Los Osos, You Are Not Alone!

Los Osos is just the most recent victim of the statewide sewer scam. California coastal communities are being targeted by the state water boards and pork-barreling politicians using ‘failed septics’ as the trigger to push expensive public works projects no one can afford and unchecked development few really want. If it all sounds eerily familiar, it’s because it is. Here are some mirror-image dispatches from parallel universes.

Monte Rio, California
Heated Debate Between Small Growth Advocates and Big Developers Centers on Sewage
By Carol Lloyd
January 27, 2006

    At first glance, it seems too good to be true. A charming little cottage sits surrounded by redwoods, overlooking a rose garden. Along one side of the property runs a babbling creek; across a tiny street the land drops off to a stunning undeveloped curve of the Russian River.
The place? A sweet neighborhood, only 80 minutes from San Francisco. The price? A mere $250,000.
    If this sounds like the last piece of affordable real estate heaven, then remember this Bay Area mantra: If it seems too cheap, then dig below the surface. In the case of this cottage in Forestville, and many properties in Sonoma County, you need to take this admonishment quite literally.
Welcome to the politics of poop.
    Although this little cottage is indeed for sale, so far it has proved virtually unsalable because of the state's strict new sewage regulations. The property has a cesspool (an old-fashioned covered pit for waste), a form of sewage management that is no longer allowed. So the owners would need to install a modern septic tank before they could get any permit to repair or improve the house. But here's the catch: They can’t get a permit for a septic tank on this lot—because it's too small and too close to the adjacent creek.
    When I first heard about this house's weird plight from friends who were interested in buying it, I thought that it must be one of those real estate anomalies—an instance where even stunning beauty and a low price cannot make up for the property's fatal flaws.
    But after I began doing a bit of digging into the subject of sludge, sewage and septic tanks, I learned that this house is only one of many properties caught in this purgatory. Old buildings can't be brought up to date because of their out-of-date septic tanks. But new regulations and environmental standards make installing new septic systems either exorbitantly expensive or, in some cases, impossible.
    Grappling with this difficult situation, communities have erupted in contentious debate about how to manage their waste. Some people want to keep their septic tanks; others advocate for building centralized sewer systems with federal funds. Ultimately, this is not an argument about our fecal matter but a clash of world views. Since a septic tank's capacity limits the number of people that can use it regularly, it also limits development.
    You want to turn your two-bedroom cottage into a monster home? First, you better make sure you have enough usable land for a leach field and a septic tank that will serve the project. Not surprisingly, developers and business owners typically prefer sewage plants. Thus, the old rural view that believes in small growth, small homes and individual self-sufficiency collides with a more urban one in which services are centralized and sponsored by government or big business, and growth see no bounds.
    One of the most rancorous battles is being waged in Monte Rio, another bucolic hamlet on the Russian River with a history (for better and for worse) of tending to its own night soil. As is typical in areas without sewers, Monte Rio property owners are responsible (and in some cases, irresponsible) for maintaining their own septic tanks. When a system fails, or a property owner remodels her house beyond the size of the septic system (for example, a two-bedroom or three-bedroom system), the county can place abatements on the property. But as real estate prices have skyrocketed and increasingly strict regulations have made permitting septic tanks more difficult, there has been a push to create development opportunities by building a sewage plant.
    As many of Monte Rio’s neighbors have already learned, however, such systems don't come without a cost. Nearby Guerneville homeowners pay about $861 a year for the privilege of flushing their toilets; in Gratton it’s $795 a year. A proposed plant in nearby Occidental estimates that the fees will be around $2,300 a year. (For all you city folks, remember, this doesn't include water—it’s simply sewage hookup.) According to current estimates, Monte Rio homeowners in the sewage district will pay fees close to $1,200 annually. For lower-income homeowners, especially elderly folks on fixed incomes, such fees can double their property taxes—and drive them from their homes.
    The Monte Rio sewage project began 10 years ago when some property owners and representatives of the county formed a citizens’ advisory council (composed of local property owners and business people) to begin the process of building a sewage plant for the town. The first federal grant for the project was rejected because the group failed to show that the project was necessary.
    Soon after, the county declared what was in essence a building moratorium on the homes in the proposed project area, until the septic system of a house was brought up to code. This in effect gave the sewer advocates the evidence they needed to show that the community desperately needed a sewage plant when they applied for subsequent grants. How else would the community make improvements?
   A decade later, the proposed project in Monte Rio is still in its planning stages. There have been some victories politically: Last August, the project survived a “protest” vote, by which the property owners in the service area could have blocked the project if more than 50% submitted protest letters. (Out of 398 homeowners, 175 submitted letters, 23 short of the necessary majority.)
    But with construction costs rising all the time and government grants drying up, it’s difficult to know what will happen. Initially, the project was supposed to cost $7.6 million. Now it's $12.4 million. And since Hurricane Katrina has sent construction material costs skyrocketing everywhere and fuel prices have risen, engineers on the project expect the costs to rise even more.
Because of these high costs, the service area—first conceived as serving as many as 1,600 homes—has been shrunk to 400 homes and about 200 undeveloped lots. This would be a boon for landowners like Lee Torr, a local real estate agent who owns dozens of empty lots in Monte Rio, but it leaves most of Monte Rio out of the project. (Reached by phone at his office, Torr declined to be interviewed for this article.)
    The sewage plant site also remains to be purchased. The chosen site for the Monte Rio plant is a 14.27-acre meadow of prime riverfront property about two miles downstream from the service area. The property is being seized by eminent domain from the Callahans, a family who has owned the meadow as a part of a larger ranch since it was homesteaded in 1860. According to Sharon Callahan, the county initially offered the family $270,000 for the land, but as time passed and the Callahans fought the seizure, the numbers have risen substantially. Callahan says her appraiser has put the current price of the land at $1.4 million. The case goes to court in April.
Why the push to spend $12.4 million on a public works project on prime riverfront land?        According to Norman Hantzsche, a partner with Questa Engineering, the company contracted to build the plant, the project has no single rationale. “It’s a combination of things,” he explained, including the desire for business owners to fully develop their land, the fact that many septic old systems are not up to code and environmental concerns that septic systems are one of the sources of pollution in the Russian River.
    But for many critics of the project, such arguments don't hold much water. Old-fashioned septic tanks were once crude devices, in which untreated or only slightly treated waste water would then be allowed to leach back into the surrounding soil. But with the advent of new technologies, it’s possible for individual septic tanks to treat waste as thoroughly as a sewer plant does, an alternative that more and more homeowners are choosing. According to some estimates, nearly a third of new construction nationally uses these individualized septic systems.
    “There are ways to fix people’s septic tanks which are very affordable now,” says Dan Wickham, a marine-biologist-turned-vintner who has invented a small waste-management treatment device called a Pirana, which uses the natural bacteria from the forest leaf litter zone. “You can even fix cesspools, but the county will never allow that.”
    Hantzsche disagrees. “It’s not that simple,” he says. “It’s one thing if you’re designing a system from scratch, but a lot of these systems are built in ways that are not up to code, too close to the river. There's no way to fix them.”
    The project’s critics aren’t convinced.
    “This has been a gross manipulation,” says John Bauer, a Monte Rio homeowner opposing the project, who believes that the project is unfairly forcing homeowners to foot the development dreams of others. “It’s about getting other's people money to pay for it. It’s been a real civics lesson.”
    Homeowners who oppose the project also point out that there is no evidence that septic systems are polluting the Russian River, a fact that Hantzsche readily admits. Although there have been surveys of drain water in Monte Rio showing traces of bacteria like e-coli, dog feces could be the culprit—not failing septic systems. “The DNA studies to test the source of bacterial pollution in the river would run around $100,000 to $200,000,” he said. “We have only said that septic tanks were a potential source of pollution.”
    Nor has the company done a survey of the service area’s current septic tanks to see what percentage of them might be failing. And while Hantzsche agrees that there are very good alternative individual septic systems (many of which his company installs), he maintains that repairing or replacing a system is only part of its future cost. Assembly Bill 885, which is expected to take effect sometime in 2007, requires homeowners not only to upgrade their systems but to monitor them and test the water four times a year. Still, say the critics, these ecological and practical issues don’t justify a $12.4 million project for a few hundred property owners.
    “They want to spend about $30,000 per homeowner for sewage!” says homeowner Patty Thayer. “It is an obscene expenditure of public funds in a time of shutting down schools. It makes my blood boil.” She adds that a new individualized septic system costs about $8,000.
In a sense, the most compelling reason for the project is purely economic—which is to say, it’s all about real estate development. “The area is in a state of decline,” says Hantzsche. “Because of these regulations people can’t improve their property.”
    Indeed, I understand why the resort developers and the big landowners would support a sewage plant, come hell or high water. The septic tank regulations (though not necessarily the high-tech septic systems) have had a dampening effect on development. Even the county’s position makes sense: If they can spur development, they can collect more taxes.
    No doubt many things will remain murky. But what is clear is that all across the state, the struggles between septic tank owners and those who would build centralized sewage plants are far from over. Questa Engineering alone has been involved in similarly controversial projects—some of which they have lost. In Los Osos in Santa Barbara County and Bolinas in Marin County, homeowners voted down proposals for centralized sewer plants. It’s not clear which way Monte Rio will go. But we can only assume that, either way, people will call foul.

