11/18/10
Arcata's acclaimed wastewater treatment marshes may be at a crossroads -- and city officials say possibly a dead end -- as the city and water quality regulators struggle over how the wetlands should be managed in the future. The city is worried that an apparent shift in how the marshes are viewed by regulators could force it to spend millions to develop a new treatment system and potentially imperil the marshes that have become a haven for thousands of waterfowl, shorebirds and other wildlife, as well as the general public. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, however, isn't convinced that the way the wastewater is treated now is best for the marshes and their ecology. Essentially, water board staff believe that the marshes, into which treated wastewater flows before eventually being discharged into Humboldt Bay, are subject to federal Clean Water Act regulations. They are “waters of the United States,” according to the regulators. That would mean that the wastewater -- which is first treated in a series of ponds and small marshes -- must meet certain limits for suspended solids and other criteria before being sent into the Allen, Gearheart and Hauser marshes. That could require the city to more thoroughly treat the wastewater first, instead of allowing the marshes to do some of the work they were designed to do, cleaning the water before it goes into the bay. But Arcata doesn't believe that the marshes have ever been considered “waters of the United States,” defined by the Clean Water Act as waters used for commerce, wetlands, lakes, streams or the territorial sea. That's because the city built the marshes on former industrial land, much of which was even paved, and they were built to serve the purpose of treating wastewater before it's discharged into the bay they border. The water board's stance on the issue has clearly touched nerves at the city. Mayor Alex Stillman said in an e-mail that the treatment system is working exactly how it was envisioned when it was created in the 1970s and that its success has been replicated worldwide. She asked why the city should have to spend thousands of dollars to “re-educate” water board staff. Board Executive Officer Catherine Kuhlman said that the distinction shouldn't matter much -- it's where the state and the city want to spend time and money, and what they want to accomplish on the ground. Kuhlman said it's an open question whether the marshes were built to be solely a part of the wastewater system, and that either way, they need to be protected from pollutants that flow into them. Water Board Senior Resource Engineer John Short, in an Oct. 28 letter to the city, wrote that the board provided money for the initial pilot study that proved the feasibility of the marsh project, provided grant funds for construction and waived a discharge requirement to allow treated wastewater to be released into the bay. If the city eliminates treated wastewater from the marshes, Short wrote, that waiver would be in question. One marsh pioneer, environmental engineer Robert Gearheart, said that board staff haven't made it clear what standards the city may have to meet in the new permit. That makes if difficult to know whether the city will be able to switch to a UV treatment system and eliminate the use of chlorine. ”It sets up a whole different set of conditions,” Gearheart said. Ultimately, Gearheart said, it may come down to a political decision on how to regulate the treatment system -- and until then, the future of the marshes may be up in the air.
