Users spar over river

It was a spirited debate over the Spokane River’s future.

Many of the nearly 150 people who attended a hearing Tuesday night in Spokane spoke passionately of their love for the river and urged the Washington Department of Ecology to act soon to enact strict proposed pollution cleanup standards.

In 30 years in Spokane, the river “has been a centerpiece for me of relaxation and spiritual renewal,” said Dr. Richard Rivers, conservation chairman of the Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club.

“I have a simple message for you: Do not weaken and do not delay the implementation of these (cleanup) strategies,” Rivers said to applause at the formal public hearing.

Rondi Thorp, an attorney with property along the Spokane River, said she worries whether her nieces and nephews who swim near her beach are safe.

“This is not what we should have to be asking. Any further delay is unacceptable. I’m extremely disappointed in city and county officials seeking to lower water quality standards. It’s almost 2005 – it’s amazing that we still allow raw sewage in the river,” Thorp said.

Others, representing municipal and industrial dischargers with pipes in the river, said Ecology’s plan, called a Total Maximum Daily Load, is too expensive and unlikely to achieve its goal of enhancing dissolved oxygen levels to protect fish and water quality during low flows in the summer months.

Bruce Rawls, Spokane County utilities director, was blunt as he argued for a less stringent phosphorus limit than what Ecology has proposed.

“I’d like to know who in this room doesn’t poop or pee. I clean up your pollution … we all agree we need to clean up the river,” Rawls said.

But Ecology’s plan could require the five wastewater treatment plants along the river from Hayden to Spokane to spend millions more in ratepayer dollars than the advanced filtration system the county has proposed, Rawls said.

“My customers don’t make as much money as Dr. Rivers does – and they’ll have to pay for it,” Rawls said.

Even with Ecology’s plan in effect, dissolved oxygen levels in Lake Spokane (also called Long Lake) won’t meet state water quality standards, said John Spencer of CH2M Hill. Spencer is a consultant to the industrial dischargers who are pressing for a less stringent plan that removes 99 percent of the phosphorus from their effluent.

Ecology hasn’t been responsive to innovative ideas about reusing industrial effluent – a way to reduce phosphorus going into the river – said Kevin Rasler of Inland Empire Paper Co. at Millwood. The company is an affiliate of Cowles Publishing Co., which also owns The Spokesman-Review.

In 1996, the paper company planted 2.5 acres of poplars and proposed using effluent water to irrigate them, Rasler said. Ecology dropped its support for the project after negative publicity from neighbors. “It’s ironic that they’re now a proponent of land application,” he noted.

The fight between Ecology and the industrial and municipal dischargers is counterproductive, said an Idaho environmental engineer.

Jim Kimball, who designed Hayden’s land application system for its sewage effluent, said Ecology’s 10 microgram-per-liter goal for oxygen-gobbling phosphorus in the river “can’t be met” and won’t help the Spokane River as a whole.

“We need more flow in the Spokane River. Everyone in this room is a polluter – we have to work together,” Kimball said.

Ecology has determined there’s no more assimilative capacity in the river for phosphorus and other oxygen-reducing pollutants, Ecology’s Ken Merrill said. The agency is seeking a 42 percent phosphorus reduction from April through May and a 62 percent reduction from June to October.

“The (pollution) generators will have to cut back. There is no margin of safety in this TMDL,” Merrill said.

Ecology will take public comments on its river cleanup plan until Dec. 31. It will also receive a counter-proposal from the dischargers, called a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA), by the end of the year. The UAA will argue that Ecology’s cleanup plan is too expensive for the region’s ratepayers.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will make the final call on the cleanup plan. A UAA, which seeks to lower water quality standards and protect the river’s current use by industry and cities, has never been approved in Washington state.