By Mark Gutglueck
The San Bernardino County Sentinel
Reprinted with permission

Belated opposition is hurriedly forming to a plan that would pump an average of 50,000 acre-feet of water per year out of the aquifer in San Bernardino County’s eastern Mojave Desert and convey it in a pipeline to Riverside, Orange and Los Angeles counties to replenish the water supply there.

The Santa Margarita Water District, which services an area that is more than 200 miles from the Cadiz Valley, is the lead agency for what is called The Cadiz Valley Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project.  As the lead agency the SMWD, the second largest water district in Orange County, will oversee the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for the project.

Santa Margarita will work with the Cadiz Land Company in the proposed undertaking, which is a modified version of the Cadiz Water Project floated by Cadiz Land and the Metropolitan Water District more than a decade ago. The original project called for the Cadiz Land Company pumping water from the Colorado River during wet years, storing it in an underground aquifer beneath the Cadiz Valley, and selling as much as 60,000 acre-feet of the native groundwater and Colorado River water mix to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) in Los Angeles during dry years.

That proposal was ultimately rejected by the MWD’s board of directors after conservationists raised concerns over possible environmental damage. That rejection led to expensive litigation between the Cadiz Land Company and the MWD.

The concept lay dormant for six years. But in 2008 the Cadiz Land Company, also known as Cadiz, Inc., revived the plan in modified form, emphasizing less the drawing of water from the Colorado River and instead proposing to obtain much of the water from sources feeding the area’s dry lakes that are subject to evaporation.

The revived project was given a tentative budget of $536.25 million and is to entail the sinking of 34 wells into the desert and construction of a 44-mile pipeline along a railroad right-of-way until it meets up with the aqueduct that carries Colorado River water to the Los Angeles and Orange County metropolitan areas.

Through the arrangement with the Cadiz Land Company, the SMWD will receive the lion’s share of the water. In addition, Cadiz, Inc. has entered into agreements with Three Valleys Water District, which provides water to the Pomona Valley, Walnut Valley, and Eastern San Gabriel Valley; the Golden State Water Company, which serves several communities in Southern California, including Claremont;   Suburban Water Systems, which serves Covina, West Covina and La Mirada; and the Jurupa Community Services District, which serves Mira Loma in Riverside County.

The Cadiz Valley is located just south of the Marble Mountains and northeast of the Sheep Hole Mountains near the National Trails Highway. Cadiz is home to a former railroad stop along the Santa Fe line, 17 miles east of Amboy and 70 miles from Needles.

The public hearings related to the Cadiz Valley Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project were held in Yucca Valley, which is 85 miles from Cadiz, and in Rancho Santa Margarita, which is 217 miles from Cadiz. Many people directly impacted by the project were not notified of the hearings. Neither was the Bolo Station Water Company, which serves the Cadiz Valley and the property adjoining that of the Cadiz Land Company.

Among those at the forefront of the movement to oppose the Cadiz Valley Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project is former Needles city councilwoman Ruth Musser-Lopez, who was previously employed as a Bureau of Land Management Archaeologist assigned to the California Desert District and was active in opposing the first Cadiz Water Project.

Musser-Lopez decried the project as one that would confiscate a vital and rare resource from the desert region. She said the Cadiz Land Company and the SMWD had formed an unholy alliance of a rapacious corporation and a quasi-governmental agency that was abusing the approval and environmental certification processes to violate the rights of the region’s residents while depriving future generations of desert dwellers access to water.

Both the SMWD and the Cadiz Land Company have represented the project as one that is aimed at “conservation” of water otherwise lost to evaporation. A major selling point is that the project will represent a $138 million boon to the East Mojave’s economy that will directly or indirectly create 2,090 jobs for four years, involving $53 million in wages or salaries to workers or proprietorships involved in building the pipeline and other elements of the project. Continue Reading

John Earl
Surf City Voice

Lately, southern California’s top water official, John V. Foley, has been explaining his apparent violations of a state law that requires public officials to disclose their economic interests.

Foley is chairman of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).

The Surf City Voice recently reported that Foley, who was appointed to the MWD by the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), failed to report an estimated $248,000 of income that his wife, Mary Jane Foley, earned as a consultant for various water agencies in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties, going back to 2004. That disclosure came from public records obtained by the Voice.

Now, more public records obtained since then reveal that Foley also failed to report over $15,000 of his own income as a private consultant for the Moulton Niguel Water District (Moulton) in south Orange County going back to late 2008.

His failure to report that income was “an oversight,” Foley told the Voice.

The newly obtained documents include the invoices that Foley filed at Moulton when he worked as a private consultant for that agency under a contract (also obtained by the Voice) that is still open.  But he did not report that income on the original financial disclosure (700) forms he filed with the MWD nor in amended versions that followed, records show. Continue Reading

By John Earl
Surf City Voice

The chairman of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), John V. Foley, says that a recent Surf City Voice story, that exposed the omission of his wife’s income from years of financial disclosure statements he filed with the water agency, did him an “injustice by just making your own interpretation, which, quite frankly, is totally different than what mine is.”

The story pointed out that Foley had not reported an estimated $248,000 of income that his wife, Mary Jane Foley, was paid by various southern California water agencies for consulting work going back to 2004.

State law requires government officials to publicly disclose their relevant economic interests, including spousal income, within 30 days of assuming office and annually thereafter.  Fines of up to $5,000 can be levied by the Fair Political Practices Commission for violations.

Foley has served on the MWD as the appointed representative of the Municipal Water District of Orange County since 1989. He was chosen by the MWD to be its chairman for a second time in 2011.

In September Foley told the Voice that he was unaware that he had to report his wife’s income. But in October, after advice from MWD legal counsel, he amended is Statements of Economic Interest, which are filed on “700” forms, to include that income.

“The advice was: rather than get in a big battle over this why don’t you go ahead and report it,” Foley said in a phone interview Tuesday. “I decided for the sake of solving this, and not having it look like it has been hidden—put it in there.”

Mary Jane Foley and husband John V. Foley, MWD Chairman

Foley says that all of his wife’s consulting income goes into a separate trust fund for her children, that he has no access to it and that there is no “co-mingling” of her income with his. He and his wife have separate bank accounts, he adds, and file separate tax returns – all of which he believes exempt him from the state reporting law.

