaps they are not confident in winning this, where perhaps a settlement may be in order? What's not clear is if the District is the plaintiff, or the defendant whereby insurance may come into play. However an expense like this would be far above whatever deductible the District may have. Perhaps it's self-insured?