© SF Gate. Reprinted with permission.
 

Monte Rio, California
Monte Rio Should Learn From Bolinas
By Lloyd Kahn
May 29, 2003
   A few weeks ago I got two emails from some folks in Monte Rio, telling me that Armando Alegria, who works for Marin’s Environmental Health Services, had come to a meeting on the proposed highly controversial sewer plan for the small town, and told people that it had been a big mistake for Bolinas to reject “The Questa Plan” in the early ’90s. Stating that he was not speaking “in an official capacity,” he said that not only was raw sewage coming out of the cliffs in Bolinas, but people were sorry they voted it down. Opportunity missed, etc.
    Well! I live in Bolinas, and was one of the organizers that shot down the dumb, ecologically insensitive, and bloatedly expensive Questa Plan a dozen years ago, and I don’t know of any Bolinas folks, even those who advocated it back then, who don't count their lucky stars we didn’t allow ourselves to be saddled with this turkey.
    Nor do I know of any place where raw sewage is coming out of cliffs. When I emailed this to the Monte Rio people, they asked if I'd come to a meeting on May 17, and so I did.

Railroading the Locals
    I walked into the Saturday afternoon meeting in the Monte Rio School Gym—and deja vu! Four people were conducting (railroading, it immediately became apparent) the meeting of concerned locals: Sonoma Supervisor Mike Reilly, two county bureaucrats, and Norm Hantzsche of Questa Engineering.
    It was so bizarre as to be surreal. The same exact modus operandi used in Bolinas a decade earlier, to wit: because a lot of taxpayer money is available for “clean water,” a very large industry has emerged consisting of bureaucrats and engineers. They declare a false health hazard, based on bogus science and total lack of data. The usual ones are huge numbers of septic tanks are “failing” or, if you're near a beach, bay or river, “the e-coli are coming.”
    An engineer gets in touch with development interests and other pro-growth individuals in the town. They keep it low profile. No “outreach” to tell the public what they’re up to. The county, with the blessings of developers, contracts with an engineer to do a study. This alone is big bucks. (Questa collected more than $500,000 for just designing the Bolinas plan; this would have been enough to repair every questionable system in Bolinas as well as needed road drainage plus money left over). Sonoma County is spending $1,200,000(!) on study funds and engineering plans for Monte Rio.
    Can you believe it?

Questa’s Point of View
    So the engineer declares the small town polluted, and in need of, guess what, a high tech, expensive solution. Solution to be designed by same engineer. Neat, huh? When the Questa Plan was in development we learned the phrase “least cost-effective.” It means choosing the most expensive solution to get maximum grant money. County health officials, whose salaries come from fees, favor the high-tech approach because it means fatter fees, more income for their agencies. Witness the engineer/health official cartel in action: a Marin county employee in Sonoma county selling Questa’s point of view.
    I listened for about a half hour. Homeowners were confused and asking questions. Quite a few people seemed to be against the plan, some people were for it, and I'd say the majority just didn’t know. And too bad for them, because their questions were met with distortions, innuendos, and scare tactics. This was a sell job, not an honest discussion of the principles involved. Dissenting opinions were blocked or at best trivialized. People were being shepherded into a corral.
    A couple of things about this plan:
• This is a Sewer. A high-tech, energy-intensive inelegant design which features ever-after indebtedness.
• They're not even going to treat solids onsite, instead there will be 14 grinder stations grinding up raw sewage before sending it to a sewer plant. It’s a city solution to what’s not even a country problem. Someone asked Hantzsche what would happen during a power outage with the 14 grinders needed to run the system. Portable generators would be used, he said. How would they get to the grinder stations? In pickup trucks, he answered, Yeah, right.
• They intend to seize 14 acres (a beautiful meadow) on the Sheridan Ranch, in the family since 1860, to process the sewage. On the riverside, in a flood plain! Sharon Fitzgerald Callahan, ranch owner, is fighting it vigorously. Think about having your land forcibly taken from you and then 600 households’ raw sewage dumped there. What kind of people would advocate this?
• In the vote going on, businesses are given multiple votes (10, for a restaurant) and Torr Realty, with 30 undeveloped lots, is given 30 votes. One homeowner equals one vote. Do you smell anything?
• Oh yeah, I forgot: there has been no study showing pollution coming from failing Monte Rio septic systems. None! $11 million based on a shaky assumption. Not to mention over half-a-million dollars in operating costs to be sucked out of Monte Rio's economy every year. I wonder if the sewer proponents have discussed that?
• Homeowner Trini Amador kept trying unsuccessfully to get an answer to his question: why not do accurate testing and fix failing systems one at a time? The anonymous handouts slammed on-site systems. I guess they never bothered to review the EPA’s Municipal Treatment Technology Fact Sheets, which show approval for dozens of small on-site treatment plants that meet the community needs and provide direct discharge quality effluent, or Mendocino’s experience with approved new on-site technologies. (Maybe Norm ought to drop an e-mail to the Municipal Technology Branch of the EPA, because they like to see fully sealed systems with full electrical standby for sewer systems in flood plains to avoid flooding towns with raw sewage.)
They don’t seem to think the pickup truck and generator driving through the sewage and floodwater is the most appropriate backup technology. If Questa clears up this point beforehand maybe there won’t be any embarrassing cost over-runs and they won't be forced to bill the county for all that expensive re-engineering.

And So It Goes
    Well, back to the meeting...
    There was a table with stacks of pro-sewer fliers, all filled with distortions and scare tactics.    These unsigned and undocumented handouts, in addition to slamming on-site treatment, told people if they rejected the sewer they wouldn’t be able to sell their home, build, remodel, get loans, etc. Same as we were told in Bolinas (which turned out to be totally untrue). A phrase from one of them: “A new sewer is like a new car ... it smells good, feels good and it’s more reliable.   The community will start to shine.” Yuck!
    I stood up, introduced myself, and said: “You people are being sold a bill of goods. This is the exact same approach used in Bolinas over 12 years ago.” You could have heard a pin drop. As soon as the county reps saw where I was going they tried to shut me off. There was an uproar in the audience. “Let him talk,” etc. Things got lively, but the leaders of this charade just wouldn’t let me speak to the homeowners. It was their bat and their ball.
    Why should we care what goes on in Sonoma County? For one thing, the MR sewer is a microcosm of what is planned by engineers and bureaucrats for the entire Russian River, and more ominously, the entire state: forcing people to fix stuff that ain’t broke. Each MR homeowner is going to get saddled with some $900 a year in increased property taxes and operating costs (at least $1,200 by the time it happens, I’ll bet), and US, state, and county taxpayers are going to end up paying $11 million to private property owners to “improve” their property. If you live in a small town in West Marin, watch out for the early warning signals.
    The bigger picture in all this is AB 885 (which was being used to scare homeowners … “If we don’t to something now, the state will make us do something far more expensive, an absolute inverse of the truth.) The AB 885 regs are currently being written, due out in 2004, but one thing is sure: if they’re like the standards in Oregon and other states, it’s bye-bye Marin County-sized engineering and permit fees.
    Just look at who’s lobbying for what on the 885 standards if you want to get the big picture. Call your state legislator. If these coming statewide septic regulations go along the lines of Marin County (regs partially written by Questa) and what Questa and his buddies are lobbying the state for, we could be looking at some $30 billion in costs. Say over the course of time (remodels, sale of property, failing leachfields) 1 million homeowners in California have to upgrade to Marin standards. At $30,000 apiece, we are talking $30 billion dollars! (And there are more than 1 million systems in the state.)

History Repeats
    I left the MR meeting seething. Say what you will about Bolinas, but we functioned as a town back then. We fought it out tooth and nail amongst ourselves but in the end we didn’t sell out, we stood up for what was right, and our lives have been better for it. We can only hope that the angels of justice and ethics can intervene in the Monte Rio travesty.
    Supervisor Reilly’s butt is on the block because he has gone along with diversion of a huge amount of county funds for the plan (without any land for disposal other than the anticipated hijacking of the Sheridan Ranch). He is trying to ram this through, no matter what homeowners think or want. He did everything at the meeting to stifle dissent. His famous line of a year ago concerning the project was, “The train has left the station.” Unfortunately, that train is going the wrong way.
    Every homeowner in West Marin and the entire state should be concerned with this, because sooner or later it could affect everyone. Before you remodel, rebuild, or sell your house, you could be shelling out $30,000-$50,000 in personal funds, or having taxpayers do the same. And central sewer systems dramatically increase environmental costs and risks, not only from the power consumed, but with the potential for massive failures.
    It’s time for our legislators to take a hard look at what we’re getting for our regulatory, consulting and waste treatment dollars. If they do so, not only will they better protect the environment, but they also will protect the homeowners and small-business people of the small towns of rural California. And it will cost way, way less.
Editor’s note: The Light not only agrees with the guest columnist, it questions the propriety of a bureaucrat who regulates Questa Engineering’s work in this county acting as an advocate for it in Sonoma County. For him to say he spoke as a private citizen changed nothing.

