The Rock Interview: Dr. Dan Wickham

When Dr. Wickham spoke for the LOCSD and community at the televised Los Osos Cease and Desist Order hearings on April 28, he gave the Regional Water Board a very important science lesson in how septic tanks work that they either skipped or didn’t expect. Now school’s out for the Water Board to weigh the Blakesee proposal to freeze enforcement, or until they can locate an expert to counter Dr. Wickham’s irrefutable scientific evidence against the board’s actions, which will take a lot longer than it will take to build a sewer in Los Osos. But it wasn’t just what Dr. Wickham said, as profound as it was considering the venue, the moment and what’s at stake, but how he said it—knowledgably, clinically, simply, graciously—yet very firmly. For the beleaguered CDO recipients, his testimony was the first real ray of hope on an otherwise bleak moonscape, elevating Dr. Wickham to a Paul Bunyan with brains—a giant killer—in the battle for truth in Los Osos. The Rock revisits that fateful April day with Dr. Wickham when he stopped “The Show” by blinding them with science, and at the same time we asked him quite a few more questions than the Water Board did about septic solutions for Los Osos, as well as how the county takeover might impact the Los Osos sewer project.

Q. How did you come to testify before the RWQCB on April 28th? Were you invited? Please explain by who and how.

A. I had already had a significant interaction with the Los Osos CSD because of our earlier Response to their RFP for an update on their earlier sewer project. We had installed a demonstration project for our SludgeHammer device at the Fire Station and it was through these contacts that the idea of me providing expert testimony at the CDO hearing arose. I did it largely as a favor to the community since there was no money available for it.

Q. Did you at any time ever look around the hearing room and realize you were the only “expert witness” called upon to testify for the community? Did you wonder why?

A. Frankly, I was a bit surprised by the lack of professional expertise at the hearing, both from the perspective of the Regional Board, and from the community. I could understand the community’s lack of representation because it looked to me as if they had been abandoned by the “professional” community. I have seen similar situations where non-professional citizens create their own expertise by dint of hard work and dedication. The cards are always stacked against them, but they often win. Bolinas, up in Marin County went through the same process in the ’80s and ’90s and defeated a similar line-up of political powers to preserve their community’s integrity. They all became far more expert in on-site and centralized sewer issues than any of them ever wanted to. But they had to.  

Q. Did you feel that some of the questions asked of you by the Water Board’s attorneys should have been asked long before they leveled CDOs against individual homeowners for allegedly polluting the groundwater? What could you infer or surmise, if anything, from the questions they asked you?

A. Most of the pertinent questions were asked by the CSD attorneys or citizens facing CDOs. I was surprised by the lack of serious questioning by the Board’s attorneys. I was expecting a much more hostile and intense grilling. The best questions came from the Board members themselves and not from the staff. This convinced me that the staff was just out on a hunt and the board was completely taken aback by their lack of preparation.

Q. In your opinion, does the lack of scientific data and direct evidence on the RWQCB's part in any way undermine the validity and credibility of their case? Do they simply presume too much?

A. All of us must understand a simple fact. Board members are non-professional citizens placed in an uncomfortable position of authority. They can only rely on the advice of their staff.  In this case I think they were very poorly served by their staff. There still is a very significant argument to be made against the notion that any of the nitrate contamination is due to septics.  Sure, it seems likely, but their data never would have stood up to the type of scrutiny that I faced both as a graduate student at Berkeley, or as a research scientist for the UC system. If any of the staff had attempted to present their arguments at an AAAS or National Academy conference they would have been stripped bare and run out of the auditorium. Unfortunately, state regulatory agencies operate in a safe, unquestioned environment. They do not face the rigors of criticism that we University researchers take as a matter of course. It would serve them well to require the same kind of public argumentation that University faculty members need to face to get their tenure.  

Q. Barring acceptance of the Blakeslee proposal, the RWQCB plans to start its prosecution all over again in September. Not to help them make their case, but what do they need to do, in your opinion, to validate their claims? Or would you recommend they abandon this punitive approach entirely—and start negotiating?

