Water Boards Drop Attempt to Cut Sewage Treatment

Three inland water districts in southern Orange County, bowing to increasing public pressure from coastal residents, made a surprise announcement Friday that they would abandon their bid to reduce treatment of sewage before it is dumped in the ocean off Dana Point.

Board members of the Moulton Niguel and Santa Margarita water districts and the City of San Juan Capistrano said in a joint statement that they would ask the South East Regional Reclamation Authority to withdraw a request to reduce sewage treatment levels now under review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“The decision . . . was reached after comparing the economic benefits to be obtained against the potential health concerns and monetary costs,” the statement said.

Board members, who did not sign the three-paragraph letter, also cited the “divisiveness” caused by the issue among the six memberagencies of SERRA, a joint-powers authority that operates a treatment plant and a sewer outfall in Dana Point.

Opposed Any Reduction

SERRA’s three coastal districts--the City of San Clemente and the Dana Point and Capistrano Beach sanitary districts--have opposed any reduction in treatment levels.

The decision, which appeared to avert what was expected to be an emotional public hearing on the issue at the San Juan Capistrano City Council meeting Aug. 6, means that raw sewage will continue to be treated to remove 99% of virus- and bacteria-carrying matter before it is discharged from the outfall about 100 feet offshore.

“This is a special day for all of us that love the ocean,” said Dr. John F. Skinner, a Newport Beach internist who earlier this year helped defeat a similar proposal by the neighboring Aliso Water Management Agency.

Together, SERRA and AWMA serve residents of San Clemente, Capistrano Beach, Dana Point, South Laguna, Laguna Beach, Emerald Bay, San Juan Capistrano, El Toro, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Irvine and Mission Viejo. They discharge 25.5 million gallons of treated effluent daily through outfalls off Aliso Beach and Dana Point.

Friday’s decision by the three inland water districts, Skinner said, means that “the marine recreational waters from Emerald Bay to San Clemente will remain some of the cleanest in Southern California.”

“This is very gratifying,” said an aide to Supervisor Thomas F. Riley. The supervisor has been outspoken against any reduction in sewage treatment and has written letters to member districts and to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, which oversees water quality issues in the area.

“I think this whole issue (was) for short-term financial gains against long-term environmental degradation,” said Riley’s aide, Peter Herman. .

Federal law requires that sewage discharged into the nation’s surface waters be treated to “secondary” levels, meaning that 95% of all solid materials and 99% of viruses and bacteria carried by fecal matter must be removed.

But a 1977 amendment to the federal Clean Water Act allowed operators of treatment plants that discharge into the ocean to apply for waivers from full secondary treatment. Coastal treatment districts had until December, 1982, to apply. Both AWMA, a joint-powers authority of seven member districts, and SERRA applied for the waivers in 1982 as cost-cutting measures projected to save each agency at least $200,000 annually.

Diluted, Dispersed in Ocean

Approval of the waiver, which must be granted by both the EPA and the regional water board, would mean that sewage would flow into the ocean with only 65% to 75% of the solid wastes, viruses and bacteria removed, under the theory that the less-treated effluent was not entering drinking water supplies and would be diluted and dispersed in the ocean.

Agencies receiving a waiver would be required to meet the less-restrictive state Ocean Plan and do extensive monitoring of the water quality.

William Sukenik, general manager of both AWMA and SERRA, has said both agencies sought the waivers as hedges against future increases in operation costs and had not decided whether to actually reduce treatment levels. One idea to reduce costs was to mix effluent treated to secondary levels with waste water treated to somewhat lower levels.

Application Withdrawn

Neither Sukenik nor John V. Foley, head of the Moulton Niguel Water District, which led the quest for waivers on both the AWMA and SERRA boards, returned a reporter’s telephone calls Friday.

In the case of AWMA, the EPA had given tentative approval and the San Diego regional water board was set to take final action last May. But a lobbying drive by Save Our Sea, a coalition of groups and individuals who opposed reduced treatment standards, ultimately led a divided AWMA board to withdraw its application.

SERRA initially had expected a decision from the EPA this month. But as the controversy began building among its member agencies, SERRA officials were told that the crush of work would delay a decision until late September.

However, sources close to the controversy indicated that EPA officials were dragging their heels in hopes that public opposition would persuade the SERRA board to follow AWMA’s lead and withdraw the waiver application.

The waiver to the Clean Water Act was intended primarily for such waste-water dischargers as the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego, which have aging treatment plants that would never meet tough federal standards, even with vast capital outlays.

Argued in Opposition

Sources said some officials at the EPA did not see the sense in allowing newer districts that already meet federal standards to “backslide” and reduce treatment levels.

State and county health officials, Skinner and representatives of the state Department of Fish and Game argued in opposition to AWMA’s waiver by contending that anything less than secondary treatment exposed swimmers and marine life to unacceptable health risks.

Skinner repeated those concerns at meetings of the San Clemente City Council and the Capistrano Beach and Dana Point sanitary districts. Both districts opposed the waiver from the outset, and San Clemente recently reversed its position supporting the waiver.

A water sports enthusiast, Skinner cited EPA studies that suggest reducing treatment of waste water can lead to increased gastrointestinal infections among swimmers and surfers.

Opponents of the waiver also contended that the savings, which according to Sukenik amounts to about $14 annually per sewer hookup, would be outweighed by increased monitoring costs.

Monitoring costs, which would be borne only by the SERRA member agencies that actually sought the waiver, apparently played a part in Friday’s decision.

While utility costs could be cut by reducing extra stages of treatment, the statement by the three inland water districts added: “A considerable portion of the savings would, however, have been offset by additional costs in increased monitoring of the marine environment.”

It was not immediately clear what led to Friday’s announcement or how it was made. No official meeting of the SERRA board had been scheduled. But Riley aide Herman suggested that pressure from coastal residents was building.

“This broke down into a battle between coastal and inland members of SERRA,” Herman said Friday. “Coastal groups were offended by the SERRA waiver. . . . The waiver is seen by people who live along the coast as a way in which the coast will be forever polluted, beaches will lose their value.

‘Real Specter of Ugliness’

“They see it as a real specter of ugliness,” Herman said.

Skinner’s wife, Nancy, who also spoke out against the waiver plans, suggested that officials of the Moulton Niguel and Santa Margarita districts saw sentiment building on the San Juan Capistrano City Council to oppose any reduction in treatment.