Fallbrook Considers Dumping Waste in Creek--for Sake of Environment

In an era concerned about dumping wastes into rivers and streams, the Fallbrook Sanitary District is studying a proposal to do just that.

Officials there believe dumping treated sewage waste water into a local stream is environmentally safer and more responsible than continuing to pipe the water to the coast and dump it into the sea.

The Fallbrook district has received a $75,000 grant--the first of its kind--from the state Department of Water Resources to study the concept of discharging waste water directly into an otherwise mostly dry stream bed. The reclaimed water would encourage riparian habitats along the stream, replenish the ground water supply and provide a source of irrigation water farther downstream, the argument goes.

In Fallbrook’s proposal, 1 million to 3 million gallons of water a day would flow into Pilgrim Creek, a usually dry stream that starts at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station not far from the district’s water treatment plant, on the western edge of town. The stream passes through Camp Pendleton and dumps into the San Luis Rey River near the Oceanside Municipal Golf Course.

Both the city of Oceanside and the Marine Corps already are talking with Fallbrook about how they might use the reclaimed water for their own purposes. The downstream siphoning, along with natural absorption into the ground, would make it unlikely that any of the treated waste water would actually reach the ocean.

“Currently, we use our water once and then just throw most of it away down the pipes, after it’s treated. That’s the standard of the industry,” said Ben Price, general manager of the utility district.

“But, in the face of increased cost of imported water and the uncertainty of our current and future supply, any prudent person is led to the conclusion we ought to use our water more than once before we throw it away.”

Political Considerations

Furthermore, he said, political considerations argue that Southern Californians show good faith in dealing with water shortages by looking to new ways of reusing treated waste water.

“When we appear in Northern California with hat in hand, we don’t want to be accused of filling up swimming pools and washing down our driveways. We want to be seen instead as responsible stewards of what water we do have,” Price said.

The district’s waste water would be treated and filtered to the highest standards in the state, making it available for virtually all purposes except drinking--including water-contact sports.

The district now treats about 1.5 million gallons of water daily and sends it down an 18.5-mile pipeline to Oceanside. Most of it ends at sea, at the end of an 8,000-foot outfall pipe, although Caltrans has tapped into the pipeline near Interstate 5 and buys from Fallbrook about 12% of the district’s waste water to irrigate landscaping along Interstate 5.

There is nothing technically flashy about Fallbrook’s proposal; reclaimed, treated waste water has been used for years for irrigation in the state, from freeway medians to the La Costa golf course to the Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

There are environmental pros and cons to the proposal, Price concedes. The nutrient-rich water would accelerate the growth of aquatic plants, which in turn would be host to insects. Whether those insects would be considered more a liability to humans than an asset to bird life would be a bureaucratic decision. “But I’m 98% certain it would have a positive environmental effect,” Price said. “That’s what the study will be looking at.”

“We could treat the water to remove the nutrients, but that wouldn’t be financially feasible for us,” Price said.

Fallbrook would not sell the water it pours into Pilgrim Creek. What, then, is the district’s motive?

“We aren’t looking for a place right now to dump our effluent, because we can do that now, through the pipeline,” Price said. But, if the current study shows the benefits of stream discharge, and the practice works over 10 or 15 years with no significant liability, it would save the Fallbrook district from building a second pipeline around the year 2007, when officials expect a need for a second waste-water outlet from Fallbrook.

“Those pipelines are terribly expensive. It would cost $10 million to build one today, and who knows what it would cost by then,” he said. Besides, he added, there is some question whether an ocean outfall, which would cost $5 million today to build, will even be permitted after the turn of the century.

Not only would the district save millions of dollars 20 years from now, Price reasons, “but, rather than dumping the waste water in the ocean, we could at least let the local environment benefit by it.”

Ultimate approval for water discharge into the stream would come from the state Water Resources Control Board. The study is expected to be completed by June.