Tag: catching

Rainwater Toilets Caught in Red Tape

  • Jill Stites shows off a cistern that collects water from the roof of a welcome center for the Lake County Forest Preserve District of Illinois. An underground cistern collects water for fire protection and, come summer, toilets.(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)

Sometimes we hear complaints that environmental regulations stop us from doing what we want with our property.
Environmentalists say there’s one issue where doing the green thing can attract a bunch of red tape.
Shawn Allee reports it’s about using rain water to flush our toilets.

Transcript

Sometimes we hear complaints that environmental regulations stop us from doing what we want with our property.
Environmentalists say there’s one issue where doing the green thing can attract a bunch of red tape.

Shawn Allee reports it’s about using rain water to flush our toilets.

This story starts at a forest preserve in Lake County, Illinois, north of Chicago.

Jill Stites is here to show off the forest preserve’s custom-built welcome center.

Stites: This building was built for people to come out and see what people could do in their own homes.

In other words, the idea was, we could do it, it didn’t break the bank entirely, here’s something you might want to try, that sort of thing?
Stites: yes, you can really do green building in a responsible way.

Stites shows me how the building collects rain water from the roof.
That keeps rain out of sewers.
That way, the local waste-water treatment plant doesn’t waste chemicals and electricity to purify rainwater.
After all, rainwater’s already clean and you can store it in cisterns, like this one.

Stites: It collects water off of the roof and goes directly in there. and there’s a spout on the bottom of the cistern that you can hook up a hose to and water your flowers with.

But Stites’ building wanted bigger bragging rights.
They wanted to prove people can collect rain water for more than just flowers.
You can use it for something more urgent: flushing your toilet.

Stites: you don’t need drinking water to flush your toilet. you’re saving the water from going to the storm sewers to be treated to come back as drinking water when that’s not necessary.

There was trouble, though.
The forest preserve district couldn’t get a permit to use rain water in the toilets.

It wanted a connection to city water, as a kind of backup.

But the state worried untreated rain water might somehow contaminate the city’s drinking water.

It took years to get special permission.

Stites: We’re bragging about it. It’s been in the paper about the possibility of it happening and we’re hoping by summer that it’s going to be a fact.

Well, the Lake County Forest Preserve District got its permit, but it won’t let the issue die.
It wants average homeowners to have an easier time, so do environmental groups.

Ellis: It’s a time-consuming process. If we’re going to have more individuals and business doing this, it’s just going to become a bureacratice mess if they have to get variances every time.

This is Josh Ellis.
He’s with the Metropolitan Planning Council in Chicago.
He wants rain collection for toilets to go mainstream in Illinois, but state law needs an update.

Ellis: It would just be a matter of course instead of a special process just to run your toilets a little bit differently.

He says engineers and plumbers have proven rain water collection can work for toilets, safely.

Ellis: We just need to upgrade the plumbing code and I think it will be smooth sailing from there.

Maybe smooth sailing … if you have the cash.
I ask an industry leader for specifics.
His name’s Joe Wheeler, and he’s with the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association.
The U-S Environmental Protection Agency estimates, each year the average household spends just 200 dollars on water.
Wheeler says, for a rain water collection system …

Wheeler: You could do a really good job for about 4500 to 15,000 dollars. Every house is different. We’re not talking McDonald’s Big Macs here, we’re talking every one of them is a unique situation.

Wheeler says overseas, using rainwater for toilets is common and cheap.
Take Germany, for example.

Wheeler: Basically when you go into a home, you don’t know … you can’t tell the difference.

But Wheeler says German homes and businesses get pushed toward rain harvesting.

Wheeler: People would actually get a rebate on their waste water and that gave the whole market in Germany a critical mass.

It doesn’t work like that here, so in the U-S, rain harvesting for toilets is nowhere near critical mass.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Interview: Climate Affecting Fish and Game

  • The National Wildlife Federation is concerned about the nation's fish and game species being impacted by climate change. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

People are beginning to notice the effects
of climate change – especially people who
get out in nature a lot. Hunters and anglers
with the National Wildlife Federation recently
released a list of some of the game and fish
species that are at risk due to climate change.
Lester Graham talked with one of the members
of the group:

Transcript

People are beginning to notice the effects
of climate change – especially people who
get out in nature a lot. Hunters and anglers
with the National Wildlife Federation recently
released a list of some of the game and fish
species that are at risk due to climate change.
Lester Graham talked with one of the members
of the group:

Lester Graham: Kathleen Law in an angler, a member of the National Wildlife Federation, a former member of the Michigan Legislature, and a retired research scientist. First, what kind of game and fish, besides polar bears and penguins, are at risk because of climate change?

