By Clarence Cromwell
Experts hired by the city of Saratoga and environmentalist groups agree that the city isn't complying with water-quality standards set out in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan.
But their dispute about whether the city should have to comply remains to be settled in court.
The city hired Rhea Williamson, an associate professor at San Jose State University, in January to scrutinize creek water reports and determine whether bacteria levels in Saratoga Creek are higher than those in other Bay Area creeks. She was also to try to determine possible sources of bacteria in the creek.
Williamson said Saratoga is in violation of the San Francisco Bay Area Basin Plan, which sets a limit of 200 fecal coliform organisms per 100 milliliters of creek water, and that the city must comply with the plan as a condition of its permit to let storm water flow into the creek. Some tests revealed more than 1,600 of the organisms per 100 milliliters of creek water.
But Williamson said that many of the creeks have comparable levels of bacteria and the city shouldn't be concerned. "Most of the creeks in the San Francisco Bay Area are out of compliance; some things are unenforceable."
She explained that the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board usually doesn't penalize cities that make an effort, even a gradual one, to move toward standards set in the basin plan.
Both sides in the dispute added their consultants' declarations to reams of evidence in a case filed against the city by Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks and San Francisco Baykeeper. The case, filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland, alleges that the city isn't doing enough to keep creeks clean.
The ruling, originally expected March 19, has been delayed by a second change in judges on the case. No new hearing date has been set.
The Friends have monitored bacteria in creek water approximately every three months since 1992. But Williamson downplayed the organisms' significance.
"The presence of fecal coliform in water does not indicate that there is a sewage problem," Williamson said. "Remember that fecal coliform are used as an indicator. They do not mean that there is a discharge."
Fecal coliform bacteria don't make humans sick. They live in the digestive tracts of warm-blooded animals, including humans. Scientists test for them because when fecal coliform levels are high, more harmful types of feces-borne bacteria may also be present.
Williamson said that although the level of fecal coliform organisms could be considered high, the number of fecal streptococci, another bacteria, were too low to indicate sewage in the creek.
Williamson hypothesized that animal droppings, restaurant grease spills into storm drains or standing water in the storm drain pipes could result in higher bacteria counts in the water.
Associate Engineer Steve Moore of the water-quality board confirmed Williamson's statements, saying the board's "unwritten policy" is not to penalize cities for levels of bacteria exceeding the basin plan's objectives.
He said coliform levels are "easily skewed by natural factors."
"Urban creeks in this region and anywhere around the country are going to be elevated above what would be pristine levels," Moore said.
"The way storm water is handled is through the permit," Moore said. "And the permit does not contain numeric limits."
The permit, he said, does require compliance with the basin plan. But rather than impose penalties, the board requires a jurisdiction to write and implement a stormwater management plan. The plans include steps to lower levels of bacteria, such as finding illegal sewer connections, or warning businesses and residents not to dump garbage or sewage in storm drains.
Saratoga has such a plan.
John Rosenblum, a civil engineering consultant from Sebastopol, countered that bacteria levels should be investigated, and that the city should be forced to clean up the creek more quickly. He wrote a declaration, dated Feb. 5, supporting Baykeeper and the Friends.
"I know the regulatory agencies' stance on these things," said Rosenblum, who helps industrial clients conform to environmental laws. " 'It's so prevalent, gee whiz, let it go.' But you can't say, because certain conditions are prevalent, that no action is required."
"It's not really a technical issue," Rosenblum continued. "Once you've got the regulation on the books, okay, let's comply with it."
Rosenblum said water-quality objectives are not enforced because the board lacks sufficient resources.
"It's a big problem, and they haven't the adequate personnel to deal with it," Rosenblum said. "Because they can't do everything all the time for everyone, it's a question of what's the priority.
"It really seems as though the enforcement is based on the personnel needs of the regional water-quality control board."
The answer, according to Rosenblum, is for citizens to take their local government to court and force the cleanup of creeks. The federal Clean Water Act allows for such lawsuits when regulatory agencies can't or won't enforce the law.
He added that, although fecal streptococci counts in Saratoga Creek were low, the presence of any streptococci at all calls for a careful search for sewer leaks that may flow into the storm drains.
Hank Bates, the attorney for the Friends and Baykeeper, also said the city should still clean up Saratoga Creek, regardless of whether other creeks are polluted.
He said Williamson "is right in the sense that many creeks suffer from urban runoff pollution. That's the problem. And that's what the permit is addressed to remedy."
This article appeared in the Saratoga News, March 20, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved