December 20, 2009 in Opinion

Cleaner river worth the cost

• Print
• Email
• Share

The Spokane City Council is grappling with a hike in wastewater utility rates. With the right decision, the Spokane River will soon benefit from long-needed sewer system upgrades.

After years of delay, the dissolved oxygen cleanup plan for the river is about to issue. While ultimate limits are uncertain, it is understood that the city sewage plant must meet very low standards for phosphorus. Spokane is not alone. Several river dischargers in Washington and Idaho will be assigned similar limits. Spokane, however, is the biggest polluter on the river and what happens here will drive overall achievement of water quality goals.

Fortunately, the city is gearing up for the task. At the Riverside facility, six new trailer-size buildings have been dubbed “Treatment Town.” A pilot program is experimenting with several filtration technologies, mixing and matching to identify optimal phosphorus control. Initial results are positive, although another year of testing is needed. This experiment should also yield filtration control information for other critical pollutants, including PCBs, heavy metals and the contaminants found in pharmaceutical and personal care products.

In addition to treatment plant upgrades, the city is finally fixing its archaic wastewater transport system, which combines and dumps stormwater and untreated sewage into the river when it rains. Again, Spokane is not alone. Around the United States, 772 cities must eliminate their combined sewer systems, which are a menace to environmental and public health. Spokane has a generous deadline of 2017 to correct its system and is slowly replacing these noxious pipes with stormwater holding vaults. The city is accelerating removal of the worst overflow pipes as part of a legal settlement with Sierra Club to eradicate illegal “dry weather” overflows.

It is no surprise that these upgrades come at a cost. The city wastewater department estimates $750 million is needed over several decades to fund these essential fixes. Efforts are needed to obtain federal assistance, but Spokane residents, too, will have to pay. Utility rates are going up.

City Council members are naturally reluctant to raise utility rates, particularly during economic hard times. But there are positive ways of looking at the problem and several good reasons why city residents should support a rate increase.

First, improving water quality is good for the local economy. The Spokane River is one of the most polluted rivers in the state, which does not create a good image for our community. Civic commitment to river cleanup translates to improved quality of life as well as a positive economic environment. People want clean water.

Second, during summer months the Spokane River is simply too small to carry the wastes generated by a half-million people. Dilution used to be the solution to pollution, but no more. The city must reduce effluent into the river through wastewater reuse, water conservation and a rate structure that encourages efficient plumbing. But as long as the river serves as our sewage conduit to the Pacific Ocean, high-level treatment will be necessary.

Third, the city should count itself lucky. The final river cleanup plan allots a fourfold increase to the city’s phosphorus limit. Truly, cleanup obligations could be even more expensive.

Fourth, putting treated sewage effluent into the river is a privilege, not a right. The city must deliver clean water to our downstream neighbors, including Riverside State Park and Lake Spokane and Spokane Indian Reservation residents. The Clean Water Act prohibits the “out of sight, out of mind” pollution control mentality prevalent in earlier decades.

Finally, many parties are making major investments in a healthy Spokane River. Upstream, in the Coeur d’Alene Basin, Superfund activities include a new commitment of $583 million to control metals in the headwaters. Under its new license, Avista will spend $334 million over 50 years, much of it dedicated to water quality improvements. The Spokane River Web page on the Department of Ecology Web site describes substantial state efforts toward toxic cleanup.

Is the Spokane River worth all this effort? You bet it is.

Future generations will not look back and complain about utility rates. Rather, they will ask why more was not done to save the river. A healthy Spokane River could be the legacy of today’s Spokane City Council.

Rachael Paschal Osborn is Sierra Club’s Spokane River Project coordinator.

• Story
• Comments 04

Four comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Lewis on December 20 at 10:06 a.m.

  the average utility cost in spokane is 80 a month sure why not make it 100 or 125? with the county and city unions and this utility bill the average folks in spokane don't have a chance.

  i regret the day i moved back to spokane and bought a home here

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  JBlim on December 20 at 1:21 p.m.

  Unions are a convenient target for those who are too cheap to pay their fair share for maintaining basic services. Maybe the problem is you.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  dick adams on December 20 at 9:25 p.m.

  For gosh sakes, my city utility tax alone for this month is $40.00 and these parasites want even more loot. It may be time to picket city hall and stop paying for our utilities. That might just bring the ship of fools to think over another hike. Tighten the damn belt.

  Flag as inappropriate