HomeMy WebLinkAbout591 RESOLUTION NO.. 591
A RESOLUTION F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS
0
HILLS ENDORSING AND SUPPORTING STATEMENT OF POSITION OF SOUTH
BAY SEWAGE DISCHARGERS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD.
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos
Hills , California, that
WHEREAS, the Porter-Coigne Act and recent actions of the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board make it
apparent that cities and districts of the South Bay discharging
effluent into the southern part of the San Francisco Bay will
be required to make major decisions that may 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 which
must be answered and information obtained 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
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 as well as proposed action schedules which this
Council has reviewed;
ROBIN D. FAISANT
ATTORNEY AT LAW
750 WELCH ROAD
-PALO ALTO, CALIF. 94304
(415) 328-6333
-1-
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the Town of Los Altos Hills that:
1. Water quality and the environment in which man lives
are of the utmost importance today;
2 . Every effort should be made by all citizens and
government agencies to improve the quality of man's environment
and make every reasonable effort possible to abate pollution;
3 . 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 Regional 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 well-being of the citizens
of the South Bay Communities ;
4. The Town of Los Altos Hills requests the San
Francisco 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 meeting those criterion,
an action program and financing plan;
5 . The Town of Los Altos Hills requests that the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board postpone any
further consideration of amending their Water Quality Control
Plan to include a prohibition of all waste discharge into San
Francisco Bay south of Dumbarton Highway Bridge until the
questions relating to criterion and alternatives have been
further studied and agreed upon;
6. The City Clerk be authorized and hereby is directed
to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the San Francisco
ROBIN D. FAISANT
ATTORNEY,AT LAW
750 WELCH ROAD
PALO ALTO, CALIF. 94304
(415) 328-6333
-2-
1
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that. the foregoing Resolution was
regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the Town of Los Altos Hills held on the 20th day
of April, 1970, by the following roll call vote:
AYES : Councilmen Benson, Helgesson, Mayor Aiken
NOES : Councilman Davey
ABSENT: Councilman Fowle
ATTEST:
•Nty C er
APPROVED:
Mayor
ROBIN D. FAISANT
ATTORNEY AT LAW
750 WELCH ROAD
-PALO ALTO, CALIF. 94304
(415) 328-6333
-3-
' EXHIBIT "TATT .
1111
STATEMENT' OF THE SOUTH BAY •SE'V .GE DISCHARGERS TO THE
CANcFPANCiSCO B; F Y REGIONALVA'P QUALITY CONTROL BOARD •
ith tbe passage of the Porter...Cologrse Acts and because of recent actions
•
Of the an. - 'w an.cisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board and the .
o state Water Resources Board, it is apparent that the communities of the South •
';S 3y 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 in the South
While all communities and their citizens in the South Bay feel that.the
• le.iatte 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
•
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
1 encouraged those communities to join together in an effort to study the feasi-
- • .;:_lith of removing all effluent: from the southern extremity of the Bay and to
explore all other alternatives . It was proposed at a meeting
nb held in November
•
- J'"' 1969 in San Jose that a committee be formed by the various dischargers to
3 ablis 1 a set of criteria to be used in the selection of a consultant to .review
• specific portions o. Phase I of the Kaiser report and how they could be ixriple-
•
• -men..ted by the South Bay communities . it seemed apparent to us that the
:.solution most acceptable to State officials seemed to be the construction of a
deep water outfall line to discharge in the Central Bay. A committee was formed
EXHIBIT "ATT _ ,
and has met several times. Those dischargers represented were;
Jn_Len Sanitary District, Milpitas Sanitary District, Menlo Park
Sanitary District San Jose-Santa Clara, City of Sunnyvale, City
of faro` Alto, City of Livermore, and City of. Pleasanton. While
i€ seems apparent that such an outfall line might meet the im-
:nediate desires of the 33resently 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 Board and the State
. Water Resources Board guarantee he dischargers
that if the outfall is constructed, treatment and
•
discharge requirements would be fixed to a 30-year
_ period in order that the dischargers would have
gine 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 be established,
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
4 That the Boards approve the use of holding .ponds to
store excess treated, chlorinated effluent during
•
yet.. ;season peak flows so that smaller outfalls can
be utilized.
5. That the Boards establish the required depth of water
above the outfall diffusor,
. That the Boards accept 5 ,0 mg/1 dissolved oxygen as
a =permanent standard for the receiving waters of the
Central Bay and that the Boards further accept a re-
ceiving water toxicity requirement such that the
survival of test fishes in 96-hour bioassays performed
with :diluted tater consisting of one part effluent and
nine parts Bay water (it is anticipated that the actual
dilution in Bay would be at least 25) shall for any one
sample show a 70% minimum survival and for the average
of any three or more such consecutive samples collected
over any 21 or more days show a 90% minimum survival.
