Squaring Off in Sewage Debate : THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS : The City’s Position

As framed by the court, the issue to be addressed . . . is whether “discharge from the Point Loma plant is significantly injurious to the marine environment.”

In determining significant environmental harm, the changing pattern of nature must be used as a guide; rigid regulatory definitions are of little help. Nature itself is marked by change over time. Because variation in the natural environment is so great, the determination of the significance of any change in a given location must be placed in perspective. Humans themselves are an integral part of nature. Organic material contained in waste water is, and has been for ages, a natural part of the ecosystem which must be deposited somewhere, and that somewhere--be it land or water--will be changed to some degree by that organic material.

Key to evaluating the impacts of humans on the other systems in nature, and whether that impact has resulted in significant harm, is the degree to which our actions throw the other systems out of alignment. The primary areas for examination are:

First, has human influence altered a natural system as a whole to such a degree that it is unable to perform its functions in the ecosystem; or are the organisms continuing to do the job nature created them for?

Second, have areas of sensitive ecosystems been degraded; or do they continue to thrive under human stewardship?

Third, are diseases and epidemics destructive to humans and animals being fostered; or are nature’s inherent mechanisms at work to render these threats harmless?

Humans’ impact on the ocean is measured by nature’s living parts: plants and animals. The plants of concern off Point Loma are the kelp beds. Ocean animals include bottom dwelling animals known as the “benthic community,” larger fish found in the water column and people who work and play in the ocean waters.

The testimony will show that the weight of scientific opinion is that the discharge from Point Loma presents no harm to the environment. Expert scientists who have spent decades studying the ecology of the area and diving in its waters will testify:

A) That the ocean off of Point Loma is a healthy, flourishing ecology; that a plentiful array of benthic organisms exist;

B) That toxics have not poisoned the ocean floor: levels of PCBs in the Point Loma effluent are within state and federal criteria, and DDT concentrations are within EPA aquatic life criteria;

C) That there is no need for concern of bioaccumulation of metals from fish passing on poisons to humans;

D) That there are no tumors in fish;

E) That the kelp beds have grown to their fullest extent since 1954;

F) That the kelp continues to reproduce itself;

G) That the kelp does not suffer from any plant diseases;

H) Recreational and commercial fishing activities in the Point Loma area are not adversely impacted by the Point Loma discharge.

I) That the San Diego shores and beaches are among the most disease-free in the world;

J) That diving in the waters that receive the Point Loma effluent has not posed any problems to divers’ health.

The objective environmental measures demonstrate that over the years, the city of San Diego has managed to fine-tune its waste-water treatment plant to minimize any impact on the environment. As the city’s improvements approach “pristine” results, the EPA’s endorsement of the city’s efforts remains elusive. Rather than acknowledging the beneficial results of the city’s continual efforts, EPA constantly revises its standard of “harm.” The city is now left to strive for an indeterminate level of environmental impact, which EPA holds up against a standard of “I know it when I see it.”