Kathleen Law: Well, everything that nests in the water or tries to have a fishery involved. It is affecting our national and our local bird, deer, the population, the habitat.

Graham: I guess that’s the question, though – how do we know that it’s not something else at work? How do we know that it’s climate change? And, of course, the skeptics will say, ‘how do we know it’s man-caused changes to the climate?’

Law: Well, we can continue being in a state of denial, and wonder where everything went, or we can get ahead. It’s not important to me who’s causing it, it’s, ‘what can I do to help?’

Graham: The US House has passed climate change legislation, the Senate is debating a version. Will the policies in those bills be enough to save some of these fish and game species you’re worried about?

Law: It’ll give us a chance. Without a concerted, willful effort, we have a very limited chance. So, there are things that we can do, that we must do, as a people who want diversity, who want to fish, who want to eat – I like venison. So what do we do to protect that resource and, and in a positive way? Which is the education and resource restoration, I think, is probably the best way to start.

Graham: Opponents of climate change legislation worry a cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme will cost the economy too much. They don’t want the US to be put at a competitive disadvantage. Will the concerns of hunters and fishers sway any members of Congress to actually support climate legislation, if they believe it’s a jobs killer?

Law: Well, it will certainly be a consideration. The hunters and fishing folk are your constituents, they’re your neighbors, they’re your family. You can look at that, ‘it’s a job killer.’ So is climate disruption a job killer. So, how do we create new jobs? Well let’s get people out planting marsh grass. Let’s, you know, something positive. Something that people can do that makes a difference for them and their neighborhood and their community. That’s positive. That’s hope. We gotta give them hope.

Graham: What is the National Wildlife Federation doing in Washington to affect the debate about climate change?

Law: Well, they have flown in a large contingent of just people who are hunters and fishers and who have represented people in the constituencies to come in and talk to the Senators. Our hunters and fishing people – consider them sentinels. They’re out there in November, hunting ducks. They’re out in April, standing in the water, fishing. These are sentinel people, and to pay attention to what they’re saying is very important, vital, and that’s what we did in Washington DC.

Graham: Kathleen Law is a retired research scientist, a former member of the Michigan legislature, and working with the National Wildlife Federation as part of an effort to save fish and game species the group says is at risk because of climate change. Thanks very much.

Law: Thank you.

Related Links

Something Fishy in the Water

  • A new study out of Baylor University finds our pharmaceuticals are getting into fish and other aquatic life (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

There’s something fishy with pharmaceuticals. Lester Graham reports researchers find the drugs we take end up in some fish:

Transcript

There’s something fishy with pharmaceuticals. Lester Graham reports researchers find the drugs we take end up in some fish:

If you’re a fish living anywhere near a wastewater treatment plant, you’re swimming in drugs.

A new study out of Baylor University finds our pharmaceuticals are getting into fish and other aquatic life.

Bryan Brooks is one of the researchers.

“In many cases we really don’t know the full potential effects of these kind of drugs on aquatic life.”

This is just the latest research that shows the stuff we take passes through us, and ends up in the water.

There’s not a lot you can do about that, but Brooks says at least don’t flush unused medications down the toilet.

“Perhaps the most appropriate way to dispose of unused medications is directly to landfill when it’s properly packaged.”

The FDA says, mix the drugs with something nasty like kitty litter or old coffee grounds so kids won’t be interested. Then put it all in a sealed bag or can with a lid so it doesn’t leak out of a garbage bag.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Opening Up New Waters for Whale Hunts?

  • Mother-calf pair of "Type C" orcas in the Ross Sea. (Photo by Robert Pitman, NOAA)

Japan kills more whales than any other country in the world. A new proposal would allow Japanese whalers to hunt off their county’s coasts. Mark Brush reports – some think opening up these waters to whale hunts is a bad idea:

Transcript

Japan kills more whales than any other country in the world. A new proposal would allow Japanese whalers to hunt off their county’s coasts. Mark Brush reports – some think opening up these waters to whale hunts is a bad idea:

The International Whaling Commission passed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. But it allowed some countries to kill whales for what it calls scientific study.