A. For the life of me I can see absolutely no value in pursuing this course. The CSD has already responded to most of their demands. Ripley Engineers is updating the sewer study. They are responding to on-site systems that they manage. In fact, one of those is being taken care of by my company. Incidentally, a lysimeter placed just one foot below the leach bed at the Fire Station shows that we already are down to a level of less than 2 mg/l of total nitrogen in the effluent passing down to the aquifer from that system.  What’s their problem? I do not want to jeopardize my own opportunities but, frankly, I think this entire situation is childish. I grant that the Board is rightly miffed at how long this issue has festered. But, they must see by now that the community was completely in the right to stop the absolutely illegal and immoral juggernaut they were facing. I am a taxpaying citizen and I absolutely abhor the behavior of the engineering/development cabal that has forced our small communities to build obscenely overpriced central sewers that frequently cause more pollution than they cure.

Q. I know you recommend an isotope-tracking test to track the discharge plume to get a better “picture” of the alleged pollution trail. What other reliable tests would be useful in helping either side clarify the information being used to evaluate and assign responsibility for alleged polluting (if it even substantially exists to a degree that can then be “traced” to Los Osos septics)?

A. Los Osos already assumes it is guilty as charged. If it was proved to be the case, they would act no differently than they are now. If it were proved, however, that they were not, the egg on the faces of everybody who has profited from this debacle would be so thick they could only bring the eggs in with C5-A transports. Woe to the regulators if the cat comes out of the bag.  

But, outside of isotope studies, it would be a difficult and expensive study to confirm or deny the source of the pollution. I faced a similar dilemma when I was a fisheries biologist looking into the cause of the collapse of the Dungeness Crab fishery in the San Francisco Bay region. A really comprehensive study would have cost more than the resource was worth. Some times we simply have to accept ignorance and just act in good faith. Still, the isotope study is the best way to go since, even if it does not prove the case, it is less expensive than the alternatives.     

Q. In all your years of experience, have you ever seen or heard of homeowners (as opposed to an agency or company) being issued CDOs for allegedly polluting? Have you ever seen or heard of eminent domain by septics? If yes to either question, please explain.

A. No, No and No. Citizens served by on-site systems are particularly at risk. They are isolated and solitary. They have the full force of the state coming down on them. Unlike a sewer district, with thousands of individuals linked by a PUC and a municipal district, septic owners have a lonely fight. In a just world every one of the CDOs would be suing the state for every dollar it has. Unfortunately they would be suing for their own money. Alex de Toqueville said way back in the early 1800s, after his travels in the US, that when the government discovered that it could bribe the people using their own money, democracy as we know it was gone. Well, our government has been doing it for over 200 years and they get more and more of our money to bribe us with each day. The newest twist is to use our money to extort and browbeat us. I don’t think even de Toqueville expected that.

Q. Outside of quoting you and putting you on the stand again, what do you think would help the community shore up its defense, scientifically and technically, for any next round of hearings?

A. Fight the injustice of punishing individuals who are living in homes that have septic systems that the Regional Board permitted in the first place. I know lawyers who specialize in Federal Clean Water Act violations. They would be salivating at the chance to sue the Regional Board and the County of San Luis Obispo for creating the pollution in the first place. The harder the Regional Board works to prove the pollution, the bigger the settlement could become. The community has the strongest defense possible. They relied on the Regional Board for the septic permits in the first place. They are not guilty. The Board is.

Q. Do you think it’s “appropriate” that the Water Board’s action unilaterally voids one specific portion of a broader permit that is legally issued by another regulatory body without any formal action by that other body, and that the Water Board never, in the intervening 23 years, considered it relevant or appropriate to require that body to modify its permits, and to formally notify the holders of those permits of such modification, or to enjoin that body from continuing to issue such permits?

A. As Matt Thompson, of the Board staff stated, the ‘Prohibition Zone’ was established not to enforce, but to insure that someday, if they chose, they could prosecute without the nasty burden of proof. There is nothing even remotely legal or constitutional about the ‘Prohibition Zone.’ It has just never had a chance to be slapped down by the courts.

