Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
November 5, 2007
4. Water Quality
WASTEWATER REGULATION:
City to appeal wastewater case; U.S. Supreme Court to be asked to overturn ruling barring use of gravel quarry pit near river - Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Editorial: Blue gold; Wastewater is finally recognized as a valuable commodity - Santa Rosa Press Democrat
WATER RUNOFF VIOLATIONS:
PERCHLORATE:
City's Perchlorate cleanup totals $18M; Preparing for lawsuits accounts for 75% of
WATER RECYCLING
Column: Hey, if you believe it, say it loud: toilet to tap - San Diego Union Tribune
WASTEWATER REGULATION:
City to appeal wastewater case;
Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 11/3/07
By Clark Mason, staff writer
Healdsburg is going to the U.S. Supreme Court to try to overturn a court decision that limits the city's ability to use an old gravel quarry pit next to the
At stake are more than $500,000 in legal fees the city is trying to avoid as a result of earlier adverse court rulings. City officials also want to be able to continue discharging into the gravel pit year-round instead of possibly having to spend millions of dollars to develop new storage facilities.
"There is a feeling among us we really did not get a fair hearing," Mayor Gary Plass said Friday of the most recent ruling against Healdsburg.
Last summer, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Jack Silver, the attorney for River Watch, predicted that the Supreme Court will not hear the case.
"It doesn't have much of a chance of succeeding," he said Friday, noting that the high court reviews only a very small fraction of the cases it receives. "We expect them to deny it."
But Healdsburg City Attorney Mike Gogna said the Supreme Court reviews more rulings from the 9th Circuit than other courts, including two clean-water cases last year.
The city also contends that the situation has changed due to a new state-of-the-art sewage plant it is building that will produce a much higher quality of wastewater than before.
The 9th Circuit Court ruled in 2006 and again in 2007 that the old gravel pit -- the "Basalt Pond" into which the city discharges wastewater -- is subject to federal jurisdiction, because it is essentially part of the river.
City officials say if the ruling stands, they will be required to get a federal permit and limit the amount of wastewater that can be discharged into the Basalt Pond during summer months.
They estimate the city might have to spend about $20 million to condemn valuable vineyard land to build new percolation ponds to replace the Basalt Pond.
Healdsburg has discharged partially treated wastewater into the 58-acre Basalt Pond since the 1970s.
The water seeps into the aquifer and into the river over a period of months. It is cleaned as it passes through the bottom and sides of the pond, but the 9th Circuit Court noted "the filtration is not perfect."
A lower court found that chloride reaches the river in higher concentrations as a direct result of Healdsburg's discharge into the pond.
The pond also was breached during winter floods in 1995 and 1997, spilling wastewater into the river.
Those problems and the lawsuits by River Watch prompted Healdsburg to embark on construction of a $32 million sewage plant, scheduled for completion in early 2008.
The city is also planning a $13 million network of pumps and pipes to use the reclaimed water for irrigation of vineyards, parks, school grounds and the city golf course.
Healdsburg is under a deadline from state water quality regulators to have that system in place by early 2010.
If the city cannot use the Basalt Pond in the summer months, it could complicate things further, according to city officials.
Healdsburg City Attorney Gogna said if the city's use of the Basalt Pond is subject to the federal Clean Water Act, it also makes it easier for citizen groups such as River Watch, a controversial environmental organization, to file lawsuits.
The group has sued most cities between
"The Clean Water Act has provisions for a citizen lawsuit any time there's a violation, even a hyper-technical one," Gogna said.
The city is currently on the hook for more than $500,000 in River Watch's fees, but if the Supreme Court overturns the lower court rulings, Healdsburg would not have to pay. #
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071103/NEWS/711030326/1033/NEWS01
Editorial: Blue gold; Wastewater is finally recognized as a valuable commodity
Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 11/5/07
Not that long ago, wastewater was considered a nuisance. Between 1985 and 1999,
Now, the city is charging businesses nearly as much to use recycled water as they are paying for drinking water -- and a proposal being debated during the next six weeks by the Board of Public Utilities and the City Council would be the first step toward a comprehensive urban reuse program.