© Point Reyes Light. Reprinted with permission.


Monte Rio, California
Bacterial Contamination Along the Lower Russian River
By Dr. Daniel Wickham, Duncans Mills, California
    The citizens of the lower Russian River are largely served by septic disposal systems. It is true that some of these systems are old, and a case can be made that some level of improvement is warranted. Public agencies in Sonoma County have attempted to portray this situation as one of an urgent ‘public health hazard’ and have used this to justify imposition of a painful
construction moratorium on the citizenry around Monte Rio.
    This moratorium has placed a tremendous economic burden on this group of property owners, in effect, locking them out of one of the biggest real estate booms in history. Not only has each of these individuals lost tens of thousands of dollars in property value, they are now being forced to
accept another equivalent loss to hook up to an exorbitant and burdensome sewer system.
    But, on what does this multi-million-dollar ‘taking’ from the citizens of Monte Rio rest? Fecal coliform bacteria is the name of the game. Public health agencies measure the concentration of fecal bacteria to determine if unprocessed human waste is present. It is not that coliform bacteria are dangerous; after all our intestines are already full of them. The problem is that if they are present, other pathogens like hepatitis, cholera, etc. may also be present. Fecal coliform are cheap and easy to measure, so agencies use them as ‘indicator’ species. Without public exposure to these pathogens there is no threat to public health, old, leaky septic tanks notwithstanding.
    County public policy states that the threshold for public health is exposure to 126 viable fecal bacteria per 100 ml of water. They mandate weekly sampling at public beaches, and if they find two consecutive samples exceeding the threshold they can post and close the beach until the counts recede.
    The county and the Regional Board know what the contamination levels are along the Russian River because they sample the beaches. But, how many of the citizens have ever seen this data? The answer is almost none, because the one clear message from these samples is that there is no public health hazard in Monte Rio related to failing septic systems.
    Bacterial samples taken as early as 1971 showed that the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which drains into the River via Mark West Creek just upstream of Mirabel, was the major source of pollution to the river, both nutrient loading and bacteria. Levels of fecal bacteria there were in the thousands to tens of thousands per 100 ml. By the time the river flowed to Hacienda Bridge natural processes had cleaned it enough that, while the threshold was occasionally crossed, it never warranted closure. The water continued to improve as it passed to Guerneville (remember that this is before that community was forced into sewers through an identical phony crisis) and by Monte Rio, and Duncans Mills conditions were literally pristine.
    Lo and behold, samples taken through the 1990s show pretty much the same thing, except for an alarming decrease in water quality up at the Healdsburg beach. Monte Rio fecal levels have never triggered a beach closure, and generally are similar to what they were in the early 1970s. Likewise with Guerneville and other beaches along the lower River. At the same time
Healdsburg’s beach not only regularly exceeds the threshold, but in fact has been closed to the public.
    A public hazard did not create the moratorium at Monte Rio, or the one at Guerneville back in the ’70s when they were forced to sewer. It was just the reverse. The moratorium “created” the hazard. It turns out that to qualify for Federal USDA sewer grants a community has to have either (1) well-documented evidence of contamination, or (2) a moratorium on construction due to a public health hazard. This is obviously a loophole through which one can drive a sewer plant.
    The property owners around Monte Rio lost millions of dollars in value because the county said, ‘If we don’t actually have a hazard we will just create one.’ Ironically, they did create a hazard by preventing people from doing legitimate upgrades like fixing leaky roofs, insulating, rewiring old wires, re-plumbing, replacing windows, etc.
    The county did this before at Guerneville with exactly the same MO. Declare a moratorium to create a crisis in order to sneak into a cushy government grant. The engineering companies get rich, and the community gets stuck with an expensive boondoggle. In fact, the engineers for Monte Rio, Questa Engineers of Marin County, tried the same trick using exactly the same
methods with Marin Environmental Health to get Bolinas to the sewers. They fought and won, and one hopes the citizenry of Monte Rio will erupt with righteous indignation to beat them back again.
    The best alternative is a septic management district that recognizes the vast majority of existing systems as functional. The region needs to conduct a survey to determine exactly how many systems are actually in failure. Those few systems that are found to be non-functional can be
restored easily and cheaply, for around $2-$3,000. (My own company, SepTec, has developed and installed a septic-tank retrofit in over 20 properties in the Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake and Contra Costa counties, including one property in Villa Grande.) Even hard-to-reach areas that the current sewer proposal ignores can be served by this system. It is biologically impossible for these systems to fail if they are kept operational. These systems, and others currently available, offer a less expensive and more ecologically sound approach to maintaining our river quality.