“To be extra safe, I went ahead and reported,” despite his exemption, he said. “I really to this moment think that I don’t have to report it,” he insisted.

But Foley’s interpretation of the law, however sincere, is conclusively incorrect.

Public officials must report spousal income unless they have a pre or post nuptial agreement, according to Tara Stock, a spokesperson for the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Stock would not comment on Foley’s case, but told the Voice by e-mail that “The general rule is that in order for a spouse’s income to possibly be exempt from reporting, there must be a valid prenuptial or postnuptial agreement and a separate property agreement.”

When asked if he had a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement with his wife Foley responded, “Separate tax returns, separate accounts. Yes.” But when asked again, specifically, if he had any nuptial agreements with his wife, Foley said he did not.

Even if Foley had signed a nuptial agreement with his wife, however, he would not have been required to file it with the FPPC or MWD. In fact, according to Stock, the Commission would only seek verification of such an agreement if an official complaint had been filed with her agency.

Foley said that his wife is winding down her consulting work. “In the last two years she’s done very little work and probably will close her business because she does not really want to spend that much time on that stuff anymore. She kind of hates the regulatory field.”

By John Earl
Surf City Voice

John V. Foley, chairman of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, failed to report over $248,000 of income from his wife, Mary Jane Foley, back to 2004, records obtained by the Surf City Voice under the Public Records Act show.

The California Fair Political Practices Act requires government officials, including employees and consultants, to publicly disclose their relevant economic interests, often including spousal income, within 30 days of assuming office and annually thereafter.

The officials make their disclosures on a Statement of Economic Interests or “700” form with their respective agencies, after which the information goes to the county and state. The report helps to highlight potential conflicts of interest they may have with issues that come before a government decision making body.

Under the Act, water board directors are required during meetings to disclose any potential conflicts they have with agenda items and to recuse themselves from the decision making process by leaving the room (for consent calendar items they must recuse but can stay in the room).

California Government Code 1090 is even stricter than the ACT.

Recognizing the indirect as well as direct influence that public officials have on decision making, 1090 prohibits any financial conflict of interest by those officials over contracts, even if the official isn’t voting; those officials, it says, “shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members.”

Since 2001, public records obtained by the Voice indicate, Foley’s wife has run her own business, MJF Consulting, Inc., while being paid directly or indirectly for consulting work by water agencies throughout southern California, including the MET and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).

Foley, who has served on the MET since 1989, claimed that he was unaware of any obligation to report his wife’s income.

“I never felt it was required. You know, I don’t have no problem with it,” he told the Voice after a MWDOC meeting last September.

The Voice became aware of some of Foley’s missing financial disclosures after examining his 700 forms going back to 2006. But when questioned, Foley said that he had never reported his wife’s income.

But on October 25, a month after he was questioned by the Voice, Foley filed amended financial disclosures back to 2004 that include most – but not all – consulting income from his wife for each year, records show.

Foley did not respond to requests by the Voice to explain why he updated his disclosure reports and why they are still incomplete. But, according MWDOC General Manager Kevin Hunt, who was present at an interview with Foley conducted by SoCal PBS, Foley said that he had been advised by MET attorneys that it would be “more transparent” to revise his disclosures.

MET spokesperson Bob Muir refused to reveal any confidential advice given to Foley by MET legal counsel, but he did say that no disciplinary action was considered by the board for failing to comply with financial disclosure laws.

The still (partially) missing disclosures involve a three-year $125,000 contract between Byran Buck Associates (BBA) and five water agencies: the MET, MWDOC, San Diego Water Authority, West Basin Municipal Water District and the City of Long Beach Water Department.

Under the terms of the contract, which was administered by the MET, Mary Jane Foley was guaranteed a minimum amount of work as a subcontractor. She was paid $160 per hour or about $45,000 over the contract period. A total of $108,945 or $21,789 each was spent by the five agencies.

The contract was approved by the MET’s general manager, so it did not go to the board for a vote, although contracts for far less value sometimes do– a matter of the GM’s choice, according to MET regulations, when a contract is for $250,000 or less.

The BBA contract violated the law, says former Huntington Beach mayor Debbie Cook, who is also an environmental attorney. Cook has been examining the complex and often hidden operations of local water agencies and was recently interviewed as part of a PBS SoCal expose of the Santa Margarita Water District in south Orange County.

‘A Clear Violation’
Referring to the three-year contract, Cook concludes that it directly benefited long time director Jack Foley and his wife Mary Jane Foley.

“This is a clear violation of Government Code Section 1090. An agency like MWD [MET], with the kinds of resources it has available, should know better,” she wrote in an e-mail to the Voice.

Efforts to contact Chairman Foley since September have been unsuccessful, so far. But MET media spokesperson Armando Acuna, responding to inquires about the legality of Chairman Foley’s standing under 1090, told the Voice, also by e-mail, that “Metropolitan’s Legal Department represents Metropolitan and cannot give legal advice or a legal opinion to members of the public.”

The minimum estimate of $248,000 of unreported income is based on the BBA contracts as well as direct contracts between MWDOC and MJF Consulting, Inc., matched against income sources revealed in Foley’s amended 700 filings (but not including income from other, mostly private, sources that were also part of the amendment filings).

Mary Jane Foley’s work with the five water agencies involved regulatory, permitting and lobbying issues for a proposed ocean desalination plant at Dana Point and for the growth of ocean water (and brackish water) desalination plants throughout California. She is still under contract with MWDOC.

As Chairman of the MET, John Foley selects all members of all standing MET committees and appoints the chairpersons for all special committees and task forces. Before starting his second stint as chairman he headed up the MET’s Special Committee on Desalination and Recycling from its start in 2009 through 2010.

Foley regularly votes on desalination issues at the MET and discusses them at various MWDOC meetings. He is highly venerated by his peers throughout southern California and has strong Republican Party connections going back decades.

The MET casts a vast influence as a water wholesaler over all of southern California, including Ventura County, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. It delivers 1.6 billion gallons of water per day to 26 cities and water districts, including MWDOC, and to 19 million people, according to its website. MWDOC, in turn, helps manage water for its 28 water agencies and member cities in Orange County.

Foley is one of four appointees chosen by the MWDOC board of directors to represent it on the MET – and he is one of two within that group who were not elected by voters to either board.

