EDITORIAL: Discharge or drink?

The idea that the Russian River should continue to be used as
the final step in the treatment and disposal of a majority of
Sonoma County¹s wastewater is an obsolete, illogical and
environmentally unsound concept.
Yet the city of Santa Rosa, which operates the regional
wastewater treatment system for itself, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol
and Cotati, continues to think of the River as a viable solution to
its sewage problems. It is not.
The Russian River is the source of drinking water for thousands
of county residents. It is a source of recreational enjoyment for
boaters, anglers and swimmers. It is a delicate ecosystem that has
been degraded for decades and whose habitat and fishery are finally
being slowly restored after years of abuse.
More than a decade ago, when Santa Rosa approved the Geysers
pipeline to ship treated water to the steamfields for electric
generation, it was an expensive option but it held the promise of
ending River discharge. Now, the pipeline is once again being
viewed as a conduit to continue the practice of using the Russian
River as the county¹s sewer.
It¹s true that the wastewater being discharged into the Russian
River is highly treated, but it still contains high levels of
nutrients, metals and other chemicals considered dangerous for
humans, fish and the other animals that rely on the River. In fact,
the high levels of nutrients are what is forcing Santa Rosa to
consider using the River as a discharge point instead of its
current discharges into the Laguna de Santa Rosa.
Logic would tell us that if wastewater discharges are bad for
the Laguna, then they must be bad for the Russian River. But logic
does not always prevail. Santa Rosa officials are proposing four
direct discharge points, three of them near Healdsburg and Windsor.
That idea in itself ought to light another political fire under
North County residents who were subject to the disruptions of the
Geysers pipeline construction through their neighborhoods just a
few years ago. Now their neighbors to the south want to use that
same pipeline to dump wastewater in their backyard.
Environmentally superior options must be explored ‹ and a
variety of these are being studied, including agricultural reuse,
recycling and urban conservation. But we believe that rather than
spending up to $100 million (an early estimate) to study the
viability of direct River discharge, that money could be better
spent on exploring some innovative ideas that will keep the
wastewater out of the Russian River, such as the cultivation of
redwood trees, an idea not so far fetched as it seems.
An increased emphasis on water conservation and the replacement
of an aging sewage collection system should be higher priorities
than direct discharge of wastewater into the Russian River. It is
time to stop using the River as a conduit for our waste and start
regarding it as a precious natural resource that must be protected
from human abuse.
‹ Barry W. Dugan