© The Press Democrat


March 3, 2006
Kathleen Kane
Community Development Manager
Sonoma County Community Development Commission
1440 Guerneville Road
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Re: Monte Rio Wastewater Pollution Control Project
Dear Grant Administrator:
    I live in and around Monte Rio vehemently object to the funding requests submitted to multiple agencies (including yours) by the County of Sonoma.
    The Monte Rio project is an affront to the local citizenry as well as the taxpayers of this state. It is not wanted or needed, it is exorbitant on a per-lot cost basis, and it will continue to be expensive to operate for the coming decades. At a time when this state is facing a budget crisis and public funds are in scarce supply, state agencies should carefully consider every dollar they spend. Our tax dollars should be reserved for truly necessary and well-conceived projects. This one does not qualify—not by a long shot.
    Specifically, your agency should decline to allocate any funds to the Monte Rio Wastewater Project because:
- the County’s stated concerns about public health and the quality of Russian River water at Monte Rio are undocumented and, what’s worse, a complete red herring
- the siting of the plant directly on the banks of the Russian River (well within the flood plain) raises safety, health and environmental concerns
- the residents of Monte Rio, Villa Grande and Duncans Mills are adamantly opposed to the project because it is way too expensive, it is not necessary, and it is a blight on our community, and
- there are alternatives that will protect the river, provide waste treatment for the entire region (not just 600 lots) and will save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
    The Monte Rio Sewer Project ultimately will benefit only a few land developers, whose properties may increase in value, and the engineers who will profit from the ever-increasing revenues they will receive from the major project. The residents of this state should not be taxed to line the pockets of these few individuals and companies
I. The Imaginary Public Health Crisis
    In its funding request to you, the county has stated that that reason the sewer plant must be built is because of pollution in the Russian River. What the county deftly ignores, however, is that the 600 lots to be serviced by the plant are not the cause of any pollution in the River. Thus, the $11 million pet project of Mike Reilly will not fix the problem—even if one really existed!
    There is no evidence whatsoever of any public health problem associated with the lower Russian River or the septic systems on the properties around the river. Most importantly, there is no evidence that any such problem stems from old or substandard septic systems in the residences or lots located in the Monte Rio area. To the contrary, sampling of the water at the various beaches in our area have shown no difference in coliform counts since the 1970s. The beaches have never been closed, to our knowledge, in the past quarter century. In short, there is no public health problem that will be solved by this pork-barrel project.
    Implicit in the county’s recent request for funding from your agency is the suggestion that putting a sewer plant in the Sheridan Meadow at Monte Rio will solve the alleged problem of old, failing septic systems in the Monte Rio community. To put it bluntly, that is a lie. Among the 600 lots that will be hooked up to the Monte Rio sewer project, 200 have not been developed at all! It does not require any scientific or economic acumen to conclude that those 200 lots do not have old, substandard septic systems. Of the remaining 400 developed lots in the assessment district, no one from the county or its engineering arm—Questa—has ever attempted to study, much
less document, how many of the 400 lots (if any) have an old or substandard septic system and how many (if any) of those systems result in pollution in the Russian River. In fact, no one has spent a moment or a dime answering the key question of whether there is relationship between the 600 lots to be serviced by the project and any water quality problem along the Russian
River.
    Footnote: Dr. Daniel Wickham, an experienced limnologist who holds patents on biological techniques to restore failed leach systems and lives in Duncans’ Mills, has analyzed water from near Monte Rio and found nitrates to be undetectable at the 0.1mg/l level of sensitivity. He concludes that no nitrates are getting into the groundwater in Monte Rio. This same conclusion was reached by the county’s EIR! Dr. Wickham concurs that the county has not studied pollution in the Russian River, so far as septic releases are concerned. Thus, while more than a million dollars will be spent just on the design of this proposed sewer project, nothing has been spent determining whether the system is necessary. Notably, the county has no monitoring program of any sort on the lower stretch of the river, where the 600 lots and the proposed sewer plant are located.
    The county’s representation that the proposed project will address a real public health problem is extraordinarily hypocritical. For example, from its inception, the project has excluded (for cost reasons) the only location in the Monte Rio area ever known to have any failing septic systems, i.e., certain residences on Starrett Hill. Moreover, according to the Questa 10% Design Report, the county recently re-drew the project boundaries to exclude eight residences and additional lots along the uphill side of Monte Rio Avenue.
    In place of those hard-to-reach residences, the county substituted the Monte Rio School, which admittedly has a new septic system that is totally up to “code” and functioning well.
    So why do the residents of Monte Rio “need” for your agency to fund a large, expensive sewage plant alongside its beautiful river? First, the county has told you that Monte Rio is a ‘financially challenged community.’ The county further represents that, because the residents are low income, they cannot afford to take care of the (unproven) pollution caused by their (allegedly
old) septic systems. What the county has not told you is that at least 1/3 of the 600 lots to be serviced are undeveloped lots owned by developers that financially are very well off. Moreover, we are aware of no study whatsoever establishing the income of the owners of the other 400 lots.
    While we have requested relevant information from the county for over a year, we have received no documentation for the 160 lots that it now claims need taxpayer money to hook up to the sewer system.
    Footnote: We question this number because many residences in Monte Rio are rental units. Thus, while the occupants may have a low income, the owners of the properties are not so ‘challenged.’ Furthermore, in the years that this project has been pending, the average income in Monte Rio has significantly increased while the county’s estimates of ‘low income’ lots
have decreased.
    The only other justification for this project is the existence of a ‘Waiver Prohibition Area’ imposed by the county and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1997 because of the alleged—but non-existent—pollution in the Russian River. The waiver prohibition has prohibited residents of a very large area (far bigger than the 600 lots to be serviced by the proposed sewer plant) from enlarging or reconstructing their homes for the past five years. However, as noted above, because there is no pollution resulting from the 600 lots, it is ludicrous to argue that a sewer plant on Sheridan Meadow will obviate the waiver prohibition. And, in
fact, neither Mike Reilly nor anyone else has ever suggested that the prohibition will be lifted if this plant is constructed!
II. Political Shenanigans
    The county is playing fast and loose with the community, the state and the USDA in connection with its ongoing funding requests. At this very moment, the county is seeking more than $11 million dollars in funds from state (Small Community Grant Program) and federal (USDA Rural Utilities Services Program) and county (Community Development Commission) funds. There is just one catch, as the county’s legal counsel revealed several months ago. The
county will lose any chance of obtaining the state and federal funds if it has to establish a new local district to operate the sewer. See Agenda Item Summary Report of County of Sonoma PRMD, February 6, 2001 (indicating that ‘there is significant risk of losing state and federal grants totaling $6 million if the option of creating a new district is pursued at this time in the funding process’). The county also is well aware that no existing local district or agency is willing to take charge of this controversial and risky project.
    Footnote: Late last year the county tried, through arm twisting and political maneuvering, to force the Sweetwater Springs Water District to take over operational control of the sewer. The board’s vote reflected its constituency, local ratepayers and their vote was a unanimous ‘no.’ If
Sweetwater is asked, again, to become a sewer district, we are confident that the Board will again reject the proposal.
    To avoid this problem while still obtaining millions of dollars in grants, the county recently voted to establish a ‘Zone of Benefit’ under CSA 41.
    Just as soon as construction is complete, the county will ‘initiate the process for transferring ownership of the facility six months after completion of construction to an existing local district. If an existing district will not assume ownership of the facility, PRMD will pursue creation of a new local district to take over local control and ownership of the facility.’ In other words, the county is tricking the state and federal agencies into funding the project now under the pretense that a new district will not be necessary. In fact, the county knows full well that it is going
to have to create a new district to operate the sewer once it is constructed.
III. Safety Issues
    The Sheridan Meadow location is not a suitable site for a large, raw sewage treatment plant and acres of leach lines because it is located right in the middle of a flood plain. The Russian River floods every year. The Sheridan Meadow soil will be saturated during most winters and will flood at least every 10 years or so. When that happens, the system will have to shut down—and we will all pray that the flooding doesn’t damage the equipment or release dangerous sewage into the river and our yards. In addition, power outages lasting for days are not uncommon in this area. The county has no provision—other than wholesale evacuation of the affected homes—for dealing with a power outage such as we experienced last December. (Septic systems
do not shut down when the power goes off.)
    Second, the county proposes to install sewage pipes right next to water pipes along Moscow Rd. and across the Monte Rio bridge, which is currently undergoing a seismic upgrade.
    Footnote: For good reasons, local regulations require a 10-foot offset between sewage and water pipes. Questa plans to seek a variance from this safety regulation because Moscow Rd. is too narrow to comply with safety rules.
    The engineers have yet to give the public a plan to ensure that the 6-inch pipe will not break when the sections of the bridge are violently shaking and twisting, independently of one another.
    Footnote: The current proposal for the bridge includes isolation bearings at each bridge pier. The design engineers for the sewage plant have explained that, during an earthquake, ‘each bridge section will move independently of the next, out of phase, with as much as 1-foot lateral
shear, for a maximum differential of two feet.’ ‘Report of Waste Discharge for Monte Rio Wastewater Pollution Control Project, submitted March 5, 2001 by Questa Engineering, at 2-5. In addition, the seismic upgrade will allow for 6 inches of vertical movement. According to Questa, 'this will add considerable complexity to the design of the pipeline crossing, which must
be coordinated very closely with the bridge retrofit work and may involve some minor structural changes to the bridge framework.’ Letter of February 28, 2001, from Questa to PRMD.
    In fact, the design group working on the sewer project (Questa) recommended that a second design group (Imbsen & Associates) take responsibility for figuring out how to pipe the raw sewage across the bridge. As they previously explained, ‘[I]t is critical that the pipeline be incorporated into Imbsen’s overall bridge design in order to properly design the bearings to withstand the additional load of the pipeline.’ Letter of February 28, 2001 from Questa to PRMD.
    Third, the 8-inch pipe carrying the sewage for treatment will be located along Highway 116, a very narrow, scenic road subject to earthquakes and landslides. It is quite predictable that this pipeline will rupture numerous times in the future.
IV. Cost
    Currently, the estimated cost for constructing the sewer project is nearly $11 million. That sum is in addition to the EIR and design costs and does not reflect the annual operating and maintenance costs that will be paid by the people of Monte Rio. As much as a year ago, the O&M were estimated at $327,000, which works out to $85 per month for each single-family residence
to pay in addition to all of their other utility bills. This O&M figure does not include any of the money that must be repaid to the county or state for ‘loans’ made to finance the design or construction phases.
    Footnote: Currently, and without any notice to the taxpayers, the county has ‘loaned’ $143,442 to the design of the project because it was unable to find sufficient grants to finance the design. County documents confirm that this loan will ‘be repaid by ratepayers after the system is completed.’
    The recent loan is in addition to $87,000 previously allocated to the project from District Formation Funds, which amount also will be repaid by the ratepayers assuming that a district is formed and the project is approved by the Monte Rio citizens.
    Of course, the $11 million figure is not the final word on the project costs. The most important hidden figure is the cost of taking the Sheridan Meadow property by eminent domain, and paying the owners a fair amount for ruining their entire ranch. The owners have made clear that they will not permit the county to use the property for sewage treatment. While the county has suggested the ridiculous amount of $200,000 to take an ‘easement’ to the property, it is clear that a full fee interest will have to be taken—or nothing. Moreover, the owners will have to be compensated for the damage to the remainder of the Sheridan Ranch. Thus, the county is going to have to pony up millions of dollars to acquire the property by eminent domain, in addition to legal and expert fees to take the case to court.
    Incidentally, another of the viable options, connecting to the Guerneville plant, was not chosen because of its ‘cost.’ The Sheridan option has now surpassed hooking to the Guerneville plant one where many more dwellings would be able to hook up; imagine the upgrade Guerneville could get for $11,000,000!
    Finally, we emphasize to all agencies that there is an alternative to address any wastewater problem that exists in this area along the river. Recently, a proposal was put forward for the creation of a sewer district based on on-site septic systems—the type of system that is best suited for the hilly terrain and is the most affordable for the citizens of the area.
    Local septic systems are by far the most reliable and most effective, which is why they are approved by the EPA, among others. Upgrading our septic systems (where needed) would cost a fraction of what the county proposes to spend on the centralized sewer plant, and yet would address thousands of homes, not just the 600 serviced by the ‘barn’ at Sheridan Meadow. The
county has steadfastly refused to address this obvious, practical alternative. Why? They won’t tell us. You—and we—are entitled to an answer, however.
V. Environmental Problems
    Highway 116 is a designated scenic highway, which prohibits construction of buildings within 10 feet of the road. The county is proposing to ignore this designation and build the sewer plant right alongside the road. Why? Because the building must be as far away as possible from the Russian River, which regularly floods into the Sheridan Meadow. So what is the county’s solution to this blight in our scenic area? Build the plant to look like a barn! Unfortunately, they cannot make the trucks and other heavy equipment necessary to operate and maintain the plant appear to be cows and horses.
    From Monte Rio to the ocean, the river is particularly clean and free from pollution. The grinder pump sewer system represents a far higher hazard to environmental health than any septic system existing today, especially for homeowners downstream. Most relevant—but ignored by the county—is the fact that the Laguna de Santa Rosa is the source of virtually all the pollution
in the lower river. The Monte Rio project will not impact that source of pollution at all!
In addition, according to the most recent design, Questa acknowledges that the sewage wastewater will be piped within 6 inches of the surface of Sheridan Meadow throughout the summer months because the underground leach fields are not able to handle the increased use of the system during the summer vacation season. This was never disclosed to the community during the public hearings! The smell from the system (sewage and disinfectant) will befoul the air up and down the river due to the off-shore breezes we used to enjoy.
    Finally, we note that there are pending proposals to drastically reduce the flow of the river during summer months—the very time when the sewer system will be used most. The county has not given any consideration to the impact of such a development on the sewer system or the river itself. Indeed, it has not prepared the required supplemental EIR to address this new problem.
    Thus, many serious questions remain about the ultimate impact the system would have on our precious environment.
CONCLUSION:
    The taxpayers of this state and county should not be forced to contribute a penny to the Monte Rio Wastewater Project. Before you respond to the County of Sonoma’s request, the taxpayers—we—are entitled to a full hearing on and investigation of the county’s many misrepresentations and oversights. When you complete your review of the situation, you will conclude, as we have done, that this project is a disgrace.
    We look forward to your earliest possible response.
    Very truly yours,
(A Homeowner)