The other unelected MET director representing MWDOC is Linda Ackerman. Her husband, Dick Ackerman, is a former California state legislator who works for Nossaman LLP, an Orange County legal and policy consulting firm under contract with MWDOC. Linda Ackerman includes that income source on her 700 forms.

A Seasoned Water Veteran
Cook is skeptical of Foley’s claim that he didn’t think he had to report. “He is a seasoned water veteran. He has received many hours of required training on avoidance of conflicts of interest, and it was common knowledge among his colleagues and MET staff that his wife’s income was derived from the same public agency [MWDOC] that he serves—shame on the entire industry that does not seem willing or able to police its own.”

Based on his impressive resume, Foley would seem anything but a novice when it comes to understanding the rules of water boarding.

He first came to the MET board of directors in 1989 as an appointee of MWDOC. He served as MET chairman from 1993 – 1998 and was elected again by that body to be chairman for a two year term starting in 2011.

From 1979 until Dec. 2007 Foley was also the General Manager of Moulton Niguel Water District in south Orange County. Moulton is one of five water agencies that make up the South Orange Coastal Ocean Desalination Project, a group that plans to build an ocean desalination plant in Dana Point—under guidance from MWDOC and with promised financial assistance from the MET.

Seven months after John Foley left Moulton his wife was warned of a potential conflict of interest with her work on the Dana Point desalination plant because her husband had been involved in that project as Moulton’s general manager. In an e-mail obtained by the Voice, Mary Jane Foley asks MWDOC’s project managers Richard Bell and Karl Seckel what she should do:

“Richard has informed me that since Jack is a signature to the participating desal group from MNWD, I will be perceived as a conflict. Richard said that South Coast will run my contract. How will this all be determined? Do I stop all work and communication with you all now?”

In this e-mail, Mary Jane Foley asks about a conflict of interest between her work and her husband's involvement in a project. To view at full size, click this image once, then after it appears in a new window, click it again.

But Mary Jane Foley continued her consulting work with MWDOC, as well as her work as a subcontractor for Byran Buck Associates. And what could have been taken as a wake up call for her husband – to report a potential conflict of interest on his 700 forms – was overlooked, at least until after the Voice forced the issue.

If hands-on experience isn’t the best teacher, then mandatory ethics training every two years also helps water board directors in California to understand their legal and ethical obligations to the public. Chairman Foley completed ethics classes given at the MET in 2008 and 2010.

He would also have received a copy of the MET’s ethics manual for directors, which reminds its readers of two levels of ethical practice. The first is compliance with “relevant laws, rules, regulations and policies” that come with the job. The second is a “level of ethically ideal behavior in which Directors, officers and employees strive to incorporate Metropolitan’s core values in their daily work.”

That work ethic is also spelled out clearly in the MET’s Administrative Code, Section 7102, which, it might be safely assumed, was also presented to Foley for his reading. On the matter of disclosure, it says, “Directors shall comply with applicable laws regulating their conduct, including conflict of interests and financial disclosure laws.”

When the Voice asked Chairman Foley (in September) if he saw any conflict between his support of desalination projects as a MET director and his wife’s extensive work promoting desalination for MWDOC (at that time the Voice was still unaware of the BBA contract), he denied any conflict and said, contrary to public records, that she had “very little” involvement in desalination issues. “I have nothing to do with it [her work],” he added.

Foley was indifferent when asked about a vote he cast—as a director and while he was Chairman of the Special Committee on Desalination and Recycling—for the MET to join CALDESAL, a pro-desalination lobbying organization that public documents show his wife played an important role in forming while under contract with MWDOC.

“Did the MET show me as voting for it,” he asked. “Whether she was involved or not, I would have supported it,” he said, laughing.

Besides, he explained, “It’s not really a conflict of interest. You’ve got to draw a direct line to really make a point of conflict of interest.”

Foley was obliquely, whether accurately or not, comparing his own situation to legal exemptions that are made in cases where the conflict of interest is, in legal parlance, remote.

“You know, I believe in conservation,” he said, rhetorically. “Does that mean I have a conflict of interest because we voted for conservation?”

By John Earl
Surf City Voice

An Irvine water official recently let members of the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) board know that their public relations efforts on behalf of ocean desalination aren’t necessarily welcomed in his agency’s jurisdiction, which stretches across the county’s mid-section as its largest water district.

MWDOC is the retailer for 28 water agencies throughout the county.

Open dissent by local water officials toward ocean desalination projects is rarely if ever heard at MWDOC meetings, where the belief that such projects, however costly, are a vital part of a larger water portfolio is all but officially treated as sacrosanct.

The official, Peer Swan, one of five directors for the Irvine Ranch Water District, spoke out at a monthly meeting of MWDOC’s Public Affairs and Legislation Committee held on Monday, Dec. 19. He told the board that the agencies that don’t agree with the premise of the PR campaign should be able to opt out.

“I would expect that you would respect your customer’s request not to go in and do a PR campaign on something they don’t support,” Swan said.

MWDOC’s directors were discussing plans to increase their efforts to educate county residents about the supposed needs for ocean desalination in Orange County.

MWDOC wants to convince county residents that desalinated ocean water will guarantee them an endless and reliable supply of drinking water during future water shortages to be caused – inevitably – by droughts or by earthquakes that will break water supply lines; or worse, cause the collapse of the California Delta, which supplies about half of Orange County’s water.

MWDOC is pushing two major ocean desalination projects in Orange County. One of them would be in Huntington Beach where Poseidon Resources, Inc. won approval by the city to build (with the help of huge public subsidies) one of the largest and costliest desalination plants in the western hemisphere (the other, similar plant, would be built by Poseidon in Carlsbad in San Diego County)—after offering tax increments and other financial benefits.

Poseidon is stumbling its way through the final stages of the permit process but still lacks private financing. MWDOC is seeking $350 million in public assistance to make the project cost effective for the company and to attract the private investors that it (Poseidon) needs to move forward.

The other, smaller project, which is backed by five south county water agencies, would be publicly owned and located adjacent to San Juan Creek on property that is owned by South Coast Water District.

Unlike the Poseidon plant, which would suck in over 100 million gallons of sea water a day through the intake pipes used by a huge power plant, its ocean intake system would be buried under the beach at Dana Point, where a pilot plant already is operating.

