Water deal to help Back Bay?

Alex Coolman

NEWPORT BEACH -- The city is looking to sell its small stake in the

San Joaquin Reservoir to the Irvine Ranch Water District, a move city

leaders hope will reduce the potential for treated waste to be dumped in

the Upper Newport Bay.

A local environmental leader, however, is critical of the deal, saying

the city is giving up its lone bargaining chip to keep treated water out

of the environmentally sensitive bay.

Tonight, the City Council will consider selling its 1.18% stake in the San Joaquin Reservoir, a now empty facility in the hills east of Newport

Beach. Newport Beach is one of eight parties that shares ownership of the

reservoir and would get about $13,000 in the sale.

The water district intends to buy all outstanding shares for the

reservoir and convert the facility into a storage lake for highly treated

sewage used for irrigation and industrial work.

Deputy City Manager Dave Kiff said the move should be an environmental

boon to the city because giving the water district complete control of

the reservoir will reduce the likelihood that excess reclaimed water will

be dumped into the watershed for the Back Bay.

During winter months, when the district produces more water than it

can use, the excess could be held in the reservoir; during the dry summer

months, the stored reserve of water could be tapped to maintain a

constant supply.

“Allowing them more places to store reclaimed water at low demand

times goes a long way toward reducing or eliminating any need to

discharge into the bay,” Kiff said.

The plan would also make it possible for the water district to provide

reclaimed water to more customers, according to staff reports. And it

would restore a “blue water” view to residents who live near the

reservoir.

But Bob Caustin, founder of Defend the Bay, contends that Newport

Beach should be using its small share of reservoir ownership as a

bargaining chip to push the water district for greater concessions on its

discharge policies.

He said the district, far from making an earnest effort to reduce

discharges, works to dump as much reclaimed water as it can get away

with.

“They continue to pursue permits to do so, and over the years they

have proven themselves to be irresponsible and have allowed discharges

into the bay,” he said.

The water district is only allowed to dump water into San Diego Creek,

the main tributary to the Back Bay, during particularly heavy rains.

Greg Heiertz, director of engineering and planning for the water

district, said complying with that restriction is the agency’s policy.

“We have no intention of making intentional discharges from the lake

into the Back Bay,” he said. “That’s not the plan. People that are

opposed to those discharges ought to welcome the agreement that we’ve

reached with the city.”

However, Caustin pointed out that the district has had a string of

unplanned environmental mishaps.

In June 1997, for example, a broken water district pipeline sent

almost 5 million gallons of reclaimed water into a bay tributary. The

district did not report the spill for more than 48 hours and was

eventually fined $10,000.

In October 1995, another pipe leak sent 1.4 million gallons of

reclaimed water into another bay tributary. The fine in that case was

$45,000.

And in 1996, the water district pushed for an agreement called the

Wetlands Water Supply Project, which would have allowed it to dump 5

million gallons of reclaimed water per day into the bay during much of

the year. It took a Defend the Bay lawsuit to prevent the project from

being enacted.

Gaining a reservoir won’t change the district’s approach, Caustin

argues. But it will mean that Newport Beach no longer has anything but a

nonbinding “joint statement of objectives” to use when bargaining with

the district.

Kiff, however, said there will be enough teeth in the deal.

“We will hold them to that [agreement],” Kiff said. “Thatwill be us

standing on a bully pulpit and saying ‘Hey, you agreed to this.’ But I

think there is some power in that.”

Kiff noted that the agreement should allow greater public access to

information about water district activities, and he said the city plans

to use the money it receives from the sale to monitor any discharges.

“We want to do ongoing oversight of this,” he said.