SJ getting slapped with huge fines for trashed waterways is for real--it happened in 2016
Ill-informed spokespeople went to local media this week, falsely saying it's not typical for cities like SJ to get punished with substantial fines if we don't clean up our waterways, which are environmentally damaged by prolific creekside homelessness encampments. While local media accepted the misinformation at face-value, alert Opp Now readers noticed that the spokesperson is peddling untruths. In fact, SJ already has been subjected to more than $100k in fines for polluted waterways, back in June, 2016. Paul Rogers and Ramona Giwargis reported for the Merc.
Settling a major lawsuit from environmentalists, San Jose city officials on Tuesday agreed to spend more than $100 million over the next decade and beyond to reduce tons of trash that flows into creeks and San Francisco Bay, repair miles of leaking underground sewage pipes and clean stormwater contaminated with harmful bacteria.
The agreement — a Silicon Valley environmental milestone — comes a year after Baykeeper, a conservation group based in Oakland, sued the city, claiming it was violating the federal Clean Water Act by not doing enough to clean up trash, sewage spills and other pollution in its two major waterways: Coyote Creek and the Guadalupe River.
“We’re proud to have reached this historic agreement that will not only reduce harmful pollution into San Francisco Bay but also make San Jose a greener place to call home,” said Sejal Choksi-Chugh, executive director of Baykeeper.
The 2015 lawsuit came after a two-year investigation in which Baykeeper employees taking water quality samples found some of the highest levels of sewage contamination and trash concentrations in San Jose’s creeks of any Bay Area city.
On Tuesday, San Jose officials said that they signed the settlement, a legal agreement called a consent decree, to avoid the costs of a lengthy court battle. As part of the settlement, the city admitted to no wrongdoing.
The San Jose City Council approved the settlement 10-1 with little discussion Tuesday. Mayor Sam Liccardo told city staff to come back by January with a list of funding options to pay the costs, which could include a stormwater fee or tax that would go before the voters for approval, along with other funding sources such as state water bond funding or federal money.
“We have very large commitments over the next decade as a result of this settlement,” Liccardo said. “I realize we are not going to eat the elephant all in one bite, but a proposed program over the next 10 years would be helpful.”
The dissenting voice, Almaden Valley Councilman Johnny Khamis, the council’s lone Republican, did not agree with City Attorney Rick Doyle, who said a settlement was the best way to save San Jose money in the long-run.
“This group has used the federal law to extort money out of the city,” Khamis said.
Tuesday’s settlement requires San Jose to:
Repair or replace 6.5 miles of sewer pipes a year for the next 10 years, giving priority to cracked pipes older than 50 years that are located near creeks and storm drains. Currently, the city is replacing or repairing about 4.5 miles a year.
Identify 32 “trash hot spots” along creeks and clean them at least once a year.
At six of those locations, in places like Coyote Creek at Watson Park or the confluence of the Guadalupe River and Los Gatos Creek near downtown’s SAP Center, the city must conduct detailed yearly studies measuring how many pounds of trash were found.
The city must also determine whether the debris washed out of storm drains or came from homeless encampments or other locations, in addition to finding out how efforts to limit trash cut the volume.
Staff writer Ramona Giwargis contributed to this report. Paul Rogers covers resources and environmental issues.
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.