Under the plan being discussed, new businesses, apartments and schools would be required to use recycled water for irrigation and industrial uses. For the privilege, they will pay 95 percent of what it costs to use potable water -- if potable water is available.
And that's the key to understanding this program: The choice for large water users in the future won't be potable water or recycled water. The choice will be recycled water or nothing.
Even with Sonoma County's slow growth rate (less than 1 percent annually), the water used by new residents, by farmers and what is required to meet environmental demands will limit the amount available for landscaping and other nonessential uses.
The questions facing the BPU and the City Council are (1) whether to embark on this ambitious project, (2) where the first phase should be built (southern or western
Neighbors will likely raise concerns about the disruption from construction. Slow-growth advocates will worry that this plan will encourage sprawl. Environmentalists will point out that trace amounts of chemicals left in recycled water from pharmaceuticals could harm fish and frogs if the water runs off into waterways.
These are legitimate concerns.
Still, if the council agrees to move forward with the urban reuse plan, in the not-too-distant future the city would be recycling 95 percent of its wastewater. It's difficult to imagine that this is the same stuff that
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071104/OPINION/711040365/1043/OPINION01
WATER RUNOFF VIOLATIONS:
Riverside Press
By Alicia Robinson, staff writer
Regional water officials warned
After creating a plan to comply with the rules,
The reason for the fine was outlined in a six-page complaint from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, which oversees the
As the Oct. 1 complaint explains,
Polluted runoff is a problem because it can end up in the ocean or get into the
The complaint stemmed more from the fact that the city was not meeting requirements to prevent runoff, rather than that the runoff was shown to be polluted, said Kurt Berchtold, a water board assistant executive officer.
"One of the things that we found and that we allege in the complaint is that the city isn't doing enough to control animal waste being generated in the city," he said.
The city estimates between 10,000 to 15,000 horses live in
"One of our big objectives is to encourage people to participate in our manure-collection program," Norco City Manager Jeff Allred said. He cited people keeping manure and using it as fertilizer as one problem the city faces.
Other parts of the strategy are still being developed. The City Council will vote Wednesday on whether to put $39,247 of the $78,494 fine toward a wetlands project, a move the water board would allow.
The project is a 337-acre wetland with an interpretive center between the
After paying the fine, the city will continue to work on other issues raised in the water board complaint, such as long-term strategies for handling manure.
But while
"It's a very serious issue, but it's not unique to
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_C_crunoff03.3f7b332.html
PERCHLORATE:
City's Perchlorate cleanup totals $18M; Preparing for lawsuits accounts for 75% of
By Jason Pesick, staff writer
About $13.5 million, or 75 percent of the outlay, has been paid to or through lawyers, specifically five law firms that have represented the city since about 2003.
The cost categories include investigations ($9.5 million), federal litigation ($2.1 million), pushing for state action ($1.9 million) public and governmental relations ($967,100) and administrative costs ($545,000).
Last month, City Attorney Bob Owen provided City Council members Winnie Hanson and Ed Scott, both members of the council's perchlorate subcommittee, with a breakdown of the city's costs on perchlorate.
Since the end of April, the city has prepared for state cleanup hearings involving three suspected polluters. The hearings were supposed to take place in August but have been postponed indefinitely and may never take place at all.
Since April, not much has been spent because the city's case had already been built, Hanson said. She put the total at less than $20 million.
The City Council has also authorized a more thorough audit of all the city's perchlorate expenses. The audit is now complete and will be released shortly, Hanson said.
"It doesn't look like there was anything wrong at all," she said, summarizing the audit's findings.
The audit does not account for all money spent.
In the letter, Owen writes that he estimates the companies
Owen's letter, which can be viewed online at dailybulletin.com, spells out the costs to the city.
