Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 4347• f ORIGINAL RESOLUTION NO. 4347 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ENDORSING AND SUPPORTING STATEMENT OF POSITION OF SOUTH BAY SEWAGE DISCHARGERS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD WHEREAS, San Francisco apparent that effluent the Porter -Cologne Act and recent actions of the Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board make it cities and districts of the South Bay discharging into the southern part of the San Francisco Bay will be required to make major decisions that will involve additional huge expenditures of public funds; and WHEREAS, these public agencies discharging effluent into the southern part of the San Francisco Bay have organized for purposes of establishing a set of criteria to be used in the selection of a consultant to review specific portions of Phase I of the Bay -Delta Report and its implementation, including an action program leading to the early elimination of discharge below the Dumbarton Bridge or one of the alternatives in said report; and WHEREAS, representatives of these agencies have met and it has become apparent that there are serious questions whiL.i must be answered and information obt .ined prior to asking the citizens of these discharging communities to expend literally hundreds of millions of dollars on proposed action; and WHEREAS, representatives of these agencies have prepared,. and the City Council has reviewed, a statement which raises specific questions, states possible alternative solutions to the problem of effluent discharge and bay pollution, sets forth a statement of policy and position, and proposes schedules for action; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: -1- ei J..I 062/4 1. That water quality and the environment in which man lives are of the utmost importance today; 2. That every effort should be made by all citizens and govern- ment agencies to improve the quality of man's environment and to make every reasonable effort possible to rebate pollution; 3. That the City Council endorses and supports the questions raised, alternative solutions suggested, and the policy and position statement set forth in the 'Statement of the South Bay Sewage Dischargers to the San Francisco Bay Regioral, Water Quality Control Board" attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and urges the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to review and study in detail the suggestions, questions and alternatives set forth therein prior to taking any action which may jeopardize the welfare and wellbeing of the citizens of the South Bay communities. 4. That the City Council requests the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to join with the cities and districts of the South Bay in developing specific quality criteria, a study of all alternative means of meeting those criteria, an action program and a financing plan. 5. That the City Council requests the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to suspend any further considera- tion of including in its Water Quality Control'Plan a prohibi- tion of all waste discharge into San Francisco Bay south,of Dumbarton Highway Bridge to the detriment of those jurisdictions who have demonstrated cooperation and who have taken significant action to improve the quality of bay waters until the questions relating to criteria and alternatives have been further studied and acreed upon. 5. That the City C uncil commends the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for the work that has been -2- done in the past to help improve the quality of the water in the San Francisco Bay. 7. That the City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: April 20, 1970 AYES: Arnold, Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Comstock, Dias, Gallagher, Norton, Spaeth, Wheatley NOES: Pearson ABSENT: Nahe ATTEST: 11/4 1:4( City Clerk fJ v Mayor APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: • • STATE? 1 NT O1' THE SOUTH BAY SEWE•.G?? DISCHARGERS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD With the passage of the Porter -Cologne Act, and because of recent actions of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Board, it is apparent that the communities of the South Bay are going to be under constant pressure to make major decisions that could involve huge expenditures of the Public Funds over the next few years. Of particular interest to our group is that portion of the Bay lying south of the Dumbarton Bridge. While all communities and their citizens in the South Bay feel that the matter is of extreme importance, we believe that there are many important problems that must be resolved and questions answered prior to undertaking any sizable project. Several months ago, the communities discharging in the Bay south of'the Dumbarton Bridge were approached by a member of the staff of the State Water Resources Board and a member of the staff of the Regional Board who encouraged those communities to join together in an effort to remove all effluent froiu