One-year delay in Spokane River phosphorous plan

Because of a miscalculation, it will take at least another year and possibly two to draft a plan to limit phosphorus discharges into the Spokane River and issue permits.

The new time frame was announced Friday by Christine Psyk, associate director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water, which admitted early this month that the agency found an assumption that phosphorous releases upstream in Idaho would be negligible could not be legally defended.

The error meant that limits on phosphorous discharges into the river specified in permits issued this fall by the Washington state Department of Ecology were off kilter.

EPA initially thought its position was defensible, but interstate water policy is an evolving area, Psyk said.

"I want to apologize to all those dedicated stakeholders who were poised to take action to clean up the phosphorus entering the river," Psyk said in a briefing. "I regret that EPA's decision to change course will result in Ecology and others having to once again revise the permits."

Phosphorous, found in fertilizer and treated sewage, feeds algae blooms that reduce levels of dissolved oxygen in the water, degrading habitat for rainbow trout and other aquatic life.

Permits issued by Ecology have been put on hold until a new plan is drafted, a process Psyk estimated would take at least a year.

By December, Spokane County officials had hoped to sign a contract for a $100 million sewage treatment plant with advanced phosphorus removal capabilities, but that project must be delayed until the clear discharge limits are clear, said Bruce Rawls, county utilities director.

"I've heard very little tangible information here today about what the path forward is," Rawls said Friday. "I'm predicting two years" before permits are reissued.

The delay also hampers efforts to switch homes from septic systems to sewer systems, County Commissioner Todd Mielke said.

"We have 10,000 septic systems in Spokane Valley sitting directly over the aquifer," Mielke said.

Others said EPA should have recognized the problem sooner.

"This is not a new issue," said Kris Holm, a lawyer for Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, the largest population center upriver from Spokane. "This was brought up in 2004 and 2006 during the public comments. We all took EPA's original legal position on faith."

---

Information from: The Spokesman-Review, http://www.spokesmanreview.com