The letter also lists the five law firms. Part of the reason the city has used so many different firms is that its lawyers have taken jobs at new firms since the perchlorate cleanup effort began.
"We have not wavered from our focus on our goal: to secure a cleanup, restore our water storage capabilities, and guarantee the economic future of our City," Owen writes in the letter. #
http://www.dailybulletin.com//ci_7355068?IADID=Search-www.dailybulletin.com-www.dailybulletin.com
WATER RECYCLING
Column: Hey, if you believe it, say it loud: toilet to tap
By Gerry Braun, columnist
Toilet to tap. Toilet to tap. Toilet to tap. Toilet to tap.
There, I've said it again. And it sure feels good.
When I last wrote about plans to pump recycled sewage water into our drinking reservoirs, my rendering of this phrase prompted a scalding e-mail.
A retired biology professor counted each use – “Seven times already!!!!!” – and declared that anyone who would brandish such foul terminology must be part of the “earth-is-flat, science-is-wrong” crowd.
Far from it. I count myself among the let's-call-a-spade-a-spade crowd.
And so should the toilet-to-tappers.
If they hope to convince us that drinking recycled sewage water is the best solution to our looming water shortage, they should stop running away from their own proposal. Say it loud, say it proud: Toilet to tap!
At the City Council meeting last week, the idea was discussed for nearly two hours. In the end, the council authorized a demonstration project that will involve pumping recycled sewage into a city reservoir like
What did they call it? “Indirect potable reuse.”
And, on occasion, “reservoir augmentation.”
Those guys wouldn't say sewage if they had a mouthful.
There was one exception: Bruce Reznik, executive director of the environmental group San Diego Coastkeeper. He used the term “toilet to tap” twice in his remarks to the council.
I talked with Reznik later about his choice of words. He said that while other terms may be more technically correct than “toilet to tap,” they give the public “the impression that you're hiding something.”
“It looks like we're trying to use subterfuge and trying to obscure the real issue,” Reznik said. “Within the environmental community, there are differing opinions on whether to use the dreaded moniker 'toilet to tap.' My feeling is: Own it.”
Exactly.
Ten years ago, when water officials first proposed recycling sewage for our drinking pleasure, reasonable questions were raised about the program's science and economics.
But what doomed the proposal was the belief that city officials weren't being straight with us. This was during the mayorship of Susan Golding, when such notions were usually justified, and it didn't help that more than $400,000 had been spent to rally support under the euphemism “water repurification.”
When skeptics began calling the program “toilet to tap,” it was as though heavy bandages had been removed from
This time around, the toilet-to-tappers are confident they have a compelling case for the program.
They say recycled sewage is actually cleaner than
“In the wintertime, when the snowmelt stops, most of what's in that river is treated sewage,” Councilman Jim Madaffer told me.
“Yet everyone is bon appétit. They're good with it.”
Such arguments will be part of a city-sponsored public-education program next year. My suggestion for that campaign is a commitment by city officials to drink and serve only recycled sewer water next year – at home, at work, in the city box at
Instead, I fear, the campaign's early focus will be expunging the term “toilet to tap” from the civic vocabulary.
The phrase is not unique to
In the proud tradition of such graphics as “How a bill becomes law,” it followed the path by which wastewater and raw sewage would be treated, filtered and returned to the water supply. The graphic artist, Paul Horn, was a decidedly nonpolitical fellow, but his progeny remains controversial to this day.
Toilet-to-tappers say the term is misleading because it omits the intermediary steps – ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis and the like – and suggests the city is building a pipe that leads directly from one's bathroom to one's kitchen sink.
But we're smarter than that. When someone tells us she drove from
In any case, toilet-to-tappers probably wouldn't like “toilet to reservoir” any better.
Or even “toilet to treatment plant to reservoir to tap.”
Their real problem is with that first part.
But frankly, you can't win the hearts and minds of a big city if you're afraid to say the word “toilet.”
Toilet to tap. Own it. #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/braun/20071104-9999-1m4braun.html
####
No comments:
Post a Comment