The Garberville Sanitary District is a political division of the state of California. It is not a county or local agency. Its powers as a state agency were mandated by the Sanitary District Act of 1923. The Garberville district itself was actually formed in 1932.
The district has a five-member board consisting of Peter Connolly, Bill Stewart, Herb Schwartz, Dennis Bourassa, and Dwight Knapp. They were elected by the people to represent the community of Garberville in the interest of the water and wastewater systems. In recognition of the change to providing water in addition to sanitary services, the board has initiated the lengthy process of having the name changed to Garberville Services District.
The first California special district was formed in the 1840s, as an irrigation district in the Central Valley. Districts were defined by their basic needs of local government.
Bryant said, “The prime purpose of government is to
Bryant explained, “In 1932, when it came to a point where the community's septic tanks began to pollute the wells that were providing the water sources, the district was formed. A group of community members approached the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors asking permission to form this district. In April of 1932, they received permission from both the state and county governments to establish a new level of bureaucracy in Garberville. That was the founding of the Garberville Sanitary District.”
The first well in the community was located where the Humboldt County Sheriff's Substation is in Garberville on Locust Street. This well is still pumping.
The first portion of the community that was served on an alternative system in 1932 was the oldest part of town on Sunnybank Lane and Riverview Lane areas. There was a large septic tank located on the flat near Les Scher's office. The solids were collected in this tank and the liquids went over the bank into the river. In the 1940s, the county and state health departments got together and said something had to be done to stop this. That's when the wastewater treatment plant was first developed.
After the 1964 flood an aerial line was put across the river. Although no longer used, it can still be seen. Longtime Garberville resident Sherm Hensell rowed across the flooded river to get a line across. They hooked that line to Kenny Wallan's Cat and stretched it out and put a pipe down it so they could restore the community's wastewater treatment system.
The last big project performed by the Sanitary District was an interceptor line that runs parallel with Hwy. 101.
Bryant said, “We were one of two communities in the state of California that was able to achieve a longitudinal easement for the use of public utilities within a controlled easement access. It was extremely rare and a challenge for our community. Wesley Chesbro was instrumental in seeing that was done because he was the chair of the transportation committee when he served his position with the state.”
Now as the system exists the district is broken up into the central, or the old town section, and the Meadows Subdivision above. The Meadows had an aerial stand where the wastewater actually came across the canyon and joined with Garberville at a point behind Southern Humboldt Builders Service. That was rerouted in the district's last project. About 86.8% was grant-funded. The balance, currently around $400,000 is still a debt on the books of the district.
Bryant said, “When you borrow money from the state as a municipality or local government you are able to get that money at half of the current state bond rate, which is 2.25% currently.”
This $5.5 million project, done in 2005, included rerouting and eliminating the Meadows span and the aerial span across the river. It involved taking the line down the freeway to a station on the corner of Alderpoint Road and Redwood Drive. From there it is an inverted siphon and goes across the new bridge to the wastewater ponds.
In talking about the new bridge Bryant said, “Garberville funded the portion of the county's share of that bridge. Our community put in $200,000 to see that bridge built. The basis of the cost of that funding was looking at what it would cost to replace that aerial span and how could we do it better?
”We had $200,000, which we figured it would cost. We offered that to the county and they jumped on it using that portion to fund the bridge project with the balance of it being paid by the state transportation funds under the Federal Bridge Replacement Program. All the county needed was the seed money to get it built. It had already been identified as a failure - low-water bridge with no accessibility. This all began in 2000 and was completed in 2005.”
This $200,000 dollars came from the savings account the district had accrued since 1932.
The total cost of the bridge was about $3.6 million when it was finally done. The original estimate was around $2 million, but when they finally started really looking at the river bar, the construction costs went up.
The next challenge facing the district is that they are at capacity with the wastewater treatment plant. The quality of the effluent, which is the treated water that leaves the plant, is meeting or exceeding state standards. The district has never had a failed test.
”However,” Bryant said, “because of the technologies that have increased since the plant was built in the 1940s and the requirements mandated by the Regulatory Agency, which is the Department of Water Resources, Fish & Game, and others, we have to start looking at how we are going to improve it.”
Currently, the district has a plan for an enhanced wetland treatment process under the direction of Dr. Robert Gearheart from Humboldt State University. Gearheart developed the theory of putting plant life in with the process to help remove some of the pollutants.
”He was the prime designer of the Arcata Marsh along with a Willits project and a number of Native American reservations throughout the country. We feel very fortunate to have him involved with this project,” Bryant said.
