33 replies to this topic

[maestro]

Correct, as I said it is only of SRCSD owned and maintained facilities, not City of Folsom.  I don't have a map of the City sewage system, but if you do, please post, I'd be interested in having a look.  I couldn't find via a simple Google search.  

 

Out of curiosity, have you experienced a sanitary sewer overflow in or around your neighborhood? 

 

It took tremendous efforts and a lawsuit to get the perjury-sworn map produced and other official engineered blueprints too, but I am not governed by the Public Records Act.  

 

While I appreciate your support, it is time consuming  for me -- at a time when I have research and need answers to my Public Records Act Requests to the city clerk and city engineer S. Krahn.     There is nothing forthcoming, but requests for engineer-approved documents for FPA sewage & water, D&S Leidesdorff infrastructure were acknowledged long ago.     This is exactly where you should go to get the official maps/records -- the city engineers in charge at this moment in time.  

 

(Or are they?)

 

Those four council who voted for Leidesdorff no-sewer /  ignore-HD Plan-project and zoning laws/standards --- they need to provide the answers.    It is their obligation to produce the answers and Licensed-Engineer sealed, certified and approved drawings -- both the proposed and the true "as-built" drawings.       I have contacted the media and government reps and agencies about the city's refusal to fulfill the PRA request for these very engineered documents.    

 

Some elected person or enforcement agency needs to act on these critical issues.    

 

Can you believe the city is bragging about giving the East Area water to FPA south of 50 owner and his purchasers?     What nerve is that?    Someone should start a topic on the East Area water from Folsom Reservoir going to that huge dustbowl south of 50. 

File Public Records ACt Requests.

[maestro]

And while we're talking about crap, here's the map from the SRCSD to show how Folsom connects to their mainlines that take all our sewage to the treatment plant near Freeport

 

http://www.regionals...s_sept_2013.pdf

 

There are actually 2 connections from Folsom that converge at the N37 Folsom East interceptor near Iron Point & Folsom Blvd.  A 54" gravity main from Folsom Blvd and a 36" gravity main from Iron Point.  I presume that the 54" line covers North Folsom, Old Folsom, Central District, Natoma Station, Parkshore, whereas the 36" line covers Prairie Oaks, Lexington, Broadstone, Empire.  This map only shows the SRCSD owned pipes, and not those owned by City of Folsom (will try to do put that in another post).

 

DaveX,   thanks for the link.    However, Folsom East area #3 FE3  is merely one of several lines serving only Folsom East Area.

 

According to sworn engineering data, city has only one single connection to Regional Sanitation sewage lines.    

That connection occurs at city boundary.    Just above this connection,  all city sewage pipes compete to enter the Folsom Blvd. 27" mainline along the American River.    The attested map shows at least 113" of pipes, but the Reg. San map could up that figure to 131".

 

Currently city is spending Sewer Div. funds to construct sewage lines under highway 50, to bring the FPA (S50) sewage north under 50, to also enter the city's sole Reg. San. connection -- the 27" line.   

 

Instead of 100,000 daily flushers, city is proceeding to have up to 200,000 + flushers on a 27" line.   Whew.

[Chad Vander Veen]

This is a topic that interests me. There has been a lot of significant advancement in wastewater treatment - it could even be a secondary source of potable water if we can get people past the idea of it. San Jose is already doing this and Levi's Stadium will be irrigated with recycled water. Good story about it here: http://www.futurestr...-Water-Use.html

[tony]

 

DaveX,   thanks for the link.    However, Folsom East area #3 FE3  is merely one of several lines serving only Folsom East Area.

 

According to sworn engineering data, city has only one single connection to Regional Sanitation sewage lines.    

That connection occurs at city boundary.    Just above this connection,  all city sewage pipes compete to enter the Folsom Blvd. 27" mainline along the American River.    The attested map shows at least 113" of pipes, but the Reg. San map could up that figure to 131".

 

Currently city is spending Sewer Div. funds to construct sewage lines under highway 50, to bring the FPA (S50) sewage north under 50, to also enter the city's sole Reg. San. connection -- the 27" line.   

 

Instead of 100,000 daily flushers, city is proceeding to have up to 200,000 + flushers on a 27" line.   Whew.

So, if the city only has one line connecting to SRCSD, then why does their map show they maintain two lines (one on Iron Point and one on Folsom Blvd., as noted by DaveX?  Are you suggesting SRCSD does not know what they have, or is lying in their on-line map?

 

How old is the sworn testimony to which you refer? Is it possible it predates construction of the Folsom East Interceptor along Iron Point?

 

The SRCSD map show a Folsom South connector to the aforementioned Folsom East Interceptor along Iron Point. Why do you suggest that the S of 50 sewage will be going to the 27" Folsom Blvd. line?

 

Finally, by stating that there are 113" of pipes going into a single 27" line, you are way oversimplifying the situation and suggesting that it is far worse than it certainly is.  Even if there are 113" of pipes going into a single 27" line (and I have seen no evidence suggesting that there is), that's not necessarily a problem, because the capacity of a sewer pipe is proportional to the square of the radius (half the diameter), and is dependent on its slope. So, even if all the pipes have the same slope, a 27" pipe has more capacity (approx. 4400 gallons per minute (gpm) at 1% slope) than ten 12" pipes (120" total > 113" number reported by maestro; total capacity 4220 gpm at the same slope). if the larger pipe has a steeper slope, the capacity would be even greater; conversely, if the smaller pipes have a greater slope, which is likely (as smaller pipes have higher minimum slopes to make sure they don't get clogged) their capacity may, indeed, exceed that of the larger one, but not likely by a factor of over 4 as implied.

 

All of which is not to say there is not a problem. I don't have enough information to evaluate that, but the information I have seen does not scream "problem" to me. And I can certainly say that stating that 113" of pipes feeding into a 27" pipe grossly over-simplifies the situation and sounds far more alarming than the reality, even assuming the assertion is true.