Groups float clean river plans

Environmentalists agree with government officials and industry leaders that it’s going to take a combination of treatment technology, water conservation, changed habits and improved agricultural practices to clean up the Spokane River and Long Lake.

But the two groups disagree on how a proposed new Spokane County sewage treatment plant fits into the picture.

Dischargers say the county should be allowed to build the plant and should be given 20 years to meet phosphorous pollution standards, as existing treatment plants are.

But the Sierra Club contends that any new pollution source must meet water quality requirements the day it opens.

Dischargers and the Sierra Club presented their plans Tuesday for how to clean up the Spokane River as part of a collaborative process initiated early this year.

It was the first real chance either group had to review and question the other’s ideas.

“Rather than stand on the other side of the fence from the environmental community and lob bombs back and forth, we invited their participation,” said Spokane Deputy Mayor Jack Lynch.

Sierra Club leaders, who released their plan last week, said they, too, are embracing the collaboration.

The Washington State Department of Ecology will ultimately decide which cleanup steps must be taken when it reviews both groups’ plans and presents its findings in December.

“It’s pretty clear we’re going to have a strong reuse program here and a strong conservation program here,” said Ecology’s chief water regulator, Dave Peeler, of both groups’ plans.

Bans on phosphates in dishwasher detergents and residential fertilizers have already been proposed.

The bottom line, however, is that improved technology at treatment plants is going to be a key factor, Peel said.

Dischargers are proposing a plan that starts with a city sewage plant and industrial pilot projects to test and later install different technologies to treat wastes. Some of the treated water would then be used to irrigate nearby golf courses and parks.

Local government will work to reduce residential water use by 5 percent to 15 percent.

The proposal also includes plans to spend $1 million a year on keeping phosphorous from entering the river from “non-point” sources like agricultural runoff and septic systems.

Avista would also add oxygen to Long Lake (also known as Lake Spokane) by aerating the reservoir formed by its Long Lake Dam.

The discharger group includes the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley, Spokane County, the Liberty Lake Sewer District, Coeur d’Alene, Kaiser, Avista and Inland Empire Paper Co., a subsidiary of Cowles Publishing Co., which also owns The Spokesman-Review.

The Sierra Club’s plan also calls for better treatment plant technology, reuse of treated wastewater and water conservation.

In addition, the group’s plan includes efforts to increase Spokane River flows by spilling more water at the Post Falls Dam and purchasing water rights, phosphate bans, enforcement of shoreline rules and non-point source improvements.

At issue is the total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollution the river can take. That level impacts the amount of dissolved oxygen in the Spokane River and Long Lake. Current phosphorous levels promote algae growth in the river and lake.

That algae then depletes the oxygen necessary for fish and other aquatic life.

Phosphorous enters the river from a variety of sources, including treated and untreated sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater run-off and sediments.

It is found in everything from dishwasher detergent to human waste.

Treatment plant upgrades and wastewater reuse should come first because they have the most predictable and measurable results, Tim Connor of the Sierra Club said last week. Other tactics can be used to fill the gap between those results and what is necessary to reach Ecology’s water quality standards, he said.

“Non-point (improvements) are notoriously more difficult to predict,” Connor said, adding that dischargers can’t claim credit for such phosphorous reductions until they can be proven.

The two plans appear far apart when it comes to the county’s proposed plant.

Without a new plant, Spokane County and Spokane Valley will likely run out of treatment capacity sometime between 2011 and 2013.

The county would have faced a capacity shortage by 2009 but bought itself more time earlier this year by making sewer system hookup voluntary when the pipes reach neighborhoods with septic tanks. It had been mandatory in the past.

But a new plant could not legally be permitted unless it doesn’t contribute to the pollution problem, said Rick Eichstaedt, an attorney representing the Sierra Club.

Also at stake, but outside Ecology’s control, are discharge permits for Kootenai County cities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is handling that process.

While Washington dischargers and local environmentalists expressed cautious optimism about the similarities of their plans, some at the meeting expressed concern that pollution control work on the Washington side of the border could be hampered if EPA permits Kootenai County cities to pollute the Spokane River too much.

“We don’t want the burden unnecessarily shifted to Washington dischargers,” said Eichstaedt.

The EPA is “not cutting secret deals” with Idaho dischargers, said Tom Eaton, director the EPA’s Washington state office.

Eaton added that Washington limits will be taken into account when Idaho permits are considered and issued.

North Idaho cities expect to be required to perform more advanced sewage treatment in the coming years, said Coeur d’Alene Wastewater Superintendent Sid Fredrickson.