Sacramento's Pee

In response to Shawn Coburn's claim that ammonia discharges are harming fish in the Delta, I got this email from Claudia Goss, Communications & Media Officer at the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District:

I listened with interest to your recent online water chat with Shawn Coburn. While Mr. Coburn appears to be very knowledgeable regarding a number of topics, his assertions about ammonia from the Sacramento region’s wastewater discharge simply do not reflect the current state of the science.

Since you noted in your chat summary on your Web site that you agree with him, I felt it important to follow up directly with you with some additional information, especially since the “ammonia” hyperlink in your summary appears to be broken so I could not view your source data.

[The fixed link goes to this story, entitled "Wastewater ammonia likely alters Delta".]

One initial point of clarification, the discharge you and Mr. Coburn referenced is from the “Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District” (SRCSD) which serves a population of about 1.3 million people. It is not from the “City of Sacramento” although they are part of our service area.

First, ammonia from Sacramento’s discharge has not to date been found to be responsible for the decline in Delta fish species. (Unlike water exports which have actually been proven to have caused significant impacts.) You should be aware that SRCSD and its treatment plant meets all of its regulatory and water quality requirements at a high rate of compliance, including attainment of US EPA aquatic life criteria for ammonia in the Sacramento River. However, we have been the first to state that if scientific analysis finds that, under current conditions, SRCSD’s discharge is adversely impacting the Delta environment and that ammonia reduction is the best course of action, we will expect to pay our fair share and address the problem.

Secondly, we believe prudent policy and fiscal management dictate the largest Delta impacts be tackled first – namely reduced flow effects and fish losses associated with SWP and CVP project operations – instead of expending significant resources to nibble around the edges of the problem. Otherwise many million more dollars will be spent on “solutions” that will not fix the problem.

Regarding the science: You may be aware that an independent panel of experts from throughout the nation recently was recently convened by CALFED and others to look into the ammonia issue. If you’ve not seen the document, it's here.

The three key findings from the panel were that:

1. There is compelling evidence that human activities have had dramatic impacts on the Delta ecosystem. The most notable changes the expert panel identified are grazing by invasive clams and hydrologic modifications (i.e., water withdrawal and channelization);
2. As for the effect of ammonia, the panel indicated that it cannot be conclusively determined at this time whether ammonia is significantly contributing to the POD or to changes in the Delta food web; and
3. The panel further commented on the need for the development of an integrated model that would evaluate the various potential drivers and help guide future research and ecosystem management decisions.

Finally, it is disturbing that many interests continue to promote the myth that wastewater discharges are “the biggest problem in the Delta” (Coburn’s words) and that “common sense” tells him that ammonia is “more dangerous” than “pumps.” (Again, his words). Unfortunately, just saying that doesn’t actually make it true. This is a highly-politicized issue and different interests have their own motivations; but we must go back to the science and what we actually “know” versus relying on emotional arguments and perception to try to prove our points. As an academic and an economist I am sure you can appreciate that the facts should be given the weight they deserve.

I appreciate Claudia's follow-up email to me, and here are my responses:

• Shawn has a reason to look for another culprit.
• I am betting that more ammonia is worse than less ammonia.
• That said, it appears that the Delta Smelt suffering (in descending order of damage) from:
  1. Invasive species and habitat destruction.
  2. Water flows/exports
  3. Ammonia
• I would not hide behind the figleaf of compliance with EPA guidelines. It's easy to obey the law and still do harm.
• I agree that there is more politics than science in these issues -- mostly because politics is a winner-take-all game!

Bottom Line: Humans have done a great deal of damage to the Delta ecosystem. We will ALL have to pay to (attempt to) mitigate that damage, but the battle over "who pays what?" may drag on for a long time :(