In Unalaska, a dirty fight over clean water
Jill Burke |
Jul 11, 2011
A small island fishing community 800 air miles southwest of Anchorage has found itself in a monster of a fight with federal enforcers based more than 4,100 miles away, in Washington, D.C. Acting on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice is threatening to wring more than $158 million out of the city of Unalaska. It claims the city has for years dumped sewage pollutants into the Pacific Ocean and now wants a federal judge to not only force Unalaska into compliance but also impose up to $32,500 per day in fines, even more -- up to $37,500 per day -- for the most recent violations. Before the Justice Department filed its lawsuit against Unalaska, city leaders pleaded their case to the Alaska Legislature, looking for money to help end the pressure they were under. They also brought with them a warning: Unalaska might be the first Alaska community wrestling with an unyielding regulator, but what if it isn't the last? Unalaska's bureaucratic tangle could be a signal of what's headed to other small, remote communities: financially devastating enforcement of a one-size-fits-all federal water policy that doesn't apply well to the realities of life in rural Alaska. At issue is Unalaska's wastewater treatment system, which, according to the Justice Department, isn't working as effectively as the law requires. If it were, the city wouldn't have a failed track record over six years of putting more pollutants, including toilet waste, into ocean waters than the law allows. "People are making this assumption that the city of Unalaska is dumping untreated sewage into the bay, which is of course untrue. It's ridiculous," said Unalaska Mayor Shirley Marquardt in a recent interview. The federal Clean Water Act, which the EPA enforces, prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waterways without a permit. Unalaska has had a permit for years, which restricts the volume of pollutants -- including sewage, chemical waste and industrial waste -- that can be released daily, weekly and monthly. From 2004 to 2010, the Justice Department alleges Unalaska violated those levels more than 4,800 times, and that in 16 of the months it allowed too much fecal coliform bacteria to pass into South Unalaska Bay. The bacteria are microorganisms that live in the intestines of humans and animals. While fecal coliform bacteria has the potential to carry human disease, the civil complaint filed by the Justice Department makes no mention of whether the alleged violations constituted a specific risk to human health. The bacteria themselves aren't necessarily harmful, but if they are present, then other bugs -- bad, illness-causing ones -- might be present as well, according to Karsten Hueffer, an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Alaska's Institute of Arctic Biology in Fairbanks. Fecal coliform is considered a marker for fecal contamination. If it's present, other organisms, including pathogens, could be, too. The EPA declined to comment, referring questions to a spokesperson for the Justice Department, who also declined comment because of the pending litigation. The EPA also declined to attend at least one legislative hearing held in Juneau this spring on the situation, to the disappointment of state lawmakers, who had a chance to listen to and question city leaders from Unalaska, an attorney from the Alaska Department of Law and a deputy commissioner from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Depending on what type of wastewater treatment system the city will need to bring online, it will cost the city at least $11 million and possibly as much as $24 million, according to Unalaska City Manager Chris Hladick. The city also needs to build more space at its landfill, which will be an additional $9 million. Although they are separate facilities, the landfill and the wastewater treatment plant affect each other, he said.
by SPECKLEFOOT | July 12, 2011 - 3:35pm
We have wrestled with this problem of honey bucket lakes and poor sewage treatment for decades. Only God knows the billions of dollars that have been poured out on community septic systems in the Bush that simply can't work because of our climate and energy costs. Anyone who has spent any time at all in Alaska's rural communities knows the problem intimately and yes, people do learn to think about it every time they flush. My point being that we have struggled unsuccessfully with this issue for decades, spent awful amounts of money on it, and are still living with substandard situations. Why don't we take a hint from the toilet technologies of the Scandinavian countries? Composting toilets, incinerating toilets, and other answers can make this problem go away. Instead of jettisoning waste into the ocean, Unalaska should look into a small biochar or methane plant. Either option creates a viable product out of this waste---- an inert sterile matrix fertilizer that can help our gardens grow or a viable supply of gas that can be fed back into the system to support energy costs. It's past time to see what our neighbors in the Arctic have done and are doing so successfully to deal with the same exact problem.
by Oldhaines | July 13, 2011 - 9:15am
Specklefoot you sound just like one of the boobs who work at EPA. You miss the problem altogether and offer a silly plan to use composting toilets “like they do in Scandinavia” to resolve a wastewater issue for a community struggling to meet EPA guidelines but cannot because of a requirement to treat runoff from a EPA designed and mandated landfill. The real issue at hand here is not the amount of money the city of Unalaska might have to pay or whether or not they can get funding for a new sewer plant. The problem here is that a branch of the Federal Government is completely out of touch with the people that it is supposedly governing.
by akiceman | July 12, 2011 - 2:59pm
The city of Unalaska had no troubles rounding up $30 million for an airport expansion - even though they knew they had issues with their sewage treatment plant. Instead of claiming that a "one-size-fits-all federal water policy ... doesn't apply well to the realities of life in rural Alaska" perhaps one should consider the fact that this community sought to prioritize economic expansion instead of addressing a known environmental problem. I realize that it's not quite that simple and funding for the airport expansion came from different sources --- but the continual push for development and growth while ignoring environmental issues is a shortsighted approach.
