If there’s any logic behind the federal
government’s proposed Klamath River pollution standards, we
hope it becomes apparent soon in the city of Klamath Falls’
petition for review of the matter.
But since the treated wastewater that
goes from the city’s facilities to the river is cleaner than
the water put there by nature, that doesn’t look likely.
The city, along with other Upper Klamath
Basin governmental units and businesses, face potentially
huge costs to try to live up to a standard set by state and
federal officials that can’t be met. The estimated costs
range anywhere from $2 million to $200 million for the city
alone. The most likely cost appears to be at least $6
million, which would also add an additional $200,000 a year
in operating costs.
Depending on the figure, that could
send rates skyrocketing for those served by the city
wastewater system.
Residents in the suburban area, which
is served by the South Suburban Sanitary District , also
ware dealing with the issue, which is commonly known by its
initials — TMDL — which stands for “total daily maximum
load.”
The problem for the Upper Klamath
Basin area comes from the amount of naturally occurring
phosphorous in the river. In 2008, the chief scientist for
the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
estimated the amount as about 10 times the norm.
Last week the Klamath Falls City
Council filed a petition with the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality for review of the unrealistic
standards that were set by the DEQ, in response to federal
law.
The process could eventually lead to a
lawsuit to try to prevent the costly new benchmarks.
The new standards are set by the
federal Clean Water Act of 1972 and enforced by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, which has received the
proposed order for the Klamath River Basin from the DEQ and
is expected to respond any time.
The City Council did the right thing
in moving to challenge the proposed TMDL standards. Rather
than spending money on expensive new filtration and
treatment facilities that won’t improve the river, people
have better things to spend their money on. Like food. Or
rent. Or schools.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any
copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to
those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml