State permit for Sacramento-area sewage challenged on two fronts
Matt Weiser
Sacramento Bee
01/12/2011
A strict new state permit governing Sacramento's sewage is being challenged both for going too far and for not going far enough.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state agency, on Dec. 9 imposed a new discharge permit on Sacramento's regional sewage treatment plant. It limits pollution entering the Sacramento River in the region's wastewater.
Monday was the deadline to appeal the permit to the State Water Resources Control Board.
The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, which operates the treatment plant near Elk Grove, was one of those who appealed. It said the evidence of environmental harm is too skimpy to justify the new pollution controls.
Also appealing was the Stockton-based California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, which argues the rules aren't strict enough to protect fish and water quality.
The widely diverging views reflect the controversial and complex nature of the permit, which governs the largest urban wastewater source in the West Coast's largest estuary.
Some local politicians and business leaders are protesting the potentially high cost of compliance.
"We understand there are some improvements that need to be made," said Michael Ault, executive director of the Sacramento Downtown Partnership, who raised the issue at the group's annual State of the Downtown breakfast Tuesday. "But we've got enough barriers against us in this economy to not pile on another obstacle for development."
The regional treatment plant handles sewage from 1.3 million people in the capital metro area, from Folsom to West Sacramento. It is the Delta's largest source of ammonia, a pollutant suspected of altering the food chain.
The district has 10 years to remove ammonia and reduce other pollutants. In a preliminary calculation, the district estimates that upgrading the 1982 plant to so-called "tertiary" treatment will cost $2 billion. Monthly sewer rates may have to triple, to $60 a month. Connection fees for new homes and businesses may also jump significantly.
The sanitation district asserts that the regional board lacked sufficient evidence of environmental harm to require virtual elimination of ammonia.
It also asks the state board to overturn controls on giardia and cryptosporidium. The district estimates it will cost $1.2 billion to filter out these pathogens – the single biggest expense.
The district cites a wastewater expert who testified at the Dec. 9 hearing that existing treatment removes enough of the pathogens to meet federal health standards.
It claims the regional board ignored this evidence and, instead, imposed a stricter standard on advice from the state Department of Public Health.
"There is the need to make sure we are protective of the environment," said Stan Dean, the district engineer. "And there is the need to make sure we are responsible stewards of the money this region pays toward that. We don't think an appropriate balance has been struck."
The discharge permit must be updated every five years, in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act, to reflect updated pollution science. Sacramento's has not been updated since 2000, in part because the battle over new pollution limits has been hard-fought.
In the meantime, numerous Delta fish species have plunged toward extinction. Sacramento's ammonia is seen as a potential contributor. Recent research suggests the volume – 14 tons a day – halts phytoplankton blooms at the base of the food chain.
The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance supports the ammonia controls. But its appeal argues that other pollutants got insufficient attention.
Among them are copper and cyanide, both common in wastewater and toxic to fish.
The pollution limit for copper was set too high, the alliance argues, and those for cyanide and several other chemicals were relaxed compared to the last permit. It also argues that too much latitude was allowed for temperature increases in the river from the warmer effluent.
"Everybody was focused on the ammonia problem," said Bill Jennings, executive director of the Stockton-based alliance. "But then they bent over backward and ignored the rest of the regulations. And basically the permit is not protective of species in the Sacramento River."
