Yes, there is always something to nit-pick over, isn't there? But let's just start with the words of Condition 97 in the Coastal Development Permit for the sewer before we get into the details of the protest.
Condition 97 of the CDP (Here is the whole thing.)
97. Disposal of treated effluent shall be reserved for the following sites/uses in the Los Osos Groundwater Basin:
a. Broderson (not to exceed 448 AFY on an average annual basis),
b. Urban re-use within the urban reserve line (as identified in the Effluent Re-Use and Disposal Tech Memo, July 2008),
c. Agricultural re-use overlying the Los Osos Groundwater Basin,
d. Environmental reservations (not less than 10% of the total volume of treated effluent).
Total agricultural re-use shall not be less than 10% of the total treated effluent. Disposal shall be prioritized to reduce seawater intrusion and return/retain water to/in the Los Osos groundwater basin. Highest priority shall be given to replacing potable water uses with tertiary treated effluent consistent with Water Code Section 13550.
No amount of treated effluent may be used to satisfy or offset water needs that result from non-agricultural development outside the Urban Reserve Line of the community of Los Osos.
Certain members of the public are trying to rouse a rallying cry around the contract that the County let to an agriculturalist last November. They claim because this farm is not over the basin, there is no sea water mitigation, therefore we should go back to the Coastal Commission and get this 10% of recycled water going to agricultural use changed (to what else is unclear).
But isn't this just a tad soon? The plant hasn't even started construction yet and won't be finished for a couple more years when water delivery can begin. Over-the-basin farmers may come on board. Don't we want to trade the recycled water for the drinkable groundwater that they pump to use on their crops?
Granted, it took twenty years of education to get the farmer's acceptance for using recycled water on crops in Monterey County. But a lot of that educational work has been done and absorbed by farmers everywhere, especially pushed home with the specter of drought that afflicts many areas in California and wells that start pulling up brackish water. It wouldn't necessarily take twenty years here to get more farmers interested in this program.
The farmers over the basin are basically being asked to trade their groundwater that they would normally pump for the recycled water that the plant would provide. They sit over the same basin that we do. They face the same water challenges that we do, and according to water law in California, they get first dibs on ground water, not us. These are the same people just a few years back that had fifty members of their area sign a protest petition against putting our sewage in their neck of the woods, rather than in town, its origination point. Maybe they'd like to see how this all rolls out? Maybe they would like to see how considerate the conditions of the Coastal Permit are to their area concerning traffic, lighting, noise and smells? Maybe they are a little hesitant for signing contracts for a reason? Don't they deserve some consideration from us, we who asked them to accept the plant in their backyard? I think that they do.
And this is wayyyyyyyy too soon to nag the Board of Supervisors to ask the Coastal Commission to change recycled water conditions. We need far more information years down the road to see if this if is even a reasonable request.
Meanwhile, we all can get an education from other areas on how this works. Here are a couple of websites that speak to this issue of recycled water usage on farmland:
(Look at the videos.)
No comments:
Post a Comment