Q. Is it possible that wastewater treatment technology has advanced so substantially over the past 15 years or so that, at least for Los Osos, the “idea” of an expensive centralized sewer system has been superceded by technology that allows every septic to be upgraded to serve as an individual high-tech "sewer" unit that can do the job cheaper and maybe better than the mega sewer? In hindsight, perhaps an expensive centralized sewer was never the best answer for Los Osos then…and 30 years later?

A. This is a tough question.  If one were to prove that other sources were responsible for the nitrates, still an open question, then a central sewer is absolutely one of the most profound wastes of public funds imaginable. If they are proved to be a problem, then 20 or 30 years ago a sewer would have made sense. On-site was regarded by the EPA, back in the early ’70s when the Clean Water Act was passed, to be temporary stop-gap systems until that heavenly day in the year 2000 when everybody in the US would be on a centralized system. At that time 25% of the US population was on septic. In 1998 Congress asked the EPA for an update on their prediction of universal sewering. Well, it turned out that now 27% of the population was on septic, or on-site. What they did not realize was that there were several more sophisticated alternatives to septic tanks. But the real burst of creativity in on-site engineering occurred after the 1998 report. It suddenly became respectable to design on-site systems, and the industry has jumped into the void, now that EPA has admitted that on-site can be a permanent solution. In fact, more creativity is coming from on-site engineers than the “big pipe” folks. Companies like Montgomery-Watson just want to charge an arm and a leg for stuff they take off the shelf. Their shareholders sure don’t want them to waste time and money actually engineering anything.

But even “centralized” systems do not necessarily resemble their earlier prototypes.  Gravity sewers are dinosaurs, absolutely. STEP/STEG type of systems allow real flexibility, with treatment starting at the household, where it should start. The whole system should be integrated. Not the old model of collection, treatment and disposal as separate and totally isolated processes.

Q. Since you mentioned at the hearings that there are many cost-effective measures for on-site mitigation in use all over the country, is it safe to assume the RWQCB ignored this entire genre of remediators? Why?

A. California likes to think of itself as progressive. It was back in Pat Brown’s days. It has not been progressive in nearly a half century. I cannot think of a single state in the union, save Alabama, where they let you discharge your septic straight into the creek, or your neighbor’s property, as benighted as California with regard to on-site management.  I do not think they ignore all that much. They just do not have a clue. Why travel to Maryland to learn about on-site when your can go to Hollywood, or Disneyland. California has a terrible problem with over inflated egos. It’s just our way.

Q. Is it possible that the small-scale treatment center concept could be workable in much of Los Osos, i.e. finite clusters where the pollution is highest? Could the effluent then be dispersed in subsurface drip irrigation fields and provide landscape irrigation, with whatever is not evapotranspirated leaching into the groundwater through some prescribed minimum soil depth, delivering a vanishingly small amount of pollution with it?

A. Absolutely. In case no one has noticed, the Regional Board has already permitted such a system right in Los Osos at the Monarch Grove Plant. They do not use subsurface irrigation but they get full credit for nitrogen reduction through vegetative uptake. After all, a golf course uses a lot of fertilizer. What better way to recapture the value of these incredibly costly and rare resources.

Q. What are the primary approaches the town could take to include on-site systems in a program that works and works well?

A. Ask that any system be cost effective, and that it be compatible with a centralized system, or at least able to be integrated into a community-wide solution.  

Q. Does a $200-$300 million wastewater facility guarantee ending up with low nitrate levels? Based on your on-the-ground evaluation, do you think the gravity collection system is "right" for Los Osos?

A. I read the EIR pretty carefully when we prepared our proposal for the Project Update.  Montgomery Watson notes in their proposal for the Broderson leachfield, that since nitrate levels in the leachate beneath the site might exceed 20 mg/l there would be a need for a multi-million dollar extraction well and water treatment system just downslope from the site. What gives? The waste-discharge requirement was 7 mg/l of total nitrogen and the site is virgin. Who’s kidding whom? You do not get 20 mg/l of nitrogen when you start with 7.  Well, maybe they came up with a special new way to create nitrogen fertilizer. I am ready to invest when they prove it.

