Irvine Ranch Water District may gain new responsibility

Paul Clinton

UPPER NEWPORT BAY -- In response to a request from the Irvine Ranch

Water District, Assemblyman John Campbell (R-Irvine) is preparing a bill

that would transfer control of the flow of urban runoff into San Diego

Creek and Upper Newport Bay to the water district.

Still in its infancy, the bill is expected to be ready by the end of

the month.

“I’m hopeful that this puts one responsible entity in control of

making sure that the water flowing into San Diego Creek is as clean as

modern technology can make it,” Campbell said Monday. “The things they

are talking about doing look like good and practical solutions.”

While details of the proposal are still being worked out, water

district officials have floated several ideas for reducing sediment and

nitrate levels in urban runoff into the Back Bay.

A handful of governmental agencies -- including Newport Beach, Irvine,

Tustin and Orange County -- now oversee runoff into San Diego Creek and

the bay.

“What we’re trying to do is to have a more systematic approach,” said

Norris Brandt, assistant to the water district’s general manager. “We

would be more involved in some of the different things that are being

done.”

Brandt has been charged with drafting the bill’s specific language.

Once the draft is complete, Campbell said he would introduce it as an

amended version of Assembly Bill 810 -- a “spot bill” he introduced in

February. Spot bills are shells introduced to get a bill number before

the specific proposal is fleshed out.

Campbell, whose district includes Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, is

facing an April 27 deadline for submittal. That is the final day a policy

committee may hear bills that could have a fiscal effect on state

government.

Not everyone threw their support behind the move. Water district

watchdog Bob Caustin, who founded Defend the Bay, said he was concerned

the bill would give the agency too much power.

“Giving Irvine Ranch Water District the right to mess with that area

is totally inappropriate,” Caustin said. “They’re not supposed to be

involved in environmental issues. They’re charged with delivering water

to their customers and treating the sewage that is returned to them.”

Caustin’s reasoning for questioning the district proposals goes back

to the mid-1990s. The activist sued the agency in 1996 to stop it from

discharging reclaimed water into the bay. After a two-year legal battle,

a judge overturned the agency’s permit to dump the waste water. In

January, Caustin sued again, this time seeking to halt the conversion of

the empty San Joaquin reservoir into a holding bin for reclaimed water.

Brandt and other district officials said they would use the

restoration of the San Joaquin Marsh as a springboard for their plan. In

1995, the district began a three-year project to increase wetlands on 320

acres of agency property bordering San Diego Creek.

As a result of the project, the agency pumps water out of the creek

and into the man-made marsh to remove nitrates -- a plant nutrient that

increases the amount of algae in the creek channel, which was built in

the 1960s.

The district also transfers the runoff through three underwater basins

to reduce sand in the flow. The district removes about 50,000 tons of

sand a year from the channel and then sells the sediment to the

construction industry.

Last year, the district removed about 42,000 tons, collecting about

$7,000 in resale value, according to district environmental program

manager Debbie Moore.

“It’s doing two things,” district spokeswoman Marilyn Smith said about

the man-made wetland. “It’s cleaning up urban runoff and providing a

wonderful amenity for the community.”