Council Jumps the Track on Sewage Plan : Environment: The vote to pursue a water conservation program could jeopardize a pact reached in a federal suit to upgrade the city’s sewer system.

In a sudden and potentially far-reaching policy change, the San Diego City Council on Monday refused to authorize further planning of a multibillion-dollar sewage treatment system and ordered city planners to develop an aggressive water conservation program.

The unexpected turn of events, approved in a 5-4 vote, could jeopardize the tentative settlement of a federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over San Diego’s failure to upgrade its sewage treatment capacity, as required by the Clean Water Act.

The vote also shifts city policy toward the position of the local Sierra Club, which has formally challenged the settlement in federal court. The environmental group claims that the sewage system could be substantially scaled back and its cost dramatically reduced if the city adopted tough conservation measures to limit the amount of water flowing into the proposed new treatment plants.

A hearing on the Sierra Club challenge is scheduled for Feb. 21.

“This . . . was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said Councilman Bruce Henderson, longtime leader of opposition to the upgrading of the sewage system. “Cumulatively, the council is gradually starting to say, ‘This has gotten out of hand.’ ”

“It is a very encouraging step,” said Barbara Bamberger, the Sierra Club’s conservation coordinator. “It’s long overdue.”

A visibly angry Mayor Maureen O’Connor said that Monday’s vote potentially exposes the city to more than $1 billion in fines for sewage spills between 1983 and 1988 if the settlement filed in federal court Jan. 30 is dashed.

The council “voted to settle, and now you have a complete reversal of that position,” O’Connor said. “This isn’t a joke, and I frankly think it was a very irresponsible act on a behalf of the council.”

The EPA and two other government agencies sued the city in 1988, demanding compliance with the Clean Water Act requirement that the city upgrade treatment of its sewage to “secondary” standards, and payment of fines for past sewage spills. The city’s current “advanced primary” treatment system is about 10% less efficient than secondary treatment at removing solids from effluent.

The city last month agreed to comply by building the $2.6-billion to $2.8-billion sewage treatment plant by Dec. 31, 2003.

Throughout the debate, however, Henderson has argued that the upgrading is environmentally unnecessary, citing scientific opinion that the city’s sewage is not harming the ocean. He was later joined by Councilman Bob Filner, who strongly opposes construction of a large treatment plant in the South Bay, which he represents.

But, until Monday, the pair could not muster the additional three votes necessary to derail the sewer project. With the new majority’s demands for more water conservation measures still vague, future council policy remains unclear.

Chief Deputy City Atty. Ted Bromfield, who has led council negotiations with the EPA, the U.S. Justice Department and the state Regional Water Quality Control Board, said it is too early to determine if the demand for a new water conservation program will upset the detailed construction timetable laid out in the settlement. The plan also calls for an ambitious program of reusing as much as 120 million gallons of sewage daily for irrigation by 2010.

Henderson, who favors litigating the suit, claimed that the council “essentially said that we’re not going to do what we said in the consent decree.”

“I think (Bromfield) has got to go in and say, ‘The council has changed its mind. They’re very upset,’ ” Henderson said.

The startling change in policy actually resulted from debate on an $11.8-million contract that would have authorized the city’s sewer consultant, James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, to continue planning the new treatment system. Montgomery is operating under a $9.6-million contract that runs out Dec. 31.

But, instead of approving the yearlong contract, council members began raising objections that Montgomery is not building water conservation measures into the system.

The city is scheduled to begin reviewing a separate water conservation program next month. The Sierra Club believes that the city’s current daily sewage flow of 190 million gallons could be reduced by at least 50 million gallons by installing ultra low-volume toilets in homes throughout the sewer system and has criticized the city water conservation plan as inadequate.

Ultimately, council members Abbe Wolfsheimer, John Hartley, Linda Bernhardt, Henderson and Filner voted against the contract. O’Connor and council members Ron Roberts, Wes Pratt and Judy McCarty supported it.

The key to Monday’s action was the decisions of Wolfsheimer, Hartley and Bernhardt to switch from the postures they took last month, when they voted in closed session to approve the legal settlement.

Hartley said discussions with Sierra Club members convinced him that city attorneys were not considering the possibilities of water conservation in their reports to the council. Bromfield has maintained that water conservation measures should not be included in the lawsuit settlement, which deals primarily with waste treatment.