Q. In light of the county takeover of the sewer project, how do you see this new layer of government impacting the recent progress made by the LOCSD to develop a sewer system for Los Osos? As far as you can see, where are we headed on this sudden change of course?

A. I really don’t know if the Blakeslee plan will be helpful or not. For one, I would certainly be uncomfortable on granting an entity like the county the authority to design and implement a project for Los Osos, if they had no tax obligation for the ultimate implementation of the plan. It is a bit like giving someone else the authority to build your house, but you end up paying for it whether you like the design or not. Somehow that seems unworkable.
It is possible, however, that since Los Osos could accept or reject the plan on a Prop 218 vote, they could insure that the design be more workable.
There also is the issue of stopping current design contracts. Our company bid on the project that Dana Ripley is doing. I know how I would feel if it suddenly were ended and I was only part way through.

My primary concern over this still goes back to the issue of documenting the source of the nitrate pollution. If, as part of the county study, they actually undertook the necessary characterization of pollution I would be for it. One way to do that would be to conduct isotope studies on the nitrates in the ground water and to compare them with the other possible sources: septics, NOX from the power plant which is currently allowed to release 8,000 tons (that’s 16 million pounds a year of non-degradable oxidized nitrogen), as well as the substantial agricultural component from immediately upstream of the aquifer.

We have a similar issue up here in Monte Rio on the Russian River. The county created a septic crisis by fiat, not by research. There is no evidence of the pollution they claim. Their sewer plant is designed to promote development. If they admitted that and built it on that basis I would have no problem. Communities should be allowed to develop if they choose to. But clearly the development interests feared going this way because it would require and informed choice by the public and they might lose. So, raise the red flag of ‘pollution’ and the community cannot resist it.

It is well past time for someone to document what the real conditions are in Los Osos. I am sure that isolated pockets are being impacted by septics. But does that require a sewer for everybody or smaller clustered treatment systems for those areas that are proven to be impacted.

I was a University researcher and we always studied things in detail. It was frustrating to see the level of science in the regulatory community, and we never seemed to get them to realize that our universities and research institutes are the places to get this type of work done. Why aren’t RFPs going out to the UC system and Cal Poly for this work?

Q. What do you think is the best way to handle the septic tank problem in Los Osos? What is your “big picture” “septic solution” for Los Osos?

A.  First, I would like to see a series of isotope studies undertaken to demonstrate that doing anything at all will actually solve the nitrate issue. If it is caused by ancient buried wetlands, or power plant nitrous oxide, or agricultural runoff from inland, or from auto exhaust NOX, then no matter what is done to septics will be of no use. I am not saying septics are not at fault, I am simply saying that no one has demonstrated it to the level of proof that we, in the University, demand of all data presented to us. Nitrogen isotope ratios are easy to sample and you can compare those found in the ground water with the potential sources, and I mean all of the potential sources, not just septic tanks. 

Still, a strong case can be made for a rational centralized system. STEP/STEG systems allow the community to use the existing tanks as the most important part of the treatment. Technologies like ours can improve the situation by starting the treatment upstream so that the system will significantly lower maintenance costs. In fact, a collection system that leads to ponds out in the eastern boundary of the town could provide nitrogen enriched reclaimed water to the agricultural community at great benefit. One must consider that the option chosen by the Regional Board, namely microbiological “denitrification” is an energy-intensive process. First, one must burn huge volumes of fossil fuel to generate the electricity needed to oxidize not just the organic carbon, but also the ammonia in the wastewater. So a traditional sewer plant spews CO2 into the atmosphere to create more CO2 from the organic waste, plus more CO2 to create the NO3, or nitrate, in the treated water. Then they have to redirect the NO3 back to a holding tank with more organic carbon, which they just got rid of in the aerobic treatment system. This is because the NO3 cannot be converted to nitrogen gas unless it goes into an anaerobic, carbon rich environment.

