📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Nevada County Grand Jury • 2003-2004

Wastewater Treatment in Western Nevada County

16 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 21 findings

All wastewater treatment plants that discharge to surface waters are issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that sets specific discharge requirements to ensure protection of public health and water quality. These permits are renewed every five years by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. At each renewal, the permit renewal process may incorporate new treatment objectives and discharge regulations that might require upgrades or modifications to the facility.

In the last year, testing of effluent (output) at wastewater treatment plants within Sanitation District No. 1 has revealed levels of contaminants that exceed CTR water quality criteria.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Orders implement EPA standards and require all treatment plants within Nevada County to meet a higher quality of water discharge to maintain their permits. Current plants will not remove trace contaminants as required by the new standards. Failing to meet discharge requirements may subject the plants to fines.

The LAFCO report indicates that given the current land use patterns and projected growth areas, it is impracticable to have one centralized regional wastewater system within Nevada County.

The report also states that it is inefficient and costly for the wastewater agencies to service projected growth through a series of small "package plants" and agencies/zones as has been done in the past. 6. "Package plants" must also meet the same water quality standards as large plants and, as a result, typically have higher costs and charges for property owners. The government structure is also affected. Since adoption of an ordinance in 1982, Nevada County has required some wastewater systems be operated by a public agency or to annex to an existing public agency. The result has been that either a very small district is formed or annexation to a public agency is required. A majority of the annexations has been to the Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, which now operates some systems with comparatively few customers.

The LAFCO report states ... "while on-site systems are often cited as a source of water quality degradation, there is little documentation to substantiate that claim. AB885 may require that the SWB adopt regulations for the permitting/operation of on-site systems."

LAFCO's report also noted that "package plants" cannot achieve the economies of scale required for efficient and cost-effective processing of wastewater.

The western Nevada County review commissioned by LAFCO estimated the current cost to meet CVB's discharge requirements for Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, including only Lake Wildwood, Lake of the Pines, Penn Valley, and Cascade Shores, at over $12 million.

Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1 projected maintenance and capital improvements at a higher cost than LAFCO. The cost for maintenance and capital

F10

The Lake Wildwood Wastewater Treatment Plant currently discharges into Deer Creek, which during many months of the year has little or no flow below the Lake Wildwood Dam. CTR standards must be met at the point of discharge. The consultant's

F11

The Lake Wildwood plant must comply with a new discharge permit by 2007. To have facilities constructed and operational by that time, the Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1 projects that it must select a treatment and disposal alternative, establish a new fee structure, start environmental studies and documentation, begin engineering during 2004, and complete design of those facilities by early 2005.

F12

The current proposal for Lake Wildwood would require a minimum upgrade to the treatment facility and would encapsulate Deer Creek's flow for much of the year in a pipe at a cost estimated at $5 million. The effluent would be transported around Deer Creek and thus conform to CVB's current point of discharge rule.

F13

Lake Wildwood individual sewer charges are projected to increase from $315 to $843 per year in order to comply with CVB's new requirements.

F14

The current proposal to meet the long-term needs of Lake of the Pines is to upgrade the treatment plant at its current location. The upgraded facility will discharge year-round to Magnolia Creek but provisions will be made to resume seasonal pastureland dispersal should it become desirable in the future.

F15

Estimates for sewer charge increases to fund the Lake of the Pines wastewater treatment plant upgrade are not firm at this time. The estimated construction costs to upgrade the Lake of the Pines wastewater treatment plant could cause individual sewer charges to increase from the current $315 to $1035 per year in 2006/07.

F16

The Cascade Shores wastewater treatment consists of a stream discharge system into Gas Canyon Creek. Built in 1996, it met the effluent discharge requirements then in effect. The wastewater discharge permit is up for renewal and requires the treatment plant be upgraded by 2006 to meet the new CVB requirements. In March 2004, Cascade Shores' charges increased from $910 to $1795 per year by order of Nevada County Board of Supervisors acting as the Board of Directors of the Sanitation District in ordinance No. SD-46. Proposed disposal options are still being evaluated.

F17

The County is handing the cost of meeting toxic rule requirements to those communities that have separate water treatment plants.

F18

Nevada County is charging for wastewater treatment improvements on residents' tax bills. The California Attorney General warns that such charges do not have a "direct relationship to property ownership." There is legal uncertainty in the State as to whether such charges constitute a tax increase (forbidden by various propositions) or a permissible fee for service assessment.

F19

Grant funds were reported by County-employed consultants to be unavailable on September 16, 2003 at a Lake Wildwood community outreach meeting. An article in The Union on November 20, 2001 alluded to an $85,000 grant requested by the Nevada County Resources Conservation District of the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. The grant had been turned down due to a lack of 50 percent matching funds. On January 27, 2003, The Union reported that the Yuba Watershed Council "had received $1.2 million in grants from the $1 billion Clean Water Act passed in 1996." On March 8, 2003 The Union reported that Nevada City was "applying for a U.S. Department of Agriculture rural development grant" to improve their wastewater treatment plant. The same consultants reported grant funds to be under study on March 9, 2004.

F20

Funding to meet these requirements is unbudgeted. If the county cannot obtain federal or grant funding, the current plan is to pass on the costs of each project to the property owners served.

F21

The United States Code, previously cited, states that it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance would be provided for wastewater treatment plant upgrades. CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations 5

R1

The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department of Transportation and Sanitation to address wastewater processing in western Nevada County with a master plan. Efforts to address individual wastewater treatment upgrades that are not cost-effective should be abandoned once the master plan is implemented.
R2

The Board of Supervisors should evaluate the LAFCO report's recommendation that: "The western Nevada County wastewater agencies should also consider ways to provide regional wastewater services either through an informal group or a long-term, legal arrangement such as a joint powers authority (JPA). Even if existing systems could not be shared, regional services that could be shared or coordinated might include developing approved standards lists, standardizing specifications and drawings, and agreeing on design manuals in order to have a standardized regional system. Wastewater providers could also act as a single unit for lobbying, funding/grant efforts, preparing master plans, and outsourcing services such as engineering, legal services, information services, lab testing, printing, insurance, audits, landscaping, billing, and vehicle purchase/maintenance in order to realize costs savings."
R3

The Board of Supervisors should vigorously assert their influence with state and federal legislators as to the financial impacts to county residents as cities and counties and especially smaller treatment plants react to meet the more stringent requirements for wastewater treatment.
R4

Board of Supervisors should evaluate alternative ways of recovering the costs of wastewater treatment services, e.g., attaching the charges to water bills as some percentage of water used.
R5

The Board of Supervisors should direct the Department of Transportation and Sanitation to seek out grant money to assist in meeting the challenges facing the County with renewal of treatment plant permits.