Japanese boats kill hundreds of minke whales in the southern ocean under this designation. Critics say there’s nothing scientific about these hunts.

Now, the Commission wants to stop Japan from killing whales in the southern ocean. Phasing out these so-called scientific whale hunts. But in exchange, they might let the country openly hunt whales off its own coasts.

Jonathan Stern is with the American Cetacean Society. He says whale populations could take a hit, if Japan is allowed to start hunting in these waters:

“I’m just afraid once their fleet starts operating. They’re going to want to take more whales and more different species of whales.”

Japan has long maintained that these hunts are part of their cultural heritage. The International Whaling Commission will meet next month to decide the issue.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Throwing the Big Fish Back

  • Fishing laws in Canada and US states often protect small fish and are less restrictive with big ones. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

People who love to fish spend plenty of money on gear, license fees and even gas for their boats. It’s enough to make anglers think, maybe they’re entitled to keeping the biggest fish for trophies or the frying pan, right? Shawn Allee met a researcher who wants you to throw back your biggest catch:

Transcript

People who love to fish spend plenty of money on gear, license fees and even gas for their boats. It’s enough to make anglers think, maybe they’re entitled to keeping the biggest fish for trophies or the frying pan, right? Shawn Allee met a researcher who wants you to throw back your biggest catch:

This is the guy who wants to change how a lot of people fish.

“My name is Paul Venturelli and I study fisheries biology at the University of Toronto.”

Venturelli’s disturbed by how many fish species are on the brink of collapse – either in oceans or in fresh water.

He hopes to grow fish stocks – with this fishing advice.

Toss the big ones back.

And what’s he got to back that up?

“I’ve got about ten pages of notes here. Nah, I’m kidding. I’m kidding.”

Actually, he says the idea is pretty simple.

“A ton of big, old fish will produce more new fish than a ton of smaller, younger fish. And this is because the bigger, older fish tend to produce offspring that have a higher chance of survival.”

Venturelli studies mostly ocean-species, but he says the principal should apply to North American freshwater fish like pike and walleye, too.

But Venturelli’s got a problem spreading this idea around.

Fishing laws in Canada and a lot of US states often protect small fish and are less restrictive with big ones.

I asked one of the head guys in Illinois fisheries, Joe Ferencak, why that is.

“Essentially what you’re doing with that minimum size limit is protecting one or two year classes of reproductive age fish so they can successfully spawn or reproduce.”

Ferencak says, fisheries science has stood behind the ‘protect the small fish’ theory for decades – with some exceptions.

He says to change laws, Venturelli would need to do more studies.

Plus, Ferencak says no state would want to completely keep people from big fish – that’s just not much fun.

“We want to maintain and enhance these fisheries for the benefit of the fishing public, the angler. And it’s kind of counter-intuitive to not allow them to take these larger fish.”

Well, I figure it wouldn’t be fair to talk about big fish without talking to outdoorsmen, so I spent some time in Griffith, Indiana.

It’s about ten miles from Lake Michigan.

Fishing and hunting outlets are all around – and there’s this place.

Allee: “So what’s the establishment.”

Leap: “American Natural Resources.”

Edward Leap Senior runs American Natural Resources – it’s a taxidermy shop – with stuffed deer, fox, and fish filling every nook and cranny.

I figure Leap would rush to the defense of catching big fish, but, you know what? He doesn’t bite.

Allee: “If you get a whole bunch of fish in your boat, I mean, you want to show off the big one. Most people do, right?”

Leap: “Yes and no, though. When you get talking about the conscientious outdoorsman, no, he’s not going to be thinking this way. He’s going to say, ‘I got this fifteen pound walleye, a super-trophy fish. It took a lot of years to grow this fish, I’m going to take a picture of it and I’m going to release it.'”

And, to prove the point, he reaches back and pulls a fish trophy off the shelf.

“For the trophy part of it, we’ll do a reproduction of it that you can’t tell from the real thing. And the fish now is out there spawning, and making eggs, and continuing its species.”

Leap says more and more fishermen are having him make fake fish – or, reproductions, as he calls them.

So, from his vantage, scientists like Paul Venturelli won’t have too much trouble with the advice to ‘throw back the big ones.’

Leap says you don’t have to keep fish you catch, and in his experience, smaller fish make better eating anyway.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links