Far from shovel ready, the Dana Point desalination project seems headed for a decision by the local agencies sometime in 2012. From that point it would move into the final design stage and permitting by the relevant government bodies. Construction would start in the 2017 or 2018, according to project manager Karl Seckel.

MWDOC’s staff provided details of the agency’s strategy for gaining public support for the Dana Point project at the meeting.

“We have been working with the project participants to begin getting either letters of support or formal endorsements from community groups, business organizations, and environmental groups within their area, but also county wide,” explained David Cordero, MWDOC’s Director of Governmental Affairs.

Responding to Swan, General Manager Kevin Hunt elaborated on the broader scope of MWDOC’s outreach efforts, including the Poseidon project, which 21 county water agencies, including IRWD, have indicated an interest in, however tenuous. Very few of those agencies disagree with continuing to discuss ocean desalination “as a viable option county wide,” he said.

MWDOC Director Wayne Clark, whose district makes up about half of the IRWD service area, took umbrage with Swan’s suggestion that MWDOC was out of touch. “I represent Irvine as well as other areas and I think that I’m quite capable of communicating with my own constituents,” he said.

But Swan persisted. “We’re in negotiations with Poseidon,” he said. “Until we get a negotiated contract, I think that using the MO that they used in San Diego, creating a tsunami before the agencies approve things, is an inappropriate thing in Orange County.”

Swan told the Voice after the meeting that he doesn’t want the county’s water agencies to be boxed into supporting programs that don’t make much sense. And he thinks there should be a defined program with agreed upon principles and financing before MWDOC or its agencies seek public support for it.

Swan is personally opposed to both ocean desalination plants but not for any of the environmental reasons often listed by other opponents, who are concerned that, especially in the case of Poseidon, marine life will be killed by the associated intake and outflow systems. He is opposed because he believes that neither project will fulfill its intended purpose—to provide a needed or cost-effective water supply.

An ocean desalination plant by its nature has to run 24/7, an expensive operation, Swan says; but the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET), MWDOC’s umbrella agency, “already provides a reliable supply for water for South County 98 percent of the time at a fraction of the cost of the [Dana Point] desal plant.”

Results of a recent poll conducted by Lewis Consulting

And South County residents would be subject to any water shortages (including rationing) that the MET would apply uniformly as a matter of policy, he adds.

“So the plan itself doesn’t supply water in the event of shortages,” Swan said.  “A couple of hundred million dollars for a very small amount of water is a very expensive project for shortages. And there are much cheaper alternatives to provide reliability to South County which have not been as actively pursued.”

There is no need for the Poseidon project either, according to Swan, because it would serve an area that already gets 70 – 80 percent of its water from an existing underground water supply that could provide 100 percent of the water needed in an emergency.

“What these projects will do is provide an expensive new source of water for MET that the local agencies will pay for,” Swan says. “It will add reliability to the MET system because if you produce water in Huntington Beach or Dana Point, MET will no longer need to supply them because there is cheaper water elsewhere. Thank you very much!”

In this election season, as Orange County voters are constantly warned about government overspending, including bullet train boondoggles, ocean desalination critics like Swan may have found a crack in the veneer of unanimity that MWDOC uses as a cloak to protect and promote its desal dreams.

A new poll, conducted for MWDOC by Lewis Consulting, with a sample of 500 registered Orange County voters, shows a statistically significant decline in support for ocean desalination—from 73 percent in 2008 to 63 percent last October.

In each case the respondents were asked, “When thinking about increasing Orange County’s water supply, do you think ocean desalination is a good idea or a bad idea?”

Sixty-three percent is still a landslide of public support for ocean desalination, but that support might not all be transferable to MWDOC’s two ocean desalination projects, which the 500 voters weren’t asked about.

In fact, there may be a lot of leverage for critics of the Poseidon and Dana Point desalination proposals provided by the questions that, so far, pollsters haven’t asked the public.

MWDOC Director Larry Dick, a stalwart supporter of both projects and ocean desalination in general, may have unintentionally revealed that opening at a Nov. 21 board meeting after the poll’s presenter, John Lewis, explained that seniors, at 75 percent, were more likely than any other group to believe that ocean desalination was a good idea.

Dick asked Lewis if, “The seniors who are so in favor of desalination—are they aware of how much it is going to cost versus other things [water supply sources]?”

“No,” Lewis answered, adding that obtaining an in-depth look at voter sentiments would require asking questions that add the necessary information.

Like, “Would you feel the same way if you knew it was going to cost 40 percent more?”

“Exactly,” Lewis said.

Photo, top right: Mobile testing facility for Dana Point ocean desalination project. Courtesy MWDOC

By Sarah (Steve) Mosko
Special to the Voice

If you have already switched to an eco-friendly laundry detergent, as many people do to contribute less to water pollution, you might be surprised to learn that the pollution you generate on wash day has as much to do with the kind of fabrics your clothes, bedding and towels are made of as the detergent you wash them in.

Recent studies have revealed that a single garment made of polyester can shed innumerable tiny fibers into the wash water, and those fibers are finding their way to the ocean. The pollution they cause is worsened by the fact that, like plastic materials in general, polyester attracts oily pollutants in seawater so is a vehicle for the transfer of potentially dangerous chemicals into the food web when the fibers are ingested by sea creatures.

Although we don’t usually think of polyester fabrics as plastic per se, polyester is nonetheless a plastic material synthesized from crude oil and natural gas. And, like other plastics, polyester is a long polymer chain, making it non-biodegradable in any practical human scale of time, especially in the ocean because of the cooler temperatures.

Particular attention to ocean pollution from plastics has intensified ever since the late ‘90s when Captain Charles Moore of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation based in California first trawled a now infamous Texas-sized area of the Pacific Ocean dubbed the “great Pacific garbage patch” to quantify the extent of plastic pollution. The startling discovery at that time was that plastic debris already outweighed zooplankton (organisms at the base of the ocean food web) by a factor of six to one. Moore just revisited the same area last year and reports that the ratio of plastic debris to zooplankton has increased six-fold in under a decade.

