City Is Given More Time on Sewage System : Courts: A federal judge grants San Diego 18 months to come up with alternative ideas that could save the city billions of dollars.

In a decision that could save San Diego billions of dollars, a federal judge Wednesday deferred approval of a multibillion-dollar upgrading of its sewage system until 1993, giving the city additional time to try to prove that some of the plan’s costliest components are unnecessary.

Hailed by City Councilman Bruce Henderson as “a home run for the city,” U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster’s decision gives San Diego 18 months to aggressively pursue water conservation, reclamation and treatment programs that could substantially reduce the estimated $10-billion price tag for compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

“It’s great news every which way you look at it,” Councilman Bob Filner said. “It’s going to save the taxpayers billions of dollars while also saving water. The judge showed incredible common sense in cutting through the bureaucratic minutiae.”

Though not a definitive judgment in the case, Brewster’s ruling represents a major setback for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state of California, which jointly sued San Diego for what they characterized as thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act and the California Ocean Plan.

As a result of that lawsuit, San Diego last year signed an agreement with the federal government committing it to so-called secondary sewage treatment, one of the most expensive facets of the overall plan for upgrading the city’s waste-water program.

Asked to decide whether that consent decree is in the public interest, Brewster adopted a middle course, neither ratifying nor rejecting it, but instead suggesting possible modifications more to the city’s liking than that of the federal government. In January, 1993, he will review the case and decide whether to impose the perhaps-altered consent decree, Brewster said.

“The EPA is disappointed by the decision to defer action,” said EPA regional attorney Hugh Barroll. “We feel that the consent decree, in its present form, is the best method for bringing San Diego into compliance with the Clean Water Act. By keeping the decision on ice until 1993, you create the potential for new issues to be raised as reasons for more delays.”

In March, Brewster had fined San Diego $3 million for “causing significant harm to the marine environment” through inadequate waste-water treatment.

While going to lengths to praise the consent decree’s efforts to correct that deficiency, Brewster stressed that he also found shortcomings in the “extremely expensive” agreement.

Capital costs alone for the program--under which the city would upgrade its existing Point Loma treatment plant, construct seven water-reclamation plants and a South Bay treatment facility, and replace aging sewer pipes--are estimated at $2.4 billion. Inflation and finance charges, some city officials predict, could increase the price tag to $10 billion by 2003.

The “most important deficiency” with the agreement, Brewster said, stems from its “grossly under-demanding” standards for using reclaimed sewage water for purposes such as watering golf courses, parks and agricultural irrigation.

Under the consent decree, the city would not be required to use any of the reclaimed water until 2003, seven years after the first reclamation plant is scheduled to be completed.

“To put it mildly, that’s not a Persian Gulf program,” Brewster said.

Noting that, as late as 2010--12 years after the last of the seven plants is to open--the city would be obliged to use only 50% of the reclaimed water, Brewster added: “I cannot in common sense accept the argument that it’s the most aggressive plan that can reasonably be expected of the city. . . . We can do light-years better.”

Calling his numerical targets “realistic, attainable” goals, Brewster recommended that the consent decree be modified to require the city to use a minimum of 25% of reclaimed water handled at each plant when it becomes operational, at least 50% of the citywide reclamation water by 2003 and 75% by 2010.

“That’s exactly what we should be doing,” Henderson said. “If we’re going to go to the expense of building these reclamation plants, it makes no sense whatsoever to simply pump most of the water they process into the ocean.”

Another part of Brewster’s decision strengthens the hand of Henderson and others who, citing marine biologists’ research, argue that the imposition of secondary treatment would do little, if anything, to improve water quality, at an unacceptably high cost.

A pilot program should be mounted at the Point Loma plant, Brewster said, to determine whether additional chemicals, new treatment methods or physical changes could enable the advanced primary treatment facility to approach federal clean water standards.

Evidence presented in the lawsuit showed that the advanced primary sewage treatment process now removes about 76% of suspended solids from the nearly 190 million gallons of waste water pumped daily into the ocean off Point Loma.

Though the Clean Water Act requires cities to provide secondary treatment to remove 85% of the solids, Brewster noted that, if experimental advanced primary treatment methods could help the city reach that goal, an estimated $700-million conversion cost could be avoided.

“It’s worth trying,” Brewster said.

To round out its water program, Brewster also urged San Diego to make maximum use of the higher levels of sludge expected to be generated and to pursue a “meaningful, aggressive” water conservation program. By retrofitting homes with water-saving devices such as low-flow faucets and toilets, Brewster explained, the city could simultaneously reduce strains on its sewage system.

Should the city succeed in meeting those “big ifs,” Brewster added, it could make “a very credible and meritorious case” for seeking a waiver from the secondary standards.

“This strengthens the city’s hand in the big poker game called waiver,” said Chief Deputy City Atty. Ted Bromfield. EPA attorney Barroll, however, said that “significant legal barriers” remain in the path of such a waiver.

From 1981 through 1986, San Diego obtained temporary waivers from the Clean Water Act’s secondary requirements. However, after the EPA indicated that the city’s request for a waiver extension would not be granted, the city withdrew its application in February, 1987.

Viewing secondary treatment as inevitable, some city leaders believed, based on federal officials’ intimations, that by abandoning the waiver request, San Diego would be better positioned to attract federal funds to help pay for the program, but assistance has not yet materialized.

Asked whether she believes that the city was misled, Mayor Maureen O’Connor said Wednesday, “Well, they made a good beginning . . . but we haven’t seen anything yet.”

Amid the growing scientific evidence questioning the need for secondary treatment, the city last year renewed its request for an exemption for the Point Loma plant, setting the stage for the trial that resulted in Wednesday’s ruling.

Although Brewster specifically kept interim provisions of the consent decree intact pending the 18-month review period, city officials, the Sierra Club and others were heartened by Wednesday’s ruling, which they believe will lead to a better, less expensive local clean-water program.

“This addresses the three reasons we got involved in the case: finding a less expensive (method), with less environmental impact and saving water,” said Barbara Bamberger, the San Diego Sierra Club chapter’s conservation coordinator. “This is going to benefit everyone in the city.”

“The things that should be on hold--secondary and the South Bay plant--are holding, and the things that should be moving forward, like water reclamation and conservation, are moving ahead,” Filner said.

Wednesday’s ruling also is significant, Filner and others said, in that it postpones a final decision on San Diego’s waste-water treatment program until after 1992, when Congress must reauthorize the Clean Water Act. Changes in the law, city officials hope, could further reduce the cost that eventually will have to be paid by the 1.8 million people who use the sewage system.

“This saves us big dollars now, and gives us a chance to save even more later,” Filner concluded. “We couldn’t have asked for anything more.”