Posted on 08/14/2009 3:45:35 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Background: The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant doesn't meet federal standards for the partly cleaned sewage that it discharges about 4.5 miles offshore. It received its first waiver in 1995 after a process that started in 1979, then obtained a second exemption in 2002.
What's new: The California Coastal Commission yesterday denied San Diego's request for a third exemption, which would have allowed it to delay upgrades that could cost $1.5 billion.
The future: San Diego could appeal the commission's decision to the U.S. secretary of commerce.
In a dramatic and startling defeat for San Diego, the California Coastal Commission yesterday denied the city's request to continue operating the region's main sewage treatment facility below the minimum pollution standard.
San Diego may appeal to the U.S. secretary of commerce for its third waiver from the federal Clean Water Act. If that fails, it could be on the hook for paying up to $1.5 billion to upgrade its Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The city and more than a dozen sewer agencies that use the facility would likely have to raise rates to help pay for such a project. San Diego's rates already had been projected to rise about 35 percent between 2007 and next year.
At their monthly meeting in San Francisco, the coastal commissioners voted against the recommendations of their staff, state water-quality regulators and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The decision shocked San Diego's advocates and overjoyed some environmentalists who have fought the exemption for years.
“Today's vote finally settles the issue in California ... that the ocean is a not a garbage pail,” said Joey Racano of the Ocean Outfall Group, which opposes San Diego's waiver application.
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders said he was disappointed with the commission's decision and will work with the city attorney next week to consider a response.
“I think (it's) a political conclusion, and I think it was wrong,” Sanders said. “We will take every action that we have to make sure our ratepayers don't have to pay a huge bill that is unnecessary.”
The Point Loma plant treats sewage from 2.2 million people inside and outside city limits, and it discharges about 170 million gallons a day into the Pacific Ocean. San Diego is the only city in California that hasn't committed to meet the secondary treatment level for discharges to the ocean.
Sanders has worked for nearly two years to convince regulators that San Diego is fulfilling the terms of its current exemption and should be permitted to keep processing sewage without a major retrofit. San Diego received two earlier waivers — one in 1995 and the second in 2002.
San Diego seemed to be headed toward another exemption after some regulators praised it for making small-scale upgrades to its sewage treatment and recycling system and improving its ocean monitoring program.
Renewing the waiver “would be consistent with the water quality, marine resources, commercial and recreational fishing, and public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act,” the Coastal Commission's staff wrote in a recent report.
Pat Kruer, a veteran coastal commissioner from Rancho Santa Fe, used that report yesterday morning to support a motion to grant the city's waiver application. Approval from the panel would have allowed the EPA to complete its own sign-off for the third exemption.
Much to Kruer's surprise, no one backed him and the motion failed 8-1.
“It was one of the most bizarre things I have seen in 10 years,” Kruer said. “I don't understand how we arrived at this point. ... The only rationale I heard them say was that it's time to do it and why should San Diego be exempt?”
Commissioner Sara Wan of Malibu criticized the proposal.
“I don't know how you justify a secondary treatment waiver,” she said. “It's been 35 years since the passage of the Clean Water Act, and everybody else has secondary.”
Wan said granting a third waiver would invite more stalling.
“Unless you hold their feet to the fire, I don't think they will come up to secondary,” she said.
The commission's rejection has precedent.
In 2002, it initially objected to San Diego's second exemption application because of concerns about pollution and environmental monitoring. Eventually, the commission consented.
The current waiver will remain in effect until the issue is resolved.
San Diego utilities director Jim Barrett said he plans to follow through on a $2 million, 18-month study of the regional wastewater system. That project will explore chances to recycle more water and thus limit ocean discharges from the Point Loma plant.
One main barrier to improving the treatment system is lack of space at the Point Loma facility, which is wedged between the Cabrillo National Monument and Navy land. Having to build upward would cost more money.
The city would have smaller sewage loads if it increased recycling of wastewater, and that would free up some space at the Point Loma facility. The result would be opportunities for less expensive upgrades.