When we reflect on ocean pollution from plastics, we tend to think of larger eyesores of plastic debris, like plastic bags, foam cups, abandoned fishing nets and drink bottles and caps. It’s already well-documented that many fish, seabirds, turtles and marine mammals die each year because of ingestion or entanglement in such obvious plastic refuse. But when exposed to sunlight and other environmental stresses, plastics break apart into smaller scraps which, nevertheless, remain as a plastic polymer and non-biodegradable. Once fragmented into bits less than one millimeter (the size of a pin head), they are called “microplastics.”

The breakdown of larger plastics is not the only known source of microplastics pollution. Two others have been identified in the sewage stream: tiny plastic granules, used in beauty products and cleaning agents as scrubbers, and spillage of plastic powders and pellets which are the industrial raw materials for fabricating consumer plastics. Microplastic fibers of an unknown source are also showing up in the sewage stream. Because waste treatment plants are not designed to filter out microplastics, any that enter the sewage stream end up in the ocean and anywhere else the outflow from waste treatment plants is dumped.

Though invisible to the casual observer, microplastics are accumulating throughout marine habitats, and research is showing that they already outnumber larger plastic fragments. For example, one study sampling a British estuary – where the ocean tide meets a river’s end – found that microplastics accounted for 65 percent of all plastic debris.

Although it might seem counter intuitive, the tiny dimension of microplastics actually adds to the dangers they represent as ocean pollutants. Since a pioneering study published in 2001, we’ve known that, because plastics are lipophylic (oil-loving), oily contaminants in seawater are drawn to them. Japanese researchers found that plastic pellets no more than a half millimeter in diameter could adsorb hazardous chemicals (like polychlorinated biphenyls, nonylphenols and derivatives of DDT) onto their surfaces at up to one million times the concentrations in the surrounding water. The kicker about microplastics is that, because of their smallness, the surface area is large relative to the overall size, providing more surface area to which chemicals can adhere: Think of a bottle filled with marbles – the total surface area of all the marbles is greater than the surface area of the bottle.

And, the miniscule size of microplastics means that even minute creatures could ingest them, either by accident or by mistaking them for food, thereby introducing any chemicals on board into the very bottom of the food chain. Adding to this worry, plastics themselves are generally complex substances with several chemical additives, some with known negative health effects in lab animals and humans. Scientists have already documented ingestion of microplastics by little ocean critters like sand worms, barnacles and small crustaceans called amphipods. Research has also shown that, once ingested by animals, microplastics are stored in tissues and cells with unknown health consequences for both the animals and us eating up at the top of the food chain.

Another obvious downside to microplastics is that their size makes them utterly impossible to clean up once they get into the ocean, or any other environment for that matter.

What all this has to do with polyester fabrics on wash day is pretty straightforward. Polyester cloths are used in innumerable items routinely laundered at home, such as blankets, towels and every sort of garment. They are by design composed of tiny plastic fibers, so on a hunch that polyester fibers from laundering are a major source of the microplastic fibers polluting ocean habitats, a team of researchers from the British Isles, Canada and Australia measured the quantity of microplastic fibers from polyester blankets, shirts and fleeces that are discharged into the wastewater from domestic washing machines. As reported in the Nov. 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology, a single polyester item can produce more than 1900 fibers in one washing. Every article tested produced more than 100 microfibers per liter of wastewater, and the worst offenders were the fleeces.

The researchers also provided strong evidence linking polyester from laundering to ocean pollution. They found that every one of 18 shorelines sampled across the globe was fouled with microplastic fibers, predominantly of polyester. The shorelines of more densely populated areas or where sewage is discharged were the most contaminated. Furthermore, by characterizing the microplastics in the outflow of sewage treatment plants, they were able to show that polyester fibers from laundering were the prime source of microplastic pollution in general, more than from fragmentation of larger plastics or from cleaning products.

Polyester fleece has been touted as a good environmental choice because it can be manufactured out of recycled plastic bottles, but these new findings on microplastics put a whole new slant on the sustainability of any polyester fabrics. Even when manufactured from recycled plastic, the persistent ocean pollution polyester inevitably creates downstream should outweigh any arguments in favor. The fact that polyester is ultimately derived from petroleum oil and natural gas, both non-renewable resources, adds further weight to such misgivings.

Human population went from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.6 billion in 2005 and is expected to reach nine billion by 2050. We probably can’t do anything about the microplastics that are already contaminating our oceans and other environments, but we can stem the flow of further microplastics by making smarter, more responsible choices of what we purchase and throw into the washing machine on laundry day.

Natural fiber cloths of cotton, silk, wool, bamboo, hemp and even soy are available. All derive from renewable sources, are intrinsically biodegradable, and their fibers would not attract oily chemicals out of seawater. When choosing cotton, organic is best because of the large quantities of pesticides applied in growing conventional cotton.

By Sarah (Steve) Mosko
Special to the Voice

On August 1, Long Beach became the thirteenth jurisdiction within California to ban single-use plastic carryout bags at supermarkets and large retailers. Huntington Beach (HB) could soon join that list if City Council members Connie Boardman, Devin Dwyer and Joe Shaw can convince other council members.

A proposal to develop an ordinance to ban flimsy, disposable plastic carryout bags is on the Monday, August 15 HB City Council meeting agenda. The meeting starts at 7 pm at City Hall.

If a HB ordinance were to be modeled after the Long Beach one, it would also include a 10 cent customer fee for each paper bag dispensed, as the goal is not to convert to disposable paper bags but rather to encourage use of bags which can be used over 100 times.

The Long Beach ban took effect after a pivotal and unanimous California Supreme Court decision on July 14 which eases the way for local plastic bag bans by ruling that the city of Manhattan Beach did not have to complete a lengthy study of the environmental impact of disposable paper bags before baring retailers from dispensing plastic ones.

Such environmental impact reports are costly, and the plastic bag industry has successfully used them to block a municipality from enacting a local plastic bag ban by suing the city when an environmental impact report has not been performed.

Californians consume more than 12 billion single-use plastic bags per year, according to Environment California, a state-wide environmental advocacy organization. Very few get recycled, in part because plastic bags are rarely included in curbside recycling programs.

Plastic bag litter is not only an eyesore on land but also fouls waterways and kills marine animals who mistake the bags for food. A floating plastic bag resembles a jellyfish, which probably explains why plastic bags are found clogging the digestive tracts of dead sea turtles and marine mammals like whales and dolphins.

