How Has the Sewage Waiver Lasted So Long?

Re “Runoff Is Far Greater Threat to Coast Than Sewage Plume,” Commentary, July 7:

Yes, runoff is a far larger problem than the sewage waiver under which the Orange County Sanitation District operates. However, stopping urban runoff will require a fundamental change in the way we live, work, build cities, etc.

I submit that these changes--akin to the “growing pains” of an entire civilization--will not be easy.

But the waiver, now there’s something that no one else is doing, at least at this level, and it is something major we can do right now to battle ocean pollution.

Why it ever got this far is beyond the good people of Southern California, and I do believe it will soon be a thing of the past.

I say that with confidence, having experienced the incredible protest scene at the last sewage district meeting in Fountain Valley, where hundreds of members of the public (more than 100 speakers) voiced opposition and concern about the waiver, and none spoke in favor.

Joey Racano

Orange County

Ocean Outfall Group

Huntington Beach

*

UCI scientist and researcher Stanley Grant said that “coastal pollution is a maddeningly trans-disciplinary problem, equal parts microbiology, ecology, physical oceanography, environmental engineering and political science.”

I find it peculiar that someone who uses science and facts as the foundation for his life work would write an article that puts a political slant on the issue. Cost-benefit analysis of full secondary treatment is a more complicated issue that his somewhat superficial treatment of the facts. Disinfection of the sewage has been discussed by the Orange County Sanitation District only as a temporary solution. It is a separate issue from the treatment-level options now under consideration.

Some of Grant’s research was funded by the sanitation district. One may wonder about his motivation in sending this article to your paper one week before the cities vote on the next treatment level for the sewage outfall.

Eric Hardeman

Fullerton

*

As Grant states in his commentary Sunday about runoff and ocean quality: “We are creating a whole new research field, call it coastal water quality science, that will be a critical player in the years to come.” The pot of money that the sanitation district has in reserve seems to have been targeted by those who would like to create a new industry.

The conundrum of whether the plume reaches the shore is really a red herring. Reuse of 240 million gallons of water a day should be the focus. Ridding ourselves of the waiver could be the first step in moving toward this goal. Grant seems to have given up his hypothesis that the influx and reflux of 300 million gallons of water (soon to be 500) a day could be drawing the plume to shore--a hypothesis that has not even been tested, let alone proved invalid.

The AES plant was operating only for three days of the study done last summer, hardly a comprehensive picture of the situation. To discard the theory without a fair test is unscientific, and the timing of the article with the vote on the waiver being later this month is highly suspect.

Don McGee

Huntington Beach

*

Grant implies that the rancor surrounding the sanitation district is only about full secondary treatment. The issue brought before the district and city councils throughout the service area has always been about the continued use by the district of the 301(h) waiver to avoid fully meeting the standards set forth in the Clean Water Act.

If the district applies for a permit without using the waiver, it will still have options and can use various combinations of treatment available now and in the future to meet the Clean Water Act standards.

I agree with Grant that runoff is a major contributor to overall deterioration of the water quality in the ocean. This doesn’t mean we should ignore a known large source of contaminants such as the outfall. It also doesn’t mean we should allow the district to continue using the waiver to do business as usual. Up until February of this year, the district was telling everyone that all was safe, healthy and no problem, until the “plume came too close for comfort” off Newport Beach. Suddenly disinfection was needed to protect the beaches.

At the July 17 district board meeting, the directors should get rid of the waiver as part of the next permit request. The method of treatment can then be determined within the parameters of the federal Clean Water Act and limits and requirements of the state laws governing water quality. Millions of dollars have already been taken from treatment to try to show that the plume didn’t close the beaches in ’99. Taking more money from the treatment of the sewage to fund more investigation is foolish. Funding for “coastal water quality science” should be made available, but not by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Grant should look elsewhere for his funding.

Dennis Baker

Corona del Mar

*

The debate over the cause of local beach pollution has been raging since the summer of 1999. Is it the sanitation district’s waste-water discharge, urban runoff or suspect municipal sewer systems that are responsible for local beach postings and closures? It’s probably a combination of all three, each pollution source bearing a different degree of responsibility. Therefore, it was disappointing to read Grant’s editorial position, limiting beach contamination emphasis to urban runoff.

Grant did state that “full secondary treatment would reduce the levels of organic contaminants, viruses and bacteria released to the ocean” by the sanitation district. He than took issue with the cost of enjoying such a benefit.

According to a recent letter by Lisa Murphy, communications director for the sanitation district, “On the average over 15 years, residents will see an increase of $16 per year per household,” in some years reaching $36 a year. Which means that for $1.33 per month, ratepayers will begin the process of reducing the bacteria burden of the district’s wastewater. I’m sorry, Dr. Grant, but I prefer to pay the price.

Lastly, the district board of directors is scheduled to vote on whether to transition to a new level of waste-water treatment on July 17. It’s interesting that Grant elected to submit his editorial just 10 days before the next board meeting. He’s had three years to change his mind.

Rob Nelson

Huntington Beach

*

Regarding Grant’s article, I would like to point out the following:

1. The O.C. Sanitation District has been avoiding full compliance with the intent of the federal Clean Water Act for 30 years.

2. The district is by far the largest municipal polluter in the U.S., measured by pounds of suspended (fecal) solids discharged per day.

3. The district’s ocean discharge has created a sewage plume that measures at least six miles long by four miles wide by 100 feet thick.

4. Using estimates on the district’s Web site, the difference in solids discharged to the ocean between its current permit limits and full secondary treatment amounts to 157 million pounds per year.

Maybe all this is “secondary” to Grant, but stopping the ocean discharge of 157 million pounds of fecal solids per year at a cost of up to 10 cents per day per household sounds like a bargain to me and a worthwhile step in the improvement of health of the ocean environment.

Rick Wilson

Chairman,

Laguna Beach chapter,

Surfrider Foundation