the southern extremity of the Bay. It was proposed at a u?ncting "1\ Zvi in Noverub. r of 191)9 in Szn .ivsc t::c.t cc;1'. itte be formed by the various dibchargers to establish a set of criteria to be used in the selection of a consultant to review specific portions of Phase I of the Kaiser report and how they could be implemented by the South Bay communities. It seemed apparent to us that the only acceptable solution seemed EXH!B�T /1-_' • -2- to be the construction of a deep water outfall line to dis- charge in the Central Bay. A committee was formed and has met several times. Those dischargers represented were: Union Sanitary District, Milpitas Sanitary District, Menlo Park Sanitary District, San Jose -Santa Clara, City of .Sunnyvale, City of Palo Alto, City of Livermore, and City of Pleasanton. While it seems apparent that such an out - fall line might meet the immediate desires of the presently constituted Regional Board, we believe there are serious .questions that must be answered before our citizens are asked to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars: 1. It is requested that the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control. Beard and the State Water Resources board guarantee the dischargers that if the outfall is constructed, treatment and dis- cha.:ge requirements would be fixed to a 30 -year period.in order that the dischargers would have time to design, construct and pay off the debts incurred by the construction of the outfall. The dischargers should be involved in formulating any requirements that may ue estabiisii d. 2. That the Boards establish the limits of the drainage area served by the outfall. 3. That the Boards permit the alternative of constructing the outfall along the bottom of South San Francisco Bay. 4 That the Boar -acs approve the use of holden ponds to store PP S excess.treated, chlorinated effluent during wet season peak flows so that smaller outfalls can be utilized. 5. That the Boards establish the required depth of water above the, outfall diffusor. 6. That the Boards. accept 5.0 mg./J. dissolved oxygen as a permanent standard for the receiving waters of the Central Bay. TOXICITY: Survival of test fishes in 96 hour bioassays of the water consisting of one part effluent and nine of diluting bay water (it is anticipated that the actual dilution in Bay would be at least 25.). 1. Any sample - 70% minimum 2. The average of any three (3) or more such consecu- ' tive samples collected - during 21 or more days 90% minimum 7. Are standards for storm waters entering the bay through storm drains or flood control channels going to be es- tablished? 8. If all effluent from the Water Pollution Control Plants of the South Bey dischargers were to he removed from the South Bay, evaporation and other water losses would exceed the inflow from the creeks along the South Bay during the summer. Under these conditions, waters from the Central Bay and the effluents discharged to the Central Bay would work their way back to the South Bay and might cause undesirable -4- • 8. conditions there. If this were to occur, it is suggested that the Boards diligently work towards getting a portion of the river waters diverted from the bay, transported to the South Bay and used to upgrade the quality of the bay water at the expense of the State. What action will the Boards take if no dilution water were available at that time? 9. Experts have stated that the prohibition of discharge may not be the only acceptable solution to the South Bay problem. From the above, it is clear that by taking action at this time, establishing a prohibition of waste water discharge to the waters of San Francisco Bay south of Dumbarton Highway Bridge, such action would clearly restrict the study of viable alternatives of waste -water treatment and disposal resulting from present and im- pending important studies by both State and local agencies. We believe that such unreasonable restrictions would not be in the best interest of the public and therefore should not be adopted. In making this Statement, we are cognizant that at the present time the State Water Resources Board is sponsoring two fundamentally important studies, one on "Bay Dispersion Capability" and the other on "Toxicity and Biostimu.lation." Both of these studies will unquestionably be of significance in respect to the ability of the South Bay to accept highly treated wastewater while maintaining conditions of high water quality. We strongly believe that the sewering agencies of the South Bay should have the benefit of the results of these studies _v for to making any final determination in respect to South Bay wastewater discharge prohibition. This statement is also made with full awareness that definite steps are being taken at the present time to formulate a South Bay Study for the purpose of providing a coordinated, areawide plan for wastewater treatment and disposal to meet as yet to be defined ulti- mate objectives. Fundamental part of this study should be the evaluation and determination of all ecological factors relating to the South Bay water environment in crder to promulgate and encourage adoption of realistic water quality objectives beyond present objectives for which a plan may be developed. In the formu- lation of this plan, we believe it is essential that study of alter- natives shall not be severely restricted by imposition of a pre- mature, pre -determined objective, the prohibition of wastewater discharge to the South Bay. In order to insure that the public's best interest is fully safeguarded, we believe it is essential that alternatives for ultimate disposition of South Bay wastewater should include study of at least: 1. Combination of South Bay disposal of highly treated waste- water and reclamation for beneficial reuse. 