Volume 45 Number 3
Viewpoint: Of Website Updates, California, & State/Regional Chapter Support!
We’ve got a few new items for you in this issue (and on our website) to tout.
First, with both WC&P and Agua Latinoamérica (our sister publication in Spanish and Portuguese), we’ve decided to leverage our websites to greater effect by presenting some information as “online exclusives.” By that, I mean there will be some articles we’ll list in our table of contents (identified with a special “web only” icon on p. 4) but which will be found solely on our website. This allows us a few advantages: 1) It obviously drives more traffic to our website; 2) it relieves space constrictions in the magazine and, 3) it allows us to present information on a more timely basis when an article would otherwise have to be bumped to the next print version of the magazine. We’ve usually got enough copy to fill almost two issues.
If you haven’t visited our website lately—www.wcponline.com—you’ve been missing out. We just instituted a number of changes to make it more user friendly, make more information more easily accessible and broaden the range of options for web surfers. Some you’ll see immediately, some will be rolled out in coming months. These include:
Don’t forget to check Breaking News for the latest industry updates as well.
Next, we’ve also introduced a new feature this month—PipeLines—a listing of the latest news from state and regional chapters of the Water Quality Association and the Canadian WQA (see p. 80). Typically, we’ve included this in the Newsreel section, but felt it deserved special play in these active regulatory times. We’re leaving options open to include similar information from other groups such as well drillers, plumbers, etc. I should say managing editor Ron Pérez jumped on this idea enthusiastically. We had so much information for the first column, several items didn’t fit in the space allotted.
One such involved California provisions in SB 1006 allowing local communities to restrict automatic water softeners, which went into effect Jan. 1. No such actions have taken place. Meanwhile, the Salinity Management Study—a project of the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF)—implemented its first consumer usage survey within areas targeted to be pilot projects in the state. Results were to be released in February. In other news, the California Department of Health has tailored the USEPA’s Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) guidance for water suppliers for consistency with the state’s regulations and statutes. The deadline for the CCRs is July 1. Changes have been made to the requirements between Jan. 28, 2002, and Jan. 22, 2003. One notable change is use of state maximum contaminant levels (MCL). In short, the USEPA MCLs aren’t required except in the case of the Disnfectant/Disinfection By-Products Rule, which the agency is implementing in California for systems serving >10,000 people and the department is in the process of adopting. Of course, MCLs, MRDLs and MRDLGs should be used when applicable. For a list of all changes, see www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/publications/CCR/ccrguideCA1-24-03.pdf
Speaking of California, see the Newsreel item in this issue from the Jan. 16 edition of the WQANewsFax regarding the “Catch-22” between the federal bromate standard and the state’s Proposition 65 restrictions. A lengthier explanation is in the WQAnews February newsletter.
Several other items—including information from Iowa, Missouri, Texas and Quebec—were bumped to next month’s PipeLines column. Thank you to all those who contributed.