An Open Letter to the State Water Resources Control Board
“That the need for public health protection demands a margin of safety to protect against unknowns and caution in the regulation of toxic substances cannot be overstated.”
Footnote 16, Kesterson Reservoir cleanup order WQ 85-1 adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on February 5, 1985.
“The fact that the lower San Joaquin River is of such poor quality that beneficial uses cannot be protected and water quality objectives cannot be met is recognized in the Basin Plan. . . . The major cause of water quality problems in the San Joaquin River is considered to be the discharge of agricultural return flows.” (1985 Kesterson cleanup order, WQ 85-1, pp. 53-54.)
The author of this article, as a working newsman, was witness to the courage of the five members of the SWRCB a quarter of a century ago – Carole Onorato, Warren Noteware, Ken Willis, Darlene Ruiz and Edwin “Ted” Finster – who faced down tremendous political pressure from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Westlands Water District, and California agribusiness to order cleanup or closure of the death ponds at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County, where toxic, selenium-tainted agricultural drainwater from Westlands was being stored and evaporated, triggering catastrophic embryonic deformities and widespread deaths in federally-protected migratory birds using the killing ponds as nesting areas.
There were numerous drainwater concerns in that 1985 Kesterson cleanup order beside selenium, including arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc, pesticides, fertilizer residues and salt loading. The last section of the Kesterson cleanup order addressed drainwater dumping in the lower San Joaquin River. (WQ 85-1, pages 52-60.) The federal irrigation districts operating north of the Westlands, in the so-called Delta-Mendota Service area, have been dumping their agricultural waste water runoff in the lower river since the 1950s. No discharge permits for dumping in the river were required.
The Kesterson cleanup order noted the Porter-Cologne Act permitted the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board (CVRWQB) to waive the filing of a waste discharge permit “where such waiver is not against the public interest.” However, the WQ 85-1 order stated: “Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that it is appropriate to waive the filing of a report of waste discharge by these entities, on a temporary basis, until sufficient data is collected to adequately characterize the agricultural drainage waters flowing into the Grassland and the San Joaquin River and until appropriate water quality objectives for the San Joaquin River Basin are formulated.” (WQ 85-1, p. 56 [emphasis added].)
“Temporary Basis,” it turns out, is 25 years and counting. That is too say, the Delta-Mendota agriculturists have continued to dump their poisonous waste waters into the lower San Joaquin River for the last quarter of a century while, presumably, relevant agencies were collecting data to determine if it was safe to keep dumping in the river. Turns out the polluters need more time. On Tuesday, October 5, 2010, the Water Board will consider a request to permit dumping in the river until December 31, 2019 – almost another decade - while the polluters continue to work on cleaning up their act. Meanwhile, business as usual.
Now for anyone who follows California water politics and the so-called regulatory agencies, there is a certain Alice-in-Wonderland quality about some of the events that transpire. In the opinion of the author, this apparently unending free pass for deliberate polluters of a public drinking water source (not even considering impacts on river biota and downslope groundwater) is one of the more amazing displays of both ignorance and fecklessness in California water history.
Now what strikes the author is that in one breath the State Water Board has espoused its intent to “save the Bay-Delta Estuary”, but in the next breath it takes steps to sanction the estuary’s continuing pollution. It makes one wonder if these officials are congenitally stupid or irretrievably politically deranged – as it is not possible to sanction the dumping of enormous amounts of toxic salts into the San Joaquin River and the Bay-Delta Estuary annually and expect them to survive in the long run.
How much salt are we talking about? (We mean generic salts like sodium and chlorides, as well as the really nasty trace elements like selenium and mercury.) How about 17 railroad cars a day, each capable of carrying 100 tons of salt, according to a U.S. Geological Survey report (at page 106). (See graphic at bottom of this article.) So we’re talking about 3.4 million pounds per day being dumped in the lower San Joaquin River in Merced County and sent on down to the Delta where some of it, in theory, is ultimately flushed to sea, and the rest – we don’t know for sure - enters the aquatic food chain or at least degrades cleaner Delta water. Irrigating the salty desert in the western San Joaquin Valley has come at great cost to the natural resources of Northern California and will continue to imperil the Delta. Enormous sums of public money, totalling hundreds of millions of dollars, have been spent attempting to solve the region’s drainage problems. Salinity has been an issue in California for more than a century. The author, having followed this drainage issue for much of his adult live, realizes that drainage is not a very sexy political issue and the unwitting public is unlikely to get as worked up about the destruction of the Delta and lower river as they are to get agitated over, say, President Obama’s birth certificate. However, we believe enforcing the state’s anti-degradation policy, and protecting the public’s health and its public trust resources, including fish, is the paramount duty of the water board and we issue a cry for current state water board members to exhibit the courage the 1985 Kesterson water board exhibited. Future generations will thank you for it. I specifically ask the State Board (1) not to approve the Basin Plan Amendment; (2) hold the Grasslands Bypass Project polluters accountable and (3) have them adhere to their own commitment to cease the discharges into Mud Slough and the San Joaquin River as of October 1, 2010. Twenty-five years of looking the other way is enough. I further ask the board, consistent with its anti-degradation policy, to issue a Cease and Desist Order and issue a Notice of Violation for any river discharges exceeding any applicable standards. Board members, please do your jobs.
For more information visit www.lloydgcarter.com
This op-ed by Bishop Jaime Soto 
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
By Patrick Porgans - Planetary Solutionaries