Hi, DMBeer41,
there's some excellent, standard advice given above which nearly always works beautifully, depending on the circumstances.
But it seems you've already tried the large water change/blackout routine without success.
Many places add phosphorus to drinking water to reduce the amount of lead leaching from pipes - even though phosphorus is already known as an endemic 'nutrient' pollutant increasing algae in lakes and drinking water reservoirs.
Obviously, this can also trigger algal overgrowth in tanks filled with this tap water, a situation all-too-typically worse in spring than at other times, for various reasons ranging from increased runoff from chemically fertilized land with Spring thawing/Spring rains/irrigation to increased addition of chemicals to drinking water as organisms multiply in what is often a thaw, at least in temperate zones.
It seems that many people have recently developed massive aquarium algae problems in areas known to have such high phosphorus levels in the drinking water supply, and I've seen advice given that in such case a REDUCTION on waterchanges might help, to prevent adding fresh supplies of such 'nutrients' to feed the algae - and plenty of added duckweed (however big a pain to deal with as it may be) might be an option if blackouts and other regular measures aren’t working, making the above tap water 'nutrient overload' appear a likely cause.
If interested to know some of what you, your family and fish are stewing in and why, an example of common practices and reasons is given below:
.
Please note that phosphorus is apparently added to drinking water, to help reduce lead uptake, and also removed from waste water which will ultimately be used as drinking water having phosphorus added...
http
/www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/...b8581117732.txt
... Phosphorus reduces lead in drinking water
The city uses phosphorus to meet lead regulations for drinking water. Lead can cause delays in physical or mental development in children. It can also cause kidney problems or high blood pressure in adults.
Racine passed its last lead test in June, but that was the first successful test since 2004, Haas said.
To try to lessen the amount of lead in drinking water, the city’s water treatment plant adds a phosphorus compound to the water, Haas said. The compound clings temporarily to lead pipes and works as a barrier between the pipes and water, lessening the amount of lead that gets into drinking water. The free phosphorus compound needs to be filtered out later at the wastewater treatment center.
Adding the phosphorus is a choice the city made, said Baumann. Instead of using phosphorus, the city could opt to replace lead pipes, which is a decision that Madison had made, Baumann said.
But if the city chose to replace the city’s estimated 11,000 lead pipes, it would cost an estimated $77 million, Haas said. Haas also said he doesn’t know if the new pipes would make a difference.
"I could spend $80 million and still fail my lead test, because homeowners might be getting lead from a faucet," Haas said.
Farm phosphorus
Beyond replacing lead pipes and avoiding adding phosphorus, Haas believes the DNR should concentrate on farmers’ phosphorus discharges instead of wastewater treatment plants.
"Madison tends to control the people they can, so they control the wastewater treatment plant," he said. "But they would have a much larger bang for the buck if they could encourage farmers not to put phosphorus on their fields."
Baumann said he recognized Haas’ concern. The DNR is addressing farmers’ phosphorus discharges too, he said. The DNR regulates the amount of manure applied to land and runoff, as examples, Baumann said. They could make those regulations stiffer too, he added.
But the catch is that if the DNR sends mandates to farmers, the state must pay 70 percent of the compliance cost, Baumann said. The state is not required to do that for wastewater treatment plants.
Part of the logic behind the state aid to farmers is that treatment plants can bill the ratepayers while farmers may not be able to pass the cost along, Baumann said. ...
(The 'farmers' referred to are typically large factory-style farmers, not the remaining family-type farms being driven out/under by large-scale, high-density, polluting producers.)
http/www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/exces...-byproducts.pdf
Excess Nutrients in Sources of Drinking Water …
More Cancer-Causing Disinfection By-products in Our Tap Water
The quality of the lakes and streams which supply our drinking water has a lot to do with the safety of the water that comes from our drinking water taps. Excessive nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus contribute high levels of organic matter in our raw water supplies. When disinfectants, such as chlorine, are added to drinking water supplies to kill pathogens, they combine with organic matter to form disinfection by-products.
Trihalomethanes and other disinfection by-products, found in the tap water of more than half of all Americans, have been linked to cancer and birth defects.
Excess nutrients frequently rank as one of the top causes of water pollution in the United States. In 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency reported to Congress that nutrients were the main cause of pollution of 40 percent of rivers, 51 percent of lakes, and 57 percent of estuaries that had been surveyed and found to be impaired. Nutrient pollution comes from many sources, including runoff of fertilizer from farms and lawns, livestock waste and inadequately treated sewage.
The greater the level of nutrients in the lake or stream, the more food exists for algae and other vegetation to grow. According to technical guidance that the U.S. EPA issued to states, “The density of algae and the level of eutrophication in the raw water supply has been correlated with the production of THMs [trihalomethanes].” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nutrient Criteria, Technical Guidance Manual, Rivers and Streams, EPA -822-B-00-002 (July 2000)
http/www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria /nutrient/guidance/rivers/chapter_1.pdf) In other words, the more algae in the raw water supply, the greater the formation of trihalomethanes.
Contamination of tap water with trihalomethanes and other disinfection by-products is a nationwide problem. According to the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Quality Database, more than 116 million Americans in 6,975 communities were exposed to trihalomethanes at levels that exceeded health-based limits. Trihalomethanes and other disinfection by products are among the most common drinking water contaminants, according to this database. To find out about disinfection by-products and other contaminants in your community’s drinking water, search the Environmental Working Group's Tap Water Quality database at
http/www.ewg.org/sites/tapwater/findings.php
Excess Nutrients Increase Community Drinking Water Treatment Costs
The State of Oklahoma’s Water Resources Board has linked excess nutrients in raw water supplies to increased disinfection by-products and increased drinking water treatment costs. According to the Board: “Communities can experience substantial hardship and costs to treat water adversely affected by excess algae. Excessive nutrient loading to a reservoir typically results in algae blooms and associated algal byproducts that can greatly increase the costs of treatment…Of the 137 surface waterbodies used as public water supplies [in Oklahoma], 82 of these waterbodies have systems with disinfection byproduct violations. Many of those violations may be attributed to excessive algae.”
(Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2005. Justification for Chlorophyll-A Criteria to Protect the Public and Private Water Supply Beneficial Use of Beneficial Water Supplies.
http/www.owrb.state.ok.us/ util/rules/ pdf_rul/nutrient_criteria_sws_jd.pdf )
States Must Develop Good Numeric Water Quality Standards for Nutrients
Decreasing nutrient pollution in lakes and streams will reduce trihalomethanes and other harmful disinfection by-products in our drinking water. In 1998, the EPA instructed states to develop water quality standards for nutrients by 2004. Having numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus would force reductions in sources of nutrient pollution – livestock waste, fertilizer from agricultural lands, urban runoff and sewage pollution. The standards also would provide incentives for modernizing aging sewage treatment plants and protecting wetlands and headwater streams, which filter nutrients from water.
The EPA has allowed the deadline to slip and, as a result, most states are behind schedule in developing nutrient standards. If states fail to develop standards for nutrients by 2008, the EPA should develop standards for them.
Because states are under pressure from agricultural and other special interests, it is critical for people to encourage their state to develop numeric water quality standards that will protect our lakes, rivers, coastal water – and our drinking water. For more information on how you can influence your state’s process to develop these standards, see Sierra Club’s factsheet, entitled, Too Much Algae and Too Many Dead Fish? What Activists Can Do to Ensure that Their States Adopt Good Numeric Nutrient Standards, located at www.sierraclub.org.
And, yes, of course, 'Too Much Algae and Too Many Dead Fish' can result in fish tanks filled with affected water, just as much as in lakes and the reservoirs the tap water is obtained from.
This to 'save' far less money than is expended in related health, environmental, and aquarist costs...
So I've added this, in case you might want to take the general circumstances into consideration in dealing with your current algae problem, quite likely related to this 'nutrient' tap water overload.