'7. . Are standards for storm waters entering the Bay through
storm drains or flood control channels going to be
established?
8 If all effluent from the Water Pollution Control Plants
of the. South Bay dischargers were to be 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
' I
and mio-ht cause undesirable conditions there,. lr this
were to occu. IL is suggested that the Boards diligently
• :pork towards getting a portion of the river waters d
r;e_tcd.. _ rom the bay, transported to the South Bay and
used to upgrade the duality of the riay water at the
expense of the State. What action will the Boards take
if no dilution water were available at that time?
?
Experts have stated that the prohibition of. discharge T?lay.
sot be the only acceptable solution to the South Bay problem.
•
From the above; it :is clear that by taking action at this
nee "arab_isningj a prohibition of waste water discharge to the
_...raters of San Francisco Bay south of Dumbarton highway Bridge, such -
dict, would clearly restrict the study of viable r^a ._t_erna.t' ves of
Yi_L3 oseSti1-L.Jl.lu £cora _,L..~scat and
oending 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 Sete Water Resources Board is sponsoring two fundamentally
important studies, one on l''Bay Dispersion Capability" and trie
other on "Toxicity and Biostimulation.' Both of these studies will
unquestionably he of significance i
7n 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
_ >tudy for the purpose of providing a coordinated. ctreawide plan for
}•„ ass`ec'Tater WtoE re 7
treatment and disposal met a.� yet to h,� defined inti
_jute objectives . Fundamental part of this study should be the
evaluation and determination of all ecological factors relating
to the South Bay water environment in order to promulgate and
encourage adoption of realistic water quality obi;ecti Yes beyond
;resent objectives for which a plan may be developed. In the iormu-
; .Yat?on of this plan, we believe it is essential that study of alter-
nat3ves shall not be severely restricted by imposition of a pre-
mature, pre-determined oarl ective, the prooibition of wastewater
discharge to the South Bay,
In order to insure that the public ' s best interest is fully
afeguarded, we believe it is essential that alternatives for ultimate
disposition of South Bay wastewater should include study of at least
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 de greater flushing.
3. Combination of export and reclamation for Cobeneficial. reuse.
4. Combination of export. and South Bay disposal of highly
treated wastewaters .
5. Export of all wastewater to i he Central eeay or Pacific
Ocean.
. Relative to the n°ecessily 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-
portati on facilities as the alternative to wastewater treatment
<_aciliti•es may well prove to be. inimical to the overall interests
,f both water pollution control, reclamation and beneficial :"else.
In other words, in this particular matter , we wouldencourage the
Board to consider the implications ications of pre-committing the public
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 highorders of ` secrr dar scand ". et DiaryU
iste"ia4 er treatment anCthus could
well serve t: e public ' s best
Interest
in both respect to water pollution control and maximizing
the availability of reclaimed water for local beneficial reuse.
T..7e 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
l960 ' s, the direct result of new treatment facilities providing
nigher levels of wastewater treatment prior to South Bay discharge,
and this in the face of unprecedented population and ?ndustrial .
• increases, contradict any such assumption at this time,
•
The following are our concluding recorrnTiendations
_ 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
.
2„ That' the State complete existing studies and expand
them to include those investigations and alternatives
- Illen tioned herein.
3 That once these studies are complete and the required
face lit"les are defi nicely determi red m action will pro-
-
i
' :eed 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 s bond measure to
_ ?rov?de matching funds for water .pollution control
_ projects in the amount of 25% in order toincrease the
Federal contribution to 50% (or 55% since this will
be a regional. project).
-
That beforeany 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
g; lances o± financing a major water quality project.
khat could occur would be a direct conflict with other
Pedern3ly -sponsored Projects such ashousing for. - � otls� ll_� tY'le
poor and minority-job training, parks and open space
revelopinent, 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 withyou in this program,
n: : ` : :. APPENDIX �.
•
Bay .Delta Study Proposed Timetable
APRIL 197.0 Formulation of
Sub-Regional Group
JULY1970 - Regional Agency JUDY 1970 - Contract for South
wormed Bay Study
JAN. 1973 - Preliminary Plans JAN. 1973 Completion of South
and Estimates Bay Study
MAY 1973 - Bond Election JAN, 1974 - Bond Election
JULY 1973 - District Formed JAN. 1974 District Formed
JULY 1975 - Contract JULY 1975 - Contract
JULY 1980 - Completion of JULY 1980 - Completion of
_ Project Project
•
•