2. South Bay disposal with altered physical characteristics of South Bay area to•provide greater flushing. 3. Combination of export and reclamation for beneficial reuse. 4. Combination of export and South Bay disposal of highly treated wastewaters. S. Export of all wastewater to the Central Bay or Pacific Ocean. • _6 Relative to the necessity for study of alternatives, it is well to remember the fundamental principle that for a given amount of public funds available that monies spent on wastewater trans- portation facilities as the alternative to wastewater treatment facilities may well prove to be inimical to the overall interests -of both water. pollution control, reclamation and beneficial reuse. In other words, in this particular matter, we would encourage the Board to consider the implications of pre -committing the pnhl i.c agencies now discharging wastewater to the South Bay to a massive program of expensive pipelines in order to export wastewater from the area when the monies spent for pipelines might otherwise have been used to accomplish high orders of "secondary" and "tertiary" wastewater treatment and thus could well serve the public's best - interest in both respect to water pollution control and maximizing the availability of reclaimed water for local beneficial reuse. We do not agree that at the present time there is sufficient technical evidence to support the idea that limited assimilating capacity makes mandatory future wastewater export from the area. The remarkable improvement in South Bay water quality during the 1960's, the direct result of new treauneni. facilities p oviding higher levels of wastewater treatment prior to South Bay discharge, and this in the face of unprecedented population and industrial increases, contradict any such assumption at this time. The following are our concluding recommendations: 1. That the various State and Federal agencies involved in setting and enforcing requirements for water quality in the Bay get together and formulate uniform and reasonable water quality objectives. and standards, and that these standards remain in effect for 30 years. • • - 7 - • 2. That the State complete existing studies and expand them to include those investigations and alternatives mentioned herein. •)3.. That once these studies are complete and the required facilities are definitely determined, action will pro- ceed with the necessary organization and engineering to design and construct said facilities with the help of all available State and Federal Funds. 4. That the State of California sponsor a bond measure to provide matching funds for water pollution control projects in the amount of 257 in order to increase the :Federal contribution to 50% (or 5570 since this will be a regional project) . 5. That before any punitive action is taken by the Regional or State Boards, all consequences be considered. For instance, a building moratorium or heavy fine would. bring economic ruin to the area and could defeat any chances of financing a major water quality project. What could occur would be a direct conflict with other Federally -sponsored projects such as housing for the poor and minority -job training, parks and open space • development, and other needed programs. In conclusion, it is needless to say that improvement of water quality is one of the most pressing issues of our day. We therefore are ready to join with you in this program. APPENDIX Bay Delta Study JULY 1970 JAN. 1973 • - Regional Agency Formed - Preliminary Plans and Estimates NAY 1973 - Bond Election JULY 1973 - District Formed JULY 1975 - Contract JULY 1980 - Completion of Project Proposed Timetable APRIL 1970 - Formulation of Sub -Regional Group JULY 1970 JAN. 1973 MAY 1973 JULY 1973 JULY 1975 JULY 1980 Contract for South Bay Study - Completion of South Bay Study Bond Election - District Formed Contract Completion of Project • CITY OF PALO ALTO INTER -OFFICE COMMUNICATION To City Clerk Date April 21, 1970 From Secretary to C.M. Department SUBJECT Item #8 - April 20 Agenda Mr. Morgan would like to have an executed copy of this resolution to take with him on Thursday, April 23, when he attends the Regional Water Quality Control Board meeting in San Jose. The exhibits for this resolu- tion are attached. I will appreciate any -thing you might do to expedite the execution of this resolution. se non°