Plastic bags are a significant source of ocean pollution because, like all plastics derived from petroleum, they are non-biodegradable and are thought to persist in the ocean for up to hundreds of years as they just fragment over time into smaller bits of plastic.

The Long Beach-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation has been measuring the buildup up of plastic debris in an area of the Pacific twice the size of Texas and dubbed the “Pacific Garbage Patch” which, in 1999, already contained six times more plastic than zooplankton. Preliminary analysis of ocean samples collected less than a decade later indicate that the ratio of plastic to plankton has risen six-fold.

Even here right off the coast of southern California, Algalita has previously found plastic debris at all ocean depths and in amounts sometimes exceeding twice that of zooplankton.

Local attempts in California to ban the dispensing of throw-away plastic bags began to multiply after the plastic industry successfully lobbied the state legislature in 2006 to pass a law that specifically prohibited cities or counties from imposing fees on plastic bags while supposedly encouraging plastic bag recycling by mandating that stores install plastic bag recycling bins for customers to bring back their used bags (AB2447).

Environmental groups, like the Surfrider Foundation and Costa Mesa-based Earth Resource Foundation, had generally favored the bag fee approach as a way to motivate shoppers to get in the habit of bringing their own reusable bags. The prohibition against fees on plastic bags remains in effect until 2013.

An attempt to enact instead a state-wide ban on plastic carryout bags failed just last September when the California Senate voted down a bill already passed by the Assembly (AB 1998). The bill also included a requirement that shoppers be charged for paper carryout bags. Then Governor Schwarzenegger had signaled he would have signed it. Continue Reading

By Sarah (Steve) Mosko
Special to the Surf City Voice

People flush the toilet maybe five to 10 times a day. Ever wonder where it all goes and, once it gets there, what they do with it?

On a per capita basis, Orange County homes, businesses and industry together generate over 80 gallons per day of raw sewage from toilet flushing, bathing, housekeeping and discharging industrial waste into drains. Most of us care not to think about sewage once it’s out of sight.

However, thinking about sewage, and what best do with it, is exactly what the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) does.

OCSD serves 21 cities with a total population of 2.5 million and in 2010 treated an average daily sewage inflow of 208 million gallons, enough to fill Angel stadium nearly three times. Its Biosolids Management Program (BMP), which converts the solid components of sewage into either soil amendments or fuel, has recently won awards for innovation and environmental stewardship but has also elicited opposition from parties claiming it is unsafe for both people and the environment because of the contaminants still present.

What are biosolids?
Everything flushed or washed down the drain in north and central OC is piped to one of two wastewater treatment plants, one in Huntington Beach and the other in Fountain Valley. There, much of the water is separated from the solids and treated to reduce disease-causing pathogens before being discharged five miles offshore into the Pacific. Since 2008, a portion of the water is purified further by reverse osmosis – to exceed drinking water standards – and then released into percolation ponds in Anaheim to replenish local groundwater supplies.

The solid materials left behind are referred to as sewage sludge and form a black slurry with a consistency of watery mud.

In the 1980s, OCSD disposed of sewage sludge primarily at landfills in Newport Beach and West Covina. The BMP was conceived as a means to put sewage sludge to better uses through recycling and helping municipalities meet state-mandated limits on materials discarded at landfills.

Biosolids after treatment

Biosolids are sewage sludge which has been “stabilized” to reduce odors and pathogens and turned into marketable products. Stabilization takes 20-25 days during which the sludge is incubated in enclosed vessels at 98°F where anaerobic bacteria do the work of breaking it down. OCSD boasts that the methane gas produced as a byproduct fuels 60 percent of the treatment plants’ operations.

The resulting biosolids are what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines as ‘Class B’ in which 99 percent of pathogens are presumably eliminated. OCSD describes these biosolids as a nutrient rich, organic product which can be recycled as is on agricultural lands to improve crop yields or processed further either into an earth-like composting material for fertilizing home and commercial gardens or into a renewable energy source. Residual pathogens in Class B biosolids are primarily intestinal bacteria, viruses, and parasites which, if applied to land, are expected to die off from exposure to heat, sunlight and soil microbes during mandated waiting periods before grazing or harvesting of crops is permitted.

OCSD touts that, since 2008, the BMP has met its goal of 100 percent beneficial reuse of biosolids so that none has gone to landfill. On average, 685 wet tons of biosolids were produced daily in 2010, all of which was trucked to one of three out-of-the-area biosolids contractors for further processing and/or distribution.

Thirty nine percent went to a composting facility in south Kern County, owned and operated by Synagro Technologies, where biosolids are composted with wood chips in a process requiring 40-45 days. Composting reduces much of the ammonia smell characteristic of biosolids, and the temperatures reached are thought to eliminate residual disease-causing microbes so that the compost meets EPA ‘Class A’ biosolids standards allowing unrestricted land application, including for human food crops.

About 75 percent of Synagro’s compost is spread on agricultural land in Kern County used for growing animal feed (a local ordinance prohibits use for human food crops), and the rest is sold on the landscape market.

By a process of heat and pressure, a Rialto plant owned by EnerTech Environmental converted another eight percent of OCSD’s biosolids into charcoal-like fuel pellets which can replace coal in cement kilns and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The pellets produce twice the energy used to make them. The facility began operations in 2009 and is the first of its kind in the nation.

However, the largest fraction of biosolids, 54 percent, remained as Class B biosolids applied to land for growing hay in Yuma County, Arizona. OCSD has been forced to look out of state for land recycling of Class B biosolids because ordinances banning this practice have spread within California.

Class B biosolids are not being utilized on Orange County lands because, according to OCSD spokesperson Sonja Morgan, the county is already so built up that agricultural opportunities are scarce. However, to foster public acceptance of the Class A compost, a few truckloads have been applied to garden areas at the Huntington Beach wastewater treatment facility and to baseball and soccer fields at a new recreation center in Fountain Valley.

In 2003, OCSD became the first wastewater agency in the nation to be certified for its BMP by the National Biosolids Partnership, a non-profit coalition of water quality organizations that recognizes biosolids programs for sustainable management practices that go beyond regulatory compliance.

The BMP accrued additional prestige via awards earned last year by the Synagro composting facility. The “Composter of the Year Award” was bestowed by the United States Composting Council for moving the industry forward through environmentally sound business and recycling strategies. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery recognized Synagro with its WRAP (Waste Reduction Annual Program) award for recycling over 800 million pounds of organic material.

Are biosolids safe?
Despite such accolades, to say that not everyone is thrilled about what OCSD is doing with its sewage waste would be an understatement.

In 2006, a whopping 83 percent of Kern County voters passed an “anti-sludge ordinance” (Measure E) to prevent southern California jurisdictions from dumping their composted biosolids in Kern County. This gesture reflected concerns about threats to human health and groundwater and local resentment that the practice had been going on for a decade. A representative of the County Counsel of Kern County said that little animal feed crop is being grown on the land, implying it is being used primarily as a dumping ground.

Treated biosolids used for agriculture. Photo: Environ. Sci. Technol.

Implementation of Measure E has been delayed by battles in federal and most recently state court, led by the City of Los Angeles which also uses Kern County lands for recycling biosolids. If Kern County prevails, county supervisors have given notice that Measure E will be implemented in October. Either way, OCSD plans to continue sending biosolids to Synagro whose problem it would be to locate other markets for its compost.

Another stink over biosolids erupted in 2009 in San Francisco when “organic compost,” given away for free to the public by the Public Utilities Commission, tested positive for several endocrine-disrupting chemicals including flame retardants and triclosan, an anti-bacterial agent. The giveaway is now on temporary hold, and Food Rights Network, a nonprofit research group that oversaw the testing, has called for a permanent end to the program which it accuses of using home gardens as a dumping ground for the sewage waste industry.

In general, controversy over the wisdom of recycling biosolids on farmland and gardens has heated up following release in 2009 of results of an EPA survey in which biosolids from water treatment agencies in 35 states were tested for 145 chemical residues. Every sample contained, at minimum, a host of different flame retardants, heavy metals and pharmaceuticals.

The EPA report did not comment on what the implications might be for the safety of applying biosolids to home gardens or lands used for crops or grazing. However, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a non-profit group which advocates for organic standards, has launched a campaign against all such practices, emphasizing that biosolids are regulated by the EPA only for levels of pathogens and certain heavy metals. The regulations do not cover the wide spectrum of other chemical pollutants found in biosolids.

Furthermore, the levels of toxic heavy metals allowed by the EPA are the least restrictive among industrialized nations.

Both the OCA and Food Rights Network take issue with the fact that no laws require any labeling to inform consumers when compost is derived from sewage sludge and might contain contaminants. They want the public to know that the term biosolids was coined in a 1991 contest orchestrated by the Water Environment Federation – an association of water quality professionals – to find a marketable euphemism for sewage sludge.

Adding to the controversy about biosolids, very little is yet known about the extent to which contaminants from biosolids might build up in soil over time or enter the food chain. However, red flags have been raised by studies published in recent months by researchers at the Colorado School of Mines.

In one of those studies, higher levels of PFCs or perfluorochemicals were measured in soils amended with the most biosolids, raising concerns because PFCs are known to persist in the environment and bioaccumulate. Another study found evidence for bioaccumulation of antimicrobial chemicals in earthworms living in biosolid-amended soil, suggesting biosolids might alter soil ecosystems.

Furthermore, articles recently appearing in the New York Times outlined concerns raised by federal regulators that radioactive waste from drilling for natural gas is turning up in wastewater and could end up on farmlands treated with biosolids.

The OCA suggests that consumers concerned about the impact of biosolids on food safety should seek out foods labeled “USDA Organic” because, since 1998, organic standards have prohibited use of sewage sludge as fertilizer in food production.

The OCA and the Food Rights Network are among the more strident opponents of biosolids recycling programs who want all sewage sludge handled as toxic waste and contained for disposal, which would mean a return to landfilling or even incineration. Others have called for more nuanced approaches.

In a 2003-2004 report, the Orange County Grand Jury recommended that OCSD phase out Class B land-application programs and upgrade all biosolids to Class A.

Congressman Jose Serrano of New York has recently introduced federal legislation that would prohibit grazing or growing crops and animal feed for a full year on land spread with biosolids and would require any foods grown on such land be labeled as such (HR 254).

The Sierra Club’s recommendations include tightening restrictions on allowable contaminants and creating buffer zones around treated fields to protect nearby residents from airborne contaminants.

Whatever future tacks the OCSD might take to improve on the sustainability of its program for managing sewage waste, homeowners, businesses and industry also must move beyond “out of sight out, out of mind” and give due attention to the toxicity of what is being flushed down drains and in whose backyard that waste ends up. OCSD’s ongoing “No Drugs Down the Drain” public education campaign is meant to foster such awareness.

Perhaps a debate over the safety of recycling sewage waste is just the wakeup call America needs to force it to rethink the reckless approach to chemicals regulation which has allowed some 80,000 chemicals into commerce, most without any health or environmental safety testing let alone plans for how to best handle the tainted sewage that results.

Personal Observations and Commentary
By John Earl
Editor, Surf City Voice

If there ever was a corporate right-wing conspiracy going on behind the Orange Curtain (Gasp! Who would have thunk it?) it happened last Friday inside the Grand Californian Hotel at–perhaps appropriately enough–the Disneyland Resort. It called itself the OC Water Summit, presented ostensibly by the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Orange County Water District but, in fact, sponsored by a bunch of multi-national and other water related business sharks that smell green blood in the lucrative business of disaster capitalism via control of heretofore public water resources.

Poseidon disciples: HB City Council members Gil Coerper, Joe Carchio and Cathy Green sitting at the Poseidon table with CEO Scott Maloni. Member Devin Dwyer's empty seat is seen too. Photo: Arturo Tolenttino for SCV

The summit’s stated purpose was to look at solutions to California’s water problems. In reality it was a mostly one-sided presentation (Central Valley farmers good, environmentalists and little fishes bad) and seemed like a thinly veiled plug for water privatization, what some critics would call unsustainable agriculture practices, and urban sprawl  via speculative desalination.

The summit’s stand-in facilitator of the day, after comedian Paul Rodriquez couldn’t make it, was Laer Pearce of Shea Properties/Parkside/build on the Bolsa Chica Mesa fame/infamy whose politics are about as far-right as you can get in Orange County without totally going insane. Normally highly opinionated and hot tempered, Pearce was on his best behavior; but, with a few exceptions, it might have been a more entertaining half-day if he had just acted like he does when he’s being interviewed by the Voice.

