Nine years after a group of Woodacre residents banded together to investigate the possibility of a group wastewater system, the county finally secured funding for an environmental impact report and an updated feasibility study, necessary steps for the project to move forward.
The county has also signaled its plans to organize genetic testing of samples from Woodacre Creek to determine if fecal coliform in the tributary comes from human waste—an effort begun a few years ago, but which the San Geronimo Valley Planning Group recently pushed forward.
Supporters of a collective system, including the county and a community group called the Woodacre and San Geronimo Flats Wastewater Group, say the project would address failing systems in an area ill-suited for septics and near sensitive creeks. Yet the steering committee of the San Geronimo Valley Planning Group has lodged a bevy of complaints about the project, citing its complexity, its potential to promote development and what it calls fairness issues.
There are two concepts for the system, both of which will be evaluated by the E.I.R.—a community leachfield and a recycled wastewater system that would provide irrigation water for the San Geronimo Golf Course. The latter seems to have more public support and would likely nab more grant funding.
In fact, the State Water Resources Control Board approved $75,000 for the feasibility study in April, tapped from a program that supports recycled wastewater projects. The study would build on a 2011 report, which studied group options, by expanding the project’s scope from 150 to 300 homes.
The E.I.R. will be funded from numerous sources: the county has provided $105,000; Environmental Health Services has pledged $22,000 worth of staff time; Marin Municipal Water District gave a $50,000 grant; and valley residents, mostly Woodacre homeowners, have pitched in about $38,000. Scoping will likely begin in September.
That report will weigh the results of biological water testing in Woodacre Creek, which could determine if contamination comes from human waste, though tests are not necessarily 100 percent accurate.
Genetic testing of the creek has been sought for a year or two, said Lorene Jackson, the county planner in charge of the project. Federal restrictions on contaminants entering Tomales Bay, finalized in 2007, compel the county to address issues in the Lagunitas Creek watershed. Testing these days, though not cheap, is less expensive than in the past, and this spring, the San Geronimo Valley Planning Group pushed the issue.
In April, the group sent the water district board a list of 15 objections to the project. One complaint stuck, and the district board decided to make its $50,000 grant for the E.I.R. contingent on the report considering genetic test results.
“Information is power,” said Larry Bragman, the board director who represents the San Geronimo Valley. He noted that two years ago, the county conducted genetic tests on samples from Chicken Ranch Beach after community members raised concerns about high fecal coliform levels. That source tracking showed that none of the coliform came from human waste.
The planning group hailed the decision as a victory. “It gives us an opportunity to get some data to understand if there is a human [problem],” said Brian Staley, the chair of the planning group.
The county is in talks with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which would carry out the tests, about the source tracking, but no contracts have been signed. Tests would likely be conducted after the first rains this fall or winter.
The original feasibility study, from 2011, followed evidence pointing to a septic problem in the watershed. The county says anonymous tests of 62 septic systems in Woodacre, conducted between 2004 and 2008, found 77 percent of the homes had failing or poor septics. Water-quality testing conducted in 2007 by the Tomales Bay Watershed Council found sometimes high levels of fecal coliform and detergent ingredients in Woodacre Creek. The council’s report said it seemed likely that septics were failing.
The feasibility study outlined three options for addressing septic issues for about 150 homes: upgrading individual septics, building a community leachfield or installing a system that would treat and recycle wastewater which would irrigate the golf course. (The golf course has voiced support for the alternative.) The preferred leachfield option was estimated to cost about $6 million to build and $130,000 in annual costs, compared to the recycled wastewater option, which would cost $6.7 million to build and cost $167,000 annually.
But the feasibility study said that recycling wastewater was the best option in terms of “environmental, water quality and reliability factors.”
The updated study will expand the project’s scope to include an area of the upper Woodacre Flats and the adjacent San Geronimo Flats for the recycled wastewater option, for a total of about 300 homes. There are not yet estimates of the cost for an expanded project.
For the county and supporters, a group wastewater system is a better solution than repairing individual systems, which they say would be logistically difficult. New systems can take up property space and sometimes require permits and ongoing check-ups, and the recycled wastewater would also provide up to 50 acre-feet a year of water for the golf course, the county said.
The Woodacre Flats area has shown strong support for the project, according to survey results from the group advocating for it. In 2011, 157 surveys were sent out; of 112 people who responded, 110 supported an E.I.R. and 70 percent supported wastewater recycling. A follow-up survey sent to the upper Woodacre Flats and the San Geromino Flats in 2013 received fewer responses, however. In San Geronimo, only 23 of 109 people who were sent the survey even responded, although all of those respondents supported an E.I.R. and 22 preferred wastewater recycling. In the upper Woodacre Flats, only 45 of 95 survey responses were returned, though almost all supported an E.I.R.
Likewise, everyone generally welcomes genetic testing of the creek—yet both supporters and opponents of the project say the results probably won’t change their position.
Liza Crosse, an aide to Supervisor Steve Kinsey who has been involved in the project at the county level, said it would offer “interesting information, but it doesn’t make or break the project. We know conditions are bad,” she said, referencing the high ground water, poor soil conditions like clay and small lots in the area.
Nor does Mr. Staley feel the planning group’s concerns with the project will be eliminated by the results of genetic testing.
Of chief concern to the group is the limits of the project, which is confined to a small area of the valley and which doesn’t prioritize homeowners with failing septics. Without a means of ensuring the participation of homes with problematic systems, Mr. Staley worries whether the project would fix the problem it seeks to address.
Mr. Staley is also concerned that residents may choose to participate in the project because it would remove the primary obstacle—septic capacity—to expanded development on their properties. The idea of limiting participating homes to 500 square feet of additional development through a deed restriction has been floated; a recently completed community wastewater project on the east shore of Tomales Bay included such a restriction. But the planning group worries about the aggregate impact if each homeowner took advantage of even that much more square footage.
The complexity of the project is another problem, Mr. Staley said. In particular, wastewater would need to be piped across San Geronimo Creek to holding ponds, where it would be filtered and disinfected. The planning group fears that could lead to disaster. “We get enormous floods every so often that no infrastructure could survive,” he said.
They also have other concerns, such as the impact on the local aquifer if septics aren’t recharging it.
Supporters of the project counter that potential environmental impacts will be investigated in the E.I.R. and, if found significant, mitigated. As for the area the project would serve, Ms. Crosse said the system would be tailored to the particular area it covers; the other parts of the valley may be better served with other solutions. And, she said, serving a much larger area is also “probably financially and physically impossible.”