Treating Sacramento region's sewage to eliminate ammonia could cost $10 per household Share
Matt Weiser
Sacramento Bee
08/26/2010
Removing ammonia from Sacramento's treated sewage could cost every household in the region an extra $10 a month, according to a new study by economists at University of the Pacific.
Sewage from the region's 1.4 million residents is treated by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and discharged into the Sacramento River near Freeport.
Ammonia remaining in that wastewater, a byproduct of human urine and feces, is suspected of disrupting the food chain in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Sacramento's treated sewage is the largest single source of ammonia in the Delta.
Scientific questions still linger about whether ammonia is truly harmful to the aquatic environment. State officials are sorting through those questions as they prepare a new discharge permit for the district. The new permit, expected later this year, may require ammonia removal to protect the Delta environment.
A number of agencies that draw water from the Delta believe the plant needs to be upgraded to protect the environment, or alternatively, that ammonia should be eliminated from the wastewater stream.
But the sewer district believes those groups are trying to focus attention away from the environmental effects of their own water diversions.
The Business Forecasting Center at University of the Pacific in Stockton – in a study partially funded by the sewer district – reported this week that monthly residential bills would have to increase from $19.75 to at least $30 per month to finance treatment plant upgrades to remove ammonia.
In addition, developer impact fees – charged to connect a new home to the sewer system – would have to increase from $7,450 to at least $11,000 per home, the study says.
These fees would be needed to raise $90 million a year to finance a new advanced nutrient removal process at the regional sewage treatment plant, located near Elk Grove. Total cost of the work is estimated at $770 million.
Diverting that much disposable income would have an economic effect on the region, said Jeffrey Michael, director of the UOP center. The study estimated the money going to fees would otherwise pump $105 million and 537 jobs annually into the economy – after construction of the plant upgrades.
"A $770 million capital project is extremely large, and it's a sizable increase to wastewater bills," said Michael. "To low-income households that are struggling, it can be a really significant cost."
In comparison, he noted the expansion of Sacramento International Airport, currently under way, will cost about $1 billion. But, he said, the costs of that project primarily hit higher-income groups via fees charged on airline tickets.
The sanitation district paid Michael's group $15,000 to cover some of the costs of the study. This paid for new software and a student intern's time. Michael said it did not influence the study's outcome.
The construction itself – estimated to be a five-year job – would offset some economic pain initially. The project is projected to generate a net increase of 348 jobs and cut the net economic losses to $41 million a year during construction.
Michael's group did not attempt to estimate whether additional offsetting economic benefits would come from fishing, recreation or clean drinking water improvements as a result of the project.
"It could very well be those benefits are well worth the cost," said Michael. "And they may not be."
The sanitation district maintains the project is not worth the cost. It continues to emphasize there is not enough scientific proof that ammonia is a problem.
"You will have an effect of taking money out of people's hands in this community," said Stan Dean, the district's policy and planning chief. "That snowballs into an economic driver in the negative direction."
Others believe protecting area rivers is worth the cost.
