Sewage Upgrade Dodge Called Risky

In trying to scuttle a proposed multibillion-dollar sewage treatment system, the San Diego City Council runs the risk of driving up costs and further delaying needed improvements, political and environmental leaders warned Wednesday.

The day after the council put the city on a collision course with the federal government by rejecting the initial financial steps toward the $2.5-billion-plus project, San Diegans familiar with the case expressed concern that Tuesday’s action could produce a new political and legal morass in the already protracted, complicated case.

“We can’t ignore the fact that we’re under a court order (to upgrade the sewage system),” Mayor Maureen O’Connor said. “That’s the law. We may not like it, but it’s there staring at us. Besides, we need to do some of these things.”

O’Connor, who missed the council’s 5-2 vote blocking authorization of up to $200 million in bonds to finance initial stages of the federally mandated project, said she is particularly concerned over how the U.S. district judge overseeing the program will interpret that action.

“It’s important that we remain cooperative, not confrontational” with Judge Rudi Brewster, O’Connor said.

Because he will retain jurisdiction over the sewage case until at least early next year, Brewster declined to comment Wednesday on the new twist affecting the largest public works project in San Diego’s history.

Officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who signed a consent decree with the city committing San Diego to dramatically expand and upgrade its treatment system, did not respond to repeated requests for comment Wednesday.

However, the agency, which long has accused city officials of dragging their feet on compliance with federal clean water standards, is virtually certain to take issue with the council’s latest action--or, more properly, inaction.

City Manager Jack McGrory, who urged the council to approve the bonds and other related actions in order to comply with Brewster’s order outlining design and construction timetables, said Wednesday that San Diego could “start missing deadlines” unless a financing plan is in place within several weeks.

Among other things, any missed target dates could affect the schedule for a water reclamation plant and extension of the Point Loma outfall pipe, through which treated sewage is discharged into the ocean several miles offshore, McGrory added.

Any delays in the project, which some critics predict eventually could cost up to $10 billion including inflation, financing and other expenses, could run counter to the council’s desire to lower the sewer and water rate increases needed to pay for the massive program.

“The more you delay, the more expensive it becomes,” said Verna Quinn, a member of the local Sierra Club’s executive board. “I’m not criticizing the council for looking at ways to reduce the costs. But there are ways to do that without going back to square one. Eventually, we’re going to have to face the music.”

The council majority that voted against proceeding with McGrory’s recommended bond issuance expressed hope that its action would prompt Brewster’s re-evaluation of some of the project’s costliest--and, from the city’s perspective, most unnecessary--components.

Specifically, city officials argue that the current “advanced primary” treatment methods used at the Point Loma facility pose no significant environmental risks.

The EPA’s insistence that the city upgrade to so-called secondary treatment, they argue, would do little to improve ocean water quality, while saddling the system’s current 1.7 million users and future generations with a huge debt. An experimental chemical treatment method now being tested at the plant, they add, might prove to be an effective, much less expensive alternative.

Still, unless Brewster alters the consent decree, the city would be obligated to proceed with secondary treatment. If the judge does not do so, council members acknowledge, they then would be forced to weigh their principles against a possible contempt citation that conceivably could land some of them in jail.

Councilman Ron Roberts, who said he is dismayed about the project’s “ever-increasing numbers,” noted he has half-jokingly discussed that possible scenario with Councilman Bob Filner, who was jailed in Mississippi as a Freedom Rider during the civil rights protests of the 1960s.

“I’ve told Bob that, if it comes to that, I’ll volunteer him to be first in line,” Roberts said.

Chronology of the Sewage-Treatment Battle

A chronology of the city’s sewage problems:

* 1972: Congress passes the Clean Water Act, requiring municipalities dumping sewage into the nation’s waterways to upgrade their facilities to secondary treatment. Upgraded treatment removes up to 75% of suspended solids from sewage before it is discharged.

* 1976: A city consultant recommends that San Diego fight the move to secondary treatment, because primary treatment at Point Loma poses no threats to the ocean environment.

* 1977: San Diego joins other coastal cities in lobbying Congress for an exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency’s secondary-treatment requirements. Congress amends the Clean Water Act, allowing waivers for municipalities that can prove their sewage discharge does not harm the environment. This sets the stage for a 14-year battle between San Diego and the EPA.

* September, 1981: San Diego receives a tentative waiver from secondary treatment from the EPA. However, city officials interpret the decision as final approval and abandon plans for upgrading to secondary treatment. They later conceded this was a mistake.

* November, 1983: San Diego submits a second, updated waiver application to the EPA.

* September, 1986: The EPA tentatively denies San Diego’s application for a waiver from secondary-treatment requirements.

* February, 1987: The San Diego City Council bows out of the fight for an EPA waiver and instead votes to begin planning for an estimated $1.5-billion secondary sewage treatment plant. The city’s delay in acting on the new plant causes it to lose federal funding for the project.

* July, 1988: The federal and state governments team up in U.S. District Court in San Diego to sue the city of San Diego for ignoring a July 1 deadline set by the Clean Water Act to provide secondary sewage treatment. One of the plaintiffs is the EPA, which said secondary treatment would remove up to 90% of solid wastes from treated sewage dumped into the ocean.

* September, 1988: The San Diego City Council reaffirms its commitment to building a secondary-sewage treatment plant.

* August, 1990: U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster, who is hearing the federal-state lawsuit against San Diego expresses doubts about the need for secondary treatment after hearing testimony from marine scientists.

* September, 1990: Cost of building a secondary-treatment plant is now estimated at $2.8 billion. The County Grand Jury, citing the cost of the facility and other factors, recommends that the city renew its application for a waiver from secondary treatment and take other steps to upgrade the sewage system.

* October, 1990: The San Diego City Council reverses itself and votes to try to regain an exemption from the EPA from the requirement for secondary treatment.

* June, 1991: Judge Brewster gives San Diego until 1993 to prove that some components of the EPA’s requirement for secondary treatment are too costly and unnecessary. Brewster’s ruling puts on hold a 1990 agreement between San Diego and the federal government to build the secondary-treatment plant.

* February, 1992: EPA Administrator William Reilly tells San Diego’s congressional delegation that the city is prohibited by law from applying for another waiver from federal requirements to upgrade its sewage treatment. However, Reilly agrees to review the EPA’s policy on granting waivers.

* April 22, 1992: The San Diego City Council votes to scrap plans for the secondary treatment plant, setting the stage for another possible confrontation with the EPA.