Yes, it’s complicated. No wonder it’s so expensive.

But what are they really doing. All that organic nitrogen came from our wastes. We got it from a fertilizer factory that burned fossil fuels to generate electricity so they could capture nitrogen gas from the atmosphere and convert it to ammonia fertilizer. Why not just use it to grow plants with non-denitrified reclaimed wastewater. We eliminate tons of CO2 by just feeding the plants what they need.  In fact I estimated that Los Osos alone could offset thousands of tons of CO2 by sending a lower level of treated water to your agricultural neighbors.

From a “big picture” perspective the easiest solution would be to go back to the CSD wells in the upper aquifer and immediately begin using this water for all outside use in the community. The nitrate is there, no matter its source, and using it as fertilizer for landscape would achieve several benefits.  First it would increase the amount of evapotranspiration, thus drying out the high groundwater in the upper aquifer while removing the nitrates through vegetative uptake. Second, it would immediately reduce the draw on the lower aquifer, thus reversing the salt water intrusion. That water should only be for in-house potable use. Third, the CSD could do this without any involvement with the Regional Board. It is a simple matter of separating the indoor from the outdoor plumbing at the houses and re-activating the old wells. I am sure that there are abundant grant sources for such a project.

Q. Let's nail down this “pumping every other month” plan. What does pumping every other month do to mature bio colonies…septic efficiency…nitrate reduction... pathogen reduction? If pumping septics every other month has these ramifications, and assuming the board knew at least some of this going in, what conclusion, what “sense of events” can you draw, if any, as to their reasons for ordering mass pumping in the first place? A pressure tactic?

A. Septic tanks are fragile beasts. They really are there for one purpose, to provide a buffer and conduit for getting our wastes back to the natural environment. Back before agriculture made cities possible humans did what the bears did. And we all know that bears shit in the woods. The surface of the soil is rich in bacteria, carbon from dead leaves, fungus, insects, worms, protozoans, etc. The day we chose to flush everything with water, we locked ourselves out of the best biological venue for treatment. Water cannot hold oxygen in high enough concentrations but the surface soils can. Septics were pretty good, since they started the process anaerobically, causing the wastes to liquefy. Then they could go out to the soil, and air could penetrate the soil and do a pretty good job of cleaning up.  But we just have too many people on this earth now. Where is ZPG anymore? Does anyone talk about over population?  I sure am not hearing it. 

Nevertheless, septic tanks are always on the knife-edge of survival. Protect them and they work, to a limit. But start pumping every two months and you destroy just about any benefit they can provide.  Estimates say it can take one to two years to get a good anaerobic community established. Actually I think that is probably an overestimate. But there is no way you can get biological treatment in a septic tank in just two months. And if there is no treatment then the only benefit you get is from the 1,000 gallons you remove at each pumping. The other 18,000 gallons during the rest of the two months, now has virtually no treatment, so you have gone from bad to worse in the process.

The Board staff knew it when they recommended it. They quote a paper published about research at the Massachusetts Buzzard’s Bay site to justify their claim that septic tanks only remove 1%-3% percent of the nitrogen load. They studiously overlook the fact that in this very same paper it was found that the soil under the leach field removed 21%-25% of the nitrogen and that a subsurface Geoflow drip field removed 42%. We conducted a study at that very same site, in fact the very same septic tanks and leachfields, and showed our technology removed 80%-99% of the nitrogen as it passed through the soil. The staff knows this. They chose to ignore it. You conclude what their motive is.  

Dr. Dan Wickham PhD is a principal partner in Kenwood, California-based ABG Wastewater Solutions Inc. (ABG WWS). He is co-inventor of the Pirana bio-remediator and the inventor of the biological aspects of the Aerobic Bacterial Generator. The Pirana prototype was launched in 2000. More than 1,500 Pirana systems have been installed by Dr. Wickham and associates over a time span of five years to customers that include families, businesses and institutions. For more information on ABG WWS or the Pirana, visit www.abgwws.com or write This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .