U.S. Seeks $10-Million Fine for San Diego Sewage Spills : Courts: At start of trial, federal officials claim the city saved millions by failing to properly treat sewage.

Federal officials on Tuesday sought a $10-million fine from the city, charging it with inadequate sewage treatment and allowing thousands of sewage spills that have endangered the marine environment off Point Loma.

The charges against San Diego were made at the beginning of a complex civil trial in federal court stemming from a lawsuit filed by state and federal agencies against the city that includes several parties who have taken a position on the issue.

The lawsuit also alleges that the city violated a section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires San Diego to upgrade its sewage treatment capacity to “secondary” standards.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Sierra Club, which is listed as an intervenor in the lawsuit, alleged that the city deliberately violated the law. The city has countered that its studies showed that the sewage it was dumping through a pipeline 2 1/2 miles off Point Loma has caused no environmental damage.

The trial, which is expected to last three to four weeks, will decide two issues.

The first is whether San Diego is required by federal law to complete a $500-million improvement of the Point Loma sewage treatment plant to secondary levels by Dec. 31, 2003. On Jan. 22, 1990, the City Council approved an out-of-court settlement with federal and state officials that included the upgrading of the Point Loma facility, as part of a $2.4-billion sewage project by the city. The agreement is known as a consent decree. U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster will be asked to either approve or reject the consent decree.

A second issue to be decided is whether Brewster is required by law to assess a fine if he finds that the city has violated the Clean Water Act. Brewster, who is hearing the case without a jury, must also decide whether the city has a right to direct any fines imposed by the court to help fund local sewage and water projects.

Another twist in the legal wrangling Brewster must deal with is a recommendation by the Sierra Club to defer any fines if city officials agree to enact a comprehensive and massive retrofitting and water conservation measure. Sierra Club officials suggested the ordinance could require all new homes, remodeled homes and homes for sale to be retrofitted with water saving devices.

Tuesday’s hearing began with opening statements from several attorneys representing different parties in the case. A total of 10 attorneys crowded around the defense and plaintiff tables.

The opening statements, which allow attorneys to tell the judge what they will attempt to prove through the use of evidence and witnesses, are usually given without interruption from opposing attorneys. But, on Tuesday, the opening statements were frequently interrupted by objections from opposing attorneys who were hesitant to grant opponents an edge, no matter how small.

“This is going to be a trial about how many times the city has violated the Clean Water Act,” said Karen Dworkin, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing the EPA. “ . . . The city has for years put money over the concerns of the environment and over their concerns for the community. The city has looked for ways to avoid the law.”

Dworkin said the city has violated the law on 15,000 to 16,000 occasions from July 27, 1983, to June, 1990. According to the EPA lawsuit, spills alone accounted for 3,073 violations during that period.

Federal law required the city to comply with secondary treatment standards by July 1, 1988. Secondary treatment is about 10% more effective in cleansing sewage than the “advanced primary” treatment now in place at Point Loma.

Three state and federal agencies sued the city in July, 1988, for missing the deadline. When the city agreed to the consent decree in January, 1990, including the upgrading of the Point Loma facility to secondary stage, the issue appeared to be resolved.

However, last November, Brewster scheduled another hearing at which several prominent marine scientists testified that sewage piped into the ocean off Point Loma is not causing any environmental damage. The scientists said the $500-million upgrading of the Point Loma plant may be unnecessary.

Brewster decided to hear the issue raised by the scientists in conjunction with the start of Tuesday’s trial.

As part of the trial, the county counsel filed a friend-of-the-court brief in which county officials argued that Brewster has the authority to defer the consent decree.

The county’s position is that the cost of upgrading the system will have a significant economic impact on rates paid by San Diego and county residents who use the sewer system. About 1.7 million people in 16 cities and water districts in the county use the system.

The county’s brief urged the city to obtain a waiver from the EPA that would excuse it from having to implement a secondary system. The city had been granted EPA waivers through 1987, but federal officials have argued that the city withdrew its application for renewal of the waiver in 1987.

On Tuesday, attorney James J. Dragna, who is representing the city, accused the state and federal government of pursuing the lawsuit for political reasons. Dragna, a Los Angeles attorney, argued that the main issue in the case is whether the government can prove that failure to upgrade the Point Loma facility is causing significant damage to the environment and public health.

Dragna bristled at the government’s charge that the city put economic interests ahead of environmental concerns. He said that, until the lawsuit was filed by the federal and state agencies, the EPA had always approved of the city’s plan for treating sewage, which did not include a secondary facility.

“The government changes it’s hat, and today we’re the Exxon of municipalities,” Dragna said.

He said consistent studies have shown that the city’s sewage treatment plan has produced “no significant adverse impact on fish or kelp off Point Loma.”

“No one at the city tried to skirt responsibility or avoid compliance,” Dragna said. “We (city and EPA) were partners in this deal for 10 years.”

In her opening statement, Dworkin charged that the city has profited from failing to comply with the Clean Water Act.

The government’s lawsuit alleged that the city has saved about $11 million in maintenance and operation costs annually by failing to comply with the law. By February, 1992, when the city also has to comply with the California Ocean Plan’s requirement for improved sewage treatment, the city will realize about $83 million in savings, according to the lawsuit.