Settlement Reduces Irvine Ranch Water District Fine

Regulators have agreed to reduce a $100,000 fine facing the Irvine Ranch Water District for failing to promptly report the accidental discharge of millions of gallons of reclaimed water into a Newport Bay tributary last year.

The water district will instead pay a $10,000 fine and conduct $49,000 worth of water testing under a settlement reached in recent days with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Although district and board officials on Thursday praised the settlement, an environmentalist said the issue was poorly resolved and questioned whether the district’s water testing can be trusted.

The penalty stems from the discharge in June of nearly 5 million gallons of reclaimed water into Sand Canyon Wash, which feeds San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. The discharge, caused by a broken pipeline, continued for 24 hours before it was discovered and quickly halted by water district employees, according to a report from the water board staff.

Although such spills are required to be reported immediately, more than 48 hours lapsed between the time the district discovered the discharge and its notification of regulators.

The board report calls that delay “egregious” in light of public concern about reclaimed water discharges into the bay as well as an earlier incident in which the water district also violated reporting rules.

A hearing on the proposed $100,000 fine was set for the board’s meeting today in Fountain Valley.

Instead, the newly negotiated deal calls for a smaller fine and a new water-testing program.

The district is to pay $5,000 to a state cleanup fund and grant $5,000 to Cal State Fullerton to help with the new testing program.

Moreover, the district will provide testing services worth $49,000 to study the nutrient content of water in the Newport Bay and San Diego Creek watersheds. The district will collect samples and test them in its laboratories.

Water-quality officials have long been concerned that nutrients--largely from commercial and residential fertilizer use upstream--are promoting algae growth in the bay.

The new testing “would be extremely beneficial in the future in our ongoing efforts to protect the bay,” said Kurt Berchtold, assistant executive officer at the water board.

“[We] felt that would be a much better solution than sending $100,000 to Sacramento,” added Ronald Young, the water district’s general manager.

Young called the $100,000 fine steep and said that in contrast, the settlement is “much more fair and much more appropriate.” He said it will not increase water rates.

Young emphasized that after his staff discovered the discharge last summer, the flow was halted within 90 minutes.

“We believe there were no adverse consequences from the flow itself,” Young said.

But Robert J. Caustin, director of the environmental group Defend the Bay, said he is disappointed with the settlement. He questioned if the water district should be responsible for water testing.

“They do not report on themselves. They do not confess their problems” as required by reporting rules, Caustin said. “I question their whole operation as not being trustworthy.”