Regional
Regional Op-Ed: Kathryn Gray: Donner Summit and the South Yuba River - Stewardship or Sewership?
Author: Kathryn Gray, Donner Summit
Published on Jan 10, 2009 - 6:51:16 AM

Jan. 10, 2009 - The South Yuba River is a Sierra Nevada treasure. A few miles past Emigrant Gap, eastbound travelers on Interstate 80 can see inviting glimpses of a boulder tumbled river. Those who exit onto old Highway 40 at Cisco Grove and follow the course of the river up to it's Donner Summit headwaters are rewarded with views of the granite reaches, and twistings and turnings of the South Yuba, a river rich in history and beauty. Those same travelers should think twice before picnicking on the river bank, though, and under no circumstances should they allow their children to play in the water, because for some months, the upper South Yuba River is treated more as a convenient conduit for sewage effluent than as a living, flowing river.

Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) is permitted by the state to discharge treated sewage effluent into the South Yuba, subject to requirements that during the dry summer months effluent should be sprayed onto the nearby Soda Springs Ski Hill, where it evaporates. The spray operation, which begins by July, and can continue into October, is designed to protect the South Yuba, which is classed as an ephemeral stream up at its headwaters, from flowing with unadulterated effluent for part of the year. However, once river disposal resumes, particularly in late fall, and in the low water months before snowmelt, almost half of the liquid one sees running down the river may be treated effluent.

Ideally, this treated effluent shouldn't pose health risks, but in reality, the DSPUD operation has racked up a depressing roster of violations of clean water standards, which are briefly detailed in SYRCL's "Donner Summit PUD Fined Again for Polluting the South Yuba River."

Despite having redirected mandatory fines imposed by the state towards upgrades to supposedly improve compliance with clean water requirements, DSPUD has continued to violate discharge rules, as evidenced by the latest imposition of fines. In addition, SYRCL has identified other potential serious violations that trigger mandatory fines that were not included in the Water Quality Board's recent Administrative Civil Liability Complaint (ACLC) R5-2008-0626.

Treated effluent, no matter how impure, usually looks just like water under the bridge to those "watching the river run." However, early last summer, an unsightly algae bloom located below DSPUD's effluent dump made it glaringly obvious that DSPUD's disposal methods were harming enjoyment and recreation on the South Yuba. Appalled citizens took photos, and contacted the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) staff, who launched a prompt and thorough investigation.

DSPUD, on its part, had its consultant Eco:Logic conduct a separate study of the problem, and issue a report. This should be reassuring, as oversight by an objective third party should lead to identification of problems, and, hopefully, plans to make sure the problems don't recur. In this case the state was concerned not only with the slime in the South Yuba, but they also had, as detailed in the Notice of Violation (NOV), "some operational concerns at the facility. The surface of secondary clarifier No. 1 was vibrantly green. The secondary clarifier No. 2 had algae growth on the weirs, trough, and other submerged structures." One logical source of trouble, both in the river, and the facility could have been operationally based, including operator error or malfunctions in the plant.

Oh, this is the part where I mention that Eco:Logic not only consults to DSPUD, but also actually operates DSPUD's waste water treatment plant (WWTP). Eco:Logic offers a range of services involved in the design, maintenance, and day to day operation of WWTPs, and I guess they, and DSPUD, don't see any potential conflicts with Eco:Logic running the plant that has caused the violations, writing the reports concerning the cause of the violations, and, even better, working on plans to enlarge the plant and increase the amount of effluent dumped into the South Yuba River. Don't ask why Eco:Logic is the author of DSPUD's letter to CVRWQCB detailing why it is infeasible for DSPUD to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. And under no condition ask about the really big plans for WWTP expansion percolating around on Donner Summit to service the proposed "Majesty Suites" 100 plus unit lodge across from the Sugar Bowl gondola, Sugar Bowl's expansion plans, and Royal Gorge's proposals to build over 900 timeshares, houses, and a couple of hotels on Donner Summit.

Wait, maybe you had better ask about those. After all, all those new units will dump a lot more effluent into the South Yuba. The planned expansion is certainly on the mind of Mr.Thomas Skjelstad, General Manager of DSPUD. In his response to the ACLC, which deals solely with mandatory penalties for DSPUD's past pollutant discharge violations in the South Yuba, and the imposition of a twenty-five thousand dollar discretionary penalty, Mr. Skjelstad interjects the Royal Gorge project, in essence complaining about what he terms a "politically charged atmosphere" Here's a direct quote:

"Although the ACLC does not discuss, or even make reference (sic) the Royal Gorge development, and our reference to that development herein may at this point be confusing, we are of the belief that the Regional Board remains neutral towards our local development issues (i.e., the Regional Water Quality Control Board is not a land-use agency.) Therefore, the bulk of our rebuttal to the ACLC and its associated monetary fine is intended to clarify the written record with regard to our operation and maintenance history so that future land-use and treatment process implementation decisions can be made in an impartial setting that lacks any misrepresentation of facts."

Mr. Skjelstad then goes on to complain about the imposition of discretionary fines. He recycled DSPUD's tired old excuses for failing to meet NPDES standards, claiming it's too hard to meet nitrate standards because Donner Summit is too high, too cold to keep the "bugs" that eat the sewage alive, and flows are uneven because of all the ski resorts. He even complained that the state "withheld" the names of other high altitude districts who met standards.

All over the country districts, even districts in ski areas, deal successfully with difficult weather conditions. Tanks that are too cold can be covered, either with insulated floating blankets, or cement covers. If conditions don't favor one type of biological treatment, perhaps other cold hardy "bugs" can be used to digest waste. If flows are uneven, the addition of a new or larger holding tank can help stabilize flows.

In addressing the algae question, the following quote pretty aptly sums up a couple of pages of DSPUD attitude:

"We believe that Regional Board staff has knowledge of similar algae blooms that are unrelated to sewage and failure to also present this information unfairly biases arguments in favor of imposing monetary fines."

Aside from the fact DSPUD's algae bloom, below the outfall pipe, flared up between late spring and early summer, and most algae blooms are a late summer early fall problem, at what point did it become the responsibility of state employees, who are working under severe budget and staffing constraints, to hand-hold and present information about unrelated algae blooms in the course of carrying out their duties under the Clean Water Act? Shouldn't DSPUD take ownership of it's own problem?

If you spend the time to read Mr. Skjelstad's response to the ACLC, and other materials regarding violations, and the ongoing permitting process, which can be found here, you'll notice pretty quickly there's something missing. Look back at my first sentence, "The South Yuba River is a Sierra Nevada treasure." Wouldn't you hope that DSPUD would at least be aware that, for some people, anyway, rivers running down Sierra Mountains are precious pieces of California's public trust, something to protect, for wildlife, and for our children? Shouldn't there be some hint of concern evinced for the fact that chlorine spills that persist for a week cause dead zones, dead zones which reduce the chances for bugs, fish, willow flycatchers, and other wildlife to survive? Shouldn't a river be something more than a photo-op, where the answer to "mother, mother may I go for a swim?", isn't, "yes, my darling daughter. Hang your clothes on a hickory limb, and don't go near the water?" Aren't rivers meant to run with water, and not effluent?

Wouldn't you like to see DSPUD act as a steward for the river they sluice so much effluent into, instead of acting like it's the South Yuba's primary job to serve as a sewer?

If you care about the South Yuba River, and want to make your voice heard, here are some contacts. It's too late to submit comments on ACLC R5-2008-0626 . However, SYRCL had identified other potential violations that occurred in the relevant time period. If you wish to be notified of any actions on those, please contact Mr. Spencer Joplin, at CVRWQCB, sjoplin@waterboards.ca.gov and ask to be put on a notification list.

If you'd like to read and comment on DSPUD's draft permit, which is expected to be issued shortly, please contact:

Ken Landau, P.E.
Assistant Executive Officer
klandau@waterboards.ca.gov
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region
11020 Sun Center Drive, #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

© Copyright YubaNet.com