Commentary : Cutting Through Sewage Debate Rhetoric

One of the hardest tasks both elected officials and the public face is knowing the difference between rhetoric and reality on a complex issue. That’s especially true when the issue may involve major financial implications.

San Diego’s proposed new Metro Sewer System presents that kind of difficult challenge. The federally mandated upgrading of the system to a higher level of treatment, generally referred to as secondary, is complex and expensive, and political rhetoric is blowing like a Santa Ana wind.

During the past few months, we’ve been bombarded on this issue from all directions. We’ve had distinguished marine scientists incorrectly insist that the new system we’re proposing will waste billions while ignoring the problems of Tijuana and Mission Bay sewage spills. We’ve witnessed the theatrics of various elected officials attempting to frighten the public into believing they’ll experience sewer bills so high they’ll have to choose between feeding the family and flushing the toilet. We’ve been told that the federal Clean Water Act requiring secondary levels of treatment is bad law, and that sewage is good for the ocean. The county Board of Supervisors even chimed in by calling the program a “boondoggle.”

The local press contributes to the atmosphere of misinformation. Headlines seem to emphasize only sewer rate increases, or that the new system will cost billions. A recent editorial in one of our major daily newspapers suggested, “The San Diego City Council, to make the expensive proposition more palatable, has combined it with a water-reclamation plan . . . .” A major radio station followed with another inaccurate editorial alleging that the city planned a $4-billion sewage treatment project.

Separating reality from rhetoric under such circumstances isn’t as exciting as a screaming headline. Examination of the proposed system, though, reveals a comprehensive and rational plan carefully constructed to be feasible, without bankrupting the ratepayers. The system will be expensive, but the price tag is an estimated $2.2 billion, not $4 billion. Higher figures of $2.8 billion have appeared in the press, but those refer to the ultimate completion of the system in the year 2050.

The essential construction of all proposed sewage plants and main pipelines would be finished gradually over the next 20 years, at the lower $2.2-billion figure. Unquestionably, $2.2 billion is still an enormous sum of money. It’s unfortunate that the most dramatic story of the new system, the primacy of water reclamation, has been overshadowed by the mistaken belief that the bulk of that money will be spent to convert just the Point Loma treatment plant to a secondary level.

In fact, most of the money, about $1.5 billion, will be spent on everything but that conversion. The money will be used for new reclamation plants dispersed throughout the county, expansion to cover anticipated future sewage flows, solving our sludge disposal problem, the city’s share of a joint Tijuana solution, etc. The water reclamation we’re planning as the backbone of the program isn’t a throw-in to make the system “palatable”--it basically is the system.

During the current debate, Mission Bay has been made to be a scapegoat, an example of poor sewage planning by the city. It’s important to analyze whether we are indeed throwing money at treatment just for ocean disposal at the expense of parts of our system like the bay. No one would deny we have had very serious sewage infrastructure breakdowns in the Mission Bay vicinity. Rather than ignore the problem, we will spend a total of $130 million on rebuilding the sewage system that surrounds and affects the bay by 1992. A large portion of that has already been committed, evidenced by the fact that, of the 39.6 miles of old (problem) concrete sewer lines, 23.6 miles have already been replaced or are under construction.

Are we making progress? In fiscal year 1988, there were 22 sewage spills and 17 beach closures at Mission Bay. In fiscal year ‘89, there were six spills and only six closures. More importantly, the closures and quantities of spills were minor compared with the horrendous nature of the problem when the entire bay was quarantined just a few years ago. Although even a gallon of sewage spilled is unacceptable, we are finally making substantial progress.

During the recent public flogging of secondary treatment, most critics have at least paid lip service to the concept of a new metro system based on water reclamation and a series of decentralized treatment plants.

The proposed framework as the basis of our new system reflects that policy. The volume that those new plants will reclaim by the year 2010 is 120 million gallons daily, or about half of the overall sewage flows we will be producing then. That will be a remarkable achievement and will place this city in the vanguard of a new water ethic that stresses intelligent water conservation and management instead of merely ocean disposal.

With such a comprehensive system proposed, what is the current argument about? The element of our proposal engendering controversy is our compliance with the federal Clean Water Act requirement of secondary treatment prior to ocean disposal. According to our consultants, conversion of the Point Loma plant to secondary and providing partial secondary as part of the Tijuana solution will cost about $750 million. That is about one third of the overall estimated cost, and, although not insignificant, it’s hardly the $4-billion boondoggle alleged.

We are now being told by eminent scientists that secondary may not be necessary for the ocean environment and that secondary may even be detrimental.

If those scientists are correct, and if the EPA agrees, I would be delighted to avoid that portion of the overall costs. Clearly, though, even that savings would leave $1.5 billion of necessary expenditures to build the system of the future.