Just about anywhere you see fresh water flowing—or even standing—in or near Santa Maria, Orcutt, Guadalupe, Nipomo, or Cuyama, you can make plans to wade in for a safe, healthy swim. In about 15 years, that is—once all the targets in a newly adopted cleanup plan have been met.
By that time, you should be sharing your swimming hole with a lot fewer fecal bacteria, thanks to new limits unanimously approved by members of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Their action declares water-contact recreation as a “beneficial use” of most of the region’s rivers, creeks, and lakes—and calls for sharp reductions in fecal bacteria entering waterways from cattle, horses, pets, and even humans.
The new plan covers the entire Santa Maria River watershed, about 1.2 million acres stretching across three counties. It sets limits known as total maximum daily loads for fecal bacteria such as fecal coliform and E. coli from the guts of warm-blooded animals. These bacteria are considered an indicator of pathogens that might make people sick.
“Controllable sources” of fecal bacteria pinpointed by the Water Board include livestock, storm-water runoff, and sewage systems. Ranchers, city and county governments, and sanitation districts are identified as responsible for the pollution, and are now required to take action to clean up their discharges.
Fourteen water bodies considered “impaired” are covered by the new rules: Santa Maria River, Santa Maria River Estuary, Nipomo Creek, Orcutt Creek, Oso Flaco and Little Osos Flaco creeks, Oso Flaco Lake, Alamo Creek, Cuyama River above Twitchell Reservoir, La Brea Creek, and three drainage channels in Santa Maria—Blosser Channel, Bradley Channel, and Main Street Canal.
With more than 30,000 head of cattle and nearly 6,000 horses living—and discharging waste—in the Santa Maria River watershed, the plan calls for ranchers to limit the amount of time their livestock spends in creek beds. But several representatives from cattlemen’s associations in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties questioned the science behind the new rules and asked for more clarity on what livestock owners will be required to do.
“I recommend we delay action because we have questions on what compliance amounts to,” Ray Allen of the SLO County Cattlemen’s Association water resources committee told water board members at a March 15 hearing in San Luis Obispo.
One tearful young rancher said she was worried that some cattle might die of thirst on her family’s ranch in Nipomo, if a water trough pump fails and they can’t reach the creek to drink.
In response, water board staffer Christopher Rose said many livestock operations are already meeting water quality standards.
“We need an adaptive approach to give range owners latitude on how they will implement this. … As long as you’re showing progress and using best management practices, there’s no reason to delay. Why wait? Let the trust-building continue,” Rose said at the meeting.
Water board member Jean-Pierre Wolff, a SLO County vineyard owner, suggested the board carry out DNA testing in fecal-bacteria “hotspots” to clarify whether the polluting culprit is livestock or wildlife. He also called for more education on the best practices for ranchers, and for “a robust manure-composting program.”
The local resource conservation districts can provide grant funding to help livestock owners relocate cattle troughs and fence creeks, Wolff said, adding, “It doesn’t all have to come out of your pocket.”
Questions were also raised about the justification for including concrete drainage channels in Santa Maria in the cleanup requirement for swimmable waterways. A letter from the city of Santa Maria pointed out that Blosser Channel, Bradley Channel, and Main Street Canal are all manmade flood control channels where water contact recreation standards are “not appropriate.”
“We acknowledge the canals are not natural,” water board staffer Shanta Keeling said at the meeting, “but they flow into the Santa Maria River. They are accessible in some areas for children to play, so we must protect the recreation beneficial use.”
Even if the drainage channels were completely fenced off, their waters would still have to meet fecal bacteria standards for water contact recreation, Keeling said.
Tougher fecal bacteria limits have been adopted for the Santa Maria River Estuary, where shellfish harvesting is considered a “beneficial use.” In response to a comment from Santa Maria resident Richard E. Adam pointing out that the estuary has no edible shellfish, water board staff replied, “The report does not include any information that the Santa Maria River Estuary currently contains any edible shellfish. … Information available indicates individuals may have collected and consumed shellfish at the confluence with the Pacific Ocean.”
Gordon Hensley of San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper pointed out that storm-water discharges and sewer leaks are some of the few controllable sources of fecal coliform and E. coli.
“We’d like to see those sources ended,” Hensley said.
The new fecal-bacteria limits must be incorporated into storm-water management plans already required for Santa Maria, Orcutt, Guadalupe, and Nipomo, raising total costs by 2 to 15 percent. That means the estimated total cost for implementing storm-water management plans, assuming a 15 percent increase, ranges from a low of $76,705 in Guadalupe to up to more than $1.2 million in Santa Maria, according to a water board report. That’s $46 per housing unit per year.
A 15-year timeframe to meet the newly established fecal-bacteria targets is based on “economic and logistical considerations,” a staff report states.
“That is the number we’ve chosen, based on our professional estimate of how long it will take,” Keeling said.
Under the federal Clean Water Act, the water board is required to take action to protect the “beneficial uses” of water. Board members also recently adopted new requirements aimed at reducing nitrate contamination in drinking water wells caused by nitrogen fertilizers applied to farms.
Future regulations will also set limits for pesticides, nutrients, and salts in the Santa Maria River watershed.
As the water board’s project report states: “We are assigning responsibility to someone, an agency, group, or individuals, to reduce their contribution [of pollutants] in order to meet water quality standards.”
Contributing writer Kathy Johnston can be reached at kjohnston@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Apr 5-12, 2012.