Ultimately, this project, which started at $2.5 million in 2005 has now stretched to an amount in excess of $3.5 million. Bryant said, “Those increases are primarily due to the increased demands on the quality of the effluent of the plant. At this point, our plant is looking at discharging clean drinking water. This is a problem because the Basin Plan and the Regional Board say that you cannot degrade the waters that you are discharging into. In essence what we are doing is putting cleaner water in the river during this process than the river has itself. So, there is a balance there that we have to achieve.
”The ponds themselves are regular aquatic wonderlands. There are mosquito fish and various migratory birds that come through each season. This was one of the things that was identified as a positive for the plant in the environmental document,” he said.
Bryant continued saying, “The wastewater treatment plant is broken up into two divisions. In order to get the treatment side taken care of we have to address the inflow and infiltration (I and I) of our leaky pipes that we have in town. During the winter, our flows will exceed 750,000 gallons a day. During the summer, our flows are less than 60,000. That gives you an idea about the condition of the plumbing under the streets of Garberville. We are collecting storm and groundwater and having to treat it all and that costs the community a bunch of money.”
The plan is to re-plumb the oldest part of the community. Riverview Lane and Sunnybank Lane will be dug up and the sewer lines will be replaced to the property owners' lines.
Bryant did say that, “There is funding that we are looking at through the Small Community Grants Program or through the CBDG (Community Block Development Grant) to possibly fund the lines from the property owners to their houses. We are finding out that a lot of the leakage we are currently getting is from the laterals.”
When asked about the levels of drinking quality standards in relation to hormones and nitrates Bryant said, “Nitrates are a particular key indicator of the effluent. The number one issue used to be nitrates that got into the water, which are biological food for life. Down on the river bar we have 27 monitoring wells that were put in to try to locate where the flows from our treatment plant actually get into the river. In the 27 wells tested over two years, each tested monthly and some tested twice a month, we've had only one indicator in those wells of any potential contact of our effluent from our treatment plant contacting the river. That sample was not something that could create problems for us.”
Now caffeine in the water is the number one key indicator of potential pollutants.
Bryant said, “If they find caffeine in the water then we are going to have to go back in and start breaking down heavy metals and all kinds of other constituents beyond portions of a million parts per billion. That's a phenomenal amount. A lot of those constituents such as nitrates exist in the water anyway, but not caffeine.
”Naturally occurring nitrates are elements that happen when you get the degradation of organic solids. Such as plant life when it is breaking down organically and runs into the streams. We monitor the nitrate levels in the rivers in comparison to what is coming out of our treatment plant.”
When asked when they are hoping to break ground on this new project Bryant said they are hoping for this fall with the rebuilding of the plumbing on Riverview and Sunnybank Lanes. He said to keep in mind that the original system on these streets was put in by hand by the WPA many decades ago and have deteriorated greatly.
Community members may have noticed that Sunnybank Lane was recently torn up. Bryant explained that was to replace a gas line and through that process the community was able to get a new four-inch water main. He said the community should thank Bill Stewart and his crew at Blue Star Gas for helping with that.
Bryant said the treatment part of the project could start in November when the district will put the project up to bid, which will include a new pond above the existing ponds. The old ponds will be turned into an aquatic plant basis for the wetland enhancement process.
Another question was posed regarding pharmaceuticals in the water, which has been in the news in the more urban areas. Bryant said they have not appeared in the test samples taken to date.
He also expressed a desire the district has to get away from using chlorine as the disinfection method for the drinking water. The goal is to use UV disinfection, which uses a series of fluorescent tubes in a chamber. The effluent water runs across it, the UV light bombards the organics killing the bacteria. This process could cost the district $225,000, and the big disadvantage to this method is that it leaves a huge carbon footprint and the energy demands are immense. They are currently looking at solar power to manage the disinfection process, along with other sources.
Bryant made a plea by asking, “If you use those nice organic-looking dark brown wipes you get and think they are super green - don't flush them. Our budget for last year in dealing with these kinds of repairs was in excess of $10,000.”
To date, the district has spent $600,000 of the reserves that have been put away since 1932 to see that these projects come to fruition. The cost associated to these projects is directly in proportion to the amount of money needed to borrow to complete them. At the end of these projects the district will be looking at an investment in excess of $9 million including both the drinking water and wastewater projects.
Right now, the district has funding commitments in the amount of $1.95 million for the wastewater project. How much they will be receiving for the water project is still up in the air. The district also has approval for $4.5 million in loans at 2.25 percent. Unfortunately the district won't get the funding until they spend the money and submit paid invoices. Right now the district does not have the money to pay the contractors. That's why they are looking for “bridge” financing to pay for the projects until they get reimbursed. This is an additional debt the district will have to incur.
The bottom line is, this project will ultimately cost the 439 current ratepayers more. How much more remains to be seen until the actual cost and the availability of grant funding is determined. Bryant said that ratepayers could easily be looking at a 100 percent increase in their bills, or possibly even more.
Font Resize