What’s the real story with Sonoma Valley’s sewer system?

By Mary Nesbitt | For the Sun

The true state of the Valley’s sewers is murky, but that could change in the weeks ahead if County politicians commit to complete, transparent and un-spun discussions of where we are and how we got here.

The Board of Supervisors will hear public comment on May 17, on the proposed 4% sewer rate increases in the Valley for 2016-17. The result of a decade of hikes in the four to six percent range amounts to a compound rise of around 75%. One of the reasons given for the steady climb is to fix major problems in system identified in the Wet Weather Overflow Prevention Study (2002).

So now would be a good time for the County to post a complete accounting of the cost of work that’s been done, how much money has been expended on sewers versus other projects, and what progress has been made toward the overflow prevention goals.

The County should also tell the public what the future may hold for rates, since it is now under order from the water quality board to complete delayed sewer rehab and replacement projects and to articulate how improvements will be funded.

Also coming up is a public discussion, date TBD, of an ordinance in development by the County requiring property owners to inspect and repair their sewer laterals upon sale or major renovation. It’s a good opportunity for the County to fully explain the origins of this ordinance – more on that below. The County should also provide data about the general locations of problematic laterals in the Valley, the relative contribution to overflows of public sewer lines vs. private laterals, and other hard data about sewer capacity, infiltration and inflow.

Revised Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. According to the sanitation district website, the master plan, which lays out capital projects, will be posted soon.

The strategy in the last several years seems to have focused more on wastewater recycling, and less on the deteriorating waste collection system in the Valley. The latter has garnered more than $1 million in fines over the last five years for overflows and, in 2015, a cease and desist order and a set of deadlines for compliance.

In the meantime, let’s review some of the actions taken over the past 20 years by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. These pertain to sewer overflows in the Valley’s collection system, most of which made their way into waterways, and effluent violations at the treatment plant on Eighth Street. (There’s a fairly complete database at the regional water board site, with links to most of the orders and details of incidents.)

• 1997: fine of $83,000 for 262 instances of exceeding effluent limitations for coliform, mercury and copper at the treatment plant and 62 sewer overflows, 1994-1997.
• 1999-2002: as a result of notices of violations, the sanitary district undertook a Wet Weather Overflow Prevention study that identified $45 million worth of high-priority repairs or replacements needed in the collection system.
• 2001: two fines totaling $248,400 for exceeding zinc, coliform and chlorine limits at the treatment plant, 1998-2000.
• 2003: water board began tightening overflow reporting because some agencies were inconsistently reporting problems. It began requiring SSMPs, which include protocols for responding to overflows and measures for preventing them.
• 2008: cease and desist order to achieve compliance with copper limits at plant
• 2011: fine of $348,400 for 41 violations, mostly sewer overflows, from May 2007-July 2010.
• 2011: fine of $12,000 for exceeding cyanide and chlorine limits at plant, 2010-2011.
• 2015: fine of $732,300 for 52 sewer overflows, and exceeding chlorine limits at the treatment plant, covering period August 2010- January 2015. Sixteen overflows occurred in the same places identified in the 2011 penalty. Part of the penalty ($50,000) was suspended and the money earmarked for a program to fix 29 private laterals by June 2019. This matter, along with a cease and desist order (below) and a potential citizen civil suit, was discussed by Supervisors in closed session April 14, 2015.
• 2015: the cease and desist order noted that 39 of the 46 overflows that reached waterways were caused by insufficient capacity in the collections system, and that the agency had fallen at least four years behind its capital projects plan to repair or replace high-priority sewer lines. Had the agency completed the Sonoma to Agua Caliente trunk line replacement by 2013 as scheduled, “this project would have eliminated or significantly reduced 39 of the 46 capacity-related SSOs (sanitary sewer overflows).” The County instead chose to pursue grants to help fund “a recycled water storage reservoir (completed construction in 2012 at an approximate cost of $2.3 M), the Napa Sonoma Salt Marsh reclaimed water pipeline (completed construction at an approximate cost of $5.5M) and biosolids handling facility upgrade (completed construction in 2014 at an approximate cost of $4.3 M).”   The water board also ordered the sanitary district to complete two trunk main replacements by 2024; complete a Sewer Capacity Study and schedule further needed improvements by August 1, 2016, along with a rate/funding structure to address issues identified in the order; and by July 1, 2016 prepare and consider adopting an ordinance to require testing and repair of private laterals.

Violations attract the attention of California River Watch, a citizens’ advocacy group whose lawyers file actions in many jurisdictions, as they are entitled to do under the Clean Water Act.   Since 1997, the CRW has obtained settlements in three suits against the Valley’s sanitation district.

In 2015 the district agreed to a settlement over the same issues for which they were fined $732,300 by the water board. They agreed to conduct assessments, within two years, of the condition of sewer mains within 200 feet of Agua Caliente, Sonoma, Fryer and Nathanson creeks, and on all other mains within seven years. They agreed to fix or replace pipes with significant defects. They agreed to contribute another $50,000 to the private sewer lateral replacement fund if a lateral ordinance is not enacted by July 1, 2016. They agreed to pay California River Watch $50,000 in legal and other costs. In return, California River Watch agreed not to commence other actions against the district for 7.5 years.

There is no point crying over spilt milk, or in this case, quite a lot of spilt money and sewage. But a valid question in this season of sewer discussions is — how does the County plan to move forward with much more public transparency around Valley sewer issues and priorities?