Hollister, California
Little Choice for Sewer Users
By Patrick O’Donnell
August 13, 2006
    Hollister must either bite the bullet and pay for new sewer system or suffer heavy fines.
There are zero choices. People seem to understand that the city of Hollister must charge increased sewer fees to build a new wastewater system. The alternative is leaden with so many downsides it becomes almost unthinkable to pursue any other course.
    Still, there are some residents who don’t think this should be their problem. At a recent public forum sponsored by local merchants, one resident said it was like driving a Volkswagen, but wanting a Ferrari and wanting someone else to pay for that Ferrari.
    “They shouldn’t force us to shoulder the short comings of the city officials. They got themselves into it, they should take pay cuts if they need to generate more funds,” said Hollister resident Peggy Ivy.
    But it may not be that simple. A building moratorium was imposed in 2002 after Hollister's Wastewater Treatment Plant dumped 15 million gallons of treated sewage into the San Benito River. At that point the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board slapped a moratorium on new sewer hook-ups and gave Hollister until Oct. 15 of 2005 to build a new sewage treatment plant.
    Last October, the city averted $200,000 in fines when, at the request of City Manager Clint Quilter, the RWQCB gave the city more time to construct a new sewage treatment plant. At the same time that it granted the extension, the RWQCB gave the city a series of revised deadlines.
    The city met its first deadline in December when it submitted a long-term wastewater plan. The other revised deadlines include awarding a construction contract for a new treatment plant by late 2006 and drafting a disposal plan for treated wastewater by March 2007. Each deadline missed will result in more than $66,000 in fines being levied against the city.
    The city has lost 2,500 long-term jobs since the moratorium was leveled in 2002, resulting in $100 million in income lost in wages and revenue in the county, according to Community Leaders for Economic and Recovery, a Hollister group advocating getting the sewer project completed.
    Declining enrollment in county schools has cost the district $1.5 million per year, reducing teachers and increasing class sizes, CLEAR claims.
    Hazel Hawkins Hospital has a bond to build desperately needed new facilities that cannot be constructed until the moratorium is lifted.
    A proposed $120 million sewer system project will meet required higher treatment standards, which will protect the groundwater and allow for the reuse of treated wastewater. It will provide additional capacity, but will also provide renewed development. In addition, it will allow much needed expansion for health care, public safety and schools.
    The $120 million for the project includes $73 million for the treatment facility; $25 million for a recycled water distribution system and $22 million for a seasonal storage pond system.
At the recent forum more than 60 people showed up to find out how the increases to monthly sewer rate fees would affect them, but nearly everyone in attendance understood the need for them.
    “I’m certainly not doing cartwheels, but I guess we really don’t get a choice, do we?” asked Gina Milsapp.
    In order to finance the new sewer system, the monthly sewer rates will need to be increased for all customers. Under the new rate schedule, a single-family residential water bill will increase 297% during the next five years; from $31.30 per month, to $124.40 per month, by 2009.
The increases will be introduced incrementally, starting with a 48% rate hike this year.
City officials seem confident in the hope that the plan won’t have to implement the full rate increase, anticipating that impact fees from new developments, once the moratorium is lifted, will cover roughly half of the plants construction costs.
    If those assumptions hold, the rate increase would climb to $71.50 instead of $124.40.
The monthly sewer rates are not subject to a vote, according to city officials. The monthly sewer rates can be approved by the city council, if there is no majority protest by the 9,300 commercial and residential property owners within the city. In order for the protest to be valid, it must be submitted in writing to the city clerk.
    “If we do nothing the rates still go up, we need to get behind the city council and city staff,” said Marilyn Ferreira, a Hollister real estate agent.
    One of the groups who will be affected is renters. Since property owners will face larger monthly sewer and water bills, they will pass those expenses on to renters. Since utilities are often included in rent, rent prices will increase.
    “I'm a renter and I’m not prepared for my rent to increase, but what choice do I have, this is a done deal, isn’t it?” asked Hollister resident William White.
    Seniors and low-income citizens would have subsidies available under plans being explored by the City Council. By state law, one class of customers cannot subsidize another using sewer enterprise funds—the money collected from sewer fees. However, funds from the city’s general fund or another fund can be used.
    In September the Council will tentatively adopt the new rates and environmental documents, allowing for construction to begin in October. Construction on a seasonal storage system could begin in the spring of 2007, and the recycled water distribution system can begin construction in the fall of 2007.
    If all goes well, all sewer system projects are scheduled to have construction completed in 2008.   

© SFGate.com. Reprinted with permission.