Of note, the presentation by Karl W. Seckel of MWDOC on the now underway Dana Point desalination project, a public owned and operated concern with a totally different, much more environmentally friendly, perspective than Poseidon’s proposed Huntington Beach desalination plant, was well worth viewing and we will have more on the details of that soon. Also of great interest, the presentation by Gary Crisp, a desalination advocate from Australia, on how his country is implementing desalination. More on that later, too.

The most curious but totally unsurprising spectacle of the event, however, at least for Surf City residents, might have been the sight of four of our city council members (Joe Carchio, Cathy Green, Devin Dwyer and Gil Coerper) sucking it up with Poseidon Resources CEOs at its specially reserved round table. Poseidon, by the way, has a new EIR currently before the city for approval, due to the fact that the once-through-cooling process, which it was depending on (along with hundreds of millions in government handouts) to provide mythologically (as in Poseidon, God of the Sea) inexpensive water to Orange County residents, has been banned by the State. How Poseidon and its city council cohorts expect to be able to use a banned water intake process is unclear at this point, but nothing stands in the way of a god, apparently.

Joining Poseidon’s city council disciples at the supper table was Huntington Beach Planning Commissioner John Scandura. Carchio is a candidate for reelection in November.

HB Planning Commissioner John Scandura, next to Poseidon CEO Scott Maloni at OC Water Summit. Photo: Arturo Tolenttino for SCV

Did the four city council members violate the Brown Act by meeting with each other and discussing or listening to issues before the city? No, they did not, even though the summit cost participants between $125 and $140 each. According to the law, it’s fine in this case because the event was open to the public, despite its prohibitive cost. But if you ever wondered why our elected officials vote the way they do, you might consider who they get their information and social support from.

Surf City residents might want to ask their elected and appointed officials what they talked about at that meeting, however. They should have kept records of all that was discussed.

Update: At last night’s city council meeting (May 17, 2010) during disclosure time, member Gil Coerper disclosed that he had gone to a League of Cities meeting, but none of the council members mentioned that they had been to the OC Water Summit and that they sat with Poseidon’s CEOs the whole time.

However, mandatory disclosure time, as required by AB 1234, comes right after public comments on the city council meeting agenda, nearer the start of the meeting. That’s when, presumably, spectators still exist in the chambers and before the television audience goes to sleep–and there’s nothing in the rules to prevent a council member from commenting on a non mandatory item, such as a summit about the future of California’s and Surf City’s water supply. But, at the end of the meeting, non mandatory disclosures, often mentions of charity events and the like, are normally made. At that time, Mayor Cathy Green, who took her turn last, was the only council member who bothered to mention her attendance along with Dwyer, Carchio and and Coerper at the OC Water Summit–without any information about the event other than that they attended it. Green told the Voice, “…I was reading off a list after a long evening. Remember we start at 4 p.m. [including the study session and closed session]”

So much for the water crisis.

Dear Bill:

In your recent column in the Orange County Register (Reject Huntington desal myths),  you purport to describe and refute several myths made by opponents to Poseidon Resources Inc., a multinational water privatization company that proposes to build a desalination plant roughly at the corner of Newland Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway in the southeast portion of Huntington Beach, California.

Poseidon Resources and its supporters say the plant would provide a vital addition to the city’s water portfolio in response to the state’s alleged water shortage–a “green” and “drought free” source of drinking water provided to the citizens of Huntington Beach and Orange County at competitive rates.

In Poseidon we trust? HB City Council members (L-R) Don Hansen, Keith Bohr, Gil Coerper and Cathy Green are true believers. Cartoon by Tim Pham

Poseidon and its supporters have always claimed that its desalination plant would be built and operated purely as a privately run, non government-subsidized operation–all done at no risk to taxpayers–and the epitome of the free market.

But, in fact, documents which I have quoted at length in previous articles I wrote have shown that Poseidon is relying on public financing for the viability of both of its proposed southern California desalination plants.

Poseidon’s thirst for public funds has never been a secret.

Although former Poseidon representative Billy Owens tried to convince the Huntington Beach city council in 2006 that it was not seeking a government handout for its Carlsbad plant by saying that the money would only be for shipping water–all for the benefit of the people, not to help Poseidon in any way, everyone who closely followed the facts, including city council members, knew that there is no way Poseidon could offer water at $800 per acre-foot as promised without subsidies. Actually, the water it would produce in Huntington Beach will likely cost ratepayers between $2,000 and $3,000, as much as six times the cost of even imported water, but more about that later.

But despite the smokescreen, Poseidon has long been on record as requesting, if not demanding, government subsidies.

In fact, the Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles County recently voted to provide a $350 million subsidy that, technically, goes to the San Diego Water Authority to help offset the increased costs of water, but which will directly benefit Poseidon and its Carlsbad plant by helping to make it cost effective and viable to investors.  Poseidon’s officers pleaded desperately for that government handout because, they said, they could not finance their project without it–you can see them plead and whine on video at www.surfcityvoice.com).

As for the Huntington Beach plant, there is a Memo of Understanding between Poseidon and the Municipal Water District of Orange County confirming that, if the Huntington Beach project goes through, MWDOC will receive a $350 million subsidy to offset the higher costs of desalinated water Poseidon will produce. Poseidon Resources is also counting on that money, according to its own words in a letter to the California Coastal Commission, referred to in my article, Desal Bailout.

So, I was wondering where you came up with the bold statement that there will be no public financing of the Huntington Beach desalination plant?

What else would you call $350 million designated as part of Poseidon’s 30 year contract with MWDOC if not a government, taxpayer funded, handout to private enterprise?

And there very well could be much more public financing for each plant than that, but let’s start with your response to the $350 million grants.

To assist you in your future research, I have republished some articles I wrote previously on the financing issues regarding Poseidon. You can read them here:

Part I: Desal Bailout; No Cost Desal Costs A Lot; and a video report, The Poseidon Adventure.

In the coming days I will have other questions for you regarding other claims (or myths?) you created in your column.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

John Earl

Editor

Surf City Voice

www.surfcityvoice.com