What's at stake in fight over sewage
Matt Weiser
Sacramento Bee
12/08/2010
Let's face it: Sewage isn't something most of us like to think about. But when sewage makes news, it usually does so in a big way.
That is the case lately as state water quality officials weigh new sewage treatment rules for the Sacramento region. A hearing is set for Thursday in Rancho Cordova to debate the issue, culminating eight years of work.
To help digest the issue, here are some answers to basic questions about what's happening.
>Who are the players?
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is a state agency charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act, a federal law first adopted in 1948. Amendments in 1977 added authority to regulate wastewater treatment. The board's members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.
The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District treats sewage from about 1.3 million people from Folsom to West Sacramento, discharging it into the Sacramento River near Freeport. Led by county supervisors and city council members throughout the region, it began operating the regional treatment plant near Elk Grove in 1982.
>Why now?
The Clean Water Act requires wastewater treatment plants to renew their discharge permits every five years. Sacramento's last permit was issued in 2000, and extended since then as a new permit was drafted.
>Why has the new permit taken so long?
The permit is complex, involving dozens of pollutants released by the largest municipal discharger in the Central Valley, with a permitted volume of 181 million gallons per day.
The district originally proposed expanding its discharge to 218 million gallons per day. The Contra Costa Water District, a downstream water user, successfully sued over the adequacy of Sacramento's environmental report. An appeal is under way.
Even so, earlier this year, the district dropped the expansion plan. This required the permit renewal to be reworked slightly to reflect the existing discharge volume.
In addition, an ecological crisis began in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 2002, with many fish species plunging toward extinction. This prompted research on Sacramento wastewater as a possible contributor.
>Is Sacramento being punished?
No. Sacramento has a good record of complying with the 2000 discharge permit.
However, some pollution standards have changed since then as science learned more about health effects of various wastewater components.
Treatment plants must meet these new standards only when a discharge permit is renewed every five years, so tighter limits and higher costs were a given.
A prime example is giardia and cryptosporidium. These pathogens can sicken swimmers, water skiers and boaters. The water board estimates that a person recreating in the river downstream of Sacramento's discharge point may be three times more likely to get sick compared to upstream, a claim disputed by the district.
Sacramento was not required to remove these pathogens under its 2000 permit. Removing them now will likely require costly filtration.
>Ammonia: What's the deal?
Research published in 2007 by Richard Dugdale, a professor at San Francisco State University, suggested ammonia is disrupting the Delta's food chain by preventing phytoplankton blooms. Additional research since then supports Dugdale's finding.
Earlier this year, toxicologist Inge Werner at UC Davis found that threatened Delta smelt may be harmed by long-term exposure to ammonia in the river, and the current federal ammonia standard may be inadequate.
The district is the Delta's largest source of ammonia – about 14 tons per day. Removal would require more complete cleaning of wastewater to achieve so-called "tertiary" treatment. The district argues the science isn't clear enough to justify regulation.
>How much will this cost?
The state water board merely sets pollution limits for a new discharge permit. The district then decides how to comply, and charges the cost to ratepayers.
The district estimates that meeting the proposed standards will cost $2 billion, and that residential sewage bills would have to triple to about $60 per month to pay for it. Connection fees would also increase for home and commercial construction. Others have estimated costs at $1.3 billion.
These estimates are based on early assumptions about treatment methods, construction cost, and bond financing, among others. All will change as details firm up.