Monterey, California
Statewide Coalition Opposes Stormwater Runoff Ban
By Kelly Nix
November 4, 2005
    An unusual coalition of business and local government has chastised the State Water Resources Control Board’s zero-tolerance urban runoff policy, saying it’s unreasonable and impossible to achieve, while the state agency has dismissed the group’s concerns and said it will enforce the ban.
    About one-third of the California coastline—including Carmel Bay, Pacific Grove, Monterey and Point Lobos—has been designated “areas of special biological significance,” or ASBS. Earlier this year, the water resources agency suddenly decided the areas should be off-limits to runoff from storms.
   Capturing or treating the water will be hugely expensive with little or no benefit to the ocean, according to local officials. A wide range of government agencies, businesses and special interest groups from around the state agree.
    “We remain greatly concerned that the State Water Resources Control Board [wants to allow] only pristine water to enter ASBS,” the coalition said in an October letter to the state board.
    The more-than-30-member-strong alliance is composed of various organizations, including the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce, the California Coalition for Clean Water, the Industry Environmental Association and the California State Association of Counties.
    “Honestly, the letter doesn’t change anything,” said Dominic Gregorio, senior environmental scientist for the SWRCB’s ocean unit. “It could change something in the board’s mind and they could direct us, but as of now, I haven’t been told anything new.”
Board Members Not Available for Comment.
    The state issued a cease and desist order Feb. 11 that made it illegal for Carmel, Monterey, Pacific Grove and Pebble Beach to allow stormwater to run into the ocean. There are 34 California areas designated as ASBS.
    Stormwater discharge, as defined by the state, occurs whenever there is enough rain for city streets to have runoff that flows into the ocean.
    But instead of banning storm runoff, the coalition recommended what it called a “workable and effective strategy” to “focus on the health of the ASBS.” Discharges that do not cause an “undesirable alteration of natural water quality” should be allowed.
The group said the state’s hard-line rules “would present a choice between an impossible-to-achieve perfect standard for stormwater and other ASBS discharges, or an impossibly expensive attempt at a solution that could require water treatment plants, and other economically and technically infeasible measures, affecting literally hundreds of coastal cities, counties, school districts, hospitals, and thousands of businesses and farmers.”
To comply with the state’s order as it stands, Carmel, Pacific Grove and Monterey would have to build multimillion-dollar storm drain systems that would prevent stormwater from running to the sea. There are thousands of storm drains throughout the Monterey Peninsula.
    Some environmental groups, such as The Ocean Conservancy, Friends of the Sea Otter and the National Resources Defense Council, have embraced the ASBS designation, saying pollutants present in stormwater can have damaging effects on aquatic systems.
But, “even drinking water wouldn’t pass the test they have set forth,” said Patti Krebs, executive director of the the Industrial Environmental Association.
    The state said stormwater discharge must come to an end by January 2008.
But Krebs, who delivered the letter to the state board’s workshop in San Pedro Oct. 24, said the state needs to conduct specific scientific tests to determine how stormwater is damaging ocean waters, instead of imposing a blanket, zero-tolerance rule.
The group cites studies by experts at Hopkins Marine Station who have been unable to identify any negative effects of stormwater discharge into the Hopkins Marine Life Refuge.
    “In the absence of any data indicating negative effects of stormwater discharge on coastal marine ecosystems, the expenditure of resources to eliminate stormwater discharge into this ASBS is not warranted,” the letter says.
    The state’s Ocean Plan, a water quality control plan for ocean waters, bans waste from entering ASBS even if it doesn’t have a harmful effect on the ocean.
    To comply with state regulations under the Ocean Plan, dischargers have two options: stop discharging wastewater or apply for an exception, which the board recommends, Gregorio said. “If you go through the exception process, you can have a little bit of waste discharge,” he said.
   If a city files for an exception, for instance, the respective city, not the state, must test the ASBS to determine whether their wastewater has harmful effects. Exceptions are subject to review every three to five years.
    “More work needs to be done is to sort out what is harmful versus what is not harmful, rather just taking a position that says, ‘there will be zero stormwater coming into this area,’” Krebs said. “Because that is impossible to achieve.”

© Carmel Pine Cone


Sonoma County
State Septic Tank Plan Assailed
By Carol Benfell
August 4, 2005
    County supervisors took aim at the states proposed septic system regulations Tuesday, saying the rules would increase public health risks and force people out of their homes.
“It’s so outrageous, it’s laughable,” said Supervisor Paul Kelley. “It’s an outrageous example of the state regulatory bureaucracy run amok.”
    Supervisors said the draft rules would encourage homeowners to leave their septic systems in disrepair rather than face the costly, burdensome upgrades the regulations would require.
    The supervisors also accused the state Water Resources Control Board, which is developing the regulations, of remaining silent on the regulations’ potential for forcing people out of their homes if they couldn’t afford repairs.
    Their criticisms were contained in a letter to the water board, approved unanimously Tuesday. The board also formed a subcommittee to monitor the progress of the regulations and will seek to rally legislators and the public, if necessary.
    “This is a catastrophic mess. We need to make an all-out effort to make sure sanity is brought into this process,'” Supervisor Tim Smith said.
    The draft rules would establish a first-ever system of septic inspections and set higher standards for septic system treatment. Virtually all 45,000 septic system owners in Sonoma County would be affected.
    Under the new rules, homeowners might be required to install costly upgrades when a septic system needs repairs; when an owner lists his property for sale; and if a homeowner lives within 600 feet of a polluted stretch of the Russian River, the Petaluma River, Sonoma Creek or the upper reaches of Santa Rosa Creek.
    The county estimated that the minimum cost of upgrading a septic system to the proposed new standards would be $15,000.
    “The high cost of compliance will induce more illegal septic system repairs, which will not meet standards, will not be monitored and will have greater impacts on water quality and public health,” the supervisors’ letter said.
    The water board “must discuss what will happen if homeowners are unable to afford the requisite costs for compliance,” the letter said.
    The state water board has said that it will work with homeowners to find solutions, which could include creating community-wide sewer systems.
    It’s very unlikely people would be forced from their homes, said Ted Cobb, assistant chief counsel for the state water board.

© The Press Democrat