Some local environmentalists agreed not to oppose San Diego's latest waiver request if the city paid for the new wastewater-system study. They said spending as much as $1.5 billion for the Point Loma retrofit would undermine efforts to maximize water recycling amid predictions of more severe droughts for the Southwest.
“In 10 to 15 years, we will no longer have the luxury of treating wastewater . . . and discharging it into the ocean,” said Marco Gonzalez, an attorney for San Diego Coastkeeper and the Surfrider Foundation.
they have been given a pass on this for 30 years??????
dumping dung into the ocean?????
In my view, what’s wrong with the enforcers? or is pelosi’s state allowed to spread the same dung in the Pacific Ocean as she does in washington?
Death by liberal suicide.
It’s a good thing fish don’t poop. /sarc
Does Tijuana still dump raw sewage into the ocean, does anybody know?
Just saying, they could force S.D. to spend over a billion dollars for the sewage upgrade, but, Mexican sewage could still flow into the ocean anyway.
Mexico seems to have a big pipe line running their shut north so connect to their line and pump south.
One nasty case of hepatitis from eating fish caught in that area would change an official’s mind.
#1 it is an offshore discharge
#2 it is partially treated - not raw unscreened sewage
#3 the cost benefit analysis for years has been that the treatment and discharge methods are appropriate given the extreme offshore discharge point - stream bed and near shore discharge should not be treated the same as this situation
wonder if pelosi likes fresh Pacific ocean fish?
it is still dangerous waste being discharged into our, not just their, ocean.
why should this particular one be given waivers for 30 years, while others clean up their act?
Saying all that, however, since it is being appealed to obamanation’s feds, they will likely get another 30 years, while Gore and the environmentalists tell us that WE are destroying the planet! Not to mention the billions tacked into the stimupus act to deal with our “destruction”.
San Diego changed the billing again 2 years ago and went to monthly VS bi_monthly Billing. The monthly became the same as our previous Bi-monthly cost. We are now back to every other month with double the bill.
As Hannity has shown the "Drought" this year is because a federal judge blocked pumping water into the canal system to save a fresh water smelt. What was the answer take this excess water (smelt included) and pump it into the Pacific ocean.
My question what happened to the money we put into the treatment plant
You are assuming its dangerous ... many experts in the field would disagree
you are right. I wonder if anyone knows the long term effect of this on fish/people and the planet?
“My question what happened to the money we put into the treatment plant”
Government employee wage, health, and pension increases!
Where’d you get your facts, from the sewage dumpers themselves??
#1 the ocean isnt a toilet for your crap
#2 It is so poorly treated you would quickly die if you drank it and you are 50 years behind upgrade schedule
#3 Cost benefit is excellent since the fisheries collapsed, and ‘this situation’ is far worse than they are saying: because these idiots are disinfecting less than secondarily treated sewage, the disinfectant is reacting chemically, causing the production of organochlorines/chlorinated hydrocarbons, among the most dangerous class of contaminants on Earth- endocrine disrupters, known in very small ‘trace’ amounts to cause havoc with reproductive systems of animals- now go back to school
www.stopthewaiver.com
I’m not trying to establish facts - I am listing items of discussion. I’m not even saying the CA Coatal was wrong in their decision. The concern is the cost to the community and the failure of the commission to consider incremental discharge limits - it seems they have taken an all or nothing approach.
You are quoting from an advocate website - I will take it for what it’s worth.
I don’t need to go back to school, thank you very much. I deal with these and similar issues on a regular, almost daily basis. Do you know the difference between ozonation treatment and UV disinfection? Membrane filtration versus reverse osmosis? What combinations work better in combined waste streams versus dedicated sewage? When is salinity a concern and where?
Despite you wanting this to be a simple open and shut matter it is in fact a complex issue. Add to these concerns the estimated cost in the hundreds of millions and you now have a political nightmare because the people of CA under prop 218 can protest and even reject significant rate increases to cover the cost of upgrades. What then?
Remember - the CA Coastal Commission is the same group that routinely rejects permits for people to build new horse stables on their own land and is one of the key impediments to offshore drilling in CA.
Discussion is fine - heated discussion is great - these issues matter - but insults are unnecessary especially when you make really bad assumptions about someone’s knowledge of an issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.