by vikinggirl | July 14, 2011 - 2:25pm
Dear AKICEMAN, the City of Unalaska has not one dollar in the runway expansion. That is a FAA/DOT project all the way. Not one dollar.
by Oldhaines | July 13, 2011 - 9:38am
“I realize that it's not quite that simple and funding for the airport expansion came from different sources” It appears that your point is moot and you already realize it. Unalaska’s problems here appear to be at least in part if not largely caused by the EPA mandated landfill solution that is flooding the wastewater treatment facility with water laden with heavy metals. They( the EPA) were aware of the plant and its capacity when they mandated the type of landfill but chose to ignore the issue. As far as improving the airport at Unalaska being economic expansion, it might well be that it aids the economy in Unalaska but I think that if you have ever been to Unalaska you would have to agree that any economic expansion would be a secondary goal in any airport improvement project there. The primary reason for improving the airport at Unalaska is safety and providing a reliable means for the residents to get to and from Unalaska. For those of you who have never been to Unalaska, there is no “Road” to drive there and the airport easily qualifies as one of the scariest landings in the State.
by vikinggirl | July 14, 2011 - 2:27pm
Thanks for the common sense Oldhaines. It is often in short supply.
by akiceman | July 13, 2011 - 10:25am
Not all of the airport funding came from federal sources. According to the Capital Project Summary (http://omb.alaska.gov/ombfiles/12_budget/Trans/Proposed/2012proj51610.pdf) the $25 million from federal sources must be matched by state funding. In other words... the SOA gladly came up with $25 million even though they knew about the existing issues with the treatment plant. The state did have the power to refuse the federal grant until other issues had been dealt with yet. Unalaska has been charged with violations every year since 2004 - and everyone knew this was coming - yet the city and state chose to prioritize other projects. Sorry - but you can't gladly accept federal funds for one project but insist that federal guidelines shouldn't apply to you for other projects.
by Oldhaines | July 13, 2011 - 11:27am
Iceman, In the interest of trotting out the whole truth for inspection I went to your source, and well it looks like the FAA forced the state to come up with 25 million. Moreover, I do not see any economic development plans in the project either... “The FAA mandates that Runway Safety Areas at all certificated airports be improved by 2015. The Unalaska Airport is an important certificated airport with over 20,000 annual operations. This project will address the longitudinal runway safety area at the airport.” So, accepting federal money to pay for a federal mandate counts as gladly accepting federal funds? You might be shocked to learn that the same thing happened when the landfill was built and when the existing sewer treatment plant was built. It is hard to say money was gladly accepted when the only reason money was needed in the first place was because of a federal mandate.
by akiceman | July 13, 2011 - 12:08pm
Oldhaines -- What you fail to acknowledge is that Unalaska's violations are the highest in the state. It's true that sewage systems compliance with EPA clean water act guidelines are a problem throughout the country - yet Unalaska's violations are far higher than normal. Since 2004 Unalaska has been issued 413 violations. That's the highest in the state (you can see the comparisons here: http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/polluters/alaska ). Complain all you want about federal requirements and funds - the truth is Unalaska's violations are far above average. As for that airport & economic development -- that $50 million is doing a lot for Unalaksa's economy. Unalaska's isn't just upgrading their airport becuase they have to; the project only came about after a significant lobbying effort. Follow the money: Unalaska gave $72K to Hoffman / Silver (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000051844&year=2010) and Hoffman / Silver's website explicitly states that they lobby to "obtain funding for clients for infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, airports" (http://www.hsgblaw.com/practiceareas/Government-&-Public-Policy/). Insinuating that Unalaska is only accepting federal funding becuase they're required to undertake federal projects is unrealistic.
by Oldhaines | July 13, 2011 - 1:44pm
Again, let’s look at the whole truth; I do acknowledge their violations but like the State of Alaska, I would like to point out that those violations are based on a permit issued by the State of Alaska that was written incorrectly and never corrected by EPA.( the state did inform the EPA of this and request that it be corrected but was ignored) The state inadvertently assigned the percentage of solids to be removed by the treatment plant at 70 percent instead of the correct 30 percent that is the standard. This resulted in a brand new treatment plant that was not capable or designed to remove solids at the level assigned in the permit. That is the reason that Unalaska is far above average. As far as the airport project it is funny how that same runway safety area mandate was rammed down Juneau’s throat even though many people in Juneau were against it because it meant that the runway safety area would encroach into the mendenhall wetlands preserve more than 1000 feet. Or that Gustavus is about to get one as well… trust me it is a mandate and the FAA is not letting anyone out of it. Neither your or I can know for sure at this point but I would be willing to bet that Unalaska Hired the lobbyist in order to have some control over a project that they knew was coming From the FAA like it or not. I know that is what Juneau did. Lastly, I insinuate nothing. The quote came from YOUR source. The FAA did mandate the safety area project and you can bet that the sewer treatment plant and the landfill as built was a mandate as well. I applaud you for being concerned but caution you that you need to take a hard look at why things are happening before trying to lay blame. In this case it is very clear that EPA has made a serious mistake and is unwilling to admit that they have regulated in error.
by akiceman | July 13, 2011 - 1:51pm
Oldhaines - this isn't really a response. Just wanted to say I enjoyed your responses. Thanks for the informative replies. Cheers! |













Comments