Sonoma County's 21-year-old composting program could be scrapped if water quality regulators don't back off a threat to impose stiff fines for runoff that has been fouling a creek near the county's central landfill for years.
The composting operation, which sits atop the landfill but operates independently, has until Oct. 1 to clean up its act or face millions in penalties in the event a major storm overwhelms the undersized storage ponds at the 25-acre site.
But Sonoma County Waste Management Agency officials say their solution — construction of a massive stormwater holding pond at the north end of the Mecham Road landfill — can't possibly be designed, permitted and built by October. They say they need relief from the proposed deadline and fines before they can move forward.
If the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board don't give them either, they warn they may have to shut down the composting operation and begin hauling yard waste out of the county, much like the county did with its garbage when the central landfill was closed by regulators in 2005.
"Unless everything falls into just the right place, there is a real possibility that we could be shut down," said Pam Davis, general manager of Sonoma Compost.
The waste agency board last week voted to press forward with additional studies to assess whether construction of a 29-million-gallon pond is even feasible. The compost facility's two existing holding ponds combined can store just 1.2 million gallons of water.
The studies will look at the design and cost of the pond, other ways to manage stormwater on the site, and the costs of hauling the 100,000 tons of local grass clippings and tree branches to other Bay Area compost facilities.
Though encouraged by the agency's vote, Davis remains concerned the path toward a solution that keeps the composting program operating is getting narrower. She called herself "hopeful, but not confident" a solution can be found.
"There are just a lot of decisions that need to be made and they need to be made relatively quickly," she said.
One major setback came last month when officials learned the proposed pond location is close to tiger salamander breeding habitat. That triggers studies that could take up to two years to prove the endangered species is not on the site. The other option isn't much better — paying $1 million to preserve salamander habitat elsewhere.
That has pushed the estimated of cost of the pond from $3 million to $4 million, a cost that is likely to go even higher depending on the design requirements. The pond, for example, may require a costly impermeable liner to prevent water from infiltrating the adjacent landfill, people familiar with the issue say.
"There is no good option here," said Susan Klassen, the county's transportation and public works director, who is the county's representative on the nine-member waste agency board.
The biggest concern about spending millions of dollars on a new pond is that the current composting location is supposed to be a temporary one.
The composting operation began in 1993, prompted by state legislation in 1989 mandating greater diversion from landfills. Organic matter placed in green bins by county residents is collected by garbage haulers and dropped off at a pad at the north end of the landfill. There it is sorted, ground up, often mixed with other ingredients like rice hulls and chicken feathers, and laid out in long rows.
The 12-foot high rows are kept moist and regularly turned to keep the decomposition process going. The result is tons of rich, steaming soil that is sold to gardeners, landscapers and farmers. The company also sells mulch, and firewood and recycled wood.
One of the challenges is that the site sits atop a 160-foot-deep section filled with garbage. This prevents the construction of any major buildings or other permanent facilities. Because the rows are uncovered, rainwater seeps in and runs off into holding ponds. When the ponds are full, the stormwater is discharged and runs to Stemple Creek, along with other stormwater from the landfill. The creek is listed as an impaired waterway, primarily because of runoff from dairies. It drains into San Antonio Estero and empties into the Pacific Ocean north of Dillon Beach.
In addition to keeping runoff out of the creek, the holding pond could prove valuable by reducing the facility's reliance on well water. The water captured by the pond could be sprayed onto compost piles, applied to roads to keep down dust and even used as irrigation for local agriculture, according to agency staff.
The agency has spent about eight years and upward of $1 million studying potential new locations. The two finalists under review are a slightly smaller site immediately west of the current location, and a privately owned ranch east of Petaluma known as Site 40 that is much larger — 389 